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 : Zeev's Turnips - No Politics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DebtBomb who wrote (69229)	5/19/2002 8:06:53 PM
From: ChrisJP	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 99280

lol Dale -- don't remind me .... I'm trying to erase it from my memory. Back in Jan, 2001, how many times di CNBC repeat "Markets ALWAYS go up 6 months after the Fed begins cutting rates" ? It made me sick. Just like all December 2001 they spoke of the "January Effect" ... daily. I think the "January effect" lasted 1 week. Here were my thoughts on the subject back in Feb 2001. Message 15289439 My only mistake has been to constantly underestimate the stupidity of the investing public. They should have run for hills by April 2001 and not come back. But they kept coming back, and coming back .... I was expecting NASDAQ 1300 - 1400 (because of the 1998 low and the 1991 - 1995 trendline) even back then. No one believed me, lol. Unreal. Also notice that I expected the recession to end by the end of 2001. The question ends up being "Why isn't the market a 6 - 9 month leading indicator any more instead of a news driven casino ?". Ohhhhh yeah -- and I was worried about Japan and a weak US dollar, lol. At least the bond market has always made sense. It had an inverted yield curve at the time and Kathleen Hayes kept telling viewers that it was predicting a mild recession. So for the record, CNBC had one person who predicted a recession. Chris