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 : Bob Brinker: Market Savant & Radio Host -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (14785)	7/15/2001 9:36:18 PM
From: michael korizno	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

I just moved to the DC area--what staion is Moneytalk and what Time---Thanks anyone in advance

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (14785)	7/16/2001 3:36:13 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42834

pete, the BONANZA appears to be blinding your thought processes. buffett converts companies from options to monetary incentives of EQUAL value yet the company report VASTLY different results. you've avoided answering whether two companies with equal operating results (in the case of buffett, the EXACT SAME COMPANY!) should report vastly different results due to accounting BONANZAS. wrt, to the hypothetical options question, you can't provide a cogent answer b/c the logic of your side won't support one. at least not one you can explain. you can throw up smoke and run from it, but the motives are clear. avoid the question b/c the logic used by you breaks down and admitting such is awful hard. btw, i know it was an extreme example. it is often prudent to take arguments to hypothetical logical extremes to test their validity. imagine a world run by pete clones that refused to consider anything hypothetical. creativity would not exist. btw, your BONANZA accounting scheme was once hypothetical, too. ;-) what's this, the third or fourth time you've avoided these questions? oh, and management teams NEVER get accountants to cross the line, right??? ;-) ebnonline.com so, go ahead. jump in the attack the messenger rut again. it is a well worn path ;-)

To: Boca_PETE who wrote (14785)	7/20/2001 9:14:21 PM
From: Kirk ©	Respond to of 42834

The Latest -- 7/20/01 From Rande suite101.com Sure seems like there should have been more of a change from the previous Friday's close, given the ups and downs of the last week, but the Dow, S&P 500 and Russell 2000 barely budged (Dow fractionally higher, rest fractionally lower). The Nasdaq, of course, did lose over 2.5% for the week, but what's new. Yet again, the worst performing areas during this particular market cycle remain the Nas, QQQ, and International (Euorope). However bad it may be for you, so long as you're not overweighted to these areas you at least have some reason to be grateful. Besides monthly home sales and durable goods next week, we get the quarterly employment cost index and the preliminary 2Q GDP numbers. For now, here's..... The Latest (as of 7/20 close): YTD 2001: DJIA -2.0% S&P -8.3% SPY -7.0% W5000 Fund -7.3% Nas -17.9% QQQ -28.7% R2000 +0.9% MDY (S&P 400 Midcap) -0.6% VEURX (European Index) -19.2% Since 12/31/99: DJIA -8.0% S&P -17.6% SPY -15.9% W5000 Fund -17.0% Nas -50.1% QQQ -54.4% R2000 -3.3% MDY +16.6% VEURX -25.5% Since Previous Closing Lows: DJIA (3/22/01) +12.6% S&P (4/4/01) +9.8% SPY (4/3/01) +10.2% W5000 Fund (4/4/01) +11.7% Nas (4/4/01) +23.8% QQQ (4/4/01) +22.3% R2000 (4/4/01) +14.6% MDY (1/6/00) +22.3% VEURX (3/22/01) +2.7% Since Previous Closing Highs: DJIA (1/14/00) -9.8% S&P (3/24/00) -20.7% SPY (3/24/00) -19.6% W5000 Fund (3/24/00) -22.4% Nas (3/10/00) -59.8% QQQ (3/24/00) -64.6% R2000 (3/9/00) -19.5% MDY (9/7/00) -6.8% VEURX (3/24/00) -28.0% Index returns are price change only, ETFs and mutual funds including divs/distributions. Returns not guaranteed as to accuracy -- relying on unaudited third-party sources (may have missed a dividend or two, which would understate returns).