I read this because I no longer understand the market.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TB2K spinoff uncensored : One Thread

What is it with the market. This is important to many of us. P/E means nothing anymore. Dividends are no longer important. Profit comes from stock price increase. I read this because I wanted to know.

The sky is falling

My impression is that this person doesn't know a whole lot more than I do. Maybe someone here can explain.

Best wishes,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 29, 2000


The market has become a casino, and the dice are loaded. Unless you're an insider, your odds of winning are much better in Vegas.

-- (corporations.are@dirty.dealers), August 29, 2000.


You are right. That guy doesn't know a whole lot about the market. Remember, he is most likely a journalism major, not a finance major.

All of this "if you're in it for the long haul, you'll be all right" baloney ought to be criminal. Being in this market is like driving a used Yugo when someone wants to pay you $20,000 for it. Take the money and run. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to buy another used Yugo cheaper someday.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 30, 2000.


Bottom to fall out of market soon, very soon, like within a week.

Don't ask me why, I just thought of it, and it feels real.

-- (panic.now@sell.everything), August 30, 2000.

The Tao of fear and greed.

-- Lars (lars@indy.net), August 30, 2000.

How's it goin' Z!

I was just posting yesterday that I did get out of the market, partly because of Y2K. But the other part is just what you are saying.

The traditional measures of a stock's performance don't mean anything today. The market today reacts to rumors more that anything else. I do think that "day traders" are to blame.

It really has become a casino. When I did play the game, I did come out ahead, even a little better that I would have done with bonds and CDs. But I never did make the big score. I don't know, I guess I'm just not a great "picker". Then again, I didn't lose money...

And I don't believe in the "long term" idea any longer. History has shown the market to do "a few percent" better than other investments. But history has also shown, recently, that the market can lose 1/3 of it's value, or more, in a very short time. I'm not a kid any more, and I've got to start "counting the days" that I have left, to earn an income, and invest some of it. Luck being what it is, I could "do a few percent" better for years. But when the time comes, when I do need the money, the market could take a 50% nose dive!

The best CDs today are paying guaranteed rates of 7.35% and the original investment is FDIC insured. The new Serise I Savings Bonds are paying 7.49% today, and adjusted for inflation 2 times a year. Plus they're guaranteed by the US Treasury.

I like these ideas much better than rolling the dice...


-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), August 30, 2000.

With all of the above in mind, it is virtually impossible to find a responsible financial adviser who would not suggest that individual investors put the vast bulk of their savings into stocks.

Such a gratuitous attack on conservative financial advisers makes me wonder about the writer's agenda. Following the article is this:

Greg Mastel is the director of the Global Economic Policy Project at the New America Foundation. He is a contributing editor to IntellectualCapital.com.

So then, what does the New American Foundation stand for? Curiously, their site's home page seems almost evasive about their political leanings, but a perusal of their site suggests that they support the global economy and a world-wide government.

After all that, I'm still not sure how this motivates the writer's position on the stock market.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), August 30, 2000.

How did I "shoot my mouth off." I said that Mr. Mastel's views on the stock market did not appear (at least on my reading) to be specifically intended to serve the interests of the New American Foundation. I fail to see how their Board Membership has any relevance to that, but then again, I guess I should be flattered that you even condescended to respond to something I wrote, but I'm not.

With regard to what I surmised their goals to be, those inferences were drawn from material on their own site.

-- David L (bumpkin@dnet.net), August 30, 2000.


I wouldn't compare long-term investing to driving a used Yugo. Investing is a lot more complex than that, or at least it should be. My own investments are very diverse and as a result I didn't feel the fall-out from this past spring as strongly as other investors and my money continues to grow.

For Z, and anyone else with questions on personal investments, I recommend http://www.ihatefinancialplanning.com

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 30, 2000.

Et tu, Tarzan?

I expected more from you.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 30, 2000.

No offense, but I wasn't a doomer and didn't see a need to get out of the market. I'm sorry, and confused, if this offends you!

-- Tarzan the Ape Man (tarzan@swingingthroughthejunglewithouta.net), August 30, 2000.


To each his own in the investment world. That is why there is a market: buyers AND sellers.

I was referring to you jumping on the "Y2J = Dennis Olson" bandwagon. I expected more from you.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 30, 2000.

I went long on toilet paper and hamburger helper!

-- Dense Olson (y2j@home.comm), August 30, 2000.


Thanks for the URL - it looks like an excellent site with good information.

-- Deb M. (vmcclell@columbus.rr.com), August 30, 2000.


I work with a lot of economists. I posed this question for the following reason: a short summary; which of course will not be totally accurate because of the brevity.

" The bonus paid to the top people depends on stock price not dividends [much of the bonus paid in stock options]. Therefore, what would have been paid as dividends has been diverted to repurchasing stock to drive up the price."

What do you think? I have more questions to follow. One at a time.

Best wishes,,,,


-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), August 30, 2000.


I can believe that is part of the problem. Even a large part. It gets even more complicated when a company goes in to debt to buy back their stock.

I would say that it is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Kind of like Japan in the '80s, but with a company's own stock instead of some other company's stock.

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), August 30, 2000.

One man's opinion, posted on the gold-eagle site Tuesday.

