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 : Idea Of The Day -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (30243)	12/27/1999 3:43:00 AM
From: IQBAL LATIF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

Bear Stearns? Bearish Strategist Liz Mackay, Bear Stearns? Investment Strategist, offered clients her somewhat bearish views on the market last Tuesday. Mackay?s worries, which were numerous, included concerns about liquidity. Mackay sees excessive liquidity due to a recent surge in central bank lending for security purposes. Such lending jumped 42% between October 13 and December 18, after declining since mid-year 1998. Mackay also cited ?tech euphoria,? making note of widespread expectations of a ?Net melt up in January.? She said, ?We sense that everyone, (yes, everyone) fears selling any technology holdings since it has largely been a mistake to do so until now.? Mackay finds evidence of further optimism in the slim proportion of cash holdings built up by mutual fund equity managers. According to Indata numbers, cash is now at 5.4%, half the level of two months ago. Clearly, Said Mackay, ?No big reserves are being built up.? The Nasdaq, in Mackay?s eyes, is likely ?having its January rally early,? and the strategist warned, ?It will not be that long into January, before the Fed?s February meeting takes center stage.? That leads to worry number three: a Fed rate hike. Mackay said, ?We could be looking at a 6% Funds rate.? (The current Funds rate is 5.5%.) Referring to the tendency of markets to collapse after a sequence of rate hikes, Mackay expressed her belief that the market is ?facing three or even four steps and a stumble.? Mackay softened the message by adding that, even though market years ending in zero are notorious for experiencing meaningful corrections, 2000, being a Presidential election year, will still likely produce an up-market, since there has never been a down market in a Presidential year since 1952. (That?s twelve times in all.) MacKay added, ?It?s safe to say Greenspan does not want to tighten the third quarter,? which only increases the likelihood of a rate hike the first quarter. Investors, please note: If that rate hike dovetails with the tech ?wring out? Mackay is predicting, there?s nothing left to hold the market up, and we?ll likely see a broadly-based correction first quarter. Mackay expressed two added worries specific to tech: one, that chip companies will face inventory and earnings risks early next year, and two, the likelihood of a shakeout among e-tailers, many of which, Mackay thought, will soon be seen ?as retailers first and Internet companies second.? ?Frothiness? Sensing a ?classic bubble? in terms of current ?frothiness,? Mackay offered a further knock on techs by noting that much of the tech spending expected during year 2000, for building verticals and business-to-business, will be of the one-time kind, thereby setting up difficult comparisons for year 2001. Despite her bearishness, Mackay finds something to cheer in the ?current breath bear market.? The outperformance of the Nasdaq leaders leaves the broader market somewhat oversold, which makes it ?ripe for a lift, given a diversification way from tech.? MacKay finds value in the midcaps. Though the earnings growth of the top 50 stocks in the S&P 500 has been well in excess of the remaining 450, the strategist sees the discrepancy between large caps and midcaps narrowing. According to Mackay, large cap earnings growth is expected at 15.7%, versus 15.3% for the midcaps, remarkable given the enormous valuation discrepancy between the large caps? 28.2 times and the midcaps? 12.2 times. Mackay?s point is, buy the midcaps and you?ll be paying far less for comparable earnings growth. Okay, where to go? Mackay suggests investors look to sectors like technology services, typified by Comdisco (NYSE: CDO - Quotes, News, Boards), a company benefiting from Internet growth, and to basic materials, where investors might re-acquaint themselves with such names as International Paper (NYSE: IP - Quotes, News, Boards), Schlumberger (NYSE: SLB - Quotes, News, Boards) and Kimberly Clark (NYSE: KMB - Quotes, News, Boards), all of which should benefit from the ongoing global recovery. Mackay also sang the virtues of the New York Times (NYSE: NYT - Quotes, News, Boards), which benefits from Internet advertising, Federated Department Stores (NYSE: FD - Quotes, News, Boards), citing its recent purchase of Fingerhut, which provides fulfillment services for Wal-Mart, and hospital stock Columbia HCA (NYSE: COL - Quotes, News, Boards), a likely beneficiary of recent insider buying. Bottom Line: Summing up, Mackay said that 2000 should be a ?pretty good year? for stocks, though it may be ?off to a rocky start.?

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (30243)	12/27/1999 10:37:00 AM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

Depending on your cash flow, debt is a good thing. Since I don't have cash flow problems, regardless of tax relief...mortgages are a loss to the bank. The reasoning that people use all the time is "I need the tax write off". The write off is ALWAYS much less than the actual interest payment, which if you weren't making to a bank would be going in your pocket. It's an accountant's trick to make people think that mortgages are a beneficial thing to have. Now, if you need ready cash (perhaps to buy a car/boat/another home) and your cash flow is poor (or will be hampered by the purchase), then taking out a mortgage (or a home equity loan) is very beneficial because it is a low cost loan AFTER taxes. In most cases, however, there isn't much of a better return on your money besides paying off a mortgage. Except when you have a stock market that is returning 20% a year...............

To: IQBAL LATIF who wrote (30243)	12/28/1999 11:04:00 AM
From: SE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 50167

IKE, One thing I frequently tell people is that you should never ever forget that a tax deduction is never returned in full to you. By that I mean, even if you get a deduction for your mortgage interest paid, the tax break is only around 30% to 40% (maybe a touch higher) on the dollar, depending on your bracket and your state's treatment of the mortgage interest. So for every dollar you send the bank in deductible interest expense you are saving 30 to 40 cents. You are still out of pocket 60 to 70 cents per dollar paid. If instead you don't pay the bank that dollar and put it in your pocket, sure you are sending the government another 30 to 40 cents in taxes because you don't have the write off, but you are retaining 60 to 70 cents in your pocket....which could be invested. The 60 to 70 cents paid represents "rent" in the old, and I would argue nonsensical statement, "Why are you renting and throwing your money out the window?" Further, if your mortgage rate is, say, 8%, even though it is deductible the money that could pay off the mortgage is sitting earning a taxable return. So forgetting the tax impact or taking it into account...either way you need at least a "guaranteed" 8% return to be at even up. The interest expense is deductible and the earnings are taxable. Bottom line in my book is the individual's makeup and desires in life. If I have a client that I know will sleep better at night by not having a mortgage to pay, you know what I think the best plan for that client is? To pay the mortgage. As long as they know they are giving up a possible higher return elsewhere, and they choose to pay it off I don't think anyone can fault them and in fact, in my opinion,the best financial plan for them is to pay off their mortgage. You only get one go around in this life and maximizing returns on every dollar does not necessarily make it the best life. So....all subissues aside, I don't believe there is a solid one answer fits all for this issue. A tax deduction is not necessarily a good thing.....you are still out of pocket 60% to 70% of the dollar spent. One needs to really examine how much better off they are putting those monies to risk elsewhere. Perhaps, like your sister, it is better to send the 30% to 40% to the government and keep the remainder for yourself. Not disagreeing with you, but just offering some food for thought. -Scott