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: GraceZ who wrote (2250)	5/15/2001 8:04:00 PM
From: Ahda	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 24758

Profit of return on investment could mean inflation for the rest fo us. biz.yahoo.com Tuesday May 15, 6:10 pm Eastern Time World's rich put more cash into hedge funds-survey By Svea Herbst-Bayliss NEW YORK, May 15 (Reuters) - The world's rich are relying more heavily on alternative investments -- like hedge funds -- to keep their millions safe at a time market volatility is taking a bite out of their wealth, a new study found. This is not good news.

To: GraceZ who wrote (2250)	5/15/2001 9:05:50 PM
From: ahhaha	Respond to of 24758

What is interesting to me is that over and over again looking at some of the high flying tech companies I follow, I'd see ballooning G&A and Marketing and Sales expense lines. Yes, I;ve noticed that myself. It stands out. I've assumed the "S" is the culprit. You'd think if that was true that it isn't as bad as if the "G" were the culprit, but if the the big portion is due to "S", then "S" isn't working. This happened even while revenues were climbing at astronomical rates in some of these high flyers. The revenues didn't fall significantly for a few quarters after these other expenses rose. All I could think was that some of that sales expense was coming from concessions made to keep top line revenues up in the triple digit growth area that WS was demanding of a company with a ridiculously high market cap. Enough companies were doing this that it essentially became a big Ponzi scheme that had no way of continuing. It isn't due to concessions but due to ever greater failed effort to get it sold. Concessions don't appear under "S". They appear under COGS, and this is what is seen in telcom rather than in general, but the rise in feckless "S" is generally true. I can't see laying all of that on the Fed and excessively loose monetary policy. It was driven by speculative greed more than anything else. The quest for the new MSFT or CSCO. So why didn't that happen before the FED opened the money floodgates and put money supply in the "irrelevant" category? The FED allowed an environment of great expectations from which came speculation. It can't go there when money is dear. Somewhere down the line there has to be some sort of ROI on it, right? The stock market doubts it so FED will have to pump faster.