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 : Compaq -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Captain Jack who wrote (89392)	1/31/2001 3:56:27 PM
From: MeDroogies	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 97611

I find it so humorous that you guys commiserate on AG's "poor" performance, yet none of you have backed it up with real facts or stats yet. What, exactly, is it that is currently so out of step? And how, exactly, did AG have anything to do with it? Answering these questions, I think you'll find, is far more difficult than a simple, "he raised rates and the market tanked". Remember, he was raising rates for close to a year prior to the April decline (the beginning of our current condition). The market rose along with those increases. The growth in the economy was 5.6% in the second quarter of 2000. AG, knowing this and sensing the problems inherent in growth that fast, acted to raise rates in his final increase. The market's fall was more an indication NOT of interest rates, but of an economy that was out of balance due to companies that had overstepped their bounds. Now that most of these companies have washed out...we have seen some level of balance return to the markets. Pinpoint for me, clearly, which rate changes had what effect and explain why. I think you'll find that rather than rate changes having the effect you think, the rate changes were in reaction to events that eventually led to the "effects" that you eventually saw.