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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marginmike who wrote (70736)	4/17/2000 1:54:00 AM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Part of a Street.com "chat" with Robert Wilson. The TSC Streetside Chat: Robert Wilson By Brett D. Fromson Chief Markets Writer 4/16/00 9:00 AM ET Robert Wilson was one of the great stock investors of the past 50 years. He started with $15,000 and had a miserable rate of return in the early years. But from 1960 on, he turned $70,000 into $225 million over 26 years before retiring in 1986 at age 59. In his day, Wilson was a peer of Warren Buffett and George Soros.* Wilson's investment strategy was to go both long and short -- long because he believed in the long-term future of America and short because he never wanted to be wiped out in a downturn. Today, Wilson is blissfully out of the money game. His fortune, approaching a billion dollars, is managed for him by a small posse of investment advisors -- some short, some long; some U.S., some overseas; some value, some growth; some large-cap, some small-cap. From an urban aerie overlooking Central Park, Wilson keeps a watchful eye on the markets. He spoke earlier this week with TSC's new Chief Markets Writer Brett D. Fromson. Wilson spoke candidly about his adventures on Wall Street, the pleasures and pain of investing and today's turbulent market. ********************** So you were always net long. I was always net long. When I was bearish, I was maybe 25% net long, and when I was bullish, I might be 125% net long. Why did you never go net short? Because I never wanted to get up in the morning hoping that things would be getting worse. All intellectuals, I think -- and I don't use that as a particularly flattering term -- but all intellectuals tend to have a pessimistic streak. There's something intellectually much more intriguing about failure, which is knowable, rather than success, which is sort of unknowable. The way people fail is understandable and predictable and almost inevitable, whereas the way people succeed may never have happened, and so an intellectual is drawn towards failure, I think.

To: marginmike who wrote (70736)	4/17/2000 5:00:00 AM
From: limtex	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

mm If the US consumer dies, then so does the ASIAN and European recovery. Then where will the demand come to bid up goods? In actuality defaltion is much more freightening then inflation. right on. as we sit the economy is perched between contiuing growth and recession or more likely deep recession. why deep recession ...simply becuase there has been great prosperity for a long time. Seems to work like that always overdoing it on either side. This has been the one of the greatest uninterupted periods of prosperity. Another reason to believe a serious recession is onthe way is because yesterday the assembled finance ministers cameout and said to remain calm as the world economy was in great shape and growth would continue. These shmucks have a lot less idea than most people on SI and if they say it's day you can bet that its night. CNN financial commentators saying this morning not to sell as its too late. Yeh right. Another piece of wisdom and then he goes on to talk about Greenspan increasing certainly by 25 bpts and maybe 50bpts. We have now got to at least face the possibility of this thing not bottoming above 2,000. How many people or institutions are going to be buying in front of the Fed. Best regards, L

To: marginmike who wrote (70736)	4/19/2000 2:39:00 PM
From: Archie Meeties	Respond to of 152472

The money just got sucked out of the system on Friday, and though Inflation numbers might trend a litlle in the near term they are going DOWN, DOWN, DOWN. The type of inflation I'm referring to is not asset inflation, and unfortunately won't be washed away by a NASDAQ at 2500. Courtesy of the Fed's investment in a 'new economy' printing press, we've had a asset inflation since 1997, but that's not the inflation I'm talking about. The rise in crude drives inflation in many areas which are not very price sensitive, such as transportation, food, raw materials (PG, NAPM), not in luxury items such as shares of QCOM. "If this market does not recover it will cause a recession" The market is anticipating a recession, not causing it. Yes, it will exacerbate it, but that's the price to pay for asset inflation. Ultimately, where will blame be laid? I think crude, but the real answer is unsustainable, runaway consumption.