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 : Qualcomm Incorporated (QCOM) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jon Koplik who wrote (13695)	8/13/1998 8:16:00 PM
From: Maurice Winn	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Jon, isn't that significant growth, given the GNP growth rate being a lot smaller? Also, during irrational exuberance, [the Dow reached 9300 during recent weeks], the money supply will be squeezed though even then it was still growing at a good clip. But now that Alan Green$pan can see the whites of their eyes, wide in fear, I imagine that the next set of figures you see will involve an accelerated distribution of new SuperDs. Paul Krugman said that there really shouldn't be a financial run on institutions because the Fed will go racing out with an armoured vehicle full of new SuperDs as needed to stabilize things. The same will apply to a jaundiced looking Nasdaq. The Fed won't wait until people are 'Selling Sky'. Or was it 'Buying Sky'? Especially given the current gnawing fear that the Asian crises will reproduce in USA markets. With Paul's 'radicalizing' epiphany when out of the blue in June, the 'speculators' took a bit of a drubbing at the hands of a newly activist Fed/Japan, we can expect plenty of currency and market intervention. He said these people are brilliant and institutionally powerful, but that won't protect them against getting trapped into foolish currency stabilization. Somebody today said somebody is supporting the yen! Speak of the devil. Stand by for printing. Mqurice Clark: "As long as it is trading for substantially less than that, we should be buying more and more stock until the liquidity dries up enough that the day traders need to bid up the price in order to get any. The very fact that that isn't happening means that either there aren't that many people who believe it, or they lack conviction, which is sort of the same thing as not believing it." Yes, I agree, but I have no idea on the holdings. I can't buy more because I don't have SuperDs. Maybe 80% of Q.com shareholders are in the same boat, hence the price doesn't rise as you suggest. Unlikely I agree, but possible. It does rise very suddenly when it does. And falls suddenly too, as though there is a body of stock which is traded a great deal. Clean: To answer your question in a later post, Ericsson enters the picture by way of guesswork on who benefits from a takeover. I don't know whose idea it is that somebody is driving down the price. I suspect nervous sellers!