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.

Non-Tech : NIFTY NINE IN NINETY NINE PLUS ONE -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (436)	2/21/1999 11:51:00 AM
From: Scott H. Davis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 613

Along those lines, when will reduced exports, reduced real capital spending, and the massive funds absorbtion of Y2K spending, and increased compitition from imports from countries with devalued currencies despirate to raise cash. Makes me nervous too. Scott Thinking about Y2K, thought ya'll might could possibly 'preciate this I just received this status report from the Y-to-K project team: Our staff has completed the 18 months of work on time and on budget. We have gone through every line of code in every program in every system. We have analyzed all databases, all data files, including backups and historic archives, and modified all data to reflect the change. We are proud to report that we have completed the "Y-to-K" date change mission, and have now implemented all changes to all programs and all data to reflect your new standards: Januark, Februark, March, April, Mak, June, Julk, August, September, October, November, December As well as: Sundak, Mondak, Tuesdak, Wednesdak, Thursdak, Fridak, Saturdak I trust that this is satisfactory, because to be honest, none of this 'Y to K' problem has made any sense to me. But I understand it is a global problem, and our team is glad to help in any way possible. And what does the year 2000 have to do with it? Speaking of which, what do you think we ought to do next year when the two digit year rolls over from 99 to 00? We'll await your direction.

To: Arthur Radley who wrote (436)	2/21/1999 3:01:00 PM
From: LLCF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 613

<biotechs are in for a rebound in 1999, Well THEY HAVEN'T FOUND MY STOCKS. YET!> Yes, we had a hell of a nice bounce off the "tax selling" season in most of my stocks... luckily I was overweighted and sold quite a bit out, boy have they come in fast. I've given back about 1/3 of my "bottom feeding" profits even though I sold quite a bit. IT IS CERTAINLY NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT WALL STREET HAS TAKEN A MORE POSITIVE STANCE TO THE SECTOR IN '99 DESPITE STATEMENTS IN THE PRESS BY NOT UNINTERESTED PARTIES. < How do you think the market will react to the agreement that the world economies aren't doing that well and Russia still poses a major problem> I'm much more worried about another round of health care reform talk than this type of "macro stuff"... hell just buy some Microsoft puts to hedge yourself against this stuff! <This overall market makes me nervous. > This is exactly my quandry... I don't want to miss the move that I believe is imminent, but I'd love some of the "easy money" that would come along with a market sell off and the cheaper prices in our sector that would undoubtedly result. Lets remember (not in order of importance except first): -demographics, need we say more about the bullishness for health care to come from this one fact? -new more pragmatic approach at the FDA. -outlook for the sector based on science coming to fruition. -the appetite of big pharma will only get larger and larger... this like demographics is JUST STARTING. I predict that 1/2 of us will be out of our stocks in this sector, talking instead about high valuations before this factor is even in full swing a few years down the road. -more good reasons out there?