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 : Semi Equipment Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gottfried who wrote (40779)	10/10/2008 2:37:09 PM
From: The Ox	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 95596

We shouldn't under estimate the psychological effect that this week is going to have on the average person and Main street. Most businesses aren't directly effected but there are plenty of indirect effects that won't show up immediately. If you are selling groceries, you are still going to have customers. Their buying patterns may change but everyone still needs to buy groceries. Scaring Mom and Pop out of stocks may have a long term effect on the markets and 401ks/retirements. This will only change if we get a decent rebound at some stage in the next few months. If the markets go down farther and stay down, once again the short/intermediate damage to the markets (and eventually to Main st.) should not be under estimated. Watch the run for the hills this afternoon! It should be a cavalry charge bordering on a stampede, imo!

To: Gottfried who wrote (40779)	10/10/2008 2:49:35 PM
From: BWAC	2 Recommendations Respond to of 95596

No, I do not agree with that economist. The economy may be 'strong' based on the data being looked at in the rear view mirror. And yes I would be alarmed if not watching the market. Number 1, I know a lot of people at Wachovia. They fear for their jobs. As do people in other businesses that serve the bank or its employees. The fallout from the banking panic (and government playing from 5 months behind) has yet to seriously affect the rest of the economy outside of housing. I think Retail is going to have a disaster season for holiday sales. Consumers will be spending less especially when credit is involved. Look at car sales. Home sales. Retail same store sales. Restaurant sales. Unemployment. The middle class is tapped out. Cut off their credit and they have to retrench and make lifestyle changes. When the money stops flowing around the system due to general reduced economic activity, then the economy itself has to suffer. Remember, I think most economists haven't a clue. Greenfool didn't have one when he raised rates to destroy the tech bubble, nor when he later cratered rates to save the carnage his policies helped create, nor when he extoled the virtues of Option ARM mortagages at the EXACT rate bottom, nor when he then immediately proceeded to ramp rates every meeting, etc. And Berdumbke was right in there going along with it all. Not to mention the Fed Fools stating this would all be contained to the sub-prime market when the issues first cropped up last year. Does it look contained to you? Action taken then by the ivory tower acadumbic's would have worked. But the clowns couldn't see the looming problem for their incompetence and ivory tower sheltered lives. The Fed and other powers that be must get out in front of this crisis and stop playing damage control from behind. It doesn't stop until they do so. If they don't soon we will be seeing 20% unemployment by February 2009.

To: Gottfried who wrote (40779)	10/10/2008 8:12:45 PM
From: Sultan	3 Recommendations Respond to of 95596

if we weren't watching the market, would we be as alarmed? I was thinking about this in a round about way.. In 1987, I was in a really well paying job, lots of savings and no stocks or even brokerage accounts because I was and am a real procrastinator.. But I used to and always have read financial publications, papers going back to early 1970s.. So October debacle was interesting but in no way worrying.. I did not know any one personally who was impacted and there was no impact on economy or the job market.. I remember reading an interview in November of 1987, where a columnist asked Sir J. Templeton about the markets and whether he thought there were any bargains and Templeton gave his usual, simple but direct opinions and recommended couple of Canadian bank stocks and I looked Royal Bank up.. It was trading around CAD 26+ (presplits) with good dividend but I procrastinated.. 1 year later it was up 100% or so.. This of course is another beast altogether but if I was not in the market and if I had savings with a good job (cash flow and regular savings), I would have no qualms averaging in good companies.. Many out there with good dividend and yields to really low p/s and some trading at prices lower then cash on hand.. In fact that is what I have been telling any one who would listen but seems people with cash are frozen and are not jumping in and I bet you they will once the fear disappear and of course by then bargains would have gained 100-200%.. Might take couple of years or more though..

To: Gottfried who wrote (40779)	10/11/2008 4:35:44 PM
From: Cary Salsberg	Respond to of 95596

I was not impressed by the article and surprised the author is an economics professor. He used one macro economic measure, profitability on invested capital, to support his argument and didn't try to explain why it was up to 10% in 2007-8, above the normal post WW2 averages of 7-8%. I would guess that the increased profitability in the energy sector because of high oil prices was the cause. I agree that solving the banking industry problem will not necessarily solve the problems of our economy.