My 2c for what it is worth, is that who knows if it is low, we know it is low for what it has been, but if it drops 50% more then at the moment it will look high then low. I was told do not pick the bottom but watch and wait for it to rise, when it is starting to turn then I will get in. Granted there is a chance I will not make as much money, but I have less chance of losing it. Maybe I am just risk averse.
shares over property,now.
- Thread starter bbruham
- Start date
More lambs to the slaughter.
An investment psychology that says the price is cheap and getting cheaper therefore I must buy is doomed to failure in the long run. When this thread was started AMP was around $8.00 and has now lost around 20%.
The opposite investment strategy goes along the lines that the price has risen and getting higher therefore I must buy before it gets higher next week.!!
Readers of this thread should do themselves a favor and study how the best traders and best long term investors made their money.
The short answer goes along the lines that you buy if prices are going up and sell if prices are going down.
P.S. Sorry to all the market guru's who charge thousands for the SECRET to market success. I just gave it away for free
bye
An investment psychology that says the price is cheap and getting cheaper therefore I must buy is doomed to failure in the long run. When this thread was started AMP was around $8.00 and has now lost around 20%.
The opposite investment strategy goes along the lines that the price has risen and getting higher therefore I must buy before it gets higher next week.!!
Readers of this thread should do themselves a favor and study how the best traders and best long term investors made their money.
The short answer goes along the lines that you buy if prices are going up and sell if prices are going down.
P.S. Sorry to all the market guru's who charge thousands for the SECRET to market success. I just gave it away for free
bye
Hi
Debate is now about whether we have reached the bottom of the stock market, or is it still to fall and by how much and when and whatever. Most of the debate seems to rest on the position the market is in today, based on little more than “well it is now at a low of $XX so it must be near the bottom”. But is it?
There are a number of indicators commonly used to measure trends. Bill L says the price of AMP was around $8.00 and has now lost a further 20% or was it 25% and he rightly questions the bottom and asks who is prepared to buy at this price. One of the many types of indicators is the Stochastic Indicator that measures both price and volume (there are others). In simple terms, when the number of people prepared to pay the above $6.00 falls below the current value then there is a cross over of demand and price, and the bottom may have been reached. Now sit and wait for two more trading days, if the trend remains constant, then the bottom may have been reached so buy.
In property, you could argue that when the number of people bidding at an auction falls to a level whereby the demand at the present prices slows to the point where the number of successful auctions falls noticeably, then we have reached the peak.
Neither is perfect but they are indicators and we need to look at more than simply price.
My analysis of the stock markets around the world is that the markets have still some way to fall. Now add the approaching middle east conflict, and all the other world factors and I personally can’t see the bottom yet.
DISCLAIMER: THIS COMMENTARY IS NOT TO BE VIEWED AS ADVICE, RATHER IT IS MERELY A DEMONSTRATION OF BASIC FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. PLEASE REFER TO A LICENCED ADVISOR FOR ADVICE REGARDING YOUR INVESTMENT SITUATION.
Regards
Ross
Debate is now about whether we have reached the bottom of the stock market, or is it still to fall and by how much and when and whatever. Most of the debate seems to rest on the position the market is in today, based on little more than “well it is now at a low of $XX so it must be near the bottom”. But is it?
There are a number of indicators commonly used to measure trends. Bill L says the price of AMP was around $8.00 and has now lost a further 20% or was it 25% and he rightly questions the bottom and asks who is prepared to buy at this price. One of the many types of indicators is the Stochastic Indicator that measures both price and volume (there are others). In simple terms, when the number of people prepared to pay the above $6.00 falls below the current value then there is a cross over of demand and price, and the bottom may have been reached. Now sit and wait for two more trading days, if the trend remains constant, then the bottom may have been reached so buy.
In property, you could argue that when the number of people bidding at an auction falls to a level whereby the demand at the present prices slows to the point where the number of successful auctions falls noticeably, then we have reached the peak.
Neither is perfect but they are indicators and we need to look at more than simply price.
My analysis of the stock markets around the world is that the markets have still some way to fall. Now add the approaching middle east conflict, and all the other world factors and I personally can’t see the bottom yet.
DISCLAIMER: THIS COMMENTARY IS NOT TO BE VIEWED AS ADVICE, RATHER IT IS MERELY A DEMONSTRATION OF BASIC FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. PLEASE REFER TO A LICENCED ADVISOR FOR ADVICE REGARDING YOUR INVESTMENT SITUATION.
