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.

Pastimes : The Naked Truth - Big Kahuna a Myth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: wlheatmoon who wrote (22182)	2/26/1999 4:11:00 PM
From: Cynic 2005	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86076

This from a friend of mine, who is a long on stocks (buy and hold type). But he went short on MU a couple of weeks ago. (Nothing new to this thread, just thought I will post it here): -------------------- Well, this is good news. Goldman Sachs downgraded MU from the "recommended list" to just a measly "market outperform". In the "new era of market evaluation", this is the equivalent of what was formally known as "sell". While I'm happy this POS went down, it was down in that territory within the past two weeks. I have a suspicion that in this market, every drop in price in a stock is deemed a buying opportunity, regardless if there are sound reasons (formally known as fundamentals) for it to tank. So don't be surprised to see a pop up to the low 60s by the end of the day. On the good side, I think a lot of the big money players are coming to the conclusion that PC sales in terms of revenue and, dare I say, earnings are not as rosy as they thought several weeks ago. If we can see a break down into the low 50s, I think we can really start to celebrate. I glanced at the Boston Globe Finance Section. There is a big article stating that the only thing keeping the stock market at these levels is the low interest rates and that these rates are starting to take a hit. Another article comparing and a little contrasting the 1991-92 Biotechs to the internuts. I have philosophical question to ask Greenspam, "If a bubble doesn't burst, is it a bubble?" I enjoyed your article - letter to TIME Is this true - there is evidence of Treasury intervention in a massive purchase of S & P futures the next day that sent the market roaring back, thereby erasing the entire day's previous drop. How can the Fed purchase S&P futures? If they did do this, this is very scary. Reading between the lines on Greenspan's most recent remarks, he is trying to distant himself from the stock market by saying that it is not the Feds' job to support the market (which clearly contradicts his intervention in LTCM) and even that lame answer about the existence or lack thereof the bubble. I understand he has to be careful about what he says (he doesn't what to go through the grief of "irrational exuberance" incident again). So he has developed a classic double-speak (he learned from the best - Bill C.). But based on what he has said and think he knows that party will be over soon. I think he (and probably Bill) is hoping to exit before it ends. Unfortunately, instead of being proactive, he is saying "don't know what is happening, I see no bubble until its time, therefore I do nothing." This is a very different Greenspan that we saw 3 to 4 years ago, heck even 3 months ago, speculating every conceivable problem with the economy and lowing the interest rates to combat it. I guess it easy to lower the rates (effectively giving everybody a short-term raise) than to be tough and higher rates for the benefit of the future stability of the country Good Luck and don't get short squeezed, Dave