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 : Ask Michael Burke -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (41977)	1/3/1999 10:12:00 PM
From: Shane M	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

Why not a simple regression to the mean? Coby, would a simple regression to the mean not be expected to take us down 40 to 50%? I can hear baby boomers nearing retirement screaming now.... I'd be wailing with them I guess <g> Shane

To: Ilaine who wrote (41977)	1/4/1999 12:55:00 AM
From: Richard Nehrboss	Respond to of 132070

Hi Coby, You didn't point the question to me, but I'll throw in my two cents. Investor psychology seems to be a bit irrational, both going up and going down. In my opinion, we see this several times per year. Nothing serious will change fundamentally about a stock, or the market, and boom... spike up or down. I recall from advertising that there are seven basic motivating techniques for humans. I recall a few, sex, fear, greed, band-wagon, to name a few. Fear seems to have a profound effect on market psychology, not to mention greed. They both nail me from time to time, and it's tough to maintain a discipline. I'm a pretty strong bull, but I read this forum to keep me in check, balancing greed with a good dose of MB fear... (It might just be robbing some good sleep). Anyway, I ramble. Richard

To: Ilaine who wrote (41977)	1/4/1999 8:12:00 AM
From: Skeeter Bug	Respond to of 132070

cb, a regression to the mean is the bk, imho. doesn't matter whether it take 1 day or 10 years. actually, 1 day probably would be better... look at japan... still in the middle of their bk 8 years later...

To: Ilaine who wrote (41977)	1/4/1999 9:28:00 AM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

CB, BK must come because Will says it must. -g- In general, stock valuations reflect earnings and the rate at which the public is willing to capitalize those earnings. Earnings multiples are influenced by a number of factors : recent market history-the public has linear expectations in a non linear world-George Soros; the trend of earnings; monetary inflation; investor psychology-right now investors are wackozoid; the state of the economy. The bulls cannot point to a period in recorded history when a speculative orgy has not ended in disaster. Continued in next note cause I'm running me generator Will leaves da lampost light on so the neighbors know that I have power while they drink cold coffee-g Bears can be so mean VBG Mike

To: Ilaine who wrote (41977)	1/4/1999 9:35:00 AM
From: Mike M2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

CB, John K. Galbraith said ho ho ho " Sometime, sooner or later, confidence in the short-run reality of increasing common stock values would weaken. When this happened, some people would sell, and this would destroy the reality of increasing values. holding for an increase would now become meaningless; the new reality would be falling prices. There would be a rush, pellmell, to unload. This is the way past speculative orgies ended. It was the way the end came in 1929. It is the way speculation will end in the future. Mike

To: Ilaine who wrote (41977)	1/4/1999 3:06:00 PM
From: Mary Cluney	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

CB,>>>Why should there be BK? It seems mythological, or an item of religious faith, like The Rapture, or The Second Coming, or Ragnarok. Why not a simple regression to the mean? Why this belief in The Fire Next Time, Blood In The Streets, and all the other millenarial apocalyptic images? <<< If we were talking about people the way your friends are discussing economics and the stock market, we would accuse them of stereotyping. The problem with stereotyping is that there is always elements of truth to it - but when you try to apply it on a specific case by case basis - you always end up getting it wrong. That is why almost all economists have two hands (on the one hand.....). For another point of view, in the Wall Street Journal this morning: "For the second time in three years, James F. Smith emerged as the best overall economic forecaster in the Wall Street Journal's semiannual survey of economists...... Moving forward, Mr Smith sees a continuation of low inflation that will bring about lower interest rates and bond yields. Economic growth, he said, will remain relatively strong. He believes that other economists - especially those calling for a slower growth in years ahead - are underestimating the impact that the boom in fixed investment will have on productivity in the years ahead. "Companies are installing better computers, better machine tools, better training programs, better equipment, which means in the future more productivity for companies that build those products" and that, he said, should usher in a new era of economic growth equal only to the industrial revolution at the turn of the century.<<< Mary Sorry I have not responded to your email and posts - the holidays have been rather hectic.