To: Arthur Radley who wrote (141 ) 2/27/2001 4:55:21 PM From: opalapril Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 146 You know, I think there is more to this frustrating market than a rejection of high p/e stocks or an emphasis on value. If, as I have seen it claimed, "money is moving out of tech and into value" why is the evidence of this so spotty? For years I have followed a number of undoubted value stocks -- big oils, REITs, financials with solid balance sheets, high dividend paying companies, etc. Many of those are suffering almost as much as the broad tech market; or if not suffering, at least they seem as dead in the water as they ever have been over the past two years. This leads me to ponder if what is transpiring is a wholesale avoidance of all equities by mutual funds, large institutions, and investment banks. With all the money thought to be on the sidelines, I wonder if they're playing with options, bonds, commodities and other short-term vehicles more than has been revealed? As for a rate cut, Wall Street rather too obviously is trying to scare it out of Greenspan ("Cut the rates or we'll shoot ourselves in the other foot"). I imagine Greenspan doesn't react too well to such obviousness. While there are solid reasons for supposing a delay in further rate reductions would do more damage to this rapidly-changing, turn-on-a-dime economy, I can't quite get my arms around how and when Greenspan can order an interim rate cut without political cost to the FED's stature as an independent agency. Surely he won't want to upstage the Shrub's budget message by cutting on Tuesday. Nor would he want to be seen as reacting to the Shrub by cutting on Wednesday. Thursday and Friday have no news coming as useful as the camouflage already handed to him with the Consumer Confidence survey results. Do you suppose, therefore, that Greenspan is content to stand aside and let Wall Street find its own way back to sanity rather than play a bit part in some demented Odets drama Wall Street has authored, "Waiting for Righty?"