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 (15575)	1/3/2003 12:54:29 AM
From: techanalyst1	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 57684

Well......... Has he taken into consideration that one of the reasons that the naz has gone down THIS much is that it's completely lost a whole lot of companies (thousands according to Zeev and I wouldn't be surprised if he's right)? And since those are gone (poof! lol!) that portion of the index cannot go lower? We're never going to get a lower valuation on At Home, Exodus, Etoys, Webvan, etc, etc, etc. Then there are defectors to other indexes like emulux and acquisitions and mergers which have taken out chuncks of the naz little by little but can't take out more (on those anyway). Therefore....... it will take new lows in stocks currently on the index to get it to new lows. Specifically it will likely take the big names like msft to hit new lows since they are such a big weight or a whole lot of the little ones going to new lows (like amcc, pmcs, jdsu, arba, itwo, etc etc etc). Sure........... they could do that and they might but for the most part the survivors like jdsu have been sideways for quite some time with further bad news coming out and not going significantly lower. 100-500 points lower is his call? Well that is nice. That would make that somewhere between a 7.5-37% drop from yesterday's close. I could drive a truck through that blindfolded in reverse up a hill with four on the floor. I have no idea where we'll end up, but my guess is that new lows are a possibility by April, but if we get that, THE low is finally in and we end up from there and that's because I think valuations will be low enough to put in a bottom while earnings probably bottom out by year's end. If we don't get new lows by spring time then probably we'll just go sideways. The economy is cyclical and no matter what the administration does....... we'll probably start to recover by mid year to year's end (barring a huge war). Since the market looks forward, I think we end off the lows.... but I doubt we just go from mega bull/mania to mega grinding bear to bull without a base first..... like dell has had for a couple years............... boring but much more pleasant than what we've had for the last three years. Btw............... I'm not really worried about the volume. Who is to say that we MUST have more volume? What if lots of people have sworn off stocks? What? The rest of us have to make up for what they would have bought or we get some voo doo curse that dooms us to new lows from the God of Volume? Did you know that lots of bear markets have bottomed with low volume? Why do we have to zip right back up on heavy volume anyway? That type of action is more of a bear market rally or V shaped recovery. Since we aren't at very low valuations and it seems as if the V is not coming, and so many have been burned, low volume seems appropriate to me. All I hear are things like, "well in 1975 we had this and in 1982 we had that".... Did we have a bear market this severe that followed a mania in 1975 or 1982? I don't recall that happening (not that I was old enough to remember anyway, but I'm certain I would have heard about it) and since they can't compare psychology wise, who is to say how it bottoms and recovers? I DO recall a bull market with volume on the nyse in the sub 200K share range and that was right before the last minimania (1987). All that is required is more buyers than sellers...... no matter what the volume. As for the talking heads saying that we couldn't possibly have bottomed......... they told us to buy the dips for the last two-three years. Are they saying to short stocks? Oh I doubt it because the lawyers would be after them for that as much as saying to buy and having losses when stocks go lower. Just saying don't buy is enough to keep them outta the frying pan. I think I'll just stick to my charts. They tell me more than all the talking heads put together. TA