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.

Technology Stocks : Cisco Systems, Inc. - Off-topic postings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (33)	11/29/2007 10:18:32 PM
From: Lynn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 230

Let's live a day at a day according to what we can afford. If that means the banks need to write down the value of their portfolios to account for their losses and their stock prices go down, then so be it. Next time, they will have learned their lesson. But all of us shouldn't have to suffer for the mistakes the banks made. It sounds as if you do not hold shares of banks, mindmeld. I am not taking a jab at you, by any means, but in all the talk about banks on many, many stock threads here, the shareholders of these banks seem to get forgotten in this disaster. Bank stocks used to be blah, boring, gradual share price appreciation with dependable dividend investments. People who got swept up in the internet bubble ear were not bank stock buyers. Banks appealed to the less speculative risk kind of person. Now, banks stocks are being pounded and their shareholders, many of whom have held their shares for years and years and years and have depended on the dividends for income are getting spooked. My question is: Where does the risk adverse person looking for a boring, gradual price appreciation stock that pays a nice dividend go now? Really, for many investors, especially older ones, the problems facing their 'safe' investments is more than a little stressful. Lynn

To: RetiredNow who wrote (33)	11/30/2007 4:36:29 AM
From: JDN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 230

Well, we have had an "inverted" yield curve for a very long time now. Lately it seems to have really gotten out of hand. I believe the treasury bill rate is something like 3% and the Federal Funds rate 4 1/2%. Big banks borrow through the Fed and lend out, thats how the money supply is expanded. When you have a situation like above it restricts credit, not just for homes but for BUSINESSES. So, if credit is restricted you can expect a lot of dire effects far beyond the housing industry. As to the value of the $$ I am not sure the federal funds rate has a lot to do with that unless you mean restrict the money supply. But, as I pointed out above, that could cause a major reduction in business activity, higher unemployment and possibly a recession. I have always been of the opinion, rightly or wrongly, that the $$'s value is more attributable to a healthy economy and a balanced budget. We've had a really healthy economy till now but our budget got out of whack. Best way to have a chance to get it back into balance IMHO is GROW BUSINESS ACTIVITY resulting in growing tax revenues. To merely raise taxes, especially in this upcoming potential environment IMHO will result in REDUCING tax revenue and INCREASING budget deficits. jdn