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 : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (50494)	5/26/2009 9:05:05 PM
From: energyplay	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 217518

One giant problem when comparing stocks to bonds - You have companies like Intel, Cisco, Apple, Johnson and Johnson, other drug companies and some oil companies with piles of cash and insignificant debt. These tend to be like buying assets, and in many cases, these assets have some inflation resistance, or pricing power. They can be considered a bit along the spectrum towards a low cost gold mine, when compared to the average manufacturing company. Certainly true for antibiotics and Intel processors. A bond is a promise to pay. I will take Intel stock over a California government bond ;-) How about PetroBras, or Chevron vs. UK or US government bonds ? JS may be right in those cases... Another problem with bonds was that during the tech boom, the US Federal Government ran cash account surpluses, and discontinued the 30 year bond for a while, pulling down many other bond yields, including corporate bonds. Another big problem - you are going to buy a stock or bond - make one decision - and not change it for 10, 20, 30 years ? Say you picked Hewlett Packard, or better yet Sun Microsystems - you cold ride it up, then ride it back down for YEARS ?

To: TobagoJack who wrote (50494)	5/27/2009 12:36:36 AM
From: prosperous	1 Recommendation Respond to of 217518

Today the biggest problem is Ben, he will sinter bond and stock holders with equal opportunity, former with intention and the latter without. Jeremy Siegel is relatively less dangerous since he is likely to sinter only the stock holders. The country should be scared of Ben first than so many second/third order items they seem to be worried about, he has too much power, is too determined, and too willing to take too many risks without too detailed understanding of the too many implications with too many idiots backing him. I agree with the general sentiment expressed there. Too Too Too......