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: velociraptor_ who wrote (36350)	10/4/2001 11:54:51 PM
From: Merlo	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37746

"Greenspan had little to do with it." Many people would differ with you. For one he could have started raising rates while under the Clinton Administration. Instead he chose to wait until the bubble expanded to much then raised rates to much to fast. Later when cutting back rates he chose to go the 1/4 point route. Now after the fact he's cutting by 1/2's. In 1929 people said it wasn't the Feds fault but history proved otherwise. They started the chain reaction which lead to the great depression and later WWII. Those were desperate times with millions unemployed. Yes, you can blame the greedy investors but they were lead to the slaughter by all the analysts hype, including many other factors some of which you mentioned.

To: velociraptor_ who wrote (36350)	10/5/2001 1:52:47 AM
From: milesofstyles	Respond to of 37746

velo i think greed had alot to do with it. i'll agree with that, but as for greenspan arguements, i'd have to agree with merlo's 1929 history. i also think that at the time of the hikes greenspan noted the 5pct acceleration was too fast and intended on "slowing" it down. i also believe "inflation" was tossed around quite a bit by the fed at the time. i'd have to say that was incorrect apparently. but he should know what the effect of raising rates would have been while you say, "everyone was in debt up to their ears". the same was true of alot of companies as well. the interesting part is that the consumer kept spending and the cap ex of companies was obviously reeled in pronto. the rate hikes likely made the risk of expansion less viable. i read somewhere this was the first time in history its ever happened this way.there's also arguements he overshot the mark with six hikes. he didn't stop the growth some will argue, he killed it. all of it is speculation. but these are the arguements that will remain and i have seen on the net. during good times i would think looser restrictions would be the norm. the ability to repay is greater during an expansion. hopefully, after 9 cuts, the napm report is the first sign of some kinda result. its obviously what the market has been looking for. some kind of improved economic data.now it has to continue. first the economy, then the earnings, i would guess. of course other things regarding the consumer will have to happen. we'll need to see a deceleration in unemployment, and maybe all the stimulus moves some of these people off the line back into some kind of work. if that happens consumer confidence will find its way back. if it doesn't happen this way, then i would guess the spiral effect will occur. i couldn't agree more with the accounting system. i made comments 2 or 3 years ago on sergio's three amigo thread about some accounting practices that popped up in regards to merger/acquisition activity that ignited sparks at the time, but is sure coming to roost now in the form of writeoffs. the result of this has attracted sec attention and co's are due to respond i bleev by the first of the year regarding their asset structures. you can't look at a string of eps and say "look, growth!". from here on out, you better know what you are looking at if your an investor type and as you stated, how those earnings were generated. but i'm getting a bit redundant on that point. as far as wall st analysts, i think the whole financial system has to be revamped. this should not be allowed to happen to joe investor who may not have had the time to do their own work or didn't know how and trusted in these people's "professional" assessments. its fraud. if a doctor makes a mistake its malpractice, and they lose their licensse. similar activity should be done with these analysts. give them some type of rating system, and if they exceed their limit of bs calls, remove them from the industry. restoring trust could be one mighty task. it just amazes me that stocks even react to analysts calls, but that won't change, even if the call is unfounded. milesov

To: velociraptor_ who wrote (36350)	10/5/2001 3:27:33 AM
From: GrillSgt	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37746

I agree Velo..nice post. One could also blame Regulation FD in which Greenspan had no control. Beat or miss by a penny became such a game. The pc/internet mania came at a perfect time as folks learned they could invest for themselves, and later discovered they were great stock traders too. And there was certainly no shortage of underwriters willing to sell new, new economy stocks to these great traders/investors for hefty fee's. Or some would blame the media..such as Cnbc trotting out salesmen, telling the viewers what they want to hear. Putting the blame at the feet of Greenspan is absurd.

To: velociraptor_ who wrote (36350)	10/5/2001 4:27:13 PM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37746

Why did banks throw money at people and corporations that were overleveraged already and a bad risk? From whom might they get the idea that they were too big to fail? Who heralded the new productivity miracle accounting scam? Who bailed derivative traders after they blew themselves up? Who gave the American people some reasons why they should perhaps be willing to accept smaller risk premia? Your nutz. AG has his name written all over the darn thing ...

To: velociraptor_ who wrote (36350)	10/5/2001 6:29:09 PM
From: Skeeter Bug	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 37746

>>Greenspan had little to do with it<< greenspan had EVERYTHING to do with it... >>Greed is a factor.<< people are ALWAYS greedy. something was different this time. what was it? i will tell you in a minute... >>The loose banking system was a factor<< yes, and guess who has an impact on banking behavior? >>The screwed up accounting system of companies and their lies was a factor. << this is true and isn't directly greenspan's fault, although he could have challenged it... >>The lies of Wall Street were a factor<< wall street hasn't changed. they ALWAYS mislead. anatomy of a bubble... 1. create the mirage that we are in a new economy. what will the cause be? computers. however, productivity isn't going up as one would expect. alan greenspan - "don't worry guys, we'll change the way we measure productivity and then, all of a sudden, we'll have the foundation for the new economy!" yes, alan.com rigged gdp and productivity. in fact, it was double what it would have been in 1999 had he not rigged the numbers. the new economy paradigm was the foundation of the bubble and alan greenspan created the illusion by rigging the numbers and whipped people into a frenzy by talking about the "new economy." 2. mislead people about true inflation and exclude MASSIVE asset inflation from discussion. 3. make credit easily accessible to banks and allow them to rollover debt to get around the asset to loan ratio. banks, in turn, would make stupid loans b/c they were flush with cash. 4. talk nonsense about a "new economy" that never existed and saying repeatedly that "one can't know a bubble until after it is over." pure pig sht. alan greenspan is knee deep. notice this distinction. alan.com created and fed the bubble. he didn't cause it to crash, imho. the mere fact it was a bubble guaranteed it was going to crash - no matter what happened. that is why financial disconnects are bad - even when they feel* good.