To: NickSE who wrote (4527 ) 1/22/1999 2:06:00 PM From: James F. Hopkins Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 99985
HI Nick; Yep just wanted to see if we could stay on the same page. I also heard the Fed had put some subtle pressure, or dropped some hints, that the tulips needed more margin restrictions. Which may in itself be true, but the way it came down was to give the brokers and outfits like Fidelity the nod to slam dunk the little guys. About par for the way the market works, and another reason one has to be so damm careful or just turn his savings over to some over paid fund manger. Indexes are also rigged to show the market in the best light, the number of stocks that hit the pink sheets is played down by the news pundits, while runners are brought in, and winners held up like icons, you have to dig hard to find anything close to accurate data on the amount of stocks certificates that turned into wall paper. Many once great flyers are seldom mentioned, and all the money that disappeared into some void of never never land is not subtracted from the indexes as they talk of historic gains for stocks equal so and such, ( they mean without counting that which vanished ) , go back even 10 years and the records of most who are gone, are if as they never were. --------------------- Even the computer systems are purged of the losers, so that part of history does not become a part of the market history, and I could go on and on about the subtle ways they enhance the good side, and hide the ugly. When they want to..but let them go short then they will rattle all the drums of death they can find. None the less the way the market is being run it's not a zero sum, winner for every loser, to make it go up they need new buyers..always new buyers, if they don't get them then the overhead drags it down. In effect it's a fancy ponzi scheme, who's primary function is to re-distribute any wealth the peons may obtain back to the rich Jim