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 : Tech Stock Options -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ViperChick Secret Agent 006.9 who wrote (29884)	12/2/1997 11:10:00 AM
From: ViperChick Secret Agent 006.9	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 58727

New flash typical lisa style something about Kurlak addressing someone at 11;30 heard something about selling into strength ...dont know if it was all semi's are just a select few... watch for his comments folks...even if you hate him sometimes he is right or maybe i should say the market follows him and makes him right?

To: ViperChick Secret Agent 006.9 who wrote (29884)	12/2/1997 11:50:00 AM
From: j g cordes	Respond to of 58727

Lisa, bonds and chips... My August cycle chart for bonds called for 6% late November. It hasn't changed. These are long cycles and mid January is the other side of the time range for hitting lows... Even though I chart these things, I'm no more convinced of cycles than I am of the Warren Commission. However, using these tools gives another scenario of 5.78% long bond around June. As 6% has been a terminal barrier its possible that if its broken, lower rates would look for a bottom more quickly, just as the 2000 mark on the Dow was worth less than the fear of breaking through it. Regarding cause and effect... ".. don't you think we really need SOMETHING to cause it to break that level." Does it really work that way? I think we find reasons to support what's happened, not the other way around. Lets look at it this way. Markets trade to squeeze out the most likely riskless profit. We still have huge capital inflows into US equities with a larger proportion discovering the "riskless" opportunities of bonds. This is nothing new... what's new is the lowered profitability potential and risk of investment we've seen in Asia, Korea and Japan. These fears form the increased capital flows into treasuries, combined with lowered government obligations, dropping commodities, gold, etc.. has resulted in a very nice run which can be extended further. How far? The bottom line on rates in any debt market or issue is the ability/cost of service. In essense we are backing up the IMF and the government treasury market with the capacity to absorb more debt. Debt is backing full faith and credit. Will the loan guarantees to Korea affect us? Sure they will, and what's crucial in my mind is that these monies are directed to bail out our companies doing business there first... not to bail out overleveraged businesses that export job killing businesses here. MU, for example, I feel has a valid argument that the US taxpayer is subsidizing go for broke (literally) chip operations that ruin our labor force. In my opinion, we should tag a good percentage (50%) of the bailout funds through US partnerships there... otherwise its like the employees of Chrysler bailing out/and rebuilding the technology base for Hyundi through their pension plan... a little counter productive for Detroit. Even tagging monies like this through US multi-nationals dosen't keep the jobs which in turn, through taxes, fund paying our own debt. Bottom line... capacity considerations from artifically sustained operations there, that would otherwise be halted by market forces, argue against the anticipated profits in semi-conductor and chip markets. Jim