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 : Ascend Communications (ASND) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tcd who wrote (22345)	11/10/1997 2:31:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 61433

tcd : You see the fights going on now ? -- "You lost more than me!"... "No, YOU lost more than I did!!"... It's a good idea to wait until those squabbles end and the people indulging in those fights get tired and go away... I don't know for sure if this will go down to $18 levels, though I think it will, over the next few weeks. Of course, people will have their own "explanations" when that happens -- like, the market is down today, or, the networking sector is down today, or, Hong Kong is down, or, it is November/December... whatever! On a more relevant note, the following excerpt from an article by Peter L. Bernstein, from June 1997 edition of Worth magazine, might be of some help : --------------------------------------------------------------------- n 1981, when inflation was running at 11 percent and panic was at its zenith, long-term Treasury bonds could be bought with coupons of 14 percent; a year earlier, the rates had been reversed--14 percent inflation and 11 percent bond yields. In 1981, every single bond owned by anyone anywhere was selling at a loss. Should you have bought or sold? What was your risk if you bought the 14 percent bonds at a price of $1,000 each and you were wrong because inflation got even worse? Let us assume you did this in a tax-deferred vehicle like an individual retirement account. The $140 in annual income was big protection: Yields would have had to reach more than 16 percent during the next year before the price decline exceeded your income. Two years later, with $280 in your pocket for every $1,000 invested, yields would have had to jump to almost 20 percent before your principal loss exceeded your income. But suppose you decided the game was too risky: You passed up the chance to buy--but you were wrong. One year later, in 1982, bond yields fell to 11 percent, and your 14 percent bond was selling at $1,260 for each $1,000 bond you had invested. You had a total return of 40 percent--14 percent income and 26 percent appreciation. Five years later, yields were approximately 8 percent. The bond was at $1,730 per $1,000, which, added to $700 in income, compounded to a total return of 19 percent a year. You would have increased your wealth by 143 percent, even without reinvesting your $140 income back into bonds. A thousand dollars invested in the Standard & Poor's 500 Stock Index in mid-1981 and held until mid-1986 would have appreciated to $1,920, and that capital gain plus $290 in dividends would have compounded to a total annual return of 17 percent and a total increase in wealth of 121 percent (stocks are supposed to beat bonds, aren't they?). I also wonder where the market would have gone after 1981 if bond yields had risen to 20 percent. Always weigh the consequences before you make a decision. The moral of this story is that you probably should have bought bonds at that darkest of moments, even though you thought that Paul Volcker would not lick inflation and that matters could only get worse. In the face of what you considered a high probability of a deteriorating economic environment, you still had much less to lose if that expectation proved right than you stood to gain if that expectation proved wrong. Pascal would have told you which investment choice to make in 1981. If you bet that God is and he is not, you are much better off than if you bet there is no God and God is. Never act on probabilities alone. In making "To do or not to do" choices, always weigh the consequences of being wrong in each case. ----------------------------------------------------------------------