NASDAQ over 4000, DOW over 11K. Who said "you should be out of the markets"?greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread
Anybody lose money by not staying in the markets? Lose money by listening to the Gary "scary" North's or Yourdons of the web?
-- Interested Observer (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 26, 2000
DOW is DOWN 304 points since Dec. 31, 1999.
NASDAQ is DOWN 27 points since Dec. 31, 1999.
I'm GLAD I listened to Ed and Gary, you idiot.
And the REALLY bad news is just getting started. Severe depression next year. Go ahead, leave your money in, I could use a few laughs.
-- (email@example.com), August 26, 2000.
Did Slick Willie sign an executive order allowing the government to seize a portion of your capital if it's not in the market?
How else does one lose money by not staying in the markets?
All joking aside, what makes you think that you will be smart enough to get out at the top? They don't ring a bell to let you know.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 26, 2000.
The DOW first hit 11,000 around April or May of last year, being essentially flat now for over a year. This may be the top.
Or maybe not. But if I were going to retire in the near future, I think I'd consider T-Bills.
-- Free advice -- use at (your@own. risk), August 26, 2000.
That's correct, essentially flat for over a year. To be exact, it is down 133 points over the last 1 year period.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 26, 2000.
The power has been off for 8 and a half months. The Federal Gov't finally collapsed last May. The Chineese have taken over California, Arizona and Nevada. The Olympics, Super-Bowl and Survivor have all been cancelled. And you clueless folks are still debating whether y2k had much of an impact.
-- The fat lady (email@example.com), August 26, 2000.
Welcome back, Y2J. Or should I say Dennis Olson?
-- Acccess for All (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 26, 2000.
what morons. people still thanking gary and ed for....what?
when ed said get out of the market it was around 8500. nasdaq was down around 2,200 if I remember right. you stupid arseholes. anyone who truly listened to the dog-n-pony show of gary and ed would be furious with them right now.
PS don't ever try and time the "top" of the market. you will fail every single time. get in for the long haul and it ALWAYS pays off.
now back to your regularly scheduled moronics.
-- gary and ed (email@example.com."thanks!"), August 26, 2000.
Thanks for the welcome back.
You really should drop the Dennis Olson bit, it makes you look like a fool.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 26, 2000.
gary and ed,
You have been brainwashed well. Was it the Peter Lynch ads? Or was it your broker?
From the peak in 1929, it took until 1954 to get back to even. This market is more expensive than the 1929 market was. How long back to even next time? Two generations instead of one?
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 26, 2000.
You might want to read this article:
Fair use, for educational purposes.
Greenspan Waiting Until After Election?
By Pierre Belec
NEW YORK (Reuters) - True or false? Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan is just waiting for this fall's election to roll by before taking another shot at bringing this hot economy down to a simmer.
Just don't bet the ranch that inflation-fearing Greenspan won't pull the interest-rate trigger again, experts say.
Sure, the economy is slowing with the latest numbers showing that the six interest-rate increases since June 1999 are putting the brakes on the fast-growing economy. For instance, orders for manufactured goods in July posted their biggest fall in history.
But the truth is that with crude oil prices shooting through the roof, Wall Street may be just one economic report away from the next inflation shock.
``It's silly for people to think the Fed will not change interest rates again,'' says Richard Salsman, chief market strategist for Intermarket Forecasting in Cambridge, Mass.
``The biggest concern is the Fed will resume its punitive rate increases after the November election,'' he said. ``If it does, the market will be in bad shape but if it is truly done raising rates, it would say the stock market would bottom out right then.''
Indeed, post-election could be a nail biter. The Fed last pulled a sucker-punch on the stock market in 1988 when it waited until after the election to raise interest rates, boosting the fed funds rate to 8.75 percent from 8.25 percent.
Another scary thing is that Greenspan in the past has raised interest rates just to prove that the central bank was still ``relevant,'' Salsman said.
The central bank on Tuesday held one of its most suspenseless policy meetings and decided to keep interest rates unchanged. The move was not surprising because the Fed had tipped its hand weeks in advance, dropping hints the economy was slowing at a pace that made Greenspan happy.
Salsman estimates there's a 30 percent chance the Fed will raise by 25 basis points at the next three meetings -- in October, November and December.
Another analyst agrees.
``We continue to maintain what has now come to be quite a lonely position -- the Fed will have to continue tightening by the end of the year,'' says Kathleen Camilli, director of economic research for Tucker Anthony.
Her reasoning: Inflation. The consumer price index in July jacked up the inflation stakes, moving the year on year inflation rate to 4 percent from just 2.7 percent for all of 1999.
