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 : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (11207)	11/2/2000 4:48:58 PM
From: im a survivor	Respond to of 65232

qcom beats by a penny....she is up nicely in after hours. I could have told you that it would be since I sold half my shares today. Premium wasnt worth any downside protection, so I sold half instead. Oh well, still have some and will try and buy back shares I sold lower if I get the chance. The shares I sold of rmbs at $80 and $60, I bought back for $50. keith

To: Jim Willie CB who wrote (11207)	11/2/2000 6:31:46 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Hi Jim, One more view on the inflation front. Whoever Courtney Smith is, she needs lessons in logic. Angell has a very interesting oblique way of looking at this. His conclusion is comforting to the committed investor, but hardly convincing. And as to your view that energy costs aren't inflationary, I'd like to get your views on the surcharges that the airlines and the freight companies are imposing. No change to the basic price, of course, but I seem to recall that we've seen this picture before, around the 1974-6 era. If history has a way of repeating itself, and there's some evidence it does, today's surcharge is tomorrow's going rate. We very likely will have deflation in basic commodities going forward, but rents, labor costs and financing costs are all on the rise. In regards to the latter, one only need look at the spreads between Treasuries and corporates to realize that it's getting more expensive to be in business. Continual pressure thereby placed on corporate profits, in the absence of excess liquidity (as recently provided by the Fed's action in response to the last bond market lockdown, a la LTCM and the Y2K fears), will have a detrimental effect on equity valuations, which, in the event, many will blame on inflation. While, in fact, the lack of glee for stocks is merely correlated to the weakening dollar. The key to all this is corporate profits and I can easily see the comparables are getting worse and not better. A 'loose money' stance by the Fed at this point must be considered by the wise men at the FOMC in light of the results that Arthur Burns achieved with such a policy in the Nixon years. To the astute observer, this may not have been the wisest course that could have been taken at the time..... Of course, monetary policy will be influenced by events of next week. I'd have to think that Greenspan would be loathe to lose his grip on the money supply if Mr. Bush, should he be the next President, remained true to his campaign promise to lower the tax rate and provide thereby new impetus for growth and added liquidity to the markets. JMHO, Ray