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 : MDA - Market Direction Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (55709)	6/29/2000 9:40:00 AM
From: pater tenebrarum	Respond to of 99985

TA, i think it's more of an admonition by the BoE to British banks to stop lending so freely in the US. the biggest bank of Austria recently had to do a record write-off of US loans. defaults have begun to accelerate lately. imo those are merely the opening shots... regards, hb

To: Tunica Albuginea who wrote (55709)	6/29/2000 11:33:00 AM
From: Jon Tara	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 99985

I think the Bank of England was pretty clear - U.S. loans represent too high a percentage of British portfolios (insufficient diversification), and those loans are too concentrated in riskier instruments (those with businesses and individuals). The statement says nothing about the relative quality of U.S. debt. What it addresses is inappropriate choices which would be inappropriate whether they were investing in the U.S. or Tunisia. To go beyond that to say that "they want their money back before we go belly up" is, once again, moving into the territory of unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. BTW, I have no problem with conspiracy theories - my problem is with UNSUBSTANTIATED ones. I'd like to see some evidence. What do I mean by evidence? Ask Woodward and Bernstein. A memo, an e-mail, a video tape, a photograph a police blotter. Or a hundred. Guessing what might be behind some economic move or decision, working back from result to cause, assuming motives other that those stated - this is not evidence - it is speculation. So, if there is a secret group of men who REALLY run the government, or REALLY set the interest rates, or who have conspired to fleece the public by putting all of their money into bubble investments - let's see who they are, and let's see the minutes of their secret meetings. If somebody is cooking the books, let's have some hard evidence - the secret ledger - instead of just statements that the books are "obviously" wrong. Otherwise, you ain't got nuthin but another urban legend.