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 : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (3372)	3/19/2001 10:27:56 AM
From: AllansAlias	Respond to of 52237

Yes, they have found the real culprit -- "Green Span" is to blame: peaselaw.com Warning: if you look at this you will lose all sense of risk aversion.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (3372)	3/19/2001 10:47:22 AM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

Re Long Term Time Horizon... was reading an article this weekend, didn't check their figures, that stated that it would take 7 years for INTC to return to its past highs; YHOO 20 years, at an average annual rate of return of 15%. Long enough for you? I don't think Greenspan is the key behind the bubble - the nature of the internet and the street hype machine are the principle factors. Internet technology leads to rapid change; it was exciting and the rate of change drew everyone into the speculative frenzy, worried they would miss out. The street managed to justify with fanciful methodologies all these development stage companies that under normal circumstances would have died before ever going public. The public ate it up, but the street was serving the dish. Any student of history could see that the chances of the speculative mania ending in the way that it has was far more likely to happen than not. And here we are.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (3372)	3/19/2001 11:08:02 AM
From: JRI	Respond to of 52237

Scott, raising interest rates (like late 99-00) can only have a severe negative effect on an economy if consumers/companies/etc. are not keeping pristine balance sheets...if mal-investment is occuring....telcos are doing questionable financing deals, consumers are borrowing excessively on credit cards, etc.. In other words, the real problem is not Greenspan, rather, the behavior of American corporations and consumers. Just because they lower the price candy, that doesn't mean you have to eat it. No one was forced to put questionable IPOs on market. No one forced American consumers to load up on credit card debt. Banks don't have to do risky derivitive deals. And no one was forced to buy net stocks. It was/is pure greed, and the abolition of risk. The current "logic" on Greenspan reminds me of the Malaysian PM blaming Soros and others for betting against their currency a couple years ago, and contributing to its volatility....My friend, if you have your financial house in order, guys like Soros can do nothing, and they will stay away (in fact, they'll praise you!). We (as a country) act like (financial) children, instead of the (financial) adults we are. That is the real problem. I'd love to see us give all high school kids a 4 year long training in consumer/personal finance......the best investment our country could ever make.......but I'll save that for another time...