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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mike M2 who wrote (214962)	1/16/2003 11:23:29 AM
From: Box-By-The-Riviera™	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

dead on and let us not forget the messenger getting shot over a trillion dollars ago with machine guns f*ck lizzy and that band of moaners... fricken neophyte way late to the game without a ficken case to make bull or bear. got headless?

To: Mike M2 who wrote (214962)	1/16/2003 11:26:37 AM
From: 10K a day	Respond to of 436258

> Wall St, corporate America and the mutual fund industry have enormous control over the dissemination of information wel yah. and this is what fly's in the face of everything. i look at it this way. if a market maker can sit on the ask with 100 shares. and sit on the bid with 99 shares. and he buys 100 shares and moves the price up a point. has he really lost anything? or has he increased the buying power of his margin account. now take those numbers to absurd absolute extremes and we got a joke of a price movement. and we can do a bond offering or print more paper or whatever we want to do. and don't think if you got 20 guys working (together) in the band that you can't do whatever the hell you want...and well...i guess if you desire context...i guess you came to the wrong place.

To: Mike M2 who wrote (214962)	1/16/2003 11:36:01 AM
From: yard_man	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 436258

not only is there NO BULLISH case -- but Lizzie is just plain wrong about there not being any bulls. She must talk to no-one outside of SI and see no magazines whatsoever to reach that sort of conclusion. I don't mind her posting -- I just think her opinion is soo far off, so as to make it not worth reading. Look at Newman's latest -- how can anyone say there are no bulls left with Mutual Fund cash levels where they are, DTV as high as it is, public participation as high as it is -- nuts to that bull-oney -- because nuts is what it really is. cross-currents.net if this ain't a bunch of bullish sentiment -- what is, eh? Enough said -- you said it already. >>A recent issue of BusinessWeek polled the "Fearless Forecasts" of 67 "of the smartest players on Wall Street." It always seems to be the "smart" ones that get it wrong, like the majority of Wall Street strategists who have been so woefully wrong on the direction of stock prices for so long. The consensus view is that the Dow will end the year at 9871, up 18.3%. It is the view of the group of 67 that the S&P 500 will rise 19.3% to 1049 and that Nasdaq will surge 27.6% to end the year at 1703. Although we must admit that we believe prices could conceivably end the year modestly higher, we believe the odds of an up year are not great and gains will likely be limited to 5%. <<

To: Mike M2 who wrote (214962)	1/16/2003 12:13:41 PM
From: Earlie	Respond to of 436258

Mike: Couldn't agree more with both your list and your distaste for the Wall Street baloney feast we have endured over the last several years. That said, I still think it makes much sense to keep the thread open to all opinions. Even for bears, it is valuable to know what those on the other side are thinking and how they might be viewing the world, particularly when they outnumber the bears by such a large ratio. In military terms, "One can never hold too much intellignece with respect to one's enemies". (g) Best, Earlie