Mediaboss Marketing

Upon hearing that the Nasdaq had at long last crossed 3,000, my reaction was subdued rather than celebratory. "Well, I guess I have to start paying attention to the Nasdaq again," was all the enthusiasm I could muster.

Yes, 3,000 is a significant milestone. The last time it closed above 3,000 was back in December 2000, in the aftermath of the dot-com bubble.

But it sure took a long time for the Nasdaq to come back. And even as far as it has come, it still is not doing as well over the past 12 years as its older and larger sibling the New York Stock Exchange, whose index is up about 20 percent since December 2000.

"Had you told me after the Internet crash that it would take 12 years for the Nasdaq to get back to 3,000 ..." said Ryan Jacob, portfolio manager for the Jacob Internet Fund, pausing to reflect. "Well, it's pretty amazing."

It's been a long time since I had the desire, or frankly, the stomach to follow our No. 2 stock exchange. And that's because of how its performance reflects on technology.

There is no getting around the fact that the Nasdaq's shocking plunge in 2000 was an indictment of tech stocks. And its long slog back to respectability mirrors the continued ambivalence investors have about investing in tech stocks.

The Nasdaq and Silicon Valley are tied at the hip. After all, of the 2,770 companies listed on Nasdaq, 674 are in the technology category, the largest such sector.

And back during

After March 2000, the Nasdaq became a daily barometer of not just the collapse of so many ludicrous business plans but of Silicon Valley's psychology. From being the center of the universe, Silicon Valley became an economic leper.

Even while the valley bounced back, as hiring surged and corporate profits grew, the Nasdaq did not.

Read more from the original source:
O'Brien: Nasdaq breaking 3,000 is cause for shrugging