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: Maurice Winn who wrote (13704)	8/13/1998 8:24:00 PM
From: Clean	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 152472

Just for clarification, the argument has been made that the price is intentionally being driven down, so that "someone" could make a hostile takeover attempt? From where did this come about and where did ericy come into the picture (besides the known confrontation)? Or is this an educated guess? Regards.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (13704)	8/13/1998 8:38:00 PM
From: Jon Koplik	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 152472

Maurice - here we go again (groan) on money supply. I do not want to get started on this, but ... first, a joke. I heard someone say "there are two kinds of economists who are discussing money supply -- those who don't know what they are talking about, and know they don't know what they are talking about; and those who just blab on, without realizing they don't know what they are talking about." (I am in the first group). The thing that has been catching my eye lately on the Fed's money supply figures is the 13 week growth rates on M2 and M3 (the ones that end up at a date real close to today). Both figures were much faster about 4 to 6 weeks ago, and since they are a 13 week growth rate, the actual rate for just the past 4 weeks or so must have been way below even 5.5% and 6.8%. Your SuperD (new grocery store chain?) and money supply/stock market moves are not topics I have any thoughts on. Jon.