SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Applied Materials No-Politics Thread (AMAT) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: matt dillabough who wrote (3211)9/24/2002 2:22:29 PM
From: Ian@SI  Respond to of 25522
 
September 24, 2002

For immediate release

The Federal Open Market Committee decided today to keep its target for the federal funds rate unchanged at 1 3/4 percent.

The information that has become available since the last meeting of the Committee suggests that aggregate demand is growing at a moderate pace.

Over time, the current accommodative stance of monetary policy, coupled with still robust underlying growth in productivity, should be sufficient to foster an improving business climate. However, considerable uncertainty persists about the extent and timing of the expected pickup in production and employment owing in part to the emergence of heightened geopolitical risks.

Consequently, the Committee believes that, for the foreseeable future, 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.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Alan Greenspan, Chairman; William J. McDonough, Vice Chairman; Ben S. Bernanke; Susan S. Bies; Roger W. Ferguson, Jr.; Jerry L. Jordan; Donald L. Kohn; Mark W. Olson; Anthony M. Santomero, and Gary H. Stern.

Voting against the action were: Edward M. Gramlich and Robert D. McTeer, Jr.

Governor Gramlich and President McTeer preferred a reduction in the target for the federal funds rate.



To: matt dillabough who wrote (3211)9/24/2002 2:49:03 PM
From: Proud_Infidel  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 25522
 
Any thoughts on whether today was the bottom for AMAT and the group? I hate even hearing the mention of capitulation, but the bounce we have seen today, especially after the NVLS preannouncement, is at least a ray of hope that the bloodletting may be slowing down if not turning a corner.

BK