Since 2009, the Nasdaq 100 has tripled, roughly double the return of the general market. Just because some people were stupid enough to buy-and-hold (and not sell) the NSADAQ in 2000 at extremely overpriced levels does not mean that tech stocks have not been going up A LOT.
What us it about the words "all time high" that you don't understand?
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:
What us it about the words "all time high" that you don't understand?
Not relevant because of what happened in 2000. Tech stocks are up a lot more than most of the market. Of course, I know most people on letsrun are simply not smart enough to do math.
Of course it's relevant. The point agip made was that some indices hit all-tine highs, but not NASDAQ. Why you want to rake exception with this is beyond me. We all know the techies have done very well, but they have not hit an all-time high. Fact.
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:
Of course it's relevant. The point agip made was that some indices hit all-tine highs, but not NASDAQ. Why you want to rake exception with this is beyond me. We all know the techies have done very well, but they have not hit an all-time high. Fact.
Besides, I think that agip, in referring to the NASDAQ. Or choosing NOT to refer to the NASDAQ was perhaps making another point which you seem to be too dim to figure out.
Sorry, I meant you, coach d. It seems like common sense doesn't register with you.
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:
Sorry, I meant you, coach d. It seems like common sense doesn't register with you.
D-bag
If you actually knew anything about investing you would know that NASDAQ is NOT a technology index. It is an index of the NASDAQ market which has a bunch of tech stocks but a many other stocks as well.
Go back to your parents basement and change your diaper, moron.
coach d wrote:
And BTW, Flagpole, the only mutual funds that come even close to this ROR for the last 5 years have 2-3X leverage or extremely high risk. That's why if you want to retire early as a millionaire or close to it, you invest in stocks, not mutual funds.
Nah. I can and will retire early, and others can do it too...on mutual funds. You don't need a HUGE return over time to be able to retire with a lot of money and "early".
coach d wrote:
If you actually knew anything about investing you would know that NASDAQ is NOT a technology index. It is an index of the NASDAQ market which has a bunch of tech stocks but a many other stocks as well.
Go back to your parents basement and change your diaper, moron.
Nice comeback. But you should really learn a few things before posting. The BIG NASDAQ stocks are tech stocks. Since it is market weighted it is essentially a tech index.
Try to learn. It won't hurt you.
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:Sorry, I meant you, coach d. It seems like common sense doesn't register with you.
D-bag
Man, do you EVER have anything to say? Sheesh!
Nasdaq can be described as a "tech-heavy" index but it's not a technology index.
The best preforming sectors over the last 5 years have been Communication Services and Consumer Cyclical. Technology is a lot more voltaile, significantly overperforming in some years and underforming in others. This year has been outstanding for tech stocks so er... sell.
agip wrote:
and another day of all time highs for non tech indices...
Maybe agip will weigh in and tell us what he meant by "non tech indices". NASDAQ or something else?
Steve Martin wrote:
agip wrote:and another day of all time highs for non tech indices...
Maybe agip will weigh in and tell us what he meant by "non tech indices". NASDAQ or something else?
well the nasdaq is about 55% tech, but the borders are porous - is Amazon a tech stock? Or Ebay? They aren't counted as tech stocks in the Nasdaq 100 even tho they hae a large tech component.
I just meant tech stocks in general are not at all time highs. For example, the fidelity tech sector fund, fsptx, is still 40% below its 2000 high. I think that is a good measure of price level, although it probably doesn't count dividends.
http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=FSPTX+Interactive#symbol=fsptx;range=my;compare=;indicator=split+sma(200)+volume;charttype=area;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined;
and almost all the big 90s tech stocks are still below their tech bubble highs. intel is down to 26 from 75, Msft down to 37 from 57, qcom down to 73 from 88. Amazon is the exception - up to 400 from around 100.
Is there a tech index that we can look at for 20 year returns? not sure.
agip wrote:
I just meant tech stocks in general are not at all time highs.
Apparently coach d disagrees.
Amazon.com would have been lumped in as "tech" by CNBC during the internet bubble because they utilized new technologies to sell goods to consumers. But technically they are just a very innovative retailer.
agip wrote:
I just meant tech stocks in general are not at all time highs. For example, the fidelity tech sector fund, fsptx, is still 40% below its 2000 high.
So, you and coach d agree on this.
Probably an indicator that it's BS.
Wall St Savvy wrote:
Amazon.com would have been lumped in as "tech" by CNBC during the internet bubble because they utilized new technologies to sell goods to consumers. But technically they are just a very innovative retailer.
No, they are not. They are fundamentally a technology company. Without the Internet there is no AMZN.
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:
agip wrote:I just meant tech stocks in general are not at all time highs. For example, the fidelity tech sector fund, fsptx, is still 40% below its 2000 high.
So, you and coach d agree on this.
Probably an indicator that it's BS.
Actually they disagreed.
Try to keep up wrote:
Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:So, you and coach d agree on this.
Probably an indicator that it's BS.
Actually they disagreed.
No they didn't. Coach d agrees that tech stocks aren't at all-time highs, but he was focusing on his opinion that it is irrelevant because tech stocks have done so well since 2009.
Need more help, or comprehend now?