Regards
Ross
G'day all,
Lossing $175K is heart braking, but, think of how you would feel if these stocks return to there best!!!!! AND YOU DIDN'T BUY ANY OF THESE SHARES!!!!!!!! Could you sleep at night knowing that you knew there was all this money waiting for you to pick it up, but you didn't have the courage. OPPORTUNITY LOST FOR EVER. That would haunt me for ever and a day,I could not forgive myself.
I can understand you not doing the above, but I'm different!!!!
I would hate ME to my dying day. Being cowardly.
Lossing the $175K is my next five new cars and four holidays to Noosa. Spread over seven or eight years.
No big deal, I always treat financial losses as new cars.
When I did money on managed funds(still got them) I forgot a new car and bought a six year old ford, for $4K,naturally an ex- taxi.
bbruham.
Lossing $175K is heart braking, but, think of how you would feel if these stocks return to there best!!!!! AND YOU DIDN'T BUY ANY OF THESE SHARES!!!!!!!! Could you sleep at night knowing that you knew there was all this money waiting for you to pick it up, but you didn't have the courage. OPPORTUNITY LOST FOR EVER. That would haunt me for ever and a day,I could not forgive myself.
I can understand you not doing the above, but I'm different!!!!
I would hate ME to my dying day. Being cowardly.
Lossing the $175K is my next five new cars and four holidays to Noosa. Spread over seven or eight years.
No big deal, I always treat financial losses as new cars.
When I did money on managed funds(still got them) I forgot a new car and bought a six year old ford, for $4K,naturally an ex- taxi.
bbruham.
23 years ago when I was relatively new to investing I waited for silver to go down in price before I purchased. I believed all the hype about how high it HAD to go. I bought at about $15 / ounce as this was as low as it had been since it's high of $50 /ounce. I thought of the fortune I was going to make (of the new cars) and how I would feel if I missed out.
I still have those kg bars of silver as a reminder of investment folly. At a current price of about $7.50/ounce in greatly deflated dollars, I have still lost about 80% of the purchasing power of the original.
Good luck with your recent purchases at new lows, you'll need it.
bye
I still have those kg bars of silver as a reminder of investment folly. At a current price of about $7.50/ounce in greatly deflated dollars, I have still lost about 80% of the purchasing power of the original.
Good luck with your recent purchases at new lows, you'll need it.
bye
Bill.L,
Now let me say first that I am relatively green when it comes to shares, but I am confused. How do you come to the conclusion that selling on the way down and buying on the way up is the way to make money?
See, I just don't get it. All the reading, talking to people and trading I have done has been the opposite, and I made decent returns. Have you heard of people like Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger and Peter Lynch? They are considered to be among the worlds greatest investors and they work in exactly the opposite way that you claim is the way to play the market.
I'm not saying you are wrong, you may have been quite successful up to now (but why you held onto that silver and continue to hold onto it, I don't undestand, one of the first things I learnt about investing was NEVER ride the losers, get rid of them a.s.a.p.) but to be correct saying what you are saying means completely ignoring the successes of those mentioned above (and many others also).
So having read my post, do you feel that I am totally off the mark? Do you feel I know nothing? I am genuinely interested, as having more than two decades experience, you must know a lot and I would like to hear more from you.
Mark
'no hat, some cattle'
Now let me say first that I am relatively green when it comes to shares, but I am confused. How do you come to the conclusion that selling on the way down and buying on the way up is the way to make money?
See, I just don't get it. All the reading, talking to people and trading I have done has been the opposite, and I made decent returns. Have you heard of people like Warren Buffett, Charlie Munger and Peter Lynch? They are considered to be among the worlds greatest investors and they work in exactly the opposite way that you claim is the way to play the market.
I'm not saying you are wrong, you may have been quite successful up to now (but why you held onto that silver and continue to hold onto it, I don't undestand, one of the first things I learnt about investing was NEVER ride the losers, get rid of them a.s.a.p.) but to be correct saying what you are saying means completely ignoring the successes of those mentioned above (and many others also).
So having read my post, do you feel that I am totally off the mark? Do you feel I know nothing? I am genuinely interested, as having more than two decades experience, you must know a lot and I would like to hear more from you.
