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 : Intel Strategy for Achieving Wealth and Off Topic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Robert Graham who wrote (20852)	9/2/1998 9:25:00 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 27012

RE: Bungee jumping can be fun .... And, at least in New Zealand, they give you a steep discount on the second jump. It is of critical importance that the line be firmly tied to the bridge, and its length carefully calibrated to the weight of the jumper. Evidence is overwhelming that stocks are more rewarding that anything else (including Vermeers) but it does matter where one starts. It has been pointed out that if one had bought the DJIA at the peak in 1929 (at 381.17) (** it happened my parents decided to breed me rather than invest at the top, a decision that cost them several million dollars but earned them priceless love and respect, at least until I became an economist and discovered what a short-sighted decision they had made -- of course, they didn't know it was me they were going to have) he would have made a pot of dough by today (~8,000). He would have made a lot more if he had held off and bought at the bottom of 41.22 in 1932 (lifetime low). Of course, buying at the top in 1929 would not have broken even ( ignoring imputed carrying charges) until 1954, while buying at the low would have led to a life in the black. I am sure anyone who bought in 1932 (unfortunately my parents and I had gone on to other things by then -- like begging in the streets and eating out of garbage cans - and were no longer interested in the stock market) was accused of bridge diving, but in fact, if they held, they became very rich, doubling their money by 1933 (108.67) and becoming unutterably rich if they lived long enough and stuck with it. Of course, if one had bought techstocks (IBM, GE, RCA, DuPont, AT&T, Merck, Being, Lockheed, Sperry, or some good banks -- Chase, National City, C&S, etc). the improvement would be even better. Today one can't be sure that a better opportunity won't come along, but I am I am betting on techstocks and strong banks, and I am sure that now is much closer to a secular bottom than a secular top. I don't have much cash left, but I am busy selling my preferred techs (secular EPS growth rates of 30% and technological locks) that have fallen 10-20 per cent from their tops and buying my preferred companies that have fallen 20-40 per cent from their tops. Of course, I pay cheap commissions. I may be wrong, but I have a life expectancy of 14.3 years (and a trading expectancy of maybe 5) and what the hey!