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 : Dell Technologies Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lee who wrote (68991)	10/3/1998 3:21:00 PM
From: jbn3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Lee, After watching the presentations by Mr. Greenspan and Mr. Rubin this past week, I must admit that I am more impressed than ever with the quality of those two men. We (and I think the world at large) are fortunate to have those two men guiding U.S. fiscal policies. Although they do not always make the decisions which would favor our individual investments, they DO always try to make the best decisions for the country. IMO, Mr. Greenspan's successful efforts to orchestrate an immediate and private sector solution to the LTCM problem greatly diminished the likelihood of extreme market reaction. The market may still respond negatively to the situation, because the problem is endemic to the hedge fund sector, but at least it will be a more orderly response. I doubt very much that his actions fall within the line and tittle of his "job description" and no one could ever have apportioned him any blame for not taking action. I give him highest marks for evaluating the potential perils of the situation, realizing what needed to be done to defuse it, and using his position and influence to expedite a pro bono publico solution. JMHO. Bachman Nabors (jbn3/3)

To: Lee who wrote (68991)	10/3/1998 4:16:00 PM
From: DO$Kapital	Respond to of 176387

<<<<<Re: Many members worry the Fed sent the wrong message with its bail out of wealthy investors.. If this is from the press, it is technically and functionally inaccurate. The FED DID NOT bail out LTCM.>>>>>> Obviously it's from the press (I did't write it myself)..... the same press from which you are obtaining YOUR information. From Business Week (which you were quoting): <<<<Some individuals in the consortium members have big investments in LTCM while their firms are participating in the bailout. Won't there be serious conflicts of interest? There is the appearance of conflict. For example, Merrill Lynch & Co. CEO David Komansky had $800,000 invested in LTCM through a fund of funds in his deferred compensation plan, while Merrill is putting up $300 million for the bailout. And Merrill executives have a total of $22 million invested in LTCM through the same deferred comp plan, which is now worth $2 billion. But this is an insignificant portion of Komansky's wealth. ''Any suggestion that this relatively minor investment would motivate this decision is ludicrous on its face,'' says a Merrill spokesman. Komansky has much more riding on doing a good job as chief executive, and not just because he has $100 million in Merrill stock alone.>>>>>>> You don't see any CONFLICT of INTEREST here? I am astounded at your obsequious attitude vis a vis the individuals and institutions (in essence individuals too) involved here. But hey if that's your bent, to each his own. The whole truth to this story is not yet known but I suspect it's alot uglier than you're willing to acknowledge. As for your cheap shot,,,alas, I am only fluent in 6 languages and Latvian isn't one of them.....peut-etre demain? A plus tard, JUST4THEDELLOF_IT

To: Lee who wrote (68991)	10/3/1998 4:17:00 PM
From: Mohan Marette	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 176387

Ref:LTC and Hedge funds - Sooner or later we all have to pay. Lee: I have a feeling we will all pay for it somehow irrespective of how this is resolved. Whether the government is involved or not (and they are not as we all know) seems to be a I think and I tell you why. 1.If they were allowed to go bankrupt it would have created more havoc in the market thereby reducing the equity values of portfolios, if I am not mistaken most people have some sort of vested interest in the market whether through their IRAs,direct stock ownership or whatever.Since a lot of the participants in these schemes are banks and investment brokers it could also come back to us via higher fees and charges. 2.If the government were to bail them out with tax payers money then obviously everyone pays. Even the bail out by bankers and investment houses of LTC could be a temporary fix as they could still loose more money and I think this whole process is merely a postponement of the obvious. Greenspan said in his recent testimony no amount of regulation can fix the problems and if the investors were stupid enough to invest money foolishly it was their problem and he also implied the Funds were regulated by the market forces. You and I know investors were stupid enough and they did lose big time and there was no market forces regulating the thing as it was alleged a lot of the investors didn't even know or even bother to ask how the funds were being deployed or invested by LTC. There is certainly something fishy going on in Denmark is all I am saying.<g>