[rohry]

"Rorhy, again, two years of "being wrong" is NOTHING in a stock market..."

I'm just being consistent. I laughed at the Bears throughout the '90s, I'm going to be laughing at the Bulls until the market gets to fair valuation.

Let's assume that you got in the market when I did (around 1990). We were both right for 10 years. I got out in 2000, so I've been right for an additional 2.5 years for a total of 12.5. Because you've been in the market while it's fallen 30% you're back to where you were in late 1997. While you were only wrong for 2 years it has cost you tree previous years of gains (for a total of 5).

I guess we disagree again, surprise, surprise...

[razorback-bert]

In my buy and hold investment world, a stock paying me a cash dividend is the one to hold. I am still making a return even if the stock price is down and I am better able to sit and await an increase in the stock price.

Non dividend growth stocks are speculation to me, just like gold is some.

[LS]

I've been in longer. But I also sold some stocks in the mid-1990s when they were WAY up (America West Airlines, for ex., I bought in bankruptcy at $1 per share. It split, 3:1, then rose to about $18-20, when I sold. Zenith was at $1 per share. I bought, then sold in 3 weeks after it went to about $3. But there are many other stocks I've just held. Albertsons, GE, yes, Intel, some banks.)

On the other hand, you have a COMPLETELY solid company like Southwest Air, which I held in the 1990s---all the while it was winning awards as the best airline on the planet---and it did not go up at all or pay significant dividends. I finally sold it, after holding for about 5 years at the same price. But this is the thing: some VERY healthy companies NEVER pay dividends, because they plow everything back into the company (see: Carnegie).