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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (39912)	12/18/1998 1:05:00 PM
From: Timothy Liu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

I don't know because I don't own them. Hate their volatility. Semi equipment though would benefit (sell more equipment). Tim

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (39912)	12/18/1998 1:25:00 PM
From: Richard Gampell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, I've been here a long, long while (too busy reading the thread to post much), but Mary's recent comment about not wanting to be scared out of good companies' stock made me think of something. I had heard a comment similar to hers on a radio talk-show a few days earlier. My question is this: If stock prices spend so much time so far away from rational value --- in recent years above, perhaps below in future years --- doesn't this permanently lower the rational value itself? The long-term volatility that is derived from such large deviations means greater risk, hence lower value, yes? You called Mary's approach a see-no-evil-hear-no-evil sort of thing. But --- to make an obvious point --- a market that inspires an anti-reason approach is a market that investors will eventually turn wary of, since predictability is something investors want. People talk about volatility in regard to options-pricing, of course, but no one ever says that the market mania of the '90s means lower prices for stocks than if it had never happened. Or am I missing something? Rich