For WHat it's worth.....or was that for FAIR USE ?

Top Financial News Thu, 13 Jan 2000, 8:55pm EST Federal Reserve's Greenspan Sees `Remarkable' U.S. Expansion Continuing By Noam Neusner Fed's Greenspan Sees `Remarkable' U.S. Expansion Continuing New York, Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The ``remarkable'' U.S. economic expansion, while showing few signs of overheating, can't expect to benefit from gains in productivity forever, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said. Surging economic growth and subdued inflation make it ``increasingly difficult to deny that something profoundly different from the typical post-war business cycle has emerged,'' he said in the text of remarks to the Economic Club of New York. Still, ``if our objective of maximum sustainable economic growth is to be achieved, the pool of available workers cannot shrink indefinitely,'' especially at a time when stock market gains also are contributing to a consumer spending boom, Greenspan said. That suggests the Fed -- ``intent on defusing the imbalances that would undermine the expansion,'' he said -- is likely to raise the overnight bank lending rate a fourth time since last June when policy-makers meet early in February. At the same time, Greenspan he said the cooling effect of higher interest rates ``is already well advanced.'' Corporate bond yields and other market interest rates have risen, and that can be expected to cool demand over time, Greenspan said. The economy has managed to grow for more than eight years, with few signs of accelerating inflation, because of what may be ``a once-in-a-century acceleration of innovation,'' particularly in information technology, Greenspan said. `Indisputable' Benefits History may show that ``what we are currently experiencing was just one of many euphoric speculative bubbles,'' but Greenspan suggested he doubts that's the case. ``What should be indisputable is that a number of new technologies'' are benefiting the economy, he said, citing the Internet among those innovations. Gains in worker productivity have more than doubled in the last three years, Labor Department statistics show. Greenspan has frequently referred to this phenomenon in the last year, and today said the results are ``awesome changes in the way goods and services are produced.'' Greenspan didn't define how far the economy can grow without fueling inflation, yet he said ``there are limits'' to an economy that is using its available labor pool to the fullest. ``We are groping to infer where those limits may be,'' he said. ``But that there are limits cannot be open to question.'' Stocks Boost Spending Greenspan said that an observer in 2010 looking back at this current economy might describe it as an example of overconfidence or as a ``once-in-a-century acceleration of innovation ... and stock prices at a pace not seen in generations, if ever.'' In either case, he said rising stock prices have created a ``potential challenge'' as gains from stock investments have led to stepped-up spending by businesses and consumers ``beyond the increases in supply.'' Gains in stocks, he said, may have added about 1 percentage point, or one-quarter of added economic output, in annual gross domestic product in the U.S. since late 1996. That added demand, which can't entire be satisfied by U.S. producers, has created an appetite for imports. ``Thus the impetus to spending from the wealth effect by its very nature clearly cannot persist indefinitely,'' he said. ``It is, in effect, increased purchasing from future income.'' Technology Gains Greenspan, who has spoken before of the economic gains that come with greater use of technology, pressed forward on that theme. Information technology allows companies to react faster to consumer demands, he said, reducing the need for ``substantial programmed redundancies,'' such as heavy use of warehouses to store unwanted goods. ``Before this revolution in information availability, most 20th century business decision-making had been hampered by wide uncertainty,'' he said. Now, businesses take fewer risks, allowing them to devote their resources to other tasks. New technology also allows businesses to substitute capital investment for labor when workers are scarce and capital is cheap, as has been the case. Those labor-saving gains, in turn, have made companies more competitive and less likely to raise prices, because companies are afraid that their competitors could use technology to keep prices steady, Greenspan said. ``The increasing availability of labor-displacing equipment and software, at declining prices and improving delivery lead times, is arguably at the root of the loss of business pricing power in recent years,'' he said. That has helped keep consumer prices low. In the 12-month period that ended in November, consumer prices rose 2.6 percent. `Virtuous Cycle' ``There is a virtuous capital investment cycle at play here,'' he said. As technology boosts productivity, profits rise, pushing further investment and spending while at the same time costs and prices are held at bay, further increasing profitability, Greenspan said. Greenspan said government surpluses built in the 1990s remain a ``critical factor'' in keeping the U.S. economy on its current course. ``A continuing expansion of the surplus would surely aid in sustaining the productive investment that has been key to leveraging the opportunities provided by new technology,'' he said. ``I trust the recent flurry of increased federal government outlays, seemingly made easier by the emerging surpluses, is an aberration,'' he said. Greenspan also said policy-makers need to ``address the associated dislocations that emerge'' as the economy continues to gain from productivity-enhancing tools that force workers from jobs. ``Societies cannot thrive when significant segments perceive its functioning as unjust,'' he said.