Mark
'no hat, some cattle'
Mark
Here is a problem for you. You say "NEVER ride the losers". Now if a loser is something that goes down in price after you have bought it, you would have to buy at the precise bottom or on the way up. Otherwise you have bought on the way down and it would be a loser that you would sell.
And the bottom is a level where maybe only a few went through. Your position size might prevent you from getting in at the bottom.
So is it possible not to ride a loser and not to buy on the way up?
Mr Turkey
Here is a problem for you. You say "NEVER ride the losers". Now if a loser is something that goes down in price after you have bought it, you would have to buy at the precise bottom or on the way up. Otherwise you have bought on the way down and it would be a loser that you would sell.
And the bottom is a level where maybe only a few went through. Your position size might prevent you from getting in at the bottom.
So is it possible not to ride a loser and not to buy on the way up?
Mr Turkey
Don't want to step on Mark's toes here as I'm sure he'll have a response himself but IMHO I wouldn't necessarily always describe a share that has fallen in price as 'a loser'. It may be a 'loser' but more likely it depends on the Fundamentals of the stock? Depending on this it may indeed be a good time to sell....or......indeed it might be a good buying opportunity.
What makes a company fall in price? Can be many, many things that are independent of the Fundamentals of the stock. How many companies out there have partly fallen in price because a big well known Mum and Dad stock like AMP has fallen? Probably a few. Confidence has fallen for a variety of reasons and yet the fundamentals of some of these other stocks may be fine.
I guess the ideology of the 'Value Investor' is that in percentage terms if you stick with the fundamentals of a stock(as Mark has mentioned with Buffet etc.) then you may indeed occasionally buy an out of favour stock that may still be sliding in price but that should show a greater upswing in time. I guess it's akin to buying quality even though you know in the short to medium term there is a further downside risk.
May be like some people's view of buying the worst house in the best street. "Why would you have bought that when you could have bought a nice new one!". "Because it has potential and a greater chance of increasing in value" would be other's response.
As with Mark, I'm very new at this though and very much appreciate listening and learning from those who have been doing this for many years.
What makes a company fall in price? Can be many, many things that are independent of the Fundamentals of the stock. How many companies out there have partly fallen in price because a big well known Mum and Dad stock like AMP has fallen? Probably a few. Confidence has fallen for a variety of reasons and yet the fundamentals of some of these other stocks may be fine.
I guess the ideology of the 'Value Investor' is that in percentage terms if you stick with the fundamentals of a stock(as Mark has mentioned with Buffet etc.) then you may indeed occasionally buy an out of favour stock that may still be sliding in price but that should show a greater upswing in time. I guess it's akin to buying quality even though you know in the short to medium term there is a further downside risk.
May be like some people's view of buying the worst house in the best street. "Why would you have bought that when you could have bought a nice new one!". "Because it has potential and a greater chance of increasing in value" would be other's response.
As with Mark, I'm very new at this though and very much appreciate listening and learning from those who have been doing this for many years.
Hi
I think you need a stratergy of when to buy and sell.
My view is to buy under valued shares or ones that have hit the bottom and are on the way back up.
I also look at the WIIFM factor NAB ranks up there with there similar to pro package for shareholders.
I should set a low price to cut my losses and run.
I should also set a sell price for when they go up.
At the moment I am just buy and hold
bundy
I think you need a stratergy of when to buy and sell.
My view is to buy under valued shares or ones that have hit the bottom and are on the way back up.
I also look at the WIIFM factor NAB ranks up there with there similar to pro package for shareholders.
I should set a low price to cut my losses and run.
I should also set a sell price for when they go up.
At the moment I am just buy and hold
bundy
The trick is the same price at different times can mean different things. The important thing is the concept of position. Consider a share at it all time low. Everyone is holding at a loss, that's their position. Now how many people really take stop losses? The answer is very few and within all the people holding the share at its lows, none of them do. So what are they doing? They are holding on to get their money back. Now if everyone is holding on for an emotional reason, who is holding on for fundamentals? Well you cant tell but it might be nobody.
So what you want to see is the process of accumulation. Where shares are transferred to people holding at a loss to people holding at a profit. And you want to see them holding. An indication of this would be a drop off in volume above the low. Look at some of the fallen shares and you will see lots of volume. That's the same shares, same money, same people juggling a hot potato. They don't feel comfortable with it because of the sobering effects of ownership.
