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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike M2 who wrote (231203)	3/26/2003 9:27:19 AM
From: Knighty Tin	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Mike, One of my favorite fund cos., The Investment Co. Of America (American Funds flagship), has this great chart going back to the 30s showing how much money you would have made had you invested $10,000 then. It is pretty impressive. They use semi-log paper because a chart to scale would reach to Jupiter or something, according to the wholesalers. But they beg the question: Ex the Kennedys and Rockefellers and Mellons and a very few rich families, who the heck had $10,000 to invest in the early 30s? A person with $10,000 of surplus income was rich beyond belief in those days. The hit song was "Buddy Can You Spare a Dime?" Now, if you give a bum a dollar, he calls you a cheap bastard. I know that I yell at folks unless I get a fiver. <g>

To: Mike M2 who wrote (231203)	3/26/2003 4:52:05 PM
From: Mark Adams	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

Mike, I guess you read Puplava's mention of '29/73 as warning against purchases of S&P500/QQQ today. Whereas I might read it as 'those who purchased Nasdaq at 5000 may take 10-25 years to breakeven'. That leaves open the question re the potential for those who purchase at 1400. Or 1500/775 on the S&P. I think the more worrying analogy would be Japan. That we are actually in the second inning of the game, not the bottom of the ninth. As for the advisability of being long today, it is hard to say. Earnings yield seems low, especially looking at trailing 12 months. But were those earnings depressed by companies availing themselves accelerated depreciation schedules created as part of the first Bush budget cut? Have trailing earnings been depressed by extraordinary charges to 'resize' operations? About the only thing I'm sure of, as noted post 9/11, is the tails are fatter. The future is much less certain than y2k, and the range of potential outcomes much more varied, as I see it.