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.

Pastimes : The Justa and Lars Honors Bob Brinker Investment Club Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave-in-MarinCa who wrote (385)	7/20/2000 3:24:43 PM
From: Hank Stamper	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10065

Dave-in, Thank you for the response. Excellent and very helpful. 1. What is "repo" short for? 2. In response to a question I asked on the MDD thread, heinz or bobby said much the same as your concluding paragraph: the Fed is trying to construct a soft landing via a sort of balancing act. At one end, they are putting the brakes on by bumping rates but on the other hand it is trying to keep enough liquidity in the system so the markets and business sentiment do not go into a sharp reversal. 3. Now, here is what is still going through my mind. The tone of Brinker's statements is that the market is at risk because (one of several reasons) the Fed is no longer pumping enough liguidity into the system to support higher prices. But, Mr. Moto (and you and heinz or bobby etc.) are saying that the growth may not be 11% but it's still hefty at 5% and the actual amount is historically high and a wack of it is longer term (which multiplies, unlike shorter term money). Do I have it right in this last sentence? Thanks, David Todtman

To: Dave-in-MarinCa who wrote (385)	7/20/2000 3:26:06 PM
From: Hank Stamper	Respond to of 10065

Dave-in, Thank you for the response. Excellent and very helpful. 1. What is "repo" short for? 2. In response to a question I asked on the MDD thread, heinz or bobby said much the same as your concluding paragraph: the Fed is trying to construct a soft landing via a sort of balancing act. At one end, they are putting the brakes on by bumping rates but on the other hand it is trying to keep enough liquidity in the system so the markets and business sentiment do not go into a sharp reversal. 3. Now, here is what is still going through my mind. The tone of Brinker's statements is that the market is at risk because (one of several reasons) the Fed is no longer pumping enough liguidity into the system to support higher prices. But, Mr. Moto (and you and heinz or bobby etc.) are saying that the growth may not be 11% but it's still hefty at 5% and the actual amount is historically high and a wack of it is longer term (which multiplies, unlike shorter term money). Do I have it right in this last sentence? (As a sidebar: It is too bad that lane isn't posting as his comments on this matter would be interesting and helpful for me.) Thanks, David Todtman