- FROM MAR. 9, 2000: Nasdaq blows past 5,000
At the time, analysts were trying to convince investors that these "new economy" stocks couldn't be judged by the old valuation methods – like price/earnings ratios. For one thing, most of these companies didn't have earnings. No problem, the analysts said. Judge them on revenue growth.
But then the inevitable. Those revenue growth curves began to flatten out, then drop.
Growth projections of 50 per cent a year simply weren't sustainable.
The year since has, as everyone knows, seen a steady slide down in tech stock prices. Revenues for many of these companies fell. Business models collapsed. Advertisers ran for cover. The market gradually woke up to the reality that it is indeed future profits that ultimately drive stock prices. Not hype. Not hope. Profits.
By the end of that heady month of March 2000, the Nasdaq had settled back to the 4500 level. By early April, it had slipped below 4000, and by November, it crossed through the 3000 barrier. Today, it's nudging 2000.
One long, steady decline that has, as of this Friday, March 9, 2001, seen the Nasdaq lose a staggerring 60 per cent of its value. We're talking trillions of dollars.
It's not like there weren't voices urging caution back then. But momentum investors weren't about to listen. They were too busy making money.
One year ago today, CBC-TV's The National ran a report that was, in retrospect, a perfect snapshot of the tech-stock mania that had seized a sizable proportion of the investing public.
The president of an investment club was quoted as saying high-tech stocks should remain strong, "for the next two or three years."
The head of one investment firm said "the concept of buy and hold is not at the front of people's minds."
Another broker said the main reason people were buying high-tech stocks was simply because they were going up in price.
And a business professor warned that many people would lose a lot of money if the high-tech bubble burst. "When things are at the top, it's very dangerous, because chances are it will go down."
Prophetic words. But words many didn't want to hear when share prices were rising by $20 a day. That's right. In one day.
One year ago today, wireless companies were the rage on the Nasdaq and the TSE alike. 724 Solutions rose $23 that day to close at $298 a share. Today, it trades at less than $21 a share. Sierra Wireless advanced $22 that day to close at $198. Today, it's below $44.
Collapses by the dot.coms were even more spectacular. The Internet incubator CMGI was trading above $150 US last year. Now, it's down 97 per cent to about $4 US. Amazon.com traded as high as $69 US a year ago. Now, it's around $12 US. The business-to-business firm Ariba was going for $166.50 US (split-adjusted) back then. Now, you can pick up a share for $11 US. Others, like eToys, are out of business entirely.
The Nasdaq standouts over the past year? Some very low-tech names like Bed, Bath & Beyond and Starbucks.
Market observers say there's still a core group of investors who are unwilling to declare the March 2000 market a tech-led bubble. But many others have, in the new buzzword of the Street, capitulated. No more tech stocks for them.
One investor who stood Friday in front of the Nasdaq market site in New York put it best. "My best investment," he said, "would have been to stay out of the market.''
