Not today. I’m referring to the mania of the late 90s which culminated in a
740% massive drop in the NASDAQ from its earlier high beginning in March 2000. Other major markets also suffered heavy losses.
Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble(The above article notes that
Barron’s had began sounding warnings at about this time and that Sir John Templeton made a small fortune by shorting tech prior to the wreck.)
Notably, all 4 panelists on the famous
Wall Street Week With Louis Rukeyser show’s end of year program December 31, 1999 sounded downright “bubbly” in forecasting the year ahead. Not one, including the program’s distinguished host, foresaw the approaching train wreck. (So much for “the experts”)
Comments
Sez I to him: "Have you thought about diversifying a little bit?" Sez he: "Oh no. I've got big plans."
The stock tanked, but he still got creamed by the IRS.
Speaking of creamed, looks like Zuck is whupping Musk, cage match, or not.
Don'tcha just love Wikipedia? A long-only portfolio cannot drop more than 100%. What it means to say is that in 2½ years (March 2000 - October 2002) the NASDAQ composite gave back 92.5% of the gain it achieved in the roughly five preceding years (1995 - March 2000).
Wikipedia does not give a citation for its claimed 800% of the NASDAQ composite over those five years, nor its claimed 740% (of the 1995 starting value) decline of the NASDAQ composite in the subsequent 2½ years.
Yahoo reports a gain (including divs) in the NASDAQ composite of 579% between Jan 3, 1995 and March 10, 2000 (adjusted closing vals of 743.58 and 5048.62). Yahoo reports that between March 10, 2000 and Oct 9, 2002, the composite lost 78% (adjusted closing vals of 5048.62 and 1114.11). Here's another site reporting a decline of 76.85%: https://finbold.com/guide/dot-com-bubble/
It was bloody. I was waiting in Atlanta for a connection down to Florida the day all H* broke loose and there were grown men screaming / damn near pulling their hair out while checking the scoreboard.
PS: I corrected the OP. I hope some find the commentary of 12/31/99 as fascinating as I did.
My guess is that the other summary article may have been trying to say that Nasdaq rose 800% and gave up 740% of THAT gain. It's still a poor way and the summary author may have missed the class on percentages.
BTW, it was noted in Barron's that Nasdaq-100/QQQ YTD performance exceed all those in the 1990s, including the dot. com bubble.
Starting with $N, you gain 800% ($8N), so you have $9N.
You can't give back more than $9N or 112.5% (i.e. 9/8) of the $8N gain.
740%? No way. Unless it is 740% of the starting amount in 1995. Then you gain 800% of the starting amount, give back 740% of the starting amount, and wind up with a net gain over nearly 8 years of 60% (800% - 740%).
The Wiki Nasdaq composite page, as with the dot com bubble page, gives no citation for its purported 400% gain: The intraday low for 1995 was hit on the second trading day, Jan 4, 1995 at 740.47. The intraday peak in 2000, as stated in the Wiki piece, was 5,132.52. According to my handy dandy calculator, that's 6.93 times 740.47, for a gain of 593%. That 400% figure isn't accurate even to a single digit.
No citation, innumerate writers, and inconsistent pages. Don'tcha just love Wikipedia?
It is possible to parse the original wording in a way that makes sense, so I would call what was written poor wording in part. That is, the index rose a lot (800% stated) from the start of 1995, and then declined by 740% of that original value.
The numeric values, however, don't make sense no matter how one tries to interpret them. I thought perhaps the writer was conflating Nasdaq composite with Nasdaq 100, but the numbers didn't match the latter. Or perhaps a different, common error was involved - confusing multiplying by 8 (a seven-fold increase) with an 8-fold increase (up 800%).
Regardless of the actual numbers, the broad point was correct: the stock market shot up and came (mostly) down to earth even faster. That's how I tend to read Wiki pages - usually okay in sweeping generalities, often questionable in details.