``This is the highest rate of inflation since the 4.2 percent record in 1991,'' she said, citing the inflationary impact of the resumption in the jump of crude oil prices after a brief mid-summer pause.
``If this is the case, CPI could approach 5 percent year over year by December and when combined with an ever-tightening labor market and signs of upward pressure on compensation, we have the ingredients for a monetary tightening,'' Camilli said.
Over the past year, the central bank has been in a tightening mode, raising key rates by 175 basis points since June 1999, and boosting the cost of mortgage rates and unpaid balances on credit cards.
Most analysts believe the Fed will stay on the sidelines until after the November election for fear of being dragged into a political wrestling match.
Election Day 2000 falls on Nov. 7. The Fed's next policy-setting meeting comes on Nov. 15.
What would trigger the Fed into action would be startling economic numbers or political events that flip the economy on its head.
A big drop in the dollar also would bring renewed Fed tightening because an unstable dollar would jack up the price of a lot of imported stuff that Americans have gotten used to.
WIELDING THE 'SWORD OF DAMOCLES'
A critic of the Fed, Salsman said Greenspan in the past has shaped money policy just simply to make sure that the central bank stayed ``relevant,'' citing a case in 1994, when the bank had not increased interest rates for about five years.
Back then, the Standard & Poor's 500 Index was up a modest 9 percent and the stock market's price-earnings multiple was at a reasonable 22. Inflation was sliding. The gross domestic product fell and the jobless rate dropped.
Yet, staff economists at the policy-making Federal Open Market Committee told board members that interest rates should be increased.
``The verbatim transcripts of the FOMC meeting in February 1994 showed that a couple of Fed members were concerned that it was time for the bank do so something about monetary policy because interest rates had not been changed for a long time,'' Salsman said. ``They basically said, 'We haven't done anything all this time and it's time to do something.''
The transcripts, issued with a five-year delay, reveal a lot about the Fed's ``derisive attitude ... and ``anti-market attitudes'' toward financial markets, he said. (Fed transcripts: www.federalreserve.gov/fomc/transcripts/transcripts-1994.htm)
STIRRING THE POT JUST TO LOOK BUSY?
``No one saw actual signs of inflation,'' Salsman said. ''Edward Kelley (an FOMC member) argued that the Fed should resume activism for the sheer sake of activism.''
Reading from the transcript, Salsman noted that Kelley commented the Fed needed a new policy momentum.
``We have been in a momentum of rest for a long time. I think we need to change that and now is the time to do it,'' the transcripts quoted Kelley as saying.
Greenspan agreed with Kelley on the need for activism but favored a series of small rate increases rather than large hikes, afraid that steep increases would stun the stock market.
``I think it may be very helpful to have anticipations in the market now that we are going to move rates higher because it will subdue speculation in the stock market,'' Greenspan told the FOMC.
``At this particular stage, having expectations hanging in the market that we may move again, and move reasonably soon, could have a very useful effect,'' he added. ``If we have the capability of having a Sword of Damocles over the market, we can prevent it from running away.''
The FOMC's 1994 discussions set the stage for a stunning jump in interest rates over 12 months that lifted the fed funds rate target to 5.50 percent from 3.25 percent.
Fast forward to the summers of 1999 and 2000.
The central bank has forced up the fed funds rate to 6.50 percent, with Greenspan warning that there's a nasty inflation twist around the bend.
``I do think that there is still an element of politics at the Fed that says while the economy is rolling along nicely, we need to be out there talking about things from a shrinking pool of labor to stock market levels,'' Salsman said. ``There's a felt need to comment about everything that is going on in the economy.''
Some critics are tempted to see similarities between the Fed's activism in the mid-90s and the current money policy.
The Fed has now slammed the economy with six increases, which have driven interest rates to their highest level in nine years.
All of this has happened against the background of the most productive labor force in American history, which has kept inflation in check, and Greenspan's denial that the Fed is targeting the wealth effect from a booming stock market.
The Fed chief thinks that the wealth created by five years of soaring stock market gains is bad because it may cause prices to rise as demand for stuff exceeds supplies.
In the meantime, productivity and economic growth continues. Wall Street is still watching and waiting for proof that the risk is tilted toward higher inflation.
For the week, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 146.15 points at 11,192.63. The Nasdaq composite index gained 112.34 at 4,042.68 and the Standard & Poor's 500 index was up 14.74 at 1,506.46.
(Questions or comments can be addressed to Pierre.Belec(at) Reuters.Com).
-- Deb M. (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 26, 2000.
Ironically, corporations did more to protect themselves from possible y2k market turmoil than individuals did.
