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.

Politics : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (69128)	10/15/1999 10:49:00 AM
From: Mike M2	Respond to of 132070

Mike, ignoring valuation has worked very well thus far but they have to know when to quit- not many momentum guys do. mike

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (69128)	10/15/1999 11:15:00 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, Here's a question. AG.com and much of Wall St. keep talking about lower risk premiums on stocks as a possible rationale for much higher than average stock prices. AG did it again last night. The calculations needed to demonstrate it are simple enough. However, it seems to me that there simply must be some relationship between the cost of capital and its return no matter what the risk premium actually is. Even under the remote possibility that the world is indeed a much less risky place (tell that to Asia), if you raise the price of stocks in relation to the active capital/equity of the businesses (replacement costs) you are lowering the cost of capital. At that snapshot in time, the return on active capital would still be at the same level. This should encourage all sorts of active investment geared towards capturing those higher active investment returns relative to passive stocks returns. (If risk premiums on stocks are lower so should the risk premium on the active capital that makes up the business.) That investment would eventually either lower the returns on the active capital or raise the cost of capital. Both would be value reducing regardless of the risk premium. IPO's would drive down prices. Higher borrowing costs would reduce the values. Lower returns on active capital would lower free cash flow levels and values..... What am I missing? (g) Wayne

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (69128)	10/15/1999 11:19:00 AM
From: SFW	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, Could you please explain to me what this is: MORGAN STAN DW 6% MCI PERQS (AMEX). It trades under the symbol RPW. Thanks.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (69128)	10/15/1999 12:22:00 PM
From: AurumRabosa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

UK stocks outlook - Shades of Black Monday by Louise Ireland LONDON, Oct 15 (Reuters) - The 12th anniversary of the October 19 stock market crash looms next week and world markets are flashing the same, worrying signals as they did then -- a weakening dollar, strong oil prices and richly valued equities. biz.yahoo.com Have you given any thought to when the forced mutual fund sales will kick in? Do fund managers have enough cash on hand to make redemptions during another 10% drop in the Dow? I've been buying puts all week and market makers just keep increasing IVs, which have exploded today. Any suggestions for put ideas? I'll probably just add more OEX puts whenever Mr Market takes a pause to refresh.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (69128)	10/15/1999 3:45:00 PM
From: PaperChase	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

QQQ Cowboy you better be covering soon because the "3:30 ramp boys" are working their magic. Let's watch and see how fast you cover. The ramp boys and QQQ manipulators don't care about fundamentals.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (69128)	10/15/1999 7:19:00 PM
From: re3	Respond to of 132070

sorry, michael, i posted a question to someone else by misstake...happy trigger finger... mu poots ? are you adding any now that october has perspired..?

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (69128)	10/15/1999 9:19:00 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

mdb, dude, they actually mentioned 200 years?