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 : Sharck Soup -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DlphcOracl who wrote (12146)	3/18/2001 10:18:32 AM
From: puborectalis	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37746

The average price on the Nasdaq has to be in the low teens....how much further can it go?...bet you can't name one stock trading over $100 on the nasdaq.

To: DlphcOracl who wrote (12146)	3/18/2001 11:11:34 AM
From: bobkansas	Respond to of 37746

Hi DO. Why couldn't the NAZ go to around 1000? While pe's have come down, so have projected earnings. So pe's have to come down even more. I read somewhere on SI that the qqq CURRENTLY has a pe of over 145. Likely higher than that as many of the NAZ 100 have zero earnings. So going on down to a thousand would wash out the greed in growth stocks and start a new bull running imo.

To: DlphcOracl who wrote (12146)	3/18/2001 3:04:08 PM
From: DlphcOracl	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37746

An interesting statement from SSB technicians. From the Salomon Smith Barney technical analysts (headed by Louise Yamada), Alan Shaw cautions: "We don't want to ask, "How low can it go?" We want to eliminate this from our vocabulary because we don't know the answer. We want simply to respect support violations and take action. There is no guarantee that this decline is just another cyclical experience that can bounce back to new highs. The technical evidence suggests something more structural is under way this time." FWIW, I have the SSB technical analysts very accurate over the last year, not to be confused with the ANAL-ysts hired to pump and dump stock with their upgrades, downgrades, and inflated price targets.

To: DlphcOracl who wrote (12146)	3/18/2001 3:32:46 PM
From: velociraptor_	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37746

Dlph... <<Historically, the market has never been lower 12 months after three successive rate cuts>>> Not true...in the mania of 1929, the FED cut 6 times in succession I believe, and of course we all know what happened then. I'll post more on your question later this evening...

To: DlphcOracl who wrote (12146)	3/18/2001 8:58:57 PM
From: Mike M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37746

I'm not sure where velociraptor got his 6 rate cut information, but I am certain that it is wrong. I did dig this up: econ161.berkeley.edu Throughout the decline--which carried production per worker down to a level 40 percent below that which it had attained in 1929, and which saw the unemployment rise to take in more than a quarter of the labor force--the government did not try to prop up aggregate demand. The Federal Reserve did not use open market operations to keep the money supply from falling. Instead the only significant systematic use of open market operations was in the other direction: to raise interest rates and discourage gold outflows after the United Kingdom abandoned the gold standard in the fall of 1931. The Federal Reserve thought it knew what it was doing: it was letting the private sector handle the Depression in its own fashion. It saw the private sector's task as the "liquidation" of the American economy. And it feared that expansionary monetary policy would impede the necessary private-sector process of readjustment. Hardly comparable to current FED activities.