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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MeDroogies who wrote (2559)	3/23/2001 6:08:32 PM
From: Jay k.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

I feel sorry for MeDroogies into coming onto this forum. The constant attacks by all the perma-bears on this thread is truly daunting for any and all bulls. But I find his posts as well informed and opinionated as those of Jay Chen and find both equally useful and relevant. Please cut him some slack. I would hate to lose either since I value both opinions tremendously. Shake off the attacks MeDroogies and continue to post. Jay Chen, Please continue to post.. I am a big fan. I am however in the camp of MeDroogies and am cautiously bullish. I haven't foolishly started buying in large amounts but I have started accumulating QQQ's and some food stocks.. writing calls on each as I go along to limit my downside. No one in my opinion "knows" what the market will do in the short term.. but I am a believer in the US and tend to believe that in the long term.. the US economies and stocks will continue to rise. I am not a proponent of the absolute disaster proposed by most posters on this board.. nor do I believe the nasd is headed for 500. Differences in opinions is what makes a forum. Please keep an open mind.

To: MeDroogies who wrote (2559)	3/23/2001 7:24:56 PM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 74559

Hi John, <<I responded with my strength - real economic indicators. That is the basis of all my decision making. Fundamentals.>> They are lagging indicators, symptoms and such, without much predictive value as far as forward execution plans are concerned, else Greenspan's job would be too easy. The economy (qualitative again) is as complex as the human body. Preventative actions and maintenance, not ER and OR. Again, and again, MeDroogies has locked on to one word <<drivel>> and feel personally insulted. To this, I apologize again to him and this thread. I am feeling not great about this. Chugs, Jay

To: MeDroogies who wrote (2559)	3/23/2001 10:02:51 PM
From: Stock Farmer	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

