SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Enigma who wrote (16920)11/1/1998 1:02:00 PM
From: Crimson Ghost  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 18056
 
Enigma: Anybody expecting aggressive Fed easing while the markets remain strong is engaged in the grossest kind of wishful thinking. AG is using rates cuts as a defensive weapon to prevent a meltdown.



To: Enigma who wrote (16920)11/1/1998 3:58:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 18056
 
enigma, I doubt that we will go to 2% interest rates anytime soon (I can see 4% if the worldwide deflation persists or even deepen). As for comparison with 29', that would require the DOW to decline just under 1000 at its through, or so. I do not think that that is in the card either. The main difference between then and now is the "security blanket" under the economy which assures some minimum end demand in the economy.

I do see a market over the next five or seven year having few bull moves and few bear moves in the general range of 5000 to 10,000. In essence a situation parallel to what we had between 1966 and 1982 when the market was bound roughly by 1000 on the upper end and just above 550 on the lower end. The reason then and now differ, but I believe the results will be the same, but the time period (from the first peak near 10,000, or in our case the top at 9350 to the last bottom), I believe will be shorter than the 16 years in the prior period.

Zeev



To: Enigma who wrote (16920)11/1/1998 8:47:00 PM
From: Carl R.  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 18056
 
My understanding is that the LTCM forced the lenders to put up additional liquidity to allow time for LTCM to have an orderly liquidation rather than a sudden one. The lenders agreed to this because an orderly liquidation was clearly in their benefit. If my understanding is correct the lenders were not bailed out at all, but encouraged to help themselves.

Carl