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 : Sharck Soup -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: American Spirit who wrote (33308)	8/21/2001 4:36:13 PM
From: StormRider	Respond to of 37746

FOMC Trivia : Most of the Fed's actions and words today were no surprise at all. But there were two minors items that will receive some attention due to the lack of anything else to talk about. First, there was one very slight change in the Fed's announcement vs its June announcement. Instead of noting weak expansion of consumption the FOMC said that household demand has been sustained. Big deal, right? Well, no, probably not. No one knows what consumer spending will do next, and that is in fact the $64K question. This slight change in wording probably doesn't reflect increased optimism, and even if it does, it could be blown out of the water with one weak retail sales report (Addition: a reader correctly noted that this line could be interpreted as increased pessimism as well, since now there is only reference to "sustained" demand rather than expansion). The other item that will be discussed is the so-called easing bias. Most market-watchers have forgotten that the Fed did away with the bias back at the beginning of 2000. They were tired of the market assuming that the bias suggested that an intermeeting move was likely or that a future move in the direction of the bias was a guarantee. They opted instead for a directive which noted the balance of risks. Instead of indicating a bias to ease or tighten, they now indicate whether they see the balance of risks weighted in the direction of inflation or recession, or weighted evenly. Of course, the market simply continued to label these three options as a tightening bias, easing bias, and neutral directive (some prefer the oxymoron neutral bias). But the Fed wanted only to convey its view of the economy, and that is indeed all that this statement has been. Some thought that perhaps the Fed would shift to neutral today, and that the continued easing bias was therefore meaningful. It wasn't. Those who understand that this is a balance of risks would also understand that it would have been absurd to argue that the balance of risks is now equally weighted between inflation and recession. Recession clearly remains the greater concern. This doesn't guarantee future Fed easing; it's just a statement of the obvious. If you're looking for hints as to the next Fed move, don't look in this Fed announcement. Look instead at upcoming economic reports - the Fed is waiting for those just like the rest of us. - Greg Jones, Briefing.com ---------------------------- speaking of biases, i think it was a critical mistake that the fomc left a tightening bias back in november 2000 in the face of rising energy prices, and when it was CLEAR that there were deflationary pressures. this is was the last chance to save the economy and instead everything fell off a cliff in december... and the rest is history...

To: American Spirit who wrote (33308)	8/21/2001 4:37:40 PM
From: Jim Spitz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37746

AAPL is probably a good price here. I have a couple Apples at home. I personally will wait a bit because of the current market conditions because everything will be lower, IMO. I usually like bear hunting in the fall, but right now I'm loaded for bull! LOL. I may short some Choicetel (phon) tomorrow. They recently, (about 4 months ago) tricked my mom into signing up (long distance phone service and Local too) She thought they were ClearChoice, who was her long distance provider back then. When she got her bill she realized what they did and cancelled, and after 3 more months she finally got back to her local provider (qwest) but hasn't been able to dial long distance at all for that 3 months. Anyone that screws you like that and still loses money, has got to be a good short. Stay in the Black! jimS