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 : ahhaha's ahs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ahhaha who wrote (1172)	2/22/2001 3:59:56 PM
From: ahhaha	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 24758

Jose Luis Daza, of Alex Brown, says emerging markets need more liquidity from the FED. He's confused. Liquidity is quantity of money. The FED doesn't create liquidity. The FED can only create or withdraw money. Assume they create money. Does that mean more liquidity? What if people take the money and bury it in the backyard? No change in liquidity. Liquidity is defined as the marginal availability of money. For example, a liquid market is one which absorbs buying or selling with little change. This could be due to money depth or due to conviction.

To: ahhaha who wrote (1172)	2/22/2001 4:00:57 PM
From: Ahda	Respond to of 24758

Last year, about one-fourth of the million-dollar-home buyers paid cash, and those who financed the purchase made a typical down payment of $400,000. Million-dollar homes might evoke images of white columns, expansive gardens and horse stables. But California's spectacular wealth creation has propelled the housing market so high that buyers might get no more than a 1,000-square-foot tract home for seven figures in some communities Nok arba etc down down down Well 25 percent of them did bury it in their own back yard. If things don' t change soon the other 75 percent are going to assist in a real estate decline which is going to affect the banks.

To: ahhaha who wrote (1172)	2/24/2001 3:40:37 PM
From: Elsewhere	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 24758

Where goest Dow? I doubt there will be a major DJIA retreat. The NASDAQ fall is a hangover after extreme Y2K spending and fading Net hype which hasn't affected non-tech Dow components much. The median earnings yield (5.88%) is higher than 10-year yields (5.09%), so no overvaluation according to AG's favorite yardstick. I have appended a list of PE ratios 2001e of all Dow components. There are only few companies which seem to be overvalued: KO, DIS, GE, HD, WMT. It will take years for KO, DIS, GE to lose their cult status. The retailers look most vulnerable to me if the decline in consumer sentiment leads to a decline in spending. [Posted with all the obvious implicit disclaimers/precautions such as: - What's the use of PE as a valuation tool? - The "E" sometimes changes quickly. - Growth/PEG is not considered.] PE Tick 01 Comment ------------------------------- T 53 Won't fall much further AA 13 AXP 17 BA 14 CAT 11 C 14 KO 28 High valuation for decades DIS 46 Vulnerable DD 15 EK 9 XOM 20 GE 27 Too high but Welch factor GM 11 HWP 18 HD 27 Too high HON 12 Acquired by GE IBM 19 INTC 22 IP 11 JNJ 22 MCD 17 MRK 22 MSFT 24 MMM 19 JPM 11 MO 10 PG 21 SBC 17 UTX 17 WMT 28 Too high Median 17 Data source: interactive.wsj.com