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.

Politics : Formerly About Applied Materials -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (25175)	10/11/1998 9:13:00 PM
From: Big Bucks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 70976

Jake/All, PEI update on: General world market conditions. peicommerce.com US Industrial Stock conditions. peicommerce.com US Transportation/Airlines ("Oh, the Horror!") peicommerce.com Link to Global Market Watch page. pei-intl.com BB

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (25175)	10/12/1998 7:45:00 AM
From: Duker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 70976

This article is twaddle. It typifies the type of journalism Barron's has practiced for the past several years. >>>What it's telling us is that, based on the selloff that began after the July 17 closing high on the S&P of 1186.75, the odds of recession might currently be four chances out of seven. The word "might" must be used here because strictly speaking, based on closing prices, we haven't yet seen a bear market.<<< Four out of Seven? Might in quotations? Is it the small sample that bothers Mr. Epstein? Is it the "underwhelming probability" of 57.1%? No, of course not. He hedges on "might" because it has not officially been a bear market. >>>Since 1950, bear markets in stocks have occurred seven times, but recessions have followed in only four of these instances, usually within a year or two.<<< Give me any point in time since 1900 and I will probably be able to say that there was a recession "within a year or two." Economic cycles are not typically 8+ years long. >>>And the current Fed chief, the omniscient Alan Greenspan, was in similar denial as of September 1990, a good two months after the 1990-91 recession had begun.<<< Does this strike anyone as arrogant? "Omniscient" Alan Greenspan...a good two months...Heaven forbid...61 days...I am sure ol' Gene would'a nailed that one well before the Fed Chief -- who has and is doing a very credible job in my opinion. >>>Right now, according to the tracking firm First Call, the bottom-up forecast on the S&P for the third quarter is running negative 3.3% versus a year ago, which is probably in the ballpark.<<< ...which is probably in the ballpark...Based upon Epstein's comprehensive models based upon in-depth conversations with the individual companies, suppliers, and competitors of the firms that comprise the S&P 500??? I am sure the analyst community breathed a collective sigh of relief now that Mr. Epstein has signed-off on their forecasts. [Don't misinterpret my response to mean that I have any faith in the ability of analysts to forecast. I understand that he hedges back and forth, and that the article is just an article ... I am just sick of the thoughtless and arrogant stance of Barron's of late. I am reading way too much into one article ... but it represents my opinion of the magazine over the last several years. I would cancel my subscription if I did not "get it for free" with the WSJ Interactive . And another thing, the WSJ writers are just as ... --Duker N.B., Jacob, the above is in no way a reflection of your choice to post this or any other article. Just wanted to vent some Barron's frustration.