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 : Graham and Doddsville -- Value Investing In The New Era -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (948)	11/7/1998 12:04:00 AM
From: porcupine --''''>	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1722

> [Hulbert's provides] several ratings on Value Line. > Annualized returns are shown in following order > YTD, 3YR 5YR 8YR 10YR 15YR: > The VL convertibles 19.7 15.6 11.5 13.3 13.2 > VL top 100 timely stocks -.9 11.1 11.8 13.9 13.4 11.7 > The YTD on convertibles is the #1 ranking Interesting. Contrast those figures with the Vanguard S&P 500 fund's results, as of 9/30/98: 3YR 5YR 10YR Vanguard S&P 500 22.50 19.79 17.10 Value Line 100 timeliest 11.1 11.8 13.4

To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (948)	11/7/1998 10:00:00 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Respond to of 1722

Reynolds, I agree with your assessment of the historical reasons for Germany's bias towards a hard currency and the U.S. bias towards avoiding deflation. In fact, I agree with everything you said. I just have these thoughts and questions about the process itself. In my mind, I think the Germans have the right idea from a long term perspective. The way I see it, an expansion of credit to avoid deflation can lead to other imbalances over time. Sometimes it leads to a current account deficit. In Japan, after the stock/real estate bubble burst, they tried to inflate. Now that loose money has come home to roost in the form of bad debts around the rest of Asia. This was almost a 10 year process. Ultimately they have 1 - 2 trillion of bad debt outstanding. They are now being urged to flood the system with money and inflate again. When they tried that earlier this year, the currency headed for the abyss. My point being that if a country is too willing to avoid a deflation, it can ultimately lead to a big problem for the currency over the long term. In the U.S. in the early 90's, Greenspan may or may not have slammed the breaks too hard. I think an interesting case can be made that he slammed them much too late. There were widespread reports of very excessive commercial real estate prices and development at that time prior to any tightening. That recession was mostly a real estate bubble bursting. So was the mistake and blemish in tightening money too hard or being too loose to begin with and allowing real estate prices and development to get out of hand? Was Japan's mistake in bursting the bubble or in building it? That was one of the points I was making in my most recent market view. If credit is made available, noone can know where it will flow. Just because CPI is stable does not mean things are OK. Asset prices must be considered. Especially since in both our experience with the "Big One" and Japan's current problems for the last 10 years there was zero price inflation during the boom. There was plenty of inflation of other types though. The question I am asking is which came first in our current circumstance. Did Greenspan have to ease to avoid a credit crunch? Or did the events that created the credit crunch come about because he and other central bankers were too loose prior? There has been substantial evidence of excessive credit in the financial system for at least two years or more. And I suppose that people that follow that stuff closely knew about it before I started reading reports. In any event, which currency would you rather have your savings in. One in which monetary excesses are avoided despite politics and short term pain? One in which excesses are allowed to grow until they cause trouble and then are papered over? The D-Mark or the Dollar? That was the point I was addressing in my original post. Greenspan considers them equals. I disagree strongly. Wayne Crimi Value Investor Workshop members.aol.com

To: porcupine --''''> who wrote (948)	11/9/1998 9:27:00 PM
From: porcupine --''''>	Respond to of 1722

GM U.S. October vehicle sales rise 6.3 percent DETROIT, Nov 4 (Reuters) - General Motors Corp. said on Wednesday its October U.S. vehicle sales rose 6.3 percent, continuing its comeback from the effects of two summer strikes. The world's largest automaker said its total U.S. vehicle sales last month, including its Saab affiliate and heavy trucks, were 411,156, compared with 386,763 in the same month last year. Car sales rose 6.3 percent to 228,443. Total trucks were up 6.4 percent to 182,713. GM's sales, which follow record sales reports Tuesday for Chrysler Corp. and several foreign automakers, came in ahead of analysts' expectations of a 2-percent increase for the month. Ford Motor Co. is also projected to report higher October sales when the results are released later Wednesday. GM said its truck products gained in every market segment except for the Chevrolet Silverado and GMC Sierra full-size pickup trucks, which are still increasing production. The automaker is on pace for its third record year in a row of overall truck sales, including pickup trucks, sport utility vehicles and minivans. GM said its seven new passenger cars had an increase of 9 percent from the nine vehicles they have replaced. Each of the company's large cars, including the Buick LeSabre and Pontiac Bonneville, had double-digit sales increases. "We expect the strong economy to continue for the foreseeable future, so we're building one-and-a-half million vehicles during the fourth quarter, more vehicles than we've built in any fourth quarter since 1988," Roy Roberts, GM vice president and group executive in charge of North American sales, service and marketing, said in a statement.