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000

Answers

Totally irresponsible full court press by big Al and Billy (did anyone catch the philanderer in chief on CNBC tonight?) to extend their asset bubble.

Jesus, this is irresponsible. Sorry kids, not buying big Al's explanation. The bond market hasn't been buying it lately either, and if Al doesn't start behaving like an adult, they're gonna take us to 7.25 but quick.

Simply incomprehensible.

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Yikes.............Sorry for the Formatting. Better yet read it here http://www.bloomberg.com/bbn/topfin.html?s=62b308ff0d125813085471cc7e7 90d4

-- kevin (innxxs@yahoo.com), January 13, 2000.

...or, try this LINK . . .

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), January 13, 2000.

Appointment=Clintoon Legacy Yes, Simply Incompwehensible!

-- Pulling (Strings@Thetop.com), January 13, 2000.

My ranting comments in parenthesis (sorry, I'm really pissed off)

Top Financial News Thu, 13 Jan 2000, 9:21pm EST Federal Reserve's Greenspan Hopes `Remarkable' U.S. Expansion Concept Will Float Better Than His Big Turd-like Policies. By Noam Neusner

Greenspan Sees `Remarkable' Expansion Continuing

New York, Jan. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The ``remarkable'' U.S. economic expansion is showing few signs of overheating or coming to an end, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said. (He then snickered under his breath "because I won't let it end, hehehehe)

Surging economic growth and subdued inflation make it ``increasingly difficult to deny that something profoundly different from the typical post-war business cycle has emerged,'' he said in remarks to the Economic Club of New York. (Greenspan knows everyone is now thinking that the "new economy" may be in trouble. He pumped billions of dollars in liquidity into an already overheated market and now he's f*cked, the game's almost over and his team is losing. So, when all else fails, re-define reality. Repeal the business cycle! Did he really say that? Holy major f$cking bullsh!t detector Batman! This guy thinks he can repeal the business cycle!!!)

Still, Fed policy-makers are wary that recent benefits from gains in productivity are at risk with unemployment at a 30-year low. ``If our objective of maximum sustainable economic growth is to be achieved, the pool of available workers cannot shrink indefinitely,'' especially at a time when stock market gains also are contributing to a consumer spending boom, Greenspan said. (United warned on earnings today based on labor pressures. We're at 30 year lows on unemployment, who the f*ck does he think he's fooling?)

That suggests the Fed -- ``intent on defusing the imbalances that would undermine the expansion,'' he said -- is likely to raise the overnight bank lending rate a fourth time since last June when policy-makers meet early in February. (Hey guys I'm gonna raise rates, but don't you worry, I'm only gonna go a quarter point. Don't wanna spoil the "new economy". But Al, I thought we repealed the business cycle? Maybe we should just repeal inflationary pressures as well? Then we wouldn't have to raise rates at all!)

At the same time, Greenspan he said the cooling effect of higher market interest rates ``is already well advanced.'' Corporate bond yields and other interest rates have risen, and that can be expected to curtail demand over time, he said. (Hey dumbass, the bond market is telling YOU that you're not doing your job. Stop sleeping with the investment bankers and pay attention to the economy. You're gonna wreck an awful lot of lives if you're wrong about the "new economy".)

