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 : The New Economy and its Winners -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom Kearney who wrote (4606)	1/4/2001 11:25:51 PM
From: Mark Fowler	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 57684

Thanks Tom where did you get those graphs?

To: Tom Kearney who wrote (4606)	1/5/2001 2:03:28 AM
From: 16yearcycle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 57684

TOM, It is TRAGIC but I didn't miss it at all. I spent the whole year talking about it. I expected a debacle similar to 1998 or 1990. I set aside the money to brace for 35%. Never did I think we could approach 60%, and it wasn't until we went through 40%+ that I started howling. Look back at my late Oct posts. I was in Fla in Oct when the newest supply numbers came out and I was stunned when they were decreased again! I NEVER thought AG was this damn dumb. The guy's a moron! He was pushing the apocolypse and still didn't see it. And we are in trouble still. Tax money will dry up and folks will take at least a few years to work through this. People talk about how we rebounded back from 1987, but they FORGET that 5 years later in mid 1992, pe's were still dragging there ass down in the low teens and no one was growing at 50%+. 5 years after the 87 highs we were only 20% higher. A similar fate awaits us I think. I think we will be very lucky to see the nas at 6000 in 2005. Those charts are GREAT by the way and I think I will use that site now. The only conselation is I would hold out some reasonable chance that we repeat the 90's again, but with only about 75% of run from oct 90 until mid 99 and no bubble at the end. That would take us from nas 2500 to about nas 10000 by 2010. The compounding of the nas from 5000 to 10000 in 10 years is only 7%. By the way, we are going into NEGATIVE GROWTH now and will be for at least two months. I am talking about the collapsing chart on the top...it is going below zero because of the bubble, year over year. The fed has just TOTALLY screwed up. They could not have done worse on purpose.

To: Tom Kearney who wrote (4606)	1/5/2001 2:17:49 AM
From: 16yearcycle	Respond to of 57684

yeah, I am looking at that chart again. Right where it turns down MORE, is where I was so cock sure it would flatten at 2-3%. That was 3 months ago. Look at that! What in hell did they think they were doing?!

To: Tom Kearney who wrote (4606)	1/9/2001 6:24:14 PM
From: 16yearcycle	Respond to of 57684

Tom, and all: do you have a site that shows all fed action the last 10 years or so? What I want to do is compare how long tightenings and easings take to effect the market(not economy). I know it's supposed to be two actions but, for example in 1999, I think they tightened in May, but I don't know when the next one was...maybe July. I have this: stls.frb.org but I can only guess at what those dates were.