Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : CNBC -- critique. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ted David who wrote (2907)	6/12/1999 2:31:00 PM
From: donald sew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted David, I was watching you ask the same question several times on Friday concerning that 1 or 2 or even 3 rate hikes are already priced into the market since the rates have moved up so much from the lows last year of 4.7%. It is a valid and important question. My viewpoint is different than others who feel that the rates hikes are already priced. Last spring the rates were basing around 6.00% and in April they started declining when the market started to decline. I realise that the DOW/SPX/NAZ did not start to decline until JULY but the RUT/CYCLICALs/other sectors did start in April 1998. From a perspective of the ADVANCE/DECLINE LINE, it also started to decline in April not July, so it could be argued that the market actually STARTED its decline in APRIL. Using APRIL as the starting point of the stock market's decline in 1998, the INTEREST RATES started to also decline at about the same time, and most explained it as a FLIGHT-TO-SAFETY in light of the gobal currency/economic problems. Such gave/started the decoupling effect between RATES and STOCKS. Now that the worries of the global currency/economic problems are greatly reduced, the FLIGHT-TO-SAFETY issue is no longer required. I started noticing that the market started to first express concerns over rates when they started approaching the 5.50% range, so I think it is safe to say that the stock market and interest rates started to RECOUPLE at around 5.50%, but that was only the start of the recoupling process. Just this past week the DOW got as high as 10,900, only 200 points off its all-time high, while the RATEs were at 6.00%. That is giving me the hint the process of recoupling of the RATES & STOCKs is now done and they are fully recoupled at the 6.00% range, which is also the same place where the decoupling process of APRIL 98 also started. So it came full circle. This is why I am not fully convinced that at least 1 rate hike is priced into the bond market when the RATES got to 6.00%. I feel that one rate hike will be priced in at the 6.25% range, 2 rate hikes at 6.50% and 3 rate hikes at 6.75%. I realise that this is contrary to normal belief, but many are not examining the DECOUPLING/RE-COUPLING process between the INTEREST RATES and STOCK MARKET. Another issue is that many are saying that the signs of inflation are not that bad to warrant the BOND MARKET so low(RATEs so high). Those arguements mainly focuses on the inflation issue pressuring the rates to move higher. One very important factor that is not being mentioned as much, until this week, is the issue of LIQUIDITY. This may be too simplistic of an analogy but here goes: When the JAPAN market started declining in the early 1990's a significant amount of Japanese capital was moved to the U.S. into both the bond and stock market. In the 1990's the U.S. stock market was in a bullish uptrend and around 1995 the stock market started to incline at a greater rate. Could the same thing happen in reverse; as the Japanese and other foreign economies stabilize, their markets will start to first pull back their funds and then later down the road even start to pull American funds into their markets at increasing rates. As the demand decreases the prices drop. Here's my chance to throw in a plug - hope to see you again that MARKET DIRECTION ANALYSIS chat. I apoligise for intruding and being off-topic. seeya

To: Ted David who wrote (2907)	6/15/1999 7:56:00 AM
From: fox mulder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

I have a question for Ted David: Is Martha McCallum as beautiful in person as she is on TV:-) CNBC is terrific!

To: Ted David who wrote (2907)	6/15/1999 10:39:00 PM
From: Ian@SI	Respond to of 17683

Ted, Any chance of the Business Centre Folk using the June Contract to calculate fair value for the rest of this week rather than the September. First time I heard them tell me that the Futures would exert a 10 point negative influence, I almost croaked. ;-) Luckily, Mark still knows how to access the June numbers in the morning. Ian.

To: Ted David who wrote (2907)	4/27/2000 11:00:00 PM
From: Activatecard	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17683

Ted, It would be interesting to see CNBC do a report on the upward revisions of the GDP and other government data. Q4 1999 was revised upward 25%. That is rather significant. It seems the headline number is always heavily reported, while the revised numbers are ignored. As the revised numbers should give a clearer picture, maybe they should be given more coverage.(Sorry, I can't get the table to line up.) Steve Q4-1999 Q1-2000 01/28 5.8% 04/27 5.4% Advanced reading of GDP 02/25 6.9% 05/25 ??? Preliminary GDP 03/30 7.3% 06/29 ??? Final GDP