Didn't intend to touch too deeply the nerve. Apologies. Sincerely. Note that to have survived through one of the greatest bull runs in history, takes a very clever breed of bear - wounded many times by the taunts and scars of those bulls. Now being slaughtered in herds for their hoof-in-mouth disease. This is a den of rough play. Apologies if I played too rough, it was in sport I promise. Point by point, merely the data. Showing fully that we are not polar opposites on all things. The basis for healthy discussion I hope. Disclosure: I myself refuse to disclose, except allocation against asset class, and then only in vague terms. It is, as you say, nobody's business. But class disclosure is prudent. Particularly in context of this thread. For our interest is in the havoc that an instability within one class can can wreak upon others, interrelated. Not jumping and shouting? Yes. We are similarly biased there too. When running with the lemmings no need to chirp. But must yell "excuse me, going the other way, excuse me, coming through..." when going against the tide. Not so much to flag my position, but because responses guage the sentiment of the crowd. A kind of sociological sonar. When tide turns again and current is obvious, I will run silent again like ICBM submarine. But now in shallow hostile water, sonar on full blast and torpedo tubes loaded. Sorry if the pings hurt your ears. They must, to be effective. Comfortable life. Yes. All of us dream similarly. I can believe your tripple at face value. I have achieved not twice as much but not less. Which also discloses nothing. Any number 3 or otherwise still makes the answer to your various "would that make me..." questions to be "no". For both of us. I have seen many witty, happy, knowledgeable authorities made poor through just plain mistakes of judgement. Which all humans make. Take my last post for example. Or a frequent disclosure of my 350 share long position in Laidlaw... now merely a tax-deductable tuition receipt. Jay toys with everything and everyone. He is playful like a child. Which is a compliment. I know very well the style of his enjoyable game. In a different arena with different rules I play a similar game to similar effect. What you see is rare and evident of great skill. Engage with hostile intent very cautiously, if at all. Unless you claim skill at psychology, do you not think that expounding upon it demonstrates either arrogance or factors mitigating against your propensity for math in determining your IQ? Nothing wrong with arrogance - provided it is tempered with inquisitiveness. Otherwise fatal. Not in order, but TA versus FA. I too believe in rigorous fundamental analysis for the long term. As opposed to fluffy fundamental analysis as practiced on the cult threads. You know the stuff, "they own the market so they will grow and grow and grow". I mean "they are making x$ now of a market that can be shown to be worth y$ in the future and they have more than a snowballs' chance of capturing z%" etc. Real practical economics... as opposed to errudite theory commonly taught to economists. But FA is useless in timeframes shorter than data validity halflife. TA dominates there. When FA and TA are aligned, sure bet. When FA & TA are misaligned, TA dominates in the short term but FA dominates in the long term. So good idea to use both and to be very explicit what timeframe you are talking about. I confess that figures like headless shoulders and falling stars and hammers hitting thumbs and all of that is beyond me. I view this as more akin to Ink Blot tests than chi squared tests... reveals more about the practicioner than the market... in this mans' humble view. Apologies if I was not clear re. straws. I thought (and of course, I may be wrong) that the thesis of Jay's discussion to you was essentially "there were many signs saying sell oracle before it plunged that all could see, not just insiders". Straws being the signs. In more easily understood mathematical terms, the sum of the parts is not equal to the whole. Particularly as the number of parts tends to infinity. Consequently setting the value of a subset of the parts to zero does not devalue the whole. Which approach you attempted, and indeed are still attempting as of the post to which I reply ("housing prices in San Fransisco"). There are two viable strategies to attack if you would like a hint. Counter the Indicators, or Assemble Counter Indicators. The first, is ruthless elimination of each part by proof. But it must be relentless and not built upon supposition. Sadly, for example your supposition that LE sold for noble reasons is speculative (for all we know you might be right, you might be wrong). A possibility that something could or could not be is not proof. The second is to assemble a substantially similar sized and weighted pile of counter-indicators and thus assert that the proponderence of evidence indicates that either position is supported by the facts. At best a draw. You advanced an inferior version of the first. If forced to vote, I would cast for Jay - although I confess I find the discussion interesting. I don't hold as much stock in eloquence as I do in relentless logic without basis in supposition. To beat the horse one more time, you could wax poetic about LE's motives and I will still point to you that not being posessed of LE's brain, your attempt to explain LE's motivation is uninformed guesswork... at best. Or in math terms again, bull$hit is the sophist equivalent of zero: multiply any fact with bull$hit and you get bull$hit. However fine you want to slice it. So I am merely offering to you an "achem... argument doesn't work for me". For whatever it's worth. Not that I want you to keep going, but that you are on a collision course with iceberg. Both your supposition and Jay's can not be correct. So I must choose one. Occam's razor forces me to decide that insider actions are indicative signals. While there is a possibility of being wrong, odds favor otherwise. Feel free to present a rigorous expectation value calculation that shows otherwise. I am suprised that you would apologize to me for my opinion. Myopia. Let me be more clear. There are two ways to examine a tapestry: from afar where the picture stands clear for all to see, or up close where the workmanship in those knots within range is evident. The perspective necessary to appreciate the picture of a global financial structure (e.g. this thread) is different indeed than that of any mere knot (e.g. ORCL). My current stance on the market is based on the tapestry - for wherever it goes go all the knots at once. When the former is in question, debating angels on pinheads in the grand scheme of things is pointless (apologize for a brutal pun). On violent tones, I was speaking proverbially. They tended towards more violence back when most of the good proverbs were coined. Citing reference: A man who lives in a glass house should not throw stones. This was in reference to you accusing Jay of precisely your own behavior. I was amused and pointed this out to you, and then invited you to play... all within a single metaphor. As to "suggesting that [I] take a 2X4 to [my] head" being "precisely how you introduced yourself to me", it appears you have me confused with another poster. On Jay's manners - inviting you here and then feeding upon you... or those of other bears, caution. As I mentioned before, this is a den of bears and such is the way of the beast. You are indeed a brave soul and it would be sad to see you leave. Regardless of how you were lured here. I am merely offering up some skin toughener, and accepting your gauntlets as thrown down. Metaphorically speaking, of course. John.

