Nasdaq 4000 — This Time It's Different? 241
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes, quoting USA Today "The NASDAQ has topped 4000 for the first time in 13 years, but much has changed since then. ... Tech investors in 2000 were right about the possibilities of the Internet and mobile computing. But they were dead wrong about which companies would be in the vanguard ... The recovery of the NASDAQ has been a complex tale of creative destruction, where old companies that once fueled the index have been pushed aside by new players. Back in 2000, Microsoft, Cisco Systems, Intel, Oracle, and Sun accounted for 8.9%, 8.5%, 7.1%, 3.6% and 2.6%, respectively, of the value of the NASDAQ composite. Today, companies that were just starting out or didn't even exist — think Google, Amazon, and Facebook — are in the top 10, accounting for 4.7%, 2.7% and 1.5% of NASDAQ's value. Microsoft, Cisco and Intel's weight has fallen sharply. Apple, which wasn't in the top 10 in 2000, is a behemoth at 7.9%. So is the NASDAQ enjoying a long overdue catch-up with the rest of the market, or is the broad market overpriced, with the NASDAQ being pulled along for the ride? 'The reality is that the only thing that's the same from Nasdaq 4000 in 1999 and Nasdaq 4000 in 2013,' says Doug Sandler, 'is the number 4000.'"
Good news for all us have-nots!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Now it's bound to trickle down to us, right?
Re:Quick and dirty analysis post. (Score:4, Funny)
it's "phony" because it's mostly because of asset inflation because of all that money being printed. In other words, I really didn't gain.
If you think your investments aren't really worth their valuation, they why don't you sell them? Put your money in inflation protected bonds, and sit out the crash that you are so sure is coming.
And I just got back from the supermarket where I just paid $0.99 for a tomato - one tomato
That is not caused by inflation. Look at the calendar. It is late November. Where do you think tomatoes come from?