Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (14483)	10/23/2002 3:31:43 PM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 57684

"I don't bother discussing these issues, its a black hole." I agree completely. Now if we are in a new bull, which I am starting to think actually started in late July, would someone please remind me of what I used to do? ;>)

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (14483)	10/23/2002 11:02:52 PM
From: XBrit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57684

<<this PE ratio issue>> Well, to be fair to us bears, it's a P/E, P/CashFlow, P/Div, P/Sales, P/Book, and P/GDP issue. Some reasonably up-to-date long-term charts... contraryinvestor.com contraryinvestor.com contraryinvestor.com contraryinvestor.com contraryinvestor.com contraryinvestor.com Obviously, historically-anomalous high P is the common factor here. These anomalies are huge, and can only be justified by a correspondingly huge economic shift since 1995. Personally, I do not believe that there has been any economic change since 1995 large enough to justify these unprecedented departures from historic norms. Nothing which dwarfs electrification, the automobile, victory in WW2, telephone communication, or the first 45 years of the computer and electronic age which occurred before 1995. Productivity is the argument of the day, since Greenspan brought it up. But recent-years productivity numbers (in final revision) are NOT unusually large compared to the whole post-war period. Certainly not higher than in the 60's. They only seem great compared to the 80's and other relatively slow periods. I'm assuming you disagree with some step in this chain of reasoning. Plz explain. PM me if you want... if I'm wrong I'm gonna lose money, so you'd do me a favor by swaying me back from the dark side.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (14483)	10/24/2002 9:44:57 PM
From: Proud_Infidel	Respond to of 57684

Turn off CNBC!! Cramer was recommending internet stocks in Feb 2000 and we are supposed to listen to his advice now? If I was on crack I might. Lately he has been advocating buying only names with a dividend. Well, guess what? Many of these dividend paying cos. have cut their divs over the past month. Anyone who thinks making money is as easy as screening out cos paying healthy dividends does not have a clue IMHO.....I guess that is why he has his own show on CNBC. Cramer is like George Costanza....do the opposite! BK