[kwkarth]

Quote:

Originally posted by DarkAngel KW I assume that all the companies in my Nasdaq list have followed all acceptable accounting practices, and these comapnies are all leaders in their fields with some of the most admired management staffs in the world, and all make innovative products vital to the future of world economy, I own INTC stock and have felt the pain.........believe me! Still the fact is in 2000 INTC sold for 76 and now 18, that is a 76% correction.............I feel the pain!

Believe me I feel the pain big time! I'm part of the exercisable option problem MirandaX mentioned!

 

[gloco]

I find it interesting that everytime Bush something to say about the stockmarket, it goes south....fast.

 

[Audio Redneck]

 

[TimSchirmer]

Lol...I feel like a lucky jackass...I invested in United airlines a month after sept 11th, and made a bit of money while it rose from the ashes, but pulled out as soon as it started going down again. I bought at 15, sold at 20...it is worth about 5 now.

I think most of the bs going on now is from greedy corporate fraud. The money they cheated their way into getting came straight out of the pockets of their employees and investors. Sometimes I have to think twice about free trade.

Anyway...I'm putting money in now...I figure if I invest again now...and if the market ever recovers, I will be in the money. I'm not doing so bad for an 18 year old. Lol...sadly any money I do make will probabally go to a new hp amp.

 

[ai0tron]

In other words kelly, I think it's ********, but I am interested in participating so long as its working in my favor...

"The numbers on the screens that twiddle represent real world businesses that have succeeded or failed in meeting their profit expectations and lost or gained confidence with people who wish to financially support or decline financial support to them. " -kelly

The letters "world com" are just spinning around in my head.

 

[Vitalstatistix]

For those with losses - I feel your pain. Though I must say, as a finance doctoral student, that history has shown that the economy usually bounced back in time. It may take 10 years (who knows?), but if you realised your loss now by selling your equities, then, well, it's your loss.

So don't give up just yet. Pop in some Miles Davis and just chill.

Have you guys tried hedge funds? They're generally passive when it comes to tracking index errors etc, but research has shown that by investing in just 3 hedge funds, your risk lowers significantly. Hedge fund is a good idea too for those looking to diversify beyond the US. Some markets, such as the Australian market, are more resilient toward the wild swing of the US equity markets. That's why hedge funds tend to cover their exposure with Australian blue chip stocks.

 

[gloco]

Hey, i just heard yesterday that worldcom is selling for .14 cents a share, damn, maybe i should drop like $10, lol.

 

[dhwilkin]

Talk like this makes me glad I didn't have enough money until just recently to seriously consider investing in stocks. So could someone briefly describe other investment options besides stocks, please?

 

[MirandaX]

Quote:

Originally posted by Vitalstatistix For those with losses - I feel your pain. Though I must say, as a finance doctoral student, that history has shown that the economy usually bounced back in time. It may take 10 years (who knows?), but if you realised your loss now by selling your equities, then, well, it's your loss.

The problem with the research is that almost everyone who quotes its conclusions has never read any of it. Finance research tells us that the the broad market generally bounces back, though it may take 15-25 years. This is meaningless for individual stocks, and part of the problem is that here in the US most small investors were invested in individual stocks (or mutual funds that had only a small number of holdings). Statistical results tell us that individual stocks that have taken a large loss tend to never bounce back. Case in point: one of the most highly widely held companies prior to 1939 was the Indian Tea Company; people who held on to this stock (like many others) hoping for it to bounce back were disappointed. It merely drifted for a couple decades before dissolving.

If they taught anything of significant value in finance, the majority of the professors would be wealthy. (In reality, the only finance professor I know personally who has any money at all is married to a vice president of Microsoft.) Whether you sell now or not, you've already taken a loss. It doesn't matter one whit whether you "realise" your losses by selling.

 

[Vitalstatistix]

MirandaX: I know what you mean. Some stocks just don't bounce back.

My comments only apply to portfolios of course.

 

[Budgie]

What frustrates me is the loss of time. Now I have to make back the 50% or better that I am down. It will come back, but the lost time is what will kill me. Now I am looking at working more years till retirement is affordable.

 

[MirandaX]

Quote:

Originally posted by Budgie What frustrates me is the loss of time. Now I have to make back the 50% or better that I am down. It will come back, but the lost time is what will kill me.

I share your pain. The cruel mathematical reality is that gains are more difficult to handle than losses; you need a 100% gain to overcome a 50% loss. I think this hurts more than anything.

An 80% loss on an individual stock takes a 500% gain to overcome. This isn't likely to happen (it's almost statistically impossible for more than a few stocks), which is why hoping for individual stocks to recover is fruitless, even with a 20 year horizon.

 

[mbriant]

Who knows? Perhaps tomorrow, investors will feel the market has bottomed out and start buying again in droves. Some stocks might very well shoot right back up again....although unlikely as high as they'd once been. The market seems to be driven more by faith and speculation than by solid business sense.

 

[MirandaX]

If history is any guide, people are more likely to start buying rationally when they finally do start buying. (The next bubble probably won't be for 20-50 years, if we take history as a guide, plus all the baby boomers will be retiring soon, making large-scale risk-taking unlikely.)

Rationally, a large company's stock price will increase 200% only if its earnings increase 200%. To expect anything else is bizarre, though of course strange things happen from time to time. Assuming a company can increase earnings by 12% every year (this is optimistic, and only a few will succeed), that 200% increase is seven years away. A 500% increase is unlikely; they'd need fifteen straight years of incredible luck/skill.

To put this in perspective, take Intel -- if they can keep the same margins they have today, they'll need $135 billion in annual revenue to sustain a 500% increase in earnings. Fat chance. This would mean that every human being on earth would have to be paying them nearly $25 a year.

Not all is doom and gloom though -- many of us have large tax deductions for capital losses that could possibly last us through the next decade. I feel sorry for the U.S. government's purse though, and for programs funded out of tax revenue, like social security.

 

[kerelybonto]

Sorry to hear this is hitting all of you so hard. Anyone shorting on anything? The opportunities are definitely there.

Well, the market should be nicely undervalued when I start investing in the forseeable future. ...

kerelybonto