velo
i think greed had alot to do with it. i'll agree with that, but as for greenspan arguements, i'd have to agree with merlo's 1929 history. i also think that at the time of the hikes greenspan noted the 5pct acceleration was too fast and intended on "slowing" it down. i also believe "inflation" was tossed around quite a bit by the fed at the time. i'd have to say that was incorrect apparently. but he should know what the effect of raising rates would have been while you say, "everyone was in debt up to their ears". the same was true of alot of companies as well. the interesting part is that the consumer kept spending and the cap ex of companies was obviously reeled in pronto. the rate hikes likely made the risk of expansion less viable. i read somewhere this was the first time in history its ever happened this way.there's also arguements he overshot the mark with six hikes. he didn't stop the growth some will argue, he killed it. all of it is speculation. but these are the arguements that will remain and i have seen on the net.
during good times i would think looser restrictions would be the norm. the ability to repay is greater during an expansion. hopefully, after 9 cuts, the napm report is the first sign of some kinda result. its obviously what the market has been looking for. some kind of improved economic data.now it has to continue. first the economy, then the earnings, i would guess. of course other things regarding the consumer will have to happen. we'll need to see a deceleration in unemployment, and maybe all the stimulus moves some of these people off the line back into some kind of work. if that happens consumer confidence will find its way back. if it doesn't happen this way, then i would guess the spiral effect will occur.
i couldn't agree more with the accounting system. i made comments 2 or 3 years ago on sergio's three amigo thread about some accounting practices that popped up in regards to merger/acquisition activity that ignited sparks at the time, but is sure coming to roost now in the form of writeoffs. the result of this has attracted sec attention and co's are due to respond i bleev by the first of the year regarding their asset structures. you can't look at a string of eps and say "look, growth!". from here on out, you better know what you are looking at if your an investor type and as you stated, how those earnings were generated. but i'm getting a bit redundant on that point.
as far as wall st analysts, i think the whole financial system has to be revamped. this should not be allowed to happen to joe investor who may not have had the time to do their own work or didn't know how and trusted in these people's "professional" assessments. its fraud. if a doctor makes a mistake its malpractice, and they lose their licensse. similar activity should be done with these analysts. give them some type of rating system, and if they exceed their limit of bs calls, remove them from the industry. restoring trust could be one mighty task. it just amazes me that stocks even react to analysts calls, but that won't change, even if the call is unfounded.
milesov |