The Treasury's 30-year bond fell 1/8 point after the speech, pushing up its yield 2 basis points to 6.67 percent. (I think that says it all. Wait til tommorrow. Let's see what the long bond has to say. Me thinks they're not buying this happy shit any more.)

`Indisputable' Benefits

The economy has managed to grow for more than eight years, with few signs of accelerating inflation, because of what may be ``a once-in-a-century acceleration of innovation,'' particularly in information technology, Greenspan said. (eyah, and the Japs thought they could borrow money forever if they just kept increasing their real estate valuations and investing the proceeds of the valuation. didn't work for them, won't work for dot.coms either.)

History may show that ``what we are currently experiencing was just one of many euphoric speculative bubbles,'' though Greenspan suggested he doubts that's the case. ``What should be indisputable is that a number of new technologies'' are benefiting the economy, he said, citing the Internet among those innovations. (Jesus H. Christ that was a prophetic statement. The whole freaking world thinks that we're in a bubble but us, and this little old guy on credit viagra thinks we're gonna be saved the Net.)

Gains in worker productivity have more than doubled in the last three years, Labor Department statistics show. Greenspan has frequently referred to this phenomenon in the last year, and today said the results are ``awesome changes in the way goods and services are produced.'' (ah, and we all know how indisputably accurate the labor stats are. those things will be our guiding light. lets have a moment of silence for the BLS (Bur. of Labor Statistics, AKA Big Laughing Stock)

Greenspan didn't define how far the economy can grow without fueling inflation, yet he said ``there are limits'' to an economy that is using its available labor pool to the fullest. ``We are groping to infer where those limits may be,'' he said. ``But that there are limits cannot be open to question.'' (unless I make a lot of supreme being speeches like this one. now bow down before me for I am the god of all monetary policy. I alone can say if it is a bubble, and I say it is not (maybe))

Stocks Boost Spending

Greenspan said that an observer in 2010 looking back at this current economy might describe it as an example of overconfidence or as a New Economy that boosted productivity, profits and stock prices ``at a pace not seen in generations, if ever.'' (mirrors on the cieling there was pink champagne on ice, she said we're all just prisoners here... of our own device, there I stood at the doorway, I heard the mission bell, and I was thinking to myself this could be heaven and this could be hellllll)

In either case, he said rising stock prices have created a ``potential challenge'' as gains from stock investments have led to stepped-up spending by businesses and consumers ``beyond the increases in supply.'' (understatement of the millenium)

Gains in stocks, he said, may have added about 1 percentage point, or one-quarter of added economic output, in annual gross domestic product in the U.S. since late 1996.

(Jesus H.---MSFT is now worth more than fucking Spain's GDP! are you kidding me? repeat the sacred words after me Al....'owa tahna ssiam ...owa tahna ssiam...owa tahna ssiam...owa tahna ssiam')

That added demand, which can't entire be satisfied by U.S. producers, has created an appetite for imports. ``Thus the impetus to spending from the wealth effect by its very nature clearly cannot persist indefinitely,'' he said. ``It is, in effect, increased purchasing from future income.'' (in other words folks, it is a pile of shite and it stinkith. it is not powerful fertilzer after all, it's just a pile of shit)

Technology Gains

Greenspan, who has spoken before of the economic gains that come with greater use of technology, pressed forward on that theme. Information technology allows companies to react faster to consumer demands, he said, reducing the need for ``substantial programmed redundancies,'' such as heavy use of warehouses to store unwanted goods. ``Before this revolution in information availability, most 20th century business decision-making had been hampered by wide uncertainty,'' he said. (duh, ask Lucent about certitude dude! There about as clear as the Mississippi River after a bad rainstorm. Or maybe you should ask Intel about how they cooked up those earnings today?)

Now, businesses take fewer risks, allowing them to devote their resources to other tasks. (like j@rking themselves off whilst trying to quantify illusory productivity gains that simply don't exist!!!)

New technology also allows businesses to substitute capital investment for labor when workers are scarce and capital is cheap, as has been the case.

