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 : Currencies and the Global Capital Markets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Chip McVickar who wrote (2367)	1/14/2000 11:42:00 AM
From: Paul Berliner	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3536

Anyone read about the new valuation model for equities using options math? Before I launch into a rant here, I want to make sure we all know what I;m talking about. All the articles I've read on it a subscription based so I cant post 'em. Otherwise, I may just start a thread on it!

To: Chip McVickar who wrote (2367)	1/14/2000 12:38:00 PM
From: Sam	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3536

Chip, Thanks for posting the text of AG's talk. He keeps giving the same speech over and over, but with some differences and elaborations. This one seemed to me to be better than the previous ones, in that he showed a more specific appreciation of some of the factors that are indeed "new", notably the increasing flexibility of labor in the US and the effects of better information and methods of distribution on eliminating redunant non-productive labor. Of course he still needs (rightfully so, IMO) his OTOH/ONTH comments, like: <<On the one hand, the evidence of dramatic nnovations-- veritable shifts in the tectonic plates of technology--has moved far beyond mere conjecture. On the other, these extraordinary achievements continue to be bedeviled by concerns that the so-called New Economy is spurring imbalances that at some point will abruptly adjust, bringing the economic expansion, its euphoria, and wealth creation to a debilitating halt.>> My questions to the thread for discussion are this: (1) Is it your opinion that the Fed needs to raise rates in order to prevent these "imbalances" from bringing ongoing "wealth creation to a dibilitating half", or can we depend on the business cycle--especially given the increased flow of accurate inventory/demand information, faster manufacturing and delivery processes, and greater labor flexibility--to do it w/o the help of the Fed? (Forget about what the Fed thinks, they pretty obviously believe that they have to do something.) (2) Even if you believe that the economy will always get punch drunk on growth without the influence of the Fed (or the government in one way or another) do you think that raising rates is the best method for dealing with the current situation? I have in mind here my own belief that raising margin rates would be a much method of affecting equity capital than raising rates. By reducing leverage in the capital markets, you would make it more expensive to fund ventures w/o economic justification without hurting the currently producing economy as much, and would help to deflate the equity bubble that exists. Anyone interested in talking about this? s.

To: Chip McVickar who wrote (2367)	1/14/2000 11:27:00 PM
From: rich evans	Respond to of 3536

Although Greenspan refers to globalization, he doesn't seem to give it credit for the new prosperity along with IT. He talks about American statistics-unemployment, interest rates inflation etc. But for the world there is no labor shortage, and plenty of supply generally and global competition is taking away pricing power generally causing low inflation especially during the Asian Crisis. All the companies are now global with factories everywhere all linked and producing where ever makes the most sense for the customer and doing business mostly in dollars and paying expenses often in Pesos etc so in measuring the economic statistics, one would it seems have to look globally and not just US inflation,growth rates, cap utilization,unemployment and if you do so things don't look so tight IMO. So the Fed should just control the money supply and let the rest take care of itself in a free trade enviroment IMO. Rich