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 : Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (67337)	3/12/2005 12:39:03 AM
From: Mo Chips	Respond to of 77400

Re: "Metals and oil mean things suck." I disagree. Old school wisdom says these are beginnings that lead to growth in capital suppliers (ie tech and finance) After a recession, the first indicators of an upturn are the most basic of industries. When the upturn matures, (ie all the easy gains in productivity are gone) then companies invest in hard capital assets to further productivity. I'm been riding all of the old econ stocks (transports, metals, chemicals, energy) and its been a good ride. Time may be coming soon to rotate into tech and finance. See you there.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (67337)	3/12/2005 8:14:39 AM
From: RetiredNow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 77400

Hi Lizzie, yes, I looked at the link you provided and I noted the following for the data, which covered the years 1972 through 2002. Out of 31 years of data: * 2 years were above 40% * 17 years were above 10%, but below 40% * 2 years were above 0%, but below 10% * 10 years were below 0% In 2003, the Nasdaq gained 50.0%. In 2004, it gained 10.5%. Both were above 10%, which is VERY typical of Nasdaq performance, considering that returns above 10% happened 61% of the time over those 31 years. Also, in those 31 years, there were only 2 other years with returns above 40%: 1991 & 1999. So 2003 was one of only 3 Nasdaq performances that high in 32 years of data. But most importantly, the Nasdaq average over 31 years was 11.75%. So 2003, constitutes a very good year by Nasdaq standards and 2004, represents a very close to average year by Nasdaq standards. Moreover, if you add 2003 and 2004 performance into the mix, the annualized average INCREASES from 11.8% to 12.8%, indicating that 2003 and 2004 combined were better than average. So according to all the statistics, the last couple of years should be feeling fairly typical for you wrt Nasdaq performance. If you are feeling that the Nasdaq performance is sucking vs historical data, then your perception of general malaise must be due to some other factors other than stock market performance.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (67337)	3/12/2005 1:07:49 PM
From: GVTucker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 77400

Lizzie, RE: I am talking about the nasdaq, which is the GROWTH index, and its relative performance vs. previous market periods. 10% is sub par, in avg market times. Like the 80s. Recognize that the 80s and 90s are anomalies in market history. If you take a longer term perspective, value has consistently performed better than growth, and the returns of the bull market of the 80s and 90s were never seen before then. We could easily go quite a while before we see them again. If you're dissatisfied with 10% returns then you'll be unhappy more than you're happy for a long time.