To: MeDroogies who wrote (2559)	7/1/2001 8:12:03 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 74559

Hi Medroogies, Concerning our earlier exchange ... Message 15539819 Where you said ... <<My industry is the first to see the signs of a turnaround (media spending). While that hasn't occurred yet, things have levelled off. That's a good sign. It usually signals we've bottomed.>> <<Overall, the economy is amazingly good condition for having gone through such a spec bubble. I'm surprised things didn't get worse faster. My industry is the first to see the signs of a turnaround (media spending). While that hasn't occurred yet, things have levelled off. That's a good sign. It usually signals we've bottomed.>> And I said ... <<This is a serious question: Does that mean you would be concerned enough to change your outlook should events spiral down once again in your particular industry? Is there anything that can happen that would make you change your mind on your bullish outlook? What signs should we look for? My industry sees the thinning out of intl clients' staffing in the mid-phase of on-going buy and sell projects, and I see that the blood-letting has just started.>> Now what? Do my <<points didn't matter>> get revised :0) Chugs, Jay news.ft.com QUOTE Advertising 'heading for worst year in a decade' By Richard Tomkins, Consumer Industries Editor Published: July 1 2001 14:48GMT \| Last Updated: July 1 2001 20:11GMT One of the world's leading advertising forecasters will warn on Monday that global advertising is heading for its worst performance since the depths of the recession of the early 1990s. Drastically downgrading its earlier forecasts, Zenith Media, the London-based media planning and buying agency, now says world-wide advertising is expected to grow by an "almost negligible" 1.4 per cent this year, representing a decline of 1.4 per cent after adjusting for inflation. "Dotcom failure, falling stock indices and sudden profit pressure have shaken business confidence more than we had expected," Zenith says. As recently as April, the agency had been predicting world-wide growth of 4.8 per cent. The latest forecast is significant because the advertising cycle typically runs ahead of the economic cycle, and the level of advertising spending is seen as an important indicator of economic trends. Figures last week showed that consumer confidence was high on both sides of the Atlantic. But Zenith says companies are slashing their advertising budgets in response to plunging profits, caused by high labour and energy costs and the end of the technology boom. The market worst hit by the slowdown is the US, now predicted by Zenith to see a 2 per cent decline in advertising spending this year, or 5.1 per cent after inflation. "The US influence on advertising cannot be overstated: it is home to 43 per cent of the world's advertising spend and to most of the world's international advertisers," Zenith says. "Every other advertising market feels its influence." The next most badly affected market is the UK, now expected to show a decline of 0.5 per cent. Separately, Zenith last weekpredicted UK spending would decline 0.8 per cent, but that figure excluded advertising on the internet. Most other markets are expected to grow, but much less than Zenith had previously forecast. Europe is now expected to grow just 3.6 per cent, down from 5.9 per cent in April. Television has been especially badly hit as advertisers react to last year's soaring airtime costs, and Zenith says newspapers are suffering from sharp reversals in all last year's boom sectors: finance, computers, telecommunications and dotcom. The slowdown is particularly painful for advertising agencies and media owners because it follows a year in which world-wide advertising spending soared by 10.8 per cent, its biggest increase since 1988. Profit warnings and job cuts are mounting in the advertising and media industries as the slowdown begins to bite. WPP, one of the world's biggest advertising groups, says it has cut about 1,000 jobs from its world-wide workforce of 52,000 since the beginning of the year, mostly in the US. Zenith warns that the second-half bounce-back it had expected this year "is not happening", but says it is still hoping for a return to near-normal growth rates in 2002, "at least in North America and Europe". It points out that this year's spending only looks bad compared with the exceptional spend last year, and even on the basis of its latest forecast, it will still be 12 per cent higher than in 1999. UNQUOTE