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 : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (19701)	10/2/1998 3:47:00 PM
From: craig crawford	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 164684

>> October 1990, the S&L crisis ($600 BILLION, thats 200 LTCM's!) << LTCM leverage was greater than $600 billion

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (19701)	10/2/1998 4:34:00 PM
From: M. Frank Greiffenstein	Respond to of 164684

History lessons... Correct, "learn history"... Such as: The total indebtedness of ALL the banks in 1990 was 600 billion. But only one hedge fund put 100 billion at risk. So the proper way to put it is one small hedge fund was able to put only 1/6th of all the 1990 banks at risk. But William, your 200 multiple implies you are only looking at the seed capital. LTC actually had over 100 billion in potential losses because of leverage, and that does not count all the off balance sheet derivative trades . The notional value of those derviative positions was over one trillion dollars. Now, this does not mean that a trillion dollars was at risk, becasue notional value just refers to the dollar value of all positions totalled, but these positions can include hedges. Nonetheless, we are talking about just one hedge fund, hardly comparable to the sum total of all the banks problems in 1990. Crack those history books! <g> DocStone

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (19701)	10/2/1998 4:55:00 PM
From: fedhead	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

William How much revenue do you see YHOO earning by 2000 , 500 mil 1 bil more? And is this going to be entirely due to advertising . Thanks Anindo

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (19701)	10/2/1998 7:46:00 PM
From: H James Morris	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

William<Learn history. :) > I have. Whats that got to do with 1998?

To: Bill Harmond who wrote (19701)	10/2/1998 8:17:00 PM
From: JBL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164684

There was a great article in yesterday's issue of the Asian Wall Street Journal about Japan. It mentioned among other things, that they have been unable (largely for cultural reasons)to "bite the bullet" and restructure their economy when the speculative bubble became apparent 7 or 8 years ago. Instead, they have seen promoting growth in SE Asia, combined with use of cheap labor, as a way to not restructure at home. In the process, they have invested hundreds of billions in SE Asia, and have been largely responsible for the miracle in those economies . These investments have become ever larger, but in a context of very weak banking and lending practices, real estate inflation, overall low margins, and corruption. When Thailand failed, the dominoes started falling. There is now huge overcapacity in Asia, with plants working on razor thin margins or loosing money, and deeply dependent on the European and US market. The situation has become even more critical as consumption is now falling in Japan itself, and the subsidiaries of Japanese goups in the tiger economies are starting to produce red ink. We truly are in a deflationary situation. Look at commodities prices, or look at prices and incentives given for new cars in the US. The problem will be resolved one way or another, but given its magnitude, hoping that there will be no pain for the US and European economies is wishful thinking. This is not a correction, it is a bear market, and will last until the global banking mess created by Japan is cleaned up.