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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam Citron who wrote (57194)	12/11/2001 4:24:49 PM
From: advocatedevil	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 70976

Sam, Absolutely! It's funny you commented on this as I was making phantom AMAT plays in both directions today and would have done very well (if only I didn't have so much already in play...). In any case, thanks to Merck, my existing short-play didn't lose as much ground as it could have. I guess the market is expecting Merck to lower their semi-equip capex going forward! <g> I'm just hearing there may be some positive news from P&G tonight (probably going to raise their capex and rocket AMAT and the SCEs in the morning! <g> AdvocateDevil

To: Sam Citron who wrote (57194)	12/11/2001 4:48:23 PM
From: Jacob Snyder	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Fed statement & my commentary: Economic activity remains soft, with underlying inflation likely to edge lower from relatively modest levels. This is more of their continuing campaign to talk down the long bond. The effect of lower ST rates is partly negated, if LT rates don't come down, too. I'm sure the Fed is watching and worrying about the recent upturn in LT rates. To be sure, weakness in demand shows signs of abating, but those signs are preliminary and tentative. Now, this is interesting. Do they really see signs of a bottom, or are they just trying to boost confidence? Stock investors, particularly tech sectors like semi-equips, seem to be seeing and believing those same signs. The Committee continues to believe that, against the background of its long-run goals of price stability and sustainable economic growth and of the information currently available, the risks are weighted mainly toward conditions that may generate economic weakness in the foreseeable future. Boilerplate. Although the necessary reallocation of resources to enhance security may restrain advances in productivity for a time, the long-term prospects for productivity growth and the economy remain favorable and should become evident once the unusual forces restraining demand abate. Greenspan is still a Believer in the NewEconomy, where higher productivity leads to the Nirvana of permanently high growth, with both unemployment and inflation trending toward zero. The recent unpleasantness does not indicate a change in trend, it's "un-usual". Would 1999, then, be "usual"? Does he expect demand levels to rebound to those levels? Seems like that's what the statement is saying. I'm deeply sceptical of this, as 1999 demand levels (especially for tech items) is only possible with ever-higher debt levels. Income levels, with a modest but positive savings rate, don't support 1999-level demand.