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 : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (15348)	10/20/2000 10:36:14 PM
From: Maverick	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 275872

Sun to buy AMD? Rumors begin to fly electic.com

To: Jim McMannis who wrote (15348)	10/23/2000 8:24:05 PM
From: quasar_1	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

OT: Food Fight... While I don't think bear markets 'cause' recessions or predict them I basically agree with your synopsis of the '87 crash. I looked at it as a major correction, time compressed because of structural flaws in the program trading system. Basically, the market structurally imploded. As far as the Asian crisis, this was a monetary phenomenon, not a stagnant demand or growth phenomenon. In fact it was quite the opposite. As raw commodity prices crashed (deflationary) the underlying currencies were devalued and the asset base which secured first world loans came into question. It in effect was a monetary implosion due to lack of confidence in the debt repayment. What the market feared was the proverbial domino effect, bringing first world financial institutions down the third world drain. The funny thing is no real assets disappeared (oil and copper were still in the ground), only their monetary representations were called into question. In the larger scheme this is a smoke and mirrors phenomenon. I agree that intermarket analysis can find highly correlated markets...(Push/Pull?). I guess my core point is that at the margin, markets can be reduced to purely psychological phenomenon. This seems obvious when you have emotional animals (humans) tearing at the same carcass (profits). Taken in total over very long periods of time, markets do reflect fundamental structural realities overlayed with monetary value systems. This is a fancy way of saying things approach what people think they are truly worth in a free market. Obviously, cartel markets (fixed) are a different animal entirely. The funny thing is nobody 'knows' when that point has been reached. It can only be approximated after many data points and only post facto. I like to use the monetary base as a measure of liquidity. It is essentially always growing. It is the rate of change which is important. What does any of this have to do with AMD? In the end, what the long term investor has to decide is whether this stock is a better place to put his/her money that anywhere else on a risk adjusted basis. This is where we attempt to lift the FUD cloud and find what real value AMD offers to the society. For the most part that is what many attempt to do here. On the other hand, some of the talk concentrates on short term price swings, as if they have relevance to long term value. This is purely a psychological phenomenon. The last trade affects the next trade. There is little 'search for value' at the margin. It is when the marginal decisions start to accrue over very long periods of time that value assumptions can be made. In today's go-go markets it is often very difficult to find the value 'forest' amid the 'Ameritrade' trees. Thanks for many on this thread in their attempts to do so. Thanks also for your thoughts Jim. Regards: Bill (quasar)