So you dont have to buy at the bottom but you do want to see some sort of accumulation.
Mr Turkey
So what you want to see is the process of accumulation. Where shares are transferred to people holding at a loss to people holding at a profit. And you want to see them holding. An indication of this would be a drop off in volume above the low. Look at some of the fallen shares and you will see lots of volume. That's the same shares, same money, same people juggling a hot potato. They don't feel comfortable with it because of the sobering effects of ownership.
So you dont have to buy at the bottom but you do want to see some sort of accumulation.
Mr Turkey
What I meant by a loser is holding onto a share that has gone down and stayed down (like Bill.L's silver). Buying on the way down and holding onto/selling the shares as they go up (as long as you have done your homework) is, in my opinion, the best way to work the stockmarket. Even Warren Buffett doesn't hold onto all his stocks. If he finds something that is performing better than something he is holding, he will move into that to get the best return. Isn't that what we are all aiming for? Getting the best return? Imagine if Bill.L had sold out of his silver years ago and reinvested elsewhere, he just might be showing a profit instead of a loss on that money. (Sorry Bill, I'm not picking on you, just using an example).
I might be completely wrong, but this way I think is going to get the biggest returns - Warren Buffett has achieved an annual compounding return of 23% over x years using a similar strategy.
And although I have an excellent financial advisor with an absolutely brilliant share fund opening up soon, I wouldn't mind having a bit of a play around with the techniques I have learned from Buffettology, you know chuck in a few thousand and see how successful I can be. Has anyone else out there read/used the techniques in the book? I'm just wanting to ask a few questions of those who have and what they thought/how they went.
Mark
'no hat, some cattle'
I might be completely wrong, but this way I think is going to get the biggest returns - Warren Buffett has achieved an annual compounding return of 23% over x years using a similar strategy.
And although I have an excellent financial advisor with an absolutely brilliant share fund opening up soon, I wouldn't mind having a bit of a play around with the techniques I have learned from Buffettology, you know chuck in a few thousand and see how successful I can be. Has anyone else out there read/used the techniques in the book? I'm just wanting to ask a few questions of those who have and what they thought/how they went.
Mark
'no hat, some cattle'
Hi all,
Mark, what I mean by buying high is that when a stock goes to a new high, (according to the time period you are trading) is the time to purchase as the trend is up and likely to keep going. Conversly selling short on a new low is the way to go. Also having a new low on a buy should be your stop loss point if it hadn't already been triggered.
I keep the silver as a reminder of how not to trade. I don't mind you having a go at me over it, as that's what I constantly do to myself.
All share purchases should be regarded as trades, as people buy with the intention of selling later at a profit. They must be sold at some stage as most shares eventually go to ZERO. Just ask investors in HIH, One Tel, Pasminco, ERG(not quite there yet) etc,etc.
My last 2 share trades were last year. I purchased Amcor as it was going up and chiquita as it was going up. Both were at new highs for the previous 2 months. I sold both when the trend had turned and there price was retreating. I made money in both cases. On neither occasion did I make the most amount possible on the trade, but I took the middle portion.
bye
Mark, what I mean by buying high is that when a stock goes to a new high, (according to the time period you are trading) is the time to purchase as the trend is up and likely to keep going. Conversly selling short on a new low is the way to go. Also having a new low on a buy should be your stop loss point if it hadn't already been triggered.
I keep the silver as a reminder of how not to trade. I don't mind you having a go at me over it, as that's what I constantly do to myself.
All share purchases should be regarded as trades, as people buy with the intention of selling later at a profit. They must be sold at some stage as most shares eventually go to ZERO. Just ask investors in HIH, One Tel, Pasminco, ERG(not quite there yet) etc,etc.
My last 2 share trades were last year. I purchased Amcor as it was going up and chiquita as it was going up. Both were at new highs for the previous 2 months. I sold both when the trend had turned and there price was retreating. I made money in both cases. On neither occasion did I make the most amount possible on the trade, but I took the middle portion.
bye
Hi
I question Bill’s comment about all share purchases being considered as a trade.
Holding for a short term and up to say a six months time period as a deliberate act of taking a position, with the view to making the profit on an estimated movement, may be considered as a trade. The reverse applies for short trading of course.