Those labor-saving gains, in turn, have made companies more competitive and less likely to raise prices, because companies are afraid that their competitors could use technology to keep prices steady, Greenspan said. ``The increasing availability of labor-displacing equipment and software, at declining prices and improving delivery lead times, is arguably at the root of the loss of business pricing power in recent years,'' he said. (hmmm, if businesses can't price anything, then it goes without saying that they will have to fire more people, thereby increasing productivity, thereby increasing unemployment?)

That has helped keep consumer prices low. In the 12-month period that ended in November, consumer prices rose 2.6 percent. (yeah, crude's pretty f*cking cheap at 27 bucks a barrel al, duh))

`Virtuous Cycle'

``There is a virtuous capital investment cycle at play here,'' he said. As technology boosts productivity, profits rise, pushing further investment and spending while at the same time costs and prices are held at bay, further increasing profitability, Greenspan said. (there is NOTHING virtous about this. Alan Greenspan is now the Incubus. The long bond closed at 666 today. Clearly this is a sign from God that we must cease this silly nonsense immediately. Repent Alan the end is near!!!)

Greenspan said government surpluses built in the 1990s remain a ``critical factor'' in keeping the U.S. economy on its current course. ``A continuing expansion of the surplus would surely aid in sustaining the productive investment that has been key to leveraging the opportunities provided by new technology,'' he said. ``I trust the recent flurry of increased federal government outlays, seemingly made easier by the emerging surpluses, is an aberration,'' he said. (abberration my ass)

Greenspan also said policy-makers need to ``address the associated dislocations that emerge'' as the economy continues to gain from productivity-enhancing tools that force workers from jobs.

``Societies cannot thrive when significant segments perceive its functioning as unjust,'' he said.

(right, and there's nothing unjust about 20year old snot nosed assholes who can't even tie their shoes starting companies that have NO EARNINGS EVER, and giving them billions of dollars to share with a bunch of greedy triathalon running, beemer driving d*ckhead investment bankers is there? Nothing unjust about the fact that these people have more money than they know what to do with, and yet their companies can't make a dime? Nothing unjust about the way they work with thier bucketshops to make sure we keep churning the paper higher. Nothing unjust about valuing assets at ridiculous numbers over and over and over to lure the suckers in further and further? Oh yeah, the new economy is perfect. No unjustness, inflation, business cycles, price pressures, unemployment to be found here. No sirrree bub. This is heaven for sure. F*ck you Al!)

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

"We are groping to infer" -- Greenspan

translation: "WE ARE GROPING TO find any lies which can postpone the crash until after the elections because we don't know what we're INFER."

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), January 13, 2000.

Well said, Gordon.

If you ever publish a book I will want an autographed copy.

Your comments were more truthful and much more fun to read that Big Al's BS.

Maybe all the bubble.coms will buy up the heavy industry in the USA and create virtual manufacturing companies.

Personnaly, I think big money capitalist are not going to let too many more of the AOL-Time Warner mergers see the light of day. What would hapen if Yahoo.com bought Exxon-Mobil or Amazon.com bought General Electric?

-- Bill P (porterwn@one.net), January 13, 2000.

The other day when I stopped and thought about AOL and Time Warner, it occurred to me that they were larger than XON-MOB (Exxon Mobil) in terms of their tie-up.

A lousy ( and I do mean lousy) ISP and a shitty media company with some cable assets was worth more than two of the biggest oil companies in the world combined. Something not quite right there.

-- Gordon (g_gecko_69@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

Tell me about it, Gordon. It may be an interesting day for the Nasdaq on Friday. Intel just published their numbers for the quarter, and the company performed better than what analysts had expected. They had anticpated dividends of 63/64 cnets a share, and Intel report 69 cents per share. Whether this will fuel an long-term upsurge remains to be seen. The P/E ratios in general indicate otherwise. Do the rules regarding P/E ratios no longer apply? Is this buying based on speculation, or doing research?

Believe it or not, there are people investing in companies, and they don't know anything about their history, managment team, or their products or services. Interesting.

