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 : P&S and STO Death Blow's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (20139)	12/15/2002 2:30:06 AM
From: LTK007	Respond to of 30712

This fits(the article you link to) into the analysis via a German Economist on Bloomberg TV. He was putting charts up of the percentage of capital equipment spending that went to tech, dating back 50 years to 1952. He showed that it was 10% in 1952 and kept easing it's way up until it began to move explosively going into the 90s. He placed the apex at 50% of capital equipment spending. And then he got mathematical demonstrating that 50% was the theoritical limit. Such that in the year 2000 it was at maximum point. He then went into the relationship of stock price versus growth and then stated that the theoretical value fair value of Nasdaq will not be reached until it is at 500. But in his rendering i did not know if he meant NDX100 or COMPX. He had one positive. He said he feels there will be amongst this decline a few or a single tech sectors/sector(unnamed, and basically unknown, i suspect by the analyst) that will be high growth and will perform accordingly. But, in the overall picture techs are dead as a growth industry. Max p.s. from that article here is a bucket of ice water being thrown on the one relentless cry of tech will rise again--PCs need be replaced every 3 years. <<Take hardware upgrades, for example. In the current economic slowdown, hardware upgrades are being put off, as evidenced by the latest Goldman Sachs survey of CIOs that showed them as dead last in spending priorities. This situation is not expected to change much even after the economy recovers. In the early years, new PCs offered substantial improvements in productivity. But is there really a cost justification for upgrading PCs every three years these days? Unless the user is a scientist pushing the limits of computation, the answer is probably no.>>