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.

Pastimes : Ask Mohan about the Market -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (16909)	11/1/1998 10:22:00 AM
From: Enigma	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18056

Zeev - you seem to be saying 'later rather than sooner' Dow 5000? So if Dow is 5000 bound - do you think it was good that Fed orchestrated a bailout of Wall Street, and international banking pals - rather than allowing an orderly bankruptcy proceeding, under which the fund's positions would have been unwound in the most advantageous way - and Buffet was standing in the wings. The message seems to be that risk will be rewarded by bailouts - just like the IMF coming to the rescue in recent history, eg - OK to lend to Mexico, Russia, Brazil because the risk is underwritten. IMO we have a new situation which is interrupting market forces - all in the name of maintaining a false sense of normality - but postponing the evil hour. E

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (16909)	11/1/1998 10:58:00 AM
From: Crimson Ghost	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18056

Zeev AG indeed has ample room to cut rates again to prevent a meltdown. But he needs to horde his ammunition carefully. I doubt he will ease much more (maybe another 25 bp) as long as the Dow stays over 8000. If he were to ease aggressively now and drive the Dow to 10,000 he would be setting the stage for a tremendous drop with very little ammunition to ward off disaster.

To: Zeev Hed who wrote (16909)	11/1/1998 12:08:00 PM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Respond to of 18056

Zeev, I kindly disagree with you for the following reasons; 1. A.G acted not to save the markets but to save those who engaged in gambles of big proportions out of pure greed and violated US criminal laws who were put in place to keep our banking system on solid ground. 2. By doing so with the full approval of the FED board, they actually conspired a cover up and bail out of those who violated the law. 3. The timing of the action and failure of disclosure was intended clearly to save same violators and not the public at large. In general it would be much more healthy for the economy at large if the saving rate would be higher at 6% to 10% in the US and not below 2% of free income and if the public had placed less trust in the stock market. Growth in cash accounts assets would give the economy a better cushion for difficult times than funds invested in the stock market. Therefore I still think that the FED was violating various laws even if A.G did not profit from it. I did not even dream that he will be involved in such activity. A.G. should have lowered 0.5% in the first place and not play with the financial markets. LTCM problems were known since mid September, before the FMOC meeting!! Still A.G and Rubin are guilty well over their head. As to the market we would restested the 7400 range again, and moving sidways. No disaster at all. Even more so may be a healty and slow rebound of solid companies. Haim