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-Equips - Buy when BLOOD is running in the streets! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ian@SI who wrote (6548)	8/8/1998 7:07:00 PM
From: Peter Singleton	Respond to of 10921

Ian, I actually thought the Barron's cover article was a little more balanced. It set out the bull / bear debate, apparently highlighting the bull point of view, but offered several bearish points of views, closing with brief quotes by Robert Prechter and one other saying the market was faced with a 5 year decline which would bottom out around 1000 on the DJI ... allowing those points to stand without qualification. I would have considered the article bullish, for example, if it held those latter two views up to ridicule. My take was the tone was concerned, but undecided ... Peter

To: Ian@SI who wrote (6548)	8/8/1998 10:03:00 PM
From: Ramsey Su	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 10921

Ian, with all due respect to the great Abbey Cohen, I think she belongs to the camp that is under estimating the Asian problem. What troubles me is bullish comments about Asia are never followed by reasons, data and facts that substantiates that opinion. Being skeptical, the memory of Vinik promoting MU while selling is still fresh on my mind. I would appreciate any article, be it from WSJ, Barrons or even the National Enquirer, that provides something other than generic statements such as "Likewise, she feels that the menace of the Asian economic crisis and the rise in the dollar have been overblown. The tilt of U.S. exports toward value-added goods and services makes them less vulnerable to competition on the basis of price and relative exchange rates. Too, such concerns ignore the many benefits that a stronger greenback confers on U.S. companies. Among other things, it lets them pay less for raw materials and semi-finished components sourced overseas. The bounding buck also allows companies to make advantageous foreign direct investments in overseas facilities and operations, which down the road will burnish the bottom line.". As we all know by now, the above statement is totally false. Companies such as Nike, WDC, and Mattel, with manufacturing heavily concentrated, if not entirely, in Asia, have not benefited from the stronger greenback. Further more, how common was it in the not too distant past that Asia was relied upon by US corporations for future growth. How long can the US keep up the growth rate while facing record trade deficits? What is more worrisome may be the day that bulls like Cohen turn bearish, or just softens her tone, are we in for another huge drop? Ramsey