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 : Currencies and the Global Capital Markets -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (2913)	1/7/2001 7:00:49 PM
From: Ahda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3536

Thank you as we reduce interest we too have problems in return. It is too high a percentage in my opinion. feer.com No one wanted to be left out of the tech boom before it bombed. American and European banks, especially, fell over each other to fund technology. Indeed, Chi Lo, regional head of research for Northeast Asia at Standard Chartered Bank in Hong Kong, tells us that estimates are that in value terms, "more than 60% of international syndicated loans in North America and Europe went to tech companies" in 1999. More significantly, the proportion in the United States was 70%, while in Europe it was 40%. Not all the money went into the Internet, of course: As we've said since before the crash, technology is more than the Internet. Some would have gone to high-speed telecommunications networks. The problem is that money also would have been spent on technology whose profitability is still in question, such as wireless applications. It's for this reason that Lo thinks these loans may represent "a big Achilles heel for the financial system." And, we might add, bank stock prices. Certainly, Asia does not have overly high exposure to Internet lending. The region's timidity as regards the Internet, once thought a failing, has turned out to be a virtue in disguise. However, our stockmarkets, rightly or wrongly (and we think the latter), closely track U.S. equities. So if there are more storms to come in the U.S. financial sector, we may just want to keep our seatbelts fastened.

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (2913)	1/7/2001 7:16:04 PM
From: Ahda	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3536

Japanese problem loans were more than just external loans. The Japanese also had a real estate bubble to go along with the equity bubble. The problem with bad real estate loans were much worse than the external loan problem Henry have you checked the price of your property lately? In 1996 you could of bought a house where i live for 350,000 now it is very close to 700,000. All these little things make me feel like kerplunk and i do hope i am totally wrong in my opinion.

To: Henry Volquardsen who wrote (2913)	1/8/2001 10:23:37 AM
From: Sam	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3536

Henry, I know you have referred to yourself as a "libertarian" on many occasions on this thread in the past. And I have considerable sympathy with such a position. But in your comparison of Japan of the late 80s and the current situation in the US, you wrote: <<The US banking system, under the close supervision of the Fed, has built a strong capital base. The strongest it has been in decades. In addition the Fed pays very close attention to return on assets criteria.>> Surely this implies that in this imperfect world filled with imperfect humans, regulation and oversight is necessary, and the choice isn't really between regulation/oversight vs. no regulation/oversight ("let the so-called 'market' make all of the decision"), but intelligent regulation/oversight vs. stupid regulation/oversight. I'm curious about how you resolve this at least apparent tension? Or do you just follow the time honored American pragmatic way, and just not pursue libertarianism to its logical extreme? I know a book--many books--could be written about this, but it may make an interesting discussion for this philosophically diverse thread. Sam