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: Kirk © who wrote (42676)	1/14/2009 11:35:26 AM
From: Donald Wennerstrom	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 95521

Well, I think there is "long term" and then there is "long term". Long term means different things to different people. Sometimes long term might mean 30 to 40 years or more, and then long term might mean in the range of 5 years to 10 years. Certainly people who bought stocks in their early 50's in the 2000 area for the long term, meaning getting ready for their retirement in their 60's are in dire shape today. I was watching TV last night and heard a couple of "horror" stories about just this sort of issue. I have also heard commentators and analysts starting to talk about 401k's not being the answer to saving for retirement like it used to be talked about. Now they are starting to say a person needs something more "stable" and something you can "count on" for your retirement. Many people are really "hurting" out there now who really invested for the retirement, for the long term, but where is the return now? 10 years and the SPX has shown a negative return. And the NASDAQ - over 5000 in 2000 and today it is trading around 1500. That kind of performance is not what people can stand for their retirement accounts.