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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Barrick Gold (ABX) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill Murphy who wrote (969)	2/12/1999 6:42:00 AM
From: Gary H	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3558

Bill, You make for good reading. Don't know if you have seen this on Steven J. Kaplan's Gold Mining Outlook. Words like collusion come to mind after reading it. ROBERT RUBIN REDUX: There have been so many tributes to Robert Rubin's performance as Secretary of the Treasury that it is necessary to submit an opposing view, if only for balance. Consider what would have happened had Mr. Rubin decided to stay at Goldman Sachs: 1) MR. RUBIN WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF--According to the New York Times, Robert Rubin as a 5% owner of Goldman Sachs would have seen his stake in that company worth about $1.5 billion dollars. Even if his stake had been reduced to 3%, this would mean $900 million dollars, which when added to his current net worth of $100 million would make him a billionaire, or ten times as wealthy as he is now. 2) THE ADMINISTRATION WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER OFF--With Mr. Rubin jump-starting the U.S. economy, and prolonging its expansion, President Clinton has felt that he can say or do almost anything and still receive strong public approval, thus encouraging him to go down various paths which he is now beginning to regret. Had the economy not performed as strongly, the President surely would have been forced to devote more time and attention to properly managing world affairs. 3) INVESTORS IN U.S. STOCKS WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH BETTER OFF--If the Dow Jones Industrial Average had only gone as high as, say, 3700 instead of 9700, there would not be the current army of uninformed investors in U.S. stocks who are about to lose 85% or more of their wealth in the bear market, since the drop from top to bottom would be only half as much in percentage terms, and more importantly, far fewer people would have decided to take the fatal plunge. The ensuing recession(s) in the first decade of the next century would also have been much less severe, since most households would have still had enough money in safe investments to cushion the bear market's negative wealth impact.