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.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (116139)	3/28/2002 10:28:20 AM
From: JohnG	Respond to of 152472

FCC is an embarassment to this country. Nextwave matter - I think it is deplorable that the FCC be allowed to 1) sell spectrum for which it has no clear title to Verizon and others, 2) Take huge deposits, 3) fail to deliver the spectrum on a timely basis, 4) refuse to return the multi billion deposits paid in good faith by Verizon and others, 5) get sued by Verizon to force FCC to return the deposits, 6) Then take the position that they will refund only 85% of the deposits and that the 15% will be seized as a penalty if Verizon and others ultimately fail to purchase the spectrum (if the Supreme Court decides in a few years that FCC had title to the spectrum they tried to sell). We have totall ineptitude by the FCC under Kennard followed by abusive use of regulatory power by the FCC under Powell. Powell's FCC continues to crawfish and waffel about implementing the rules and deadlines for carriers to support the 911 position location service. This service will save lives and the technology is currently both operational at some carriers and available to other carriers who resist implementing. Powell is clearly a political creature who waffels bak and forth adopting poitions that try to please everyone while avoiding any responsibility for making any tough decisions. He functions in a way that is detrimental to the best interest and good health of the American people.

To: carranza2 who wrote (116139)	3/28/2002 11:05:16 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

great post, carranza. A sophisticated investor also knows that the risk that the stock will not deliver long terms returns exceeding Treasury yields is substantial. He presumably has made the investment in order to potentially capitalize on his assumption that high returns are likely. Thus, the Treasury yield comparison is relevant but only to the extent it is a measure of an investor's tolerance for risk. i somehow think many investors consider beating bonds a foregone conclusion, which you obviously recognize to be not the case. to me, the purpose of a T-yield comparison is to determine whether the expected return (of a risk asset, such as a stock) satisfactorily exceeds the risk-free return. because Greenspan, in his effort to keep the stock bubble from deflating, has pushed short-term yields into negative real territory, it seems many investors take this as a carte blanche to push expected stock returns very low (i.e., push up current prices). but despite what Greenspan has done, one can get an inflation-indexed 3.5% return off of TIPS, so i take that as the risk-free benchmark which stocks must beat. currently, i believe the real expected return on the market is about on par with TIPS, which is to say the equity risk premium appears to me about 450 basis points below its historical norm. given the choice between a risk asset and a risk-free asset offering the same return, obviously i would choose the risk-free asset. if the market comes around to this perception (i.e., my opinion), then i believe the direction for the US market is down. conversely, the direction of expected returns would improve. this situation would actually be of great benefit to younger people who will be adding most of their funds to stocks in the coming years. however, it would not benefit those who are currently overweighted in risk assets. A more conservative investor could easily be convinced to go elsewhere based on the comparions made by Mucho and others while a more aggressive one will not be dissuaded because he is convinced his calculations could lead to higher than market returns. let me clarify my position a bit. i think i may have given the impression that i am against risk. but this is not the case. what i am against is risk without expected reward. i actually have a pretty decent appetite for risk. for example, i am considering possible investment in the bonds of certain companies that are in or are on the verge of bankruptcy. and right now, i own risk assets without currency hedges in the following countries: Russia, India, Korea, Japan, and various countries of Oceania, South America and Europe, as well as Canada and the US. investing in third-world or second-world countries is a practice most would consider risky. i would agree. however, i may feel the risk is worth taking if the reward is sufficiently high. this is what investing is all about imho. by contrast, i think investing in most Nasdaq 100 companies is risky, but not rewarding.