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: Knighty Tin who wrote (58168)	4/30/1999 12:25:00 AM
From: JF Quinnelly	Respond to of 132070

Current wisdom, or the new paradigm lives: techstocks.com

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (58168)	4/30/1999 9:26:00 AM
From: marc chatman	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 132070

Mike, I've been reading the thread for awhile -- mostly for the wrestling stuff. <g> I noticed you've been buying back into INCY. FWIW, my technical indicators are lining up nicely, particularly bullish MACD divergences in the weekly, daily and hourly charts. If my guess is right (and it is just a guess), the stock is basing and should be at the end of its bear run. If I'm wrong, I suppose I'll lose some money, as I'm looking to buy in today or Monday. I'd love to see one more dip below 17.

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (58168)	4/30/1999 9:59:00 AM
From: Freedom Fighter	Respond to of 132070

Mike, forbes.com Did you get a chance to read the article that Thomas posted? M.F. discussed the idea of falling risk premiums. He's not a big fan of the idea. There is something about the whole "bullish" interpretation of this concept that does not sit well with me even if I was reckless enough to accept it. For discussion purposes, let's assume that 100 years of history is meaningless and that the risk premium between bonds and stocks has fallen significantly and in a permanent way.<g> That means that the return spread between passive investments in businesses and bonds will be lower. Yet passive investments in stocks are essentially a bet on the expected return on the active capital of the business. The bull case in part is based on a high return on active capital in combination with low interest rates. How in the world can anyone believe that the spread on active capital and interest rates is expanding in a permanent way (justifying higher prices) and still believe that the spread on interest rates and passive capital is narrowing in a permanent way? If business is really less risky than it was in the past or stocks were mispriced for 100 years (g) then the spread on active capital and interest rates would fall too! Am I misunderstanding the new pair of dimes? <g> Wayne

To: Knighty Tin who wrote (58168)	4/30/1999 1:24:00 PM
From: Don Lloyd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 132070

MB - FYI - DB 13:13 [PA=M9] RUSSIAN PRODUCERS SAYS EXPORTED HUGE AMTS OF PALLADIUM AHEAD OF TAX ON METAL. DB 13:13 [PA=M9] JUNE PALLADIUM DROPS 10.5%,OR $34.40 TO $306.50 AN OUNCE. Regards, Don