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.

Strategies & Market Trends : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bobby beara who wrote (20878)	7/22/1999 9:11:00 PM
From: pater tenebrarum	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99985

Bobby, meanwhile the nutz bulls continue to argue that we have it all wrong with our outmoded valuation concerns. they even complain how AMZN's management has lost it's stock touting ability when talking to analysts at conference calls. YHOO is considered to be better versed in that department. expectations for YHOO are still high: Message 10605446 and the last penny is put to work: Message 10618340 re. U.S. corporations, their cash position and debt levels, note that corporate debt stands at an all time record. this is among other things due to the massive stock buy-back programs that have helped to keep this bull market alive. whether buying back of stock at inflated prices is in shareholders' long term interest is questionable. regards, hb

To: bobby beara who wrote (20878)	7/22/1999 10:08:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

E D I T O R I A L S Who's Next At The Fed? Date: 7/23/99 President Clinton sidestepped the question of Alan Greenspan staying on at the Federal Reserve. We've had problems with Greenspan at times. But inflation is under control. And the possible candidates to take his spot are troubling. Take Alice Rivlin, who just left the Fed after serving as vice chairman for three years. She's not of the free-market faith. In a speech given just days before she left the Fed, Rivlin recommended a whole range of government intrusions: improved education and job training (which would require more government spending); support for high-tech research and development (more taxpayer ''investment''); and government surpluses at both the federal and state levels (which means overcharging taxpayers more than usual). She did, however, give a nod toward the free market by denouncing protectionism. And she implied that the Fed's job should be restricted to keeping inflation in check. That doesn't mean she should be trusted as Fed chief, though. By philosophy, she's an interventionist. Would she pump up the money supply to boost economic growth? There are no guarantees the Fed wouldn't become far more active under her watch. Lawrence Summers, the newly confirmed Treasury secretary, is another possibility. For those who don't remember, it was Summers who said those who want to repeal the estate tax are selfish. That's typical of those who defend big government, progressive taxes and the status quo inside the Beltway. As Treasury's deputy secretary, Summers was active in sending taxpayer money abroad to save crumbling economies. He was one of the architects of the Mexico bailout, which was done by the White House without congressional approval. Summers clearly believes an economy can't prosper without bureaucratic guidance. Janet Yellen, who chairs the president's Council of Economic Advisers, is another on the list. But like Rivlin and Summers, she tends toward intervention. As a loyal Clinton aide, Yellen has opposed Social Security privatization and the Balanced Budget Amendment; she favors social engineering through the tax code and is a defender of the president's fantasy version of fiscal responsibility. She would crack down on wage inequality if she could. In other words, she believes government knows best and can effect the most desirable social and economic outcomes. Yet another potential nominee is James Wolfensohn, president of the World Bank. But like the others, he prefers prying wealth from its owners and spreading it around to those who didn't earn it. He talks of a ''sustainable world,'' ''environmental values'' and development assistance. It all means the same thing: forced redistribution of resources. None of these wannabes believes in supply-side economics. They think the economy can -and should - be guided by central planners who know more than the millions of consumers, productive workers and entrepreneurs who fuel our prosperity. If Greenspan goes, we would all be better off if Clinton's choice held an ideology - free markets - similar to that of the Fed chief. It's widely accepted that Greenspan's hands-off, inflation-wary approach has let the economy grow. Yes, we have gripes with Greenspan. His interest-rate hikes from 1987 to 1990 spurred the October 1987 stock market crash and the steep correction in the third quarter of 1990. His comments on ''irrational exuberance'' in December 1996 sent stocks reeling. And Thursday's hawkish Humphrey-Hawkins testimony sent jitters through both the stock and bond markets. But with inflation growing less than 2% and the economy growing more than 3%, his overall record stands up. Clinton said the presidential campaign won't turn on who the next Fed chief will be. But if Greenspan - or someone like him - is not appointed, then it should take center stage in the contest for the White House. A big-government Fed chief could inflate the economy right into stagnation. And voters should know that. investors.com

To: bobby beara who wrote (20878)	7/22/1999 11:40:00 PM
From: Berney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 99985

bb, Now, I know you're not one to believe all that you read. In fact, one of the aspects of this market that concerns me is the extent to which corporate America has brought just in time finances into the mix. (well it worked for manufacturing didn't it?) In the 65 Big Boyz, 55 of them are non-financial companies. Of these, 15 had a current ratio of less than 1. That means that 27% of our largest companies were showing more current liabilities than current assets. I view this as unhealthy in a period of economic prosperity, as it means that future cash generated from operations already has a lien on it. As to the consumer stocks not hitting new highs, the stocks of all 5 of the consumer staple Big Boyz (G, KO, MO, PEP, and PG) are negative for year-to-date performance. The nine stocks in the health sector have also had a tough year. Berney