You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dow About To Go To Hell???
- Thread starter Corso482
- Start date
Quote from ArchAngel:
Off topic, but an interesting signature
When I read "hydrogen" and "Arabs" I thought he was going to talk about thermonuke-ular devices. But apparently he belongs to the intellectual elite and realizes violence is less efficient than economics in killing off competing DNA.
Quote from Trajan:
The Dow does look ugly but I looked at bunch of charts on tech stocks and a lot of them don't look bad. I'm kind of leaning towards the bullish camp in tech. Of course, my only position right now is a short in IBM. I've read Fleckenstein for too long.
Agreed, but NAZZ is down 75% since peak; after 20s bubble DOW gave back 90% of gains; that would bring it back to about 4700.
Also if we follow the same parallel, gets you SP 480ish, and NAZZ 900.
We'll see
Yet Microsoft's imminent 2-for-1 stock split, for holders of record on Monday and due to take effect Feb. 18, will have a secondary and real effect on the Dow Jones Industrial Average: Essentially, it will make the world's most valuable company a fairly insignificant force in influencing the Dow, which is price-weighted. That means that higher-priced shares count for more than lower-priced ones, no matter the companies' market value. Other indexes of note are weighted by market capitalization.
The price weighting of the Dow has always made it quirky and somewhat capricious in its motivations. But the Microsoft split will exacerbate the particularly skewed current weightings of the Dow Industrials, in which a couple of high-priced stocks such as 3M and Procter & Gamble dwarf several of the largest companies' stocks.
(A one-time adjustment at the time of the split will mean the actual 2-for-1 distribution won't impact the index. But Microsoft's lower price from that point on will make its equivalent percentage moves less important than the moves of higher-priced shares.)
<b>In fact, 3M counts for more in the index than General Electric, Citigroup, Exxon Mobil and Microsoft will after the latter's share split. This is a stark distortion considering that those four heavies have a combined market value of more than $900 billion, compared with $50 billion for 3M.</b>
With 3M around 128 and P&G around 85 being the two most highly priced stocks in this index, they represent more than one-sixth of the Dow. These are also two of the most defensive stocks in the index, meaning they tend to perform relatively well when the overall market is suffering. This has dampened the downside in the Dow compared with the S&P 500. Add in the fact that the four tech stocks in the Dow make up about 11%-12% of the index versus about an 18% tech weighting in the S&P, and the Dow's defensive characteristics become more obvious. This helps explain why the Dow was down less than 15% in the 12 months through Thursday, while the S&P 500 was off more than 21%.
It's not to say there's no use in following the Dow, which like Barron's is a Dow Jones & Co. product. In fact, its price weighting makes it act somewhat like an investor's own portfolio, where the day-to-day dollar change is what matters to the owner. But investors should understand that the Dow isn't giving a direct signal on the overall value of the broad market. (source: Barron's)
The price weighting of the Dow has always made it quirky and somewhat capricious in its motivations. But the Microsoft split will exacerbate the particularly skewed current weightings of the Dow Industrials, in which a couple of high-priced stocks such as 3M and Procter & Gamble dwarf several of the largest companies' stocks.
(A one-time adjustment at the time of the split will mean the actual 2-for-1 distribution won't impact the index. But Microsoft's lower price from that point on will make its equivalent percentage moves less important than the moves of higher-priced shares.)
<b>In fact, 3M counts for more in the index than General Electric, Citigroup, Exxon Mobil and Microsoft will after the latter's share split. This is a stark distortion considering that those four heavies have a combined market value of more than $900 billion, compared with $50 billion for 3M.</b>
With 3M around 128 and P&G around 85 being the two most highly priced stocks in this index, they represent more than one-sixth of the Dow. These are also two of the most defensive stocks in the index, meaning they tend to perform relatively well when the overall market is suffering. This has dampened the downside in the Dow compared with the S&P 500. Add in the fact that the four tech stocks in the Dow make up about 11%-12% of the index versus about an 18% tech weighting in the S&P, and the Dow's defensive characteristics become more obvious. This helps explain why the Dow was down less than 15% in the 12 months through Thursday, while the S&P 500 was off more than 21%.
It's not to say there's no use in following the Dow, which like Barron's is a Dow Jones & Co. product. In fact, its price weighting makes it act somewhat like an investor's own portfolio, where the day-to-day dollar change is what matters to the owner. But investors should understand that the Dow isn't giving a direct signal on the overall value of the broad market. (source: Barron's)
I agree with your assessment of the infrastructure requirements, but I think the rewards would outway the costs.
Here is a good article summarizing the logistics of using hydrogen by the Army: http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MayJun00/MS492.htm
Here is a good article summarizing the logistics of using hydrogen by the Army: http://www.almc.army.mil/alog/issues/MayJun00/MS492.htm
Quote from ArchAngel:
Off topic, but an interesting signature - nice idea in theory, but it's hardly a near term reality in large scale application. Have you given any thought to how they'll deliver liquid hydrogen to "gas" stations across the country? What level of enormous infrastructure change that is? Not just delivery and storage (which is significant), but also having to replace normal gas pumps with laser guided, computer controlled affairs because you can't let people do the pumping themselves. And you can't co-exist with existing gas stations because of the increased explosive danger, so you need all new "Hydro stations". And how about what would happen in a car accident if the tank cracked?
Cutting over to hybrid autos (and making SUVs and minivans use the same emission and fuel economy standards as cars) is a whole lot easier, can be done very quickly, doesn't involve a trillion dollar, ten year infrastructure upheaval, and would cut oil dependence to a fraction of what it is now. Possibly enough that domestic production could fully cover demand while the much longer timeframe non-oil alternatives are developed.
but seriously id be a buyer here if i were long term or investor, buying after the first bomb drops