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 : AUTOHOME, Inc -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tim McCormick who wrote (22350)	5/18/2000 2:19:00 PM
From: j g cordes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

Ah & Tim, Hate to interupt such an elevated conversation but is ATHM going up or down from here? Its now at 22, where will it be tomorrow, in a week, a month, a year? Best guesses allowed. thanks

To: Tim McCormick who wrote (22350)	5/18/2000 3:20:00 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 29970

I didn't call for a crash. The hell you didn't. What you said can't be taken any other way. I don't exaggerate to make my points. I don't need to when arguing with amateur public traders. The financial services industry has expanded beyond its usefulness as an allocator of capital. Being sophomoric is no excuse for understanding. Financial services industry has nothing to do with the allocation of capital. You are saying the equivalent of "your friend's horses are kept in a cowshed". It shows you don't know what you're talking about. It has become a part of a culture of speculation. Culture of speculation? You are saying that when the public buys stocks, that is speculation. It isn't. Are you saying the public was wrong to be buying in 1995? You are an amateur bear. When it's time to be bearish you won't be bearish at all. You'll be speculating in stocks. To the extent in which this is true it will eventually contract as the zero sum game consumes itself. This pretense is embarrassing. You can't even define what a "zero sum game" is. If you can, how is zero sum related to public speculation? Or am I seeing too much in your words? I'm trying hard to put the words together so some combination of them will make sense, but so far, I haven't been able to do it. Or maybe I have. I am rational in an emotional market. If I was emotional, I would have been more successful lately. Unbelievable. No, I have to hand it to you. This is a very humorous comment and I wish I came up with it myself. You well know the difference between the price of money and the supply of money. Considering that no one on the FED board would make the claim that they do, it's a little presumptuous to claim I do. I don't. No one does, That's the heart of the matter. That's why we have free markets. It isn't knowable. The market mechanism determines the connection instantaneously and infinitesimally at the margin, that is, when the FED doesn't interfere with it. They don't know but they believe they have to act like they know. Otherwise, they think we would revert to economic chaos because they believe we the people are incapable of the intellectual realizations that they have achieved. Actually, they fear the loss of power and prestige. It's better that you pay for trouble over time rather than they not getting the feeling that they are doing good. Wrong, ask any longtime retail broker what percentage of production he got from fixed income during this period as compared to now. I've been a pro in the business and was a stock broker longer than just about all of them still in the biz. The two eras are not comparable in the sense you seek. No broker has my knowledge about all those little details. If you've read me all over SI for all this time, you must know that. When I was a broker in the '70s my fixed income component of my book was similar to some of my brokers now. If you make your claim a little more rigorous I think you'll find it evaporates. I believe you're trying to assert that people now are trying more for capital gains than they were back then. I think that's true, and I think that's a much better idea. You seem to believe that is bad. This is programmed behavior that comes from studying time series data and then expecting that it implies some sort of future. Man, is that a poor idea. Also, pursuing income is a very poor idea. Better to live more poorly rather than get your capital whacked hanging on to a "sure thing" that yields well. Stocks will fluctuate. They surely have over the great bull market, but if you naively held, you'd be incomparably better off than if you were in yielding vehicles. This has been the inescapable truth over the last 200 years.