> Anyway, I agree with James Wilson that a hideous event lies before us, but
> I think the reasons he gives (of the variety stabbed at above) are not the
> sort of reasons that warrant bets on specific drops within designated
> three-month windows. They're just reasons why there should be a tank. And
> anyway, if we're talking NASDAQ specifically, who here has the prescience
> to contest the values set on information technology stocks?
I goes something like this: NASDAQ is IT, IT is mostly driven by PCs (yeah, selling dollar bills at 95 cents over the internet is nice, but PCs is where it's at). After four years of slowing growth rates, PC revenues worldwide almost certainly shrank in 1998 vs. the previous year, for the first time ever, although the industry is doing its level best to hide this fact. Things aren't looking any better this year, now that people have realized that an El Cheapo $500 computer does exactly the same things as a $2,500 workstation. So, we have a shrinking, increasingly commoditized industry, priced as if it were in the midst of explosive growth. I expect that reality and fanstasy will collide over the next three-four months.
If not, then I didn't write this.
-- Enrique Diaz-Alvarez Office # (607) 255 5034 Electrical Engineering Home # (607) 272 4808 112 Phillips Hall Fax # (607) 255 4565 Cornell University mailto:enrique at ee.cornell.edu Ithaca, NY 14853 http://peta.ee.cornell.edu/~enrique