Worries of Year 2000 disruptions spark rash of corporate offerings
The Wall Street Journal
Monday, August 23, 1999
Richard J. Almeida, chairman and chief executive officer of Heller Financial, isn't sure if the markets will go haywire as Year 2000 approaches.
But he'd rather be safe than sorry.
So Mr. Almeida's company, a major lender to midsize and smaller companies, has raised $750 million over the past month, capping more than $3 billion raised so far this year, to square away its funding needs before any possible market turmoil related to Y2K.
``It was really anticipating the fact that there could be market disruptions in the fourth quarter,'' Mr. Almeida says. ``Our feeling is there would probably be a lot of adverse psychology, so we should try to anticipate our funding needs early.''
U.S. companies are scurrying to raise money, in part to sock away cash before any market disruptions caused by the Y2K computer bug. Or to be more precise, disruptions caused by fear of the Y2K bug.
Since May 1, $23.8 billion of initial public offerings have been completed, up from $14.7 billion in the same period last year, according to CommScan LLC, in part due to an impetus to go public ahead of potential Year 2000 market problems. Meanwhile, nearly $31 billion of investment-grade corporate bonds were sold last month, up from $17 billion in June and $11 billion in May, according to Credit Suisse First Boston. And $20 billion of bonds have already been sold this month.
Says Geoffrey Coley, co-head of global capital markets at Salomon Smith Barney: ``Y2K has been part of the calculus in virtually every decision by corporate issuers in the last three months.''
It's difficult to distinguish exactly how much of the rush is from Y2K-specific fears, of course. Also driving the capital-raising drive are fears of rising interest rates by the Federal Reserve, concern about a fourth quarter that has been difficult for bond investors for the past two years, and a desire to issue before summer vacation season peaks.
But executives say worries about Y2K troubles are playing a big part in the race to raise funding. Even companies with overflowing coffers are concerned: AT&T raised $3 billion in one-year securities last month, in part to ensure the company will have enough cash on hand at year end, according to people close to AT&T.
``My fear is we're ready for Y2K, but will there be redemptions from mutual funds hurting liquidity in the market?'' asks Thomas Capo, treasurer of DaimlerChrysler, which sold a massive $4.5 billion in bonds last week, the seventh-largest investment-grade bond deal ever. ``There's a huge question of how investors will behave near the end of the year, and as an issuer it's prudent to get the majority of the year's requirements done now.''
Ford Motor is itself ready for Year 2000. But the company was glad to get its record-breaking $8.6 billion bond deal done last month, rather than test the market later this year or early next year, after the start of 2000.
``You never know what will happen and it's not a bad idea to put some money away as a precaution,'' says Dave Cosper, Ford's executive director of corporate finance.
Corporate leaders are more prone to view Y2K as a mass mania fueled by consulting companies and the survivalist industry than as a fundamental threat to society. Few believe the financial system will stop functioning as computer clocks attempt to flip over to Jan. 1, 2000.
But many corporate chiefs and investment bankers fear that investors will shift away from riskier bonds, like corporate and junk bonds, later this year and stick to cash or safe Treasurys. This could handicap companies in need of financing, causing fallout in corporate boardrooms.
``If for some reason something goes wrong and a CEO turns around and says to a treasurer `Hey, where's my funding?' +the treasurert is likely out of a job,'' says Dominic Konstam, senior strategist at First Boston. ``There's little upside for these guys'' in waiting to raise financing later in the year.
Executives may be right in being nervous about the availability of financing ahead of 2000: 58 percent of investors surveyed recently by Merrill Lynch said they plan to build their cash on hand ahead of Y2K, and 29 percent said they plan to increase their holdings of Treasurys. And 87 percent of corporate-bond investors expect ``liquidity'' - or ease of trading without price disruptions - to fall moderately or seriously as Y2K approaches. Moderate or serious liquidity problems are expected by 53 percent of money-market investors.
The move to juggle funding has been notable in the market for commercial paper, the short-term securities sold by companies looking for short-term borrowing. Many corporations don't want to have commercial paper that expires, and needs to be refinanced, near year- end. So they have been replacing shorter-term instruments, which often must be refinanced every seven to 28 days, with securities maturing next year. The result: a surge in the supply of commercial paper, with spreads widening.
At a recent meeting of the Financial Executives Institute, members said ``they're all avoiding settlements from Dec. 30 to Jan 7,'' said Philip B. Livingston, president and chief executive officer of the Morristown, N.J., professional organization. ``They're trying to avoid any kinds of deal closings in that period. It's going to be a dead period in financial markets.''