-- Tim (pixmo@pixelquest.com), January 13, 2000.

Gordon,

I agree and your comments were great!

Thx!

-- RollingON (TheGround@LMA.of), January 14, 2000.

Gordon -

You tell 'em, guy! I'll hold your coat!

Tim -

Saw comments from a couple of analysts who dug through Intel's earnings numbers and found that they got a pretty hefty boost from stock gains. Hey, look, it's a perpetual motion machine: earnings look good, so the stock goes up, which helps boost earnings, und so weiter. Geez, what a scam.

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), January 14, 2000.

*dig dig dig*

Here 'tis:

Silicon Investor - Daily Insight

Friday, January 14, 2000

Questions remain as Intel beats number

Market Analysis

As important as Intel's earnings were, it was surpassed on the news wire by the Microsoft's announcement of a change in leadership. After 25 years as CEO, Bill Gates is stepping down and passing the reins to current President Steve Ballmer. The change becomes effective in a couple of weeks, no other changes were announced and Microsoft's stock was unchanged after hours.

After the market closed, Intel reported earnings for its fourth quarter and fiscal yearend 1999. As many Wall Street analysts anticipated, Intel beat the number, citing very strong demand in what is typically the strongest quarter for the PC industry. But hold the presses, because there were some interesting accounting issues that might need explaining.

Excluding acquisition-related charges, Intel earned 69 cents, well ahead of the First Call estimate of 63 cents forecasted by analysts. However, take into account the acquisition costs and the company only earned 61 cents, short of estimates and barely ahead of last year's 59-cent number. The company earned $508 million in other income, which after further investigation reveals earnings from trading stock. This was more than double what they had guided analysts, and amounts to 7 cents per share.

Recall last year when we spoke about companies selling puts on their own stock to raise cash. Well, Intel's move offers up a similar ethical question. Selling puts on their own company's stock can put managers in a Catch-22. Obviously they have access to inside information that, if negative, could cost them a substantial amount of money should it reach the public. Therefore, companies could simply allow their puts to expire, or unwind their positions before releasing the information, minimizing the damage on their financial statements.

Similarly, allowing stock trading to contribute to the financial performance is very subjective. Why should a company be given the right to sell stock with substantial appreciation, and apply the capital gains to the earnings for the quarter? What happens when they own stock in a company that goes bankrupt? Will they be able to write it off as a one-time charge?

In any event, Wall Street didn't seem to mind these accounting irregularities, as the stock was trading up $4 after hours...

-- DeeEmBee (macbeth1@pacbell.net), January 14, 2000.

Well, at least intel (a) have earnings and (b) manufacture something useful (in contrast to a lot of internet hot-stocks that have yet to make a profit, and not a few that have yet to make a sale!)

Also, the barriers to entry into Intel's business are *extremely* high. Probably insurmountable, unless you're backed by a government. Whether this justifies their PE is quite another matter, but at least this company isn't going to disappear any time soon.

-- Nigel (nra@maxwell.ph.kcl.ac.uk), January 14, 2000.

The market situation has got me really concerned. I'm figuratively digging a foxhole as fast and deep as I can each day. To the point that changing jobs to get away from the high tech sector before the bloodletting starts. There is no way this economic situation can continue.

The uncovering of efforts to prop things up (the Intel earnings comments) point to a shakier situation than many would believe. How many other firms have been padding their balances this way? Are there no business ethics in the effort to please shareholders?

Meanwhile the small guys like you and me who see the signs and are looking for shelter. It's like those troops in the nuclear weapons tests back in the fifties. They're aware what's going on. Except they aren't told when the thing's going off or how strong it's going to be.

What would you do? Dig! Dig! Diiiggggg!

WW

-- Wildweasel (vtmldm@epix.net), January 14, 2000.

Wildweasel, you're wise. There will be hard times ahead. Be prepared for unexpected surprises. However, most people won't be ready, and that's what will cause the panic!

-- dinosaur (dinosaur@williams-net.com), January 14, 2000.