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 : Booms, Busts, and Recoveries -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: NOW who wrote (39978)	10/22/2003 3:58:26 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74559

<"Many people can go to all cash now and have a good 2003." No. that would be impossible. Some people could. Many, no.> Actually, the net number of people who can go to all cash now and have a good 2003 is zero. That's because for every seller there's a buyer and the buyers will have a bad 2003 if they take the overpriced things off the sellers' hands. If some very wealthy people bought heaps of stocks from lots of very poor people with small holdings, then the total number of people who have a good 2003 could improve, but that's as unlikely. In fact, on the principle that those with wealth tend to know better how to protect it than those with small amounts, which is why they've got the large amounts of wealth, there are likely to be a few large sellers of stocks and swarms of small guys buying at the peak. So more people will have a bad 2003. But the total change in cash being held won't be affected, other than that for every trade, a broker takes a cut and the government takes a capital gains cut. To maximize the cash position in the share-holding crowds, no selling and no buying would maximize the returns for 2003. It's like conservation of momentum. It's a law of physics. Money isn't created or destroyed. It just changes hands. For every seller there's a buyer and if one loses momentum, the other gains it. Mqurice