Even if big money managers stay the course and computer systems stay afloat, individuals are a wild card. Frightened by the end-of-the- world hype that the banking system will collapse, people may decide to go out after Thanksgiving and pull an extra $1,000 in cash out of their money market funds.
-- (August@of.1999), August 28, 2000.
same old retoric. time for a new mantra doomy gloomies. here is some insite for you; "you are going to die".
yes. its true.
you will die one day. maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but you WILL die.
Prepare for THAT.
money doesn't really compare to that worry, now does it?
-- not so interested observer (email@example.com), August 28, 2000.
not so interested observer,
Here is some "insite" for YOU.
I already have all the preparation that I need for when I die.
His name is Jesus Christ.
YOU should get prepared, too.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 28, 2000.
That was my point, Dennis.
At least *SOMEONE* understands irony around here!
-- not so interested observer (got.my."prep"@over.two.decades.ago), August 28, 2000.
"I already have all the preparation that I need for when I die.
His name is Jesus Christ."
What is he going to do for you when you die, pay for your funeral?
Have you heard the latest research going on about Jesus? They are starting to learn that his story was a myth, like the story of Homer and Zeus and all those dudes in "The Odyssey". Nothing more than an interesting fairy tale, really.
Good luck with your funeral, but you might want to have your credit card ready just in case the old Jeeezmeister don't show up.
-- (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 28, 2000.
not so interested observer,
From one Christian to another, I am not Dennis Olson. I don't post by my real name because there are a lot of weirdos in the world. I do, however, always post by my Y2J handle. (Note: I was previously Y2J@home.com until it was pointed out on the old board that home.com was a real domain name. Since then I have been Y2J@home.comm).
Jesus will stand in the gap for me so that God will see no sin of mine. Debt paid in full. No price to be paid. All the sin you that YOU have committed can be forgiven, too. Jesus is no fairy tale. He is the Savior.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 28, 2000.
No such thing as sin, we're just being perfectly human, as God created us. Why would he create a species that does things he doesn't want ("sins") and then tell his son to block the view? You're not giving God much credit.
-- (i.dont.play@"the.meek.and.the.helpless"), August 28, 2000.
He created us with the free will to choose Him, or to not choose Him. Forcing us to love Him was in His power, but He chose not to do it. (My belief is that forcing someone to love you is not really love at all, but that is just my belief). Because He gave us free will, we can choose to sin. Because we chose to sin, a savior was needed. He has done His part on the cross. All that we have to do is accept the gift.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 29, 2000.
Back to the original question, yea, I did get out of the market, partly because of Y2K. But I didn't lose any money. In fact, I just made $600 earlier this month, interest on a 1 year, $10,000 CD. Next August, I'll put another $725 in my pocket, from the same 10K CD. That's from one of several non-IRA CDs that I currently own.
Except for the small amount of gold that I have, I've had enough gambling with my hard earned cash. The market has just been to wacky for me lately, to get back in. I like the FDIC insurance, and guaranteed rates, much better!
-- Sysman (email@example.com), August 29, 2000.
Y2J/Dennis J. Olson/Olsen/Olsin,
You're welcome for the welcome back.
You really should just come out and admit that you're Dennis Olson. You were busted, you ran away, and now you're back and denying it. It makes you look an awful lot like a coward.
-- Access For All (firstname.lastname@example.org), August 29, 2000.
I was hardly "busted". I did, in effect, "run away", but not because I am Dennis Olson.
You came into the tail end of the Romanian "orphan" threads and tried to redefine the argument from: is there access to abortion in Romania, to: should abortion be part of the Romanian "orphan" solution. Citizen Ruth either was wrong or blatantly lied about her assertion that there is no access to abortion in Romania. I had proven that she was either wrong or lying, and when I did, she disappeared. The abortion argument is not black and white, but Citizen Ruth's assertion that there is no access to abortion in Romania was.
You came in late and either you couldn't understand that the argument was not a broad abortion argument, or you wanted to change the argument from an obviously untenable, black and white, narrow position (there is no access to abortion in Romania), to an easier to defend, shades of gray, broad position (abortion should be part of the solution to the Romanian "orphan" problem). Why you would want to redefine the argument at that late point in the thread, I am not sure. Are you Citizen Ruth? : )
Anyway, to be quite frank, I got tired of you not being able to comprehend the narrow scope of the argument, so I abandoned the thread. I actually abandoned the forum for a few days, but this place has a certain quality that keeps pulling me back.
-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 29, 2000.
I Don't Play,
"Why bring in sin?" A fallen angel created sin, not God. God doesn't want robots, hence we are given the choice to follow the path of good or evil. My opinion...
-- Deb M. (email@example.com), August 29, 2000.