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: Zeev Hed who wrote (7170)	10/16/1998 4:51:00 PM
From: Cynic 2005	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Zeev, actually Japan gets half the blame. Greenspan did not learn from them. JMO. Until recently US banks can do nothing wrong. Now we are talking "insolvency" here as well. Do you call that vigilant? What about the fact that Greenspan flooded the World with $$ (hence the nickname Greenspam.) Most countries which scrambled for the $ in exchange for real goods shot themselves in the foot. The simple fact is, $ is nothing but paper. That scramble has helped Greenspan print even more. Now, can the system handle all those $$ returning home with further easy money policy? I don't know. I think the foolishness (and the Buck) stops somewhere. BTW, again, you are exactly right - half the blame goes to Japan. We needed higher rates in the US to fend of speculation in the stock market. Higher rates here and lower rates in Japan means more carry trades. In otherwords, if the rates in the US were higher, stocks wouldn't have diverted much $$ from CDs and Money Funds. At the same time if the Japanese rates were so low, we might still have had a bubble in equities - though not as big. But still a bubble.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (7170)	10/17/1998 8:03:00 AM
From: Tundra	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 9980

Zev, I too lurked for quite awhile before joining SI ; and am also appreciative of your thoughts. I am a bit puzzled, though, by your recent posts concerning Greenspan. Part of this may be due to the fact I am not familiar with some of your early posts and thus may not fully realize the context from which you speak . In any event, I hope you will clarify it for me. In your recent post to Bosco, you noted one of the reasons you were turning bullish was due to the management of the economic situation by AG . This post was today when the Dow was in the high 8300 range. In a subsequent and very recent post to MMV one of your tests of whether AG properly handled the situation was whether he kept the Dow above 5000 over the next few years. It also was somewhat unclear to me whether you believe the July run-up was a "bubble" and , even if it was, whether Greenspan shared some of the responsibility for its creation. In a nutshell, I am trying to reconcile your current bullish stance with the test you prescribe for measuring Greenspan's success. At this point, I am not arguing they are necessarily in conflict but am simply trying to fully understand you position. Given your current bullishness, assume a rather modest run to 8500 on the Dow. A return to just over 5000 would be an approximate 40% retrenchment. Of course, if measured from earlier highs, the percentage retracement would be considerably higher. Is your bullishness based upon fundamental factors? Or technical factors? Or some combination? If not based upon a fundamental view, are we talking about gains which have a "bubble" characteristic? In any event, I assume that this bullishness must be short term given your test of Greenspan effectiveness. Is that correct? Assuming Greenspan passes your test but the Dow does retract close to 5000 number, is none of this 40% properly characterized as a "bubble"? Even if some portion is, does blame for it, in whole or part, rest somewhere other than Greenspan? If so, why? I respect your views; your clarification of the foregoing would be most appreciated. Regards, Tundra