But would not a person who purchases a stock on the basis of a long term investment, perhaps years or even longer be just that, investing in the stock. The purchaser is prepared to ride out the rises and falls in the company, takes the dividends, issues and other benefits, which goes with it.
As in property. Those investors who purchase with the view to buy and hold for years are investing, while those who perhaps buy, renovate and sell in the short term are trading those properties.
Bill, I am not trying to debate terminology here. Perhaps we are basically in agreement with each other. There is a decidedly different approach required for investment or trading in both shares and property.
Regards
Ross
I question Bill’s comment about all share purchases being considered as a trade.
Holding for a short term and up to say a six months time period as a deliberate act of taking a position, with the view to making the profit on an estimated movement, may be considered as a trade. The reverse applies for short trading of course.
But would not a person who purchases a stock on the basis of a long term investment, perhaps years or even longer be just that, investing in the stock. The purchaser is prepared to ride out the rises and falls in the company, takes the dividends, issues and other benefits, which goes with it.
As in property. Those investors who purchase with the view to buy and hold for years are investing, while those who perhaps buy, renovate and sell in the short term are trading those properties.
Bill, I am not trying to debate terminology here. Perhaps we are basically in agreement with each other. There is a decidedly different approach required for investment or trading in both shares and property.
Regards
Ross
Ross, the reason I call it a trade is historical. If you look to find the top 20 stocks from 30 years ago, you won't find many in the top 50 now!
In fact many have either been swallowed up by larger companies or they just disappeared.
Property is different in that it doesn't just disappear over time(unless it's beachside and slips into the ocean due to global warming. )
Many of the top stocks of the last few years have been things like Telstra, AMP, Qantas, CSL, CBA, Futuris Tab etc. They didn't exist 20 years ago(in the stock market). Other top stocks(former top stocks?) like PBL, News Corp, Wesfarmers, Brambles, Burns Philp etc, etc were not in the top 50 20 years ago. They had large rises in price and growth that put them up as top stocks.
Of todays bluechips I'm willing to bet that more than half of them won't be in the top 50 in 15 years time. Therefore I believe that if you don't consider share purchases as trades then you don't understand the game and should stay out.
bye
In fact many have either been swallowed up by larger companies or they just disappeared.
Property is different in that it doesn't just disappear over time(unless it's beachside and slips into the ocean due to global warming.
)Many of the top stocks of the last few years have been things like Telstra, AMP, Qantas, CSL, CBA, Futuris Tab etc. They didn't exist 20 years ago(in the stock market). Other top stocks(former top stocks?) like PBL, News Corp, Wesfarmers, Brambles, Burns Philp etc, etc were not in the top 50 20 years ago. They had large rises in price and growth that put them up as top stocks.
Of todays bluechips I'm willing to bet that more than half of them won't be in the top 50 in 15 years time. Therefore I believe that if you don't consider share purchases as trades then you don't understand the game and should stay out.
bye
Hi Bill
OK I accept your reasoning and logic, indeed agree with it. If viewed historically over 15 to 20 plus, you are absolutely correct.
The point I was attempting to highlight is that if you are to consider a trade where you have calculated that the stock is going to rise in say one to three months to your satisfaction and decide to take a position, (all other things etc., considered), then this is in my mind, a straight out trade.
If you consider investing money into a company that you feel is going to be around for a decade or so, then you use different criteria of assessment in your decision making. This then becomes a long term investment, rather than a mid term trade. Sure you must trade to invest but it is with a different mind set.
Semantics I agree, but I was trying to draw a distinction between the two approaches without brawling with you. No point in that.
I contributed to a thread a number of weeks ago where I mentioned that comparing the stock market and property by using the All Ordinaries Index and mean average property sale prices is hardly comparing like with like.
The all ords comprises the "top 200" of the stock market today and 120 of the all ords used 10 years ago no longer exist today or are not used because they have fallen out of the top 200 for the reasons you mention.
Regards
Ross
OK I accept your reasoning and logic, indeed agree with it. If viewed historically over 15 to 20 plus, you are absolutely correct.
The point I was attempting to highlight is that if you are to consider a trade where you have calculated that the stock is going to rise in say one to three months to your satisfaction and decide to take a position, (all other things etc., considered), then this is in my mind, a straight out trade.
If you consider investing money into a company that you feel is going to be around for a decade or so, then you use different criteria of assessment in your decision making. This then becomes a long term investment, rather than a mid term trade. Sure you must trade to invest but it is with a different mind set.
