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.

Non-Tech : Greenspan, Rubin & Co - the Most Irresponsible Team Ever?? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tom M who wrote (32)	1/15/1999 7:22:00 PM
From: Bonnie Bear	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 309

Lots of things are being tested here. It is extraordinary to watch the very foundations of the US legal process being tested at once in the impeachment proceedings and the "speculative bubble". If Clinton is not removed from office by the letter of the law and due process, I shall take it as a sign that we are in a Brave New World where the SEC oversight of our financial markets are similarly corrupted. The slaughter of small company stock is extraordinary. CBS Marketwatch is now claiming that a flood of money from the Euro is more bad new for small stocks, that Europe will buy megacaps. You know the guy in the street is much more likely to have his 401K match in a Russell value stock than a Dow stock. He/she isn't profiting from this market. The folks that have the most to lose if the market comes crashing down is 1) Fidelity 2) The U.S. IRS 3) Clinton 4) Goldman Sachs 5) about 10 CEOS that own about a trillion dollars of stock Interesting list, huh? They all fit in a small room together (leave a window open 'cuz they smell bad!) There's a law that says that pension plans and 401Ks can swap stocks in the plan...the dumping ground for the overpriced stock is the 401K plan. One thing I do notice, tho...the things that I instinctively consider decent investments for a retirement portfolio (hedge against future inflation) all look pretty cheap here by any measure I can use in my adult life...health care REITs, natural gas and electric utilities, small company stock, a bit of emerging stock, convertibles and bonds. Farmland. And precious metals, still the only currency respected in many parts of the world. Are the big guys driving the life out this stuff so they can get it on the cheap? Hmm...

To: Tom M who wrote (32)	1/19/1999 12:43:00 PM
From: Tom M	Respond to of 309

Some SS details: "Clinton seeks private mgmt of stock funds": biz.yahoo.com in case the link disappears: Tuesday January 19, 12:09 pm Eastern Time Clinton seeks private management of stock funds WASHINGTON, Jan 19 (Reuters) - President Bill Clinton intends that the private sector would manage the $650 billion to $700 billion Social Security trust fund assets that would be invested in the stock market under a retirement proposal he will make on Tuesday, White House officials said. Clinton economic adviser Gene Sperling told reporters the president intended that the money be placed in ''broad-based, neutral forms of investments.'' Sperling told reporters the job of managing the money could be awarded through competitive bidding and be allocated among several managers. He said the funds would be structured with a goal of minimizing volatility. Officials also said Clinton's plan to devote 60-62 percent of future budget surpluses over the next 15 years, or $2.7 trillion to $2.8 trillion, would drive federal government borrowing down to about 10 percent of the total size of the U.S. economy from about 44 percent currently. This would be the lowest level as a share of the economy since 1916. They said proposed government subsidized ''Universal Savings Accounts,'' intended for retirement use only, would allow holders some flexibility in investment. The issue of how gains would be treated for tax purposes has not been decided, officials said. Government subsidies to the account would be progressive in nature, meaning lower-income people would receive a higher relative subsidy than higher-income people.