The world has changed and so have the fundamentals of commerce.
The world has changed and so have the fundamentals of commerce.
OK, fair enough. But the highlighted companies represent an increasing share of many ETFs, and become the favorite institutional trade. Risk and distortion is there.
And so have the returns. THat's why they are where they are. They pioneered a new economy and prospered due to it, and so did their investors. And continue to. It's not your grandmother's economy anymore.
Seattle prattle (on a different, read: faster, browser) wrote:
And so have the returns. THat's why they are where they are. They pioneered a new economy and prospered due to it, and so did their investors. And continue to. It's not your grandmother's economy anymore.
“The new economy is strong because it is based on a business system that works. It makes sense—simple as that. Any business system that relentlessly drives out inefficiency, forces intelligent business process reengineering, and gives customers more of what they want will be sustainable. On top of that, the new economy is strong because it is built on several important factors to which traditional economists don’t usually lend much credence: America’s admiration for entrepreneurs and its tolerance of failure, not to mention its easy access to capital. The new economy is strong, too, because it is attracting the best and brightest minds in the country. “
—December 1999 by fall 2002 the S&P 500 lost 54% and the NASDAQ Composite 83%
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Seattle prattle (on a different, read: faster, browser) wrote:
And so have the returns. THat's why they are where they are. They pioneered a new economy and prospered due to it, and so did their investors. And continue to. It's not your grandmother's economy anymore.
“The new economy is strong because it is based on a business system that works. It makes sense—simple as that. Any business system that relentlessly drives out inefficiency, forces intelligent business process reengineering, and gives customers more of what they want will be sustainable. On top of that, the new economy is strong because it is built on several important factors to which traditional economists don’t usually lend much credence: America’s admiration for entrepreneurs and its tolerance of failure, not to mention its easy access to capital. The new economy is strong, too, because it is attracting the best and brightest minds in the country. “
—December 1999 by fall 2002 the S&P 500 lost 54% and the NASDAQ Composite 83%
Gee, so i guess that means that means it was a failed experiment? Come on, Igy.
God help us alll wrote:
Hellooooooo? wrote:
You wrote, “it’s so obvious”. Now who’s stupid?
Yikes. Yes, you really are that stupid.
The stupid one is the one who doesn’t understand what seattle prattle wrote. You sound as dumb as the guy that started this thread. Whatever happened to him?
Seattle prattle (on a different, read: faster, browser) wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
“The new economy is strong because it is based on a business system that works. It makes sense—simple as that. Any business system that relentlessly drives out inefficiency, forces intelligent business process reengineering, and gives customers more of what they want will be sustainable. On top of that, the new economy is strong because it is built on several important factors to which traditional economists don’t usually lend much credence: America’s admiration for entrepreneurs and its tolerance of failure, not to mention its easy access to capital. The new economy is strong, too, because it is attracting the best and brightest minds in the country. “
—December 1999 by fall 2002 the S&P 500 lost 54% and the NASDAQ Composite 83%
Gee, so i guess that means that means it was a failed experiment? Come on, Igy.
It proves that there is no magic to your favorite stocks. Most likely will grow much slower in the future.
Grow? Not lose 65%?
Huh?? wrote:
Grow? Not lose 65%?
5 years of having egg on his face. So sad for his clients.
The stock market needs dopes like you to go down 65%. Why should I be surprised by your post?
Yet another day of records. Thanks, Igy!
Refer to previous post.
?
How's Hussman doing today?
Good one. Strong use of metaphor.
https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment/mc190503/Huh?? wrote:
Grow? Not lose 65%?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment/mc190503/Huh?? wrote:
Grow? Not lose 65%?
LOL. Of course I consider that run of the mill given that my signature fund is down nearly 19% YTD and nearly 50% since inception. If there’s one thing I know, it’s how to lose money. Trust me on this one.
Hussman funds have suffered an almost 60% loss of their all time highs in a steady decline (note: 54 % by my calculations). Does that strike you as ironic that the fund manager of that very fund would be relentlessly touting a 60 - 65% market decline? I am not sure that such a dubious distinction would qualify him for anything except letting us know how it feels to loose such large sums.
“On March 7, 2000, I observed, “Over time, price/revenue ratios come back in line. Currently, that would require an 83% plunge in tech stocks (recall the 1969-70 tech massacre). The plunge may be muted to about 65% given several years of revenue growth. If you understand values and market history, you know we’re not joking.” As it happened, the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 would go on to lose an improbably precise -83% by the October 2002 market low.
Yet even at the 2000 peak, the median valuations of other groups were nowhere near the extremes we observed in the tech sector. In fact, half of the valuation deciles were within 40% of their historical norms, implying full cycle losses of only about -30%. That’s important, because at present valuations, every one of these deciles would have to retreat by -59% and -71% simply to reach run-of-the-mill valuation norms.”
—John Hussman