Semantics I agree, but I was trying to draw a distinction between the two approaches without brawling with you. No point in that.
I contributed to a thread a number of weeks ago where I mentioned that comparing the stock market and property by using the All Ordinaries Index and mean average property sale prices is hardly comparing like with like.
The all ords comprises the "top 200" of the stock market today and 120 of the all ords used 10 years ago no longer exist today or are not used because they have fallen out of the top 200 for the reasons you mention.
Regards
Ross
Hi Ross,
I'm not a brawler either, maybe I'm not communicating very well.
I know many people who currently own telstra shares and they all say that it is a long term investment. However when they purchased(mostly during the second float) they were hoping to make money in the next couple of years. I asked them at the time when they would sell and most were hoping to double their money. There is a large group of investors who can't take a loss and change the justification for their original purchase. Of course the loss in the end is usually much larger because of deflated dollars, opportunity cost etc.
My point is that because of the rate at which companies fall from grace and get delisted, then any purchase should be regarded as a trade as the chances of the long term investment that gets passed on to the children in 40 years time are very slim. Property on the other hand will still be there.
The long term investment as spouted by so many financial advisors(for shares and managed funds) is just a myth, especially when you use history as a guide.
bye
I'm not a brawler either, maybe I'm not communicating very well.
I know many people who currently own telstra shares and they all say that it is a long term investment. However when they purchased(mostly during the second float) they were hoping to make money in the next couple of years. I asked them at the time when they would sell and most were hoping to double their money. There is a large group of investors who can't take a loss and change the justification for their original purchase. Of course the loss in the end is usually much larger because of deflated dollars, opportunity cost etc.
My point is that because of the rate at which companies fall from grace and get delisted, then any purchase should be regarded as a trade as the chances of the long term investment that gets passed on to the children in 40 years time are very slim. Property on the other hand will still be there.
The long term investment as spouted by so many financial advisors(for shares and managed funds) is just a myth, especially when you use history as a guide.
bye
Hi Bill
{B{The long term investment as spouted by so many financial advisors(for shares and managed funds) is just a myth, especially when you use history as a guide.{B}
This says it all. You don’t have to be looking at the 40 year history you were talking about, ten years or less is often more than enough.
The pity is that in a short while, when the market commences its upturn again, as it will, these stock market urgers will be out in force promoting the same stocks and using property as the means of “proving” their point, making the same illogical comparisons to make a dollar.
The second pity is that only a short time after they commence this practice, the general public will be hanging off their every word and believing in them as though they are the oracles incarnate themselves.
Regards
Ross
B]
{B{The long term investment as spouted by so many financial advisors(for shares and managed funds) is just a myth, especially when you use history as a guide.{B}
This says it all. You don’t have to be looking at the 40 year history you were talking about, ten years or less is often more than enough.
The pity is that in a short while, when the market commences its upturn again, as it will, these stock market urgers will be out in force promoting the same stocks and using property as the means of “proving” their point, making the same illogical comparisons to make a dollar.
The second pity is that only a short time after they commence this practice, the general public will be hanging off their every word and believing in them as though they are the oracles incarnate themselves.
Regards
Ross
B]
Hi Ross
When those urgers come out again during the next rise in the stockmarket it won't be with the same stocks, it will be in the new sector that catches the imagination( I just wish I knew what it will be).
In the mid 80's the urgers were pushing the entrepeurners like Bond corp, Bell Resources, FAI, Adelaide Steamship, Quintex etc. Then a year or two after the crash it was CSR, BTR Nylex and Pacific Dunlop etc as "safe" growth plays. For the last couple of years it has been Telstra and the banks as the "safe" blue chip play. I'm willing to bet that this tune changes in a few years during the next bull run.
bye
When those urgers come out again during the next rise in the stockmarket it won't be with the same stocks, it will be in the new sector that catches the imagination( I just wish I knew what it will be).
In the mid 80's the urgers were pushing the entrepeurners like Bond corp, Bell Resources, FAI, Adelaide Steamship, Quintex etc. Then a year or two after the crash it was CSR, BTR Nylex and Pacific Dunlop etc as "safe" growth plays. For the last couple of years it has been Telstra and the banks as the "safe" blue chip play. I'm willing to bet that this tune changes in a few years during the next bull run.
bye
