Thread FULL - U.S. Stock Market - Use New Thread!
- Kirk
- Rande
- stocksystm
- smile_1
- lp061574
- stocksystm
- smile_1
- smile_1
- smile_1
- smile_1
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Next »
» Kirk - Re: Re: Re: Barrons
In response to message posted by Mark_J:Actually, I think the problem was well before Greenspan started to raise rates.
Go talk to a few VPs responsible for signing Capital Equipment orders over $10M and you get a picture... Look at all the land options Cisco has that are now sitting empty... Look at the extrapolated growth rates people were seeing for the likes of jdsu and you see the picture.
Some of us saw tiny pieces... I didn't believe the growth rates... I still wonder what orafic Chambers got his 30-50% growth rate for as far as the eye can see?
Roger was predicting the telecom people would go bankrupt....
perhaps we really were topping out in 1998 and the rest was just the bubble doing a last hurrah? I don't think so... but it could be.
The real question going forward is what level of investment is real and then the companies will adjust to be profitable... if higher than now, all is good and they can hire more workers. If lower, then more layoffs.
-- posted by Kirk
» Rande - Re: Re: Re: Re: Barrons
In response to message posted by Kirk:1998-99 was a real stealth bear in the broader market. It was really only a relative handful of large-caps and the Internet/telecoms that ruled the day, especially from the fall of 1998 through the spring of 2000. Since March of 2000, the reverse has been true. The broader market and secondary issues in particular have done well while the large-cap growth and tech darlings have slid.
-- posted by Rande
» stocksystm - Where are the WSW Elves?
I saw Wall Street Week Friday, but missed the elves for some reason. Could it be that Rukeyser scrapped that part of the program due to the dismal forecasting this year?-- posted by stocksystm
» stocksystm - Re: dan niles
In response to message posted by smile_1:I would take anything Mr. Niles says with a grain of salt. His stock market predictions are spotty at best. I recall him saying Intel would hit $90 a share back in August 2000 when it was around $70.
-- posted by stocksystm
» smile_1 - Re: dan niles
In response to message posted by stocksystm:Good point.
I don't listen to these analysts for the most part, but thought it was Niles who said INTC would see high teens... and it did...
market overbought but expectations have been lowered so much most companies will meet or beat...
rally ho!!!
I suspect this is why in an earlier post, I noted the dearth of earnings warnings a couple weeks back
-- posted by smile_1
» smile_1 - Re: Greenspan brings reason back to wallstreet
In response to message posted by smile_1:Greenspan caveats:
fiscal stimulus should be cognizant of the impact on long rates...
above statement will probably get lost in the verbiage, unfortunately...
sounds like Greeney would prescribe cut cap gains tax and reduce or eliminate double taxation of dividends
here is what they should do:
http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/i...
Date:
10/13/2001
Subject:
Economic stimulus - Bond Market & letter of concern
From:
Smile
Recipients:
President Bush ,
Vice President Cheney
Message:
God Bless You both and your families for your service to this country.
Please consider the following re: economic stimulus:
1) the biggest economic stimulus you could get with the least amount of cost is lower long term interest rates. The mortgage refinance market has the potential of putting back thousands of dollars in consumers hands which can be used for discretionary spending.
Funny thing is we were almost there.
solution: administration policies and statements consistent with sound fiscal policy promoting lower long term rates (retire 5, 10 & 30 year debt, no deficit spending etc).
If long term rates on 30 year mortgages fell below 6% you would see a wave of mortgage refis, which would work its way through the economy, and create real demand.
Corporations will spend on cap-ex when there is legitimate demand. Artificial supply created by tax incentives to encourage cap ex spending by corporations, is not beneficial in the long run, if true demand does not exist.
2) the problem re: getting the public back to flying is the security issues (see letter to TX reps for security concerns). solve this, and you will solve 75% of the problem.
Keep up the great work.
-- posted by smile_1
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.