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 : Asia Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee who wrote (6813)	9/30/1998 2:08:00 PM
From: Henry Volquardsen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Lee, I wasn't implying they were duped and I agree that they are big boys and responsible for their own decisions. My point was more that certain issues were skewing the apparent risk rewards and helped lead to the over investment. It is hard to factor that into the analysis. But at the end of the day each investor is responsible for that analysis as well. I think if you take Greenspan and Rubin's testimony as a combined whole you get the message that yes the system is able to regulate itself but losses are part of the process. Rubin spoke of how after a long run of good returns markets tend to get lax on credit and the recent debacle is one of those example. What was unspoken was that the self regulatory aspect of free markets does not prevent painful episodes, it encourages them because that is the self regulatory mechanism. Losses focus people on why tighter standards are needed. I agree that the bad politics was supported by a lot of willing capital flows. A lot of money is very short sighted in this regard. This is why episodes like this are needed, to teach them lessons. But it was not the bad politics that I think are a major contributer to building over capacity. Even if the political environment were corruption free this could happen. I think the biggest distortion was fixed exchange rates coupled with high domestic rates to defend the local currency. This gives foreign investors the mistaken allure of earning the high local growth rates in their own economy while encouraging domestic borrowers to borrow in foreign currencies with lower interest rates. This is an explosive mix that will generate strong growth but will eventually lead to over capacity. But at each step of the way each individual is reacting rationally. This is what I mean by governmental policy distorting the analysis. Henry

To: Lee who wrote (6813)	9/30/1998 7:48:00 PM
From: Frodo Baxter	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 9980

>Regarding AG's comment of sophisticated instruments and the great powers to find the highest rate of return: return is still a factor of risk. Or did he say we have created methods to increase the return relative to risk? It seems in the pursuit of the highest return we increased the risk and are now dealing with those consequences. I love AG, but I still think he lost something there. We face banking crises, a global liquidity crisis, and confidence crises. That our US financial institutions are holding up is quite positive. But please don't give credit for productivity increases to sophisticated financial instruments.< What Uncle Al is referring to, if you read enough of his speeches, is the breakdown in the relationship of money growth to GDP growth in the late 80s/early 90s. That is, money velocity increased due to all these whizbang financial gadgets. On the other hand, you have a good point. Right now for example, money is growing far faster than GDP. Money velocity is actually decreasing. So we may very well revert to the mean. A picture from my website might help. Pay particular attention to the right portion of the graph: geocities.com