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 : Stock Attack II - A Complete Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: donald sew who wrote (16756)	8/25/2001 3:00:30 PM
From: stockman_scott	Respond to of 52237

Poole Dissents in June - The Shadow Knows Northern Trust Company Economic Comment August 23, 2001 Monetarism is akin to malaria. You can remain symptom free for an extended period of time, but the "germs" never leave your body. Prior to becoming president of the St. Louis Fed, William Poole was a card-carrying monetarist as evidenced by his membership on the SOMC, the Shadow Open Market Committee. Since coming out of the Shadow and becoming a member of the FOMC, Poole's monetarist symptoms had been relatively mild. That is until June 27, when he dissented in very monetarist terms from the majority FOMC decision to cut the funds rate by 25 b.p. to 3.75%. Poole characterized current monetary policy as "highly stimulative" as evidenced by annualized growth in M2 and MZM over the prior six months of 10% and 20%, respectively. And just to show that he was not a total alien to the rest of his FOMC colleagues, he also talked a bit in their "language." To wit, Poole said that another indication that monetary policy was highly stimulative was that "the real federal funds rate was very likely below its equilibrium level." All Fed officials talk about the lags in monetary policy. But Poole was the rare one to not just pay lip service to the lag issue, but to actually back up his words with action - his dissent. And not only did Poole dissent against the June 28 funds rate cut, but he also opposed the easing bias in the FOMC's policy announcement. In his view, given the highly stimulative monetary policy already in place and the lags in monetary policy, the FOMC should become more agnostic as to the risks of further weakness or higher inflation. Being a carrier of the monetarist bug myself, I'm naturally sympathetic to Poole's arguments. But even if one thought monetarism to be a totally discredited branch of economics, you've got to take your hat off to Poole for attempting to guide monetary policy with something other than the seat of Greenspan's pants. Right on, Bill! Paul L. Kasriel Director of Economic Research Asha Bangalore Economist ___________________________________________ The information herein is based on sources which The Northern Trust Company believes to be reliable, but we cannot warrant its accuracy or completeness. Such information is subject to change and is not intended to influence your investment decisions.

To: donald sew who wrote (16756)	8/25/2001 8:34:56 PM
From: James F. Hopkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 52237

I've not been looking at the Rydex numbers very long, and only have the data back to March 2, I'm sure there are angles I still haven't explored in respect to the data I do have . -------------- Some of it is wild I can't blame people for not believing unless they see it for themself, ( posted some and got a lot of "you must be wrong about taht " ) so I don't post it anymore. It's odd people will say it's wrong but don't want to do the work it takes to check it out. In a nutshell while the Short Funds have higher Navs, If you look at "when the majority traded in / out " ( and the fund switchers have rolled over 3 times the shares than the short funds had out at any one time ) Well with all that fund switching 90% of those who went in/out of the Short Funds "have lost much more money than the Bulls in the OTC fund. ---------------------- It don't sound right that most bears would lose money in a bear market but I have studied the data that proves it , their timing just seems to be sorry as hell. ---------------------- I've also been looking at a lot of negatives, but corrections do happen in both bull and bear markets some of them sizable. As bad as the NDX A/D line is ( and it's awful ) however it's not near as awful as it was a month ago, and the NDX A/D started to break to the upside fairly fast in the last week before Friday ( even as the index fell ) and that was bullish divergence. -------------------- Friday caught all the experts, and even the dummies like me by surprise ( at least the strength of it did ) Jim PS The NDX low of April 4th is almost 4 months back, if we are going to test or set a new low we need to do it fairly soon ( just as bull markets need to make new highs to keep running bear markets need new lows ) 4 months either way is about it. If we do break it then things could get real nasty, if we don't time is running out. Jim