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.

Technology Stocks : Novell (NOVL) dirt cheap, good buy? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: EPS who wrote (29780)	1/4/2000 11:33:00 PM
From: Paul Fiondella	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42771

Morgan Stanley Very important that Novell plays them like a fiddle. They did the destructive conference call back when Novell was looking to calm questions about its earnings in October. So now is an opportunity to say all the right things for analysts to find some good reason to upgrade. The analysts would look good if they advised buy NOVl in this downturn.

To: EPS who wrote (29780)	1/5/2000 12:26:00 AM
From: Jack of All Trades	Respond to of 42771

Most people do not understand what AG has been doing to our markets... He has added over $60B liquidity to deal with Y2K, this increase in liquidity always leads to inflation/rising rates... One day this house of cards will fall... I am not referring to NOVL here... I actually re-bought some calls this am I sold last week...

To: EPS who wrote (29780)	1/5/2000 1:13:00 AM
From: Retired Eagle One	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42771

Greenspan will be fired on 21 Jan 01, the day Bush Jr. is sworn in as President. Why? Bush Sr. has stated the reason he lost of the campaign was because Greenspan refused to lower interest rates. I personally think he lost because he sat on his ass as King George thinking he did not have to run a campaign; also many of the troops in Desert Storm voted against him when they got home, (wag the dog syndrom). Nevertheless - (IMO) Greenspan is gone. Anyway do any of you really belief the Fed Reserve/interest rate propaganda that the super rich hide behind to get more income on the 14 generations of compounded loans (they originally got from worthless American Revolution bonds-- now called the US Federal deficit? My humble opinions of course. For verification please read Professor Quigly's the American Capitolist.

To: EPS who wrote (29780)	1/5/2000 6:46:00 AM
From: EPS	Respond to of 42771

An interesting perspective.. January 5, 2000 (New York Times) RECKONINGS / By PAUL KRUGMAN A Leap in the Dark Related Article Once and Again (Jan. 2, 2000) conomists have a rather Zen-like view of stocks. They believe that investors are rational, and that stock prices are therefore unpredictable. It sounds peculiar, but the logic is ironclad. Rational investors would take into account everything they know -- all the information available about where profits, interest rates, technology and so on are going -- when buying or selling stock. So stock prices would already reflect all available knowledge, and would change only when new information came in. And new information is, by definition, unpredictable -- otherwise it wouldn't be new -- which means that changes in stock prices would be unpredictable too. Q.E.D. Except, of course, that real investors aren't entirely rational. Being human, they are driven by fear, greed and the madness of crowds. In principle this should create patterns in stock prices, and in principle you can use those patterns to outperform the market. Good luck. But while it may be very hard to tell whether the market is overvalued or undervalued (remember that Alan Greenspan warned of "irrational exuberance" when the Dow was at about 6,500), one thing is for sure: It fluctuates more than it should. That is, instead of rising or falling only when there is real news about the future, stocks surge and plunge for no good reason. People sell because other people are selling, or buy because other people are buying. (It's called "momentum investing" when the market is rising; it's called "panic" when the market is falling.) And as a result it's more a series of random leaps than a random walk. And yesterday, of course, was a case in point. On what was basically a slow news day, markets suddenly dived, with the Dow falling more than 3 percent and the Nasdaq more than 5. It didn't rate some of the headlines it generated -- when a market that has risen around 90 percent over the previous year falls 6 percent, this is not exactly a "meltdown" -- but it was a pretty big movement to occur without anything happening to change your fundamental view about what is going on in the U.S. economy. (O.K., one group of investment analysts released a report predicting higher interest rates over the next year -- but there was no particular reason to think that these analysts knew anything that the rest of us don't.) Why was the market so easily spooked? Presumably because everyone -- me included -- is even more confused than usual about what stocks are really worth these days. On one side, the U.S. economy has been practically wallowing in good news for the last few years: productivity has been soaring, allowing the economy to grow far faster than seemed possible without running out of labor, and anyway we seem to have mysteriously acquired the ability to employ people previously regarded as marginal without setting off a bidding war for the more obviously qualified workers. And with clever new applications of silicon chips coming out every day, it is easy to become, well, exuberant about the future. On the other hand, as any financial theorist could tell you, good news that you already expect to hear isn't news. Five years ago, a 2 percent annual increase in worker productivity would have been regarded as excellent, and stocks would have risen sharply on the report; today it would be regarded as a disappointing performance, and would drive stocks down. In fact, current stock prices already have built in the expectation of economic performance that not long ago we would have considered incredible; performance that is merely terrific would be seen as a big letdown. So which will it be -- terrific or incredible? We all have our opinions -- being a pessimist by nature, I think that things will be merely terrific -- but nobody, and I mean nobody, really knows. And a rational market would accept this ignorance, and wait for some actual evidence in favor of one side or the other. Of course, it doesn't work that way. Yesterday, something -- if I knew what, I would be a lot richer -- caused investors to become slightly less convinced than they had been the day before that we are living in the best of all possible worlds. And the result was a huge destruction of paper -- um, I mean virtual -- wealth. But hey, it's still a terrific economy. Or do I mean incredible?