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.

Technology Stocks : Semi Equipment Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (7196)	11/26/2002 10:12:21 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 95521

What about the longs who bought low after 9/11 and then sold for a big profit in 2002? Investing in the market is difficult enough, we don't need a moral dimension to consider. Shorts are just people who bet that the price of a stock will go down, not up. Prices go down because they are judged to be too high. Most tragedies in the world do not have a significant long term effect on prices.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (7196)	11/26/2002 11:42:17 PM
From: advocatedevil	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95521

OT - RE: "But watching the shorts rejoice in the year following 9/11 was particularly distasteful to me personally. When a bomb goes off or a plane crashes somewhere in the world, I do not profit, nor should I. Anyone who has made money on the short side over the past year has probably at least in part made it because a tragedy has befallen someone somewhere. This is wrong no matter how you try to justify it." Brian, So what would you do and how would you feel if something unexpectedly and significantly negative were to beset the competitor of a company you owned stock in, and your stock rose sharply as a result? or Do you consider it distasteful for anyone to invest in gold or defense stocks when there exists the possibility they might benefit from world conflict? or Have you ever sold a stock you owned because you thought it had become overvalued? (Brian, this is no different from what a short does.) Come on Brian, to suggest (as I interpret your comments) that shorts rejoice in pain and suffering because it benefits their stock positions is just plain "silly" (to borrow a phrase and put it nicely). As a short, a proud American, and one who was directly impacted by the events of 9/11, I will also comment that I'm personally offended by you statement. In addition, I know many, many people who short stocks and I can say with certainty that not one individual I know fits the profile you have outlined. Frankly, I cannot imagine who you are referring to. However, just to be clear here, if there any folks out there who do fit that sick profile, I'd be the first to stand by your side. Regards, AdvocateDevil

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (7196)	11/27/2002 9:51:12 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95521

Re: >> When a bomb goes off or a plane crashes somewhere in the world, I do not profit, nor should I. That has nothing to do with investing in financial markets. If you are going to linger in the financial markets, you need to let go of that sentimentality re investments. When people sold after 9/11, it was not on the tragedy itself but probable economic repercussions and wartime uncertainties that stocks became less attractive than before. That's it. >>Anyone who has made money on the short side over the past year has probably at least in part made it because a tragedy has befallen someone somewhere Not really. Since 9/11, tragedies for the most part have been in Isr/Pal conflict and Afghanistan. I do not see a clear-cut relationship between suicide bombings and Nasdaq, less so between bombing of 100 or so civilians and children in a wedding by a US plane in Kabul. If anything, these tragedies benefitted the people who were long in defense stocks. In my humble opinion, the reason why the US markets have been going down over the course of 2002 are: 1) Slumping economy 2) US declaring war on various parts of the world (increased uncertainty) 3) Increased government defense spending (never too good, especially in the middle of a recession) 4) Enron, Worldcom et al (increased uncertainty over accounts) etc etc... I really do not see how you can overlook the above and say people who made money shorting the market in 2002 made money out of other people's tragedies. It is not my place to give you advice, but I sincerely suggest you take a less sentimental and more inquisitive approach to the stock market.

To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (7196)	11/27/2002 3:38:13 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 95521

P/E Myth Here is vindication for Brian on PE's from Ken Fisher at Forbes forbes.com In an article in the fall 2000 issue of the Journal of Portfolio Management, Meir Statman, a finance professor at Santa Clara University, and I showed statistically that there is no link of market P/Es to subsequent returns in the market. This is true no matter how you measure the ratio (for example, above a random number--say, 20, or in the top 20% of history) and no matter over how long (up to five years) you measure returns. The conclusion is based on 125 years of data. Fisher's conclusion is interesting: That people are worried about high P/Es suggests that the mood is about to shift in favor of equities. The nearly 50% decline in stocks over the past two and a half years has wrung a lot of risk from the market. I think all the interest in P/E (and not sustainable PEG) along with all the amateur shorts showing up on all the message boards and CNBC was a sign of the bottom... I think Don's numbers had AMAT at a PEG of 1.09... very low... Kirk