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 : Intel Strategy for Achieving Wealth and Off Topic -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: billwot who wrote (25689)	3/28/2000 9:39:00 PM
From: Sonny McWilliams	Respond to of 27012

Hello billwot. "Imagine that". Naw. Not Greenspan. gg. Thanks for that article and that is pretty much the way normal people with some wealth effect feel, I guess. My feeling of the wealth effect certainly was diminished today. gg. And some cautious trading here and there, for the ones who can take it, is not always bad either. I believe that most of us here on this thread have increased their portfolios if they somewhat stuck with our theory on here. Hold very good stocks for the longer term which of course is not necessarily forever and ever. Things happen on the way to increased stock prices and good cos. can have a rotten period for a while. So some profit taking IMO is not always a bad thing. There are always up and comers we can invest in when we take some profit on things that made our portfolios too concentrated. Or again: Stuff happens and we decide to sell and buy something else. I am not quite sure what everyone else has been doing while we have been on this thread. I know that I have neither bought a new house nor a new car and my wife and I have probably gone out less than we did before this internet revolution. gg. The one thing that always gets to me and is not mentioned either in that article you posted: Why on earth do all these people always talk about this wealth effect and then mention in the same breath that we don't save enough? Alan Greenspan brought that up again in his last appearance on the Hill. He was asked what he thought the savings rate for American households was and he had the nerve to say: Probably around 2%. How can you have a wealth effect and only save 2%? It is beyond me why these GVT people, who control the money, keep on thinking that putting money into the stock market is not saving. That is one reason I really do believe that people should get tax cuts. Forget leaving the money in GVT. Pure waste a lot of times. It is about time that they also read up on the fact that over time putting money into the stock market has been the greatest return to savers. I am sure they know it gg but think we are too dumb to understand how things work. I guess Greenspan and Co. are not happy that we don't give their banking friends our money dirt cheap so they can prosper and not we. Yes, you can lose your money in the stock market but if you diversify you will be better off in the long run. Very seldom will your money go below your investment if you keep some of the things longer term. It's not any safer to have your money in the banks than in the stock market. Why else would the GVT only guarantee 100,000 when you put your money into GVT insured banks? I think with this internet we investors have learned that we can invest our money a lot more efficiently than letting banks do it for us. It just kills those guys. gg. BTW. Why is Greenspan in favor of Soc.Sec. accounts where you can invest into stocks? Would not that alone move the markets higher? Not that I am opposed to that. I believe it would be a good idea to put some Soc.Sec. money into stocks. GVT does it why not Soc.Sec.? Does GVT think they are smarter? Coming back to Abby Cohen. I am VERY surprised at her and quite a few analysts have expressed surprise in the meantime also. They could possibly see her action to reduce her allocation a bit. After all, the general allocation of the houses is around 61% for stocks, so she is really still ahead of the bunch. But those analysts also opined that they have no idea why she also advised investors to take money out of the techs. Orders for circuit boards (mother boards) are up to the highest level since 1995. What does that mean? Were those things being ordered by little Martians? (Sorry Martians. Just in case you are not so little) Or are those circuit boards put on something in the computer world? Anyhow, quite a few analyst are still touting the semis. I guess there will be some nice buying opp. coming up. Abby Cohen also mentioned the elections and not knowing which way the political wind will blow. Now give me a break. I am not sure if it was her a little while ago also, but I know for sure that a lot of analysts have been dousing us with statistics that say that the markets go up in a presidential election year. But when you are making money for your house you forget those things. I certainly hope that I don't see GS going into any of those techs that are coming down. Oh, never mind. If they do it's because investors overdid it. gg. After all, she said take 5% out of the market and not 5% out of Intel and the like. gg. I will let it rest now. This message is way too long already. Well, billwot. I am sure you can see why I don't have much time to spend a little more of my wealth effect. It really is not that big to begin with. gg. But I will be spending some of it in FLA in a cpl of weeks, again. I am sure my grandson there will see to that. But I have always done that so I am not the reason why Greenspan needs to feel that he has to raise rates. gg. Sonny