Some of the companies are actually still in business, but most, regrettably, are not. The basket as a whole must be down some 90% or more; I'm actually trying to have someone do that calculation for me, and will report back if/when I get the numbers.
In addition to being among the worst possible baskets one could have put together a decade ago, some of the commentary is similarly priceless, like the reference to Elaine Garzarelli (she of the one good call in her career) saying that tech was "undervalued" in late 1999. And the dismissal of Sandy Weill's critics for their continued harping about how he was making Citi "too big, too diverse, [and] too unwieldy to manage effectively."
It's just a classic from beginning to end and, if I do say so myself, argues very strongly in favor of having a good financial adviser on whom you can rely. What possesses investors to believe what they read from people who are journalists first and foremost is beyond me.
3 comments:
"...if I do say so myself, argues very strongly in favor of having a good financial adviser on whom you can rely."
Aha....so what's Elaine Garzarelli a potted plant? All this time I though she was a "financial adviser."
What "financial advisers" were talking down tech stocks in 1999?
Tom
The one winner seems to be Monsanto which has at least quadrupled, which would be a 14% annual return. Morningstar only has data back to 2004. If there was a split between 1999 and 2004 that would increase the yield which also does not count numerous cash dividends. It looks like the only winner and one of the few survivors.
I calculate that the entire group is down 71%. If you followed this advice I hope you're still solvent.
Post a Comment