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 : Strictly: Drilling II -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nspolar who wrote (35814)	1/29/2004 5:24:08 PM
From: MetalTrader	Respond to of 36161

NS, as I posted earlier to you, I will be using USPIX as a longer term vehicle...you know, just like they say mutual funds are supposed to be <g>....Until I see a technical breakdown in my chart patterns (i don't use ew, nor really understand it well enough)I am going to assume that the "powers that be", have a lot of ammunition to keep this "thing" afloat and will use all they can muster. Every positive spinning pundit or economist blithely comments on the positive balance sheet repair brought about by the markets, (bond, stock and housing)....I have lived long enough to have seen how ephemeral such wealth can be. Banks tend to take away your house first, not your debt. (houston, late 1970's) I heard one yesterday on NPR saying deficits are meaningless since no one can predict surpluses and we might be on the brink of one any day now. and besides, no one cares. huh? Politically, I fear he might be correct, and H.L. Mencken will be smiling. Until not so long ago I worked for a major brokerage house. I left when the ethics got beyond explanation. I recall the "value" analysis of the equity analysts. It was based on similar quicksand. Companies with huge bookvalues and valuations were pegged as such because they held valuable minority interests in companies such as Red Hat. Having a couple million shares at $150/sh sure can make a book value look good. (wall street 2000) A year later at $5, it looks a little less exciting. It is typical and similar to the circular logic of the unemployment benefit extention debate. No need to extend unemployment benefits because unemployment claims are down. (Unemployment claims are down because benefits ran out). Since the entire scheme is predicated on the continued inflated asset classes I am not betting on when the ammo will run out. In other words I have no idea to what depths of deceit they can go. So we agree in principal, you're just ahead of me a bit. (I have no doubt I'll have a seat with just as good a view as you <g> when the main feature starts. mt