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: Maurice Winn who wrote (4304)	6/5/2001 8:19:14 AM
From: TobagoJack	Respond to of 74559

Hi Maurice, <<I did enjoy your last rant [10 March] ... sell a bunch of Q! on 12 March which avoided ... being forced to sell at later lows. I think your comments gave me just that extra prod I needed to lighten up>> Please know that I am glad it worked out for you. <<My call for a renewed boom remains in place>> Same here, for I also call for a new boom, though only after a still to be kaboom. I am simply not in a big hurry to test the temperature of the water, nor to lead a charge into the dark basement of whispering voices. Given that China Telecom has 70 mm mobile customers, China Mobile a bunch more, China Unicom some more, all totalling 100 mm, I agree that CDMA has a future. Dare I suggest you risk some dollars on an emerging market telecom play, instead of equipment players. Companies can not live on royalty alone, unless they plan on doing no operations. If Qualcomm does plan on maintaining operations, they may lose their royalty in all manner of exotic ways. <<... for the multitrillion$$ market cap destruction. That wasn't actual capital destruction [not all of it anyway]. Mostly it was just a sudden bidding up followed by a rapid bidding down. Which just means the money changed hands, not that there was actual destruction. Those $$multitrillions weren't wasted in building white elephants, though a $100 billion or two of white elephants were built.>> Problem, when the price got bid up, folks borrowed based on the temporary wealth, and spent the ephemeral health. Market cap, like lust, is temporary; debt, like love, is forever. <<Somebody buying at the top surely thinks there was capital destruction, but their payment went to somebody who still has that money>> And these other guys with the cash intend to keep most of it, until a cleansing of the aforementioned debt gets cleaned up. <<None of it was destroyed>> That is one possible explanation, by which we can all agree that nothing was destroyed back in 1929. <<On Alan cutting interest rates ... those lending money are going to feel very glum with their returns being hacked to ribbons. They will have cancelled various spending plans. So not only are the borrowers chastened and frightened, but now the lenders are damaged too>> I agree. Capital is not being appreciated, and therefore I stay close to home with my capital, until it is appreciated again, after the cleansing. <<Kiwiland real estate is cheap>> ... I figured, and yet I wait. Will come that way on trip planned for Bora Bora in 2002. <<Well, I was just looking through what you wrote to find something I disagree strongly ... Maybe we agree and are just using different words to mean the same thing>> I think we are on the same book, with you on page 200, and me on 150. BTW, the book is a cool 800 pages long! Chugs, Jay

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (4304)	6/5/2001 12:33:10 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	Respond to of 74559

Hello Maurice, 'Somebody buying at the top surely thinks there was capital destruction, but their payment went to somebody who still has that money. None of it was destroyed.' Someone gave their money away, correct. Doesn't the capital destruction really come when money is borrowed 'at the top' against some perceived value, and then later, said value turns out to be a tad too ethereal ? 'sycophantic admiration'. Gave me visions of Uriah Heep LOL. regards Kastel