New Economy; Fraudulent Markets

The purpose of this editorial is to warn those invested in US financial markets.

Having grown up in a family that held to concepts such as God and country, I was blinded by faith, naively trusting in a government instituted by famous historical figures that wove inherent checks and balances into our three-branch form of government (Legislative, Executive, and Judicial). I also had no reason to question the integrity of those entrusted with the enormous duty of upholding honest and fair market practices. Finally, I accepted "Brand Name" indices (such as the Dow Jones Industrial Index) as standards, never questioning the integrity of the value of any such index nor the numbers behind them.

From a mature point of view, I can now clearly see the sad state of affairs that has grown out of laziness on the part of citizens and lack of integrity within the ranks of government. Actually, "Lack of integrity" is too light a term. In all honesty, the government of the United States of America has been infiltrated by Evil itself. Now that the Executive branch of the US government has demonstrated effective control over the Judicial branch, it will not be long before we pay for our laziness by giving over our Democratic form of government for a Statist form of government.

The purpose of this editorial is to warn those invested in US financial markets. Beware; if you are currently invested in the "Markets," that (a) stock valuation from typical statistics such as beta ratios, P/E (price to earnings) ratios, etc are virtually useless and (b) the purchasing power of money is able to be manipulated at the "Tip of a hat" or the "Wink of an eye" by one of a few select individuals at large. In other words, not only are the market's mechanics which you and/or your money manager use to value stocks and bonds being overridden by manipulation (which effectively renders useless the ability to determine when to buy and sell), but the value of the dollars you receive from the sale of stocks and bonds can immediately be altered so that each dollar can buy more or less, as determined by the evil that has infiltrated Washington, D.C. and New York City.

Even if you perceive yourself as an astute investor, you may overlook how easily the financial markets can be manipulated. It is to this point the remainder of this editorial will focus.

The old adage, "Invest at you own risk," is never more true than today. I desire to retain as much control over my financial future as possible. For me, this means staying away from all stocks and bonds (notwithstanding gold and silver mining stocks) and holding physical gold and silver. Since the laws of this land prohibit me from freely offering my own opinion regarding certain issues on which I believe I have gained wisdom, I need to make the following statement as a disclaimer, "I am not a financial advisor to anyone other than myself and you should not construe the message within this editorial as investment advice."

Savvy investors are familiar with market manipulation (organized buying and selling by one or more parties for the purpose of realizing a profit by influencing the value of a stock). In the past, most of this activity was blamed on insider trading, which of course is still active today. However, perhaps only a small percentage of investors (and market analysts for that matter) know the raw power of key individuals to immediately manipulate financial and commodity markets.

For instance, the Secretary of the Treasury can, with the nod of the President of the United States of America, produce just about any market outcome desired. Acting together as a team, or via a subordinate relationship where the Secretary of the Treasury carries out the instructions of the President, the Secretary of the Treasury has sole discretion over the Treasury's Exchange Stabilization Fund (or ESF). This power was granted in 1934 when gold actually backed the US dollar. Below is the first paragraph taken verbatim from the "Federal Bank of New York's Fedpoint 14: Exchange Stabilization Fund" web page ( http://www.ny.frb.org/pihome/fedpoint/fed14.html ):

QUOTE The Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF) of the United States Treasury was created and originally financed by the Gold Reserve Act of 1934 to contribute to exchange rate stability and counter disorderly conditions in the foreign exchange market. The Act authorized the Secretary of the Treasury, to deal in gold, foreign exchange, securities, and instruments of credit, under the exclusive control of the Secretary of the Treasury subject to the approval of the President. UNQUOTE

At the end of the second quarter of 2000, the ESF balance was $15,573,600,000, or 15.5 billion dollars. I have spent countless hours personally studying the quarterly statements of the ESF, the DJIA, S&P 500, and Nasdaq stock indices, the price and stability of oil, the price and stability of precious metals (especially spot gold prices on the London and New York exchanges), synchronized price movements in the aforementioned indexes and spot gold, Bureau of Labor Statistics reports on inflation et al, and other related topics.

I have come to the absolute conclusion that a subset of US Government Officials and their numerous accomplices effectively manipulate and exercise considerable control over US Markets. I cannot speculate (and don't really care) whether the US Government Officials in question are servants of higher authorities or not. Most likely, you and your neighbors' financial portfolios are currently suffering while the media's "Talking heads," who simply convey what they are told, point to an expanding economy, the strength of the dollar, and the performance of their favorite stock index.

I firmly believe that while insiders with large sums of money at risk are quietly taking profits out of the market, US tax payers' money is being used to bolster the market indices so the average investor (US and foreign alike) are kept blind to what is about to hit them. I urge you not to be "Just another angry skeptical person" when the drama in the markets unfold. Do something now.

I would refuse to play a poker game if I knew the cards were marked. Even if I was down a bit, once I realized the game was rigged, I could still choose to get out and protect what I had left. How about you?

I know a person very well who had $280,000 in the market at the beginning of the year. Since then, he is down $18,000 (6.5%) to $262,000. At this rate, he will be at $249,000 by the end of the year. This would be over an 11% loss. However, this guy is smart. As he saw what was happening, he immediately went into a hedge position by purchasing $8,900 of a particular gold stock, $5,000 of a gold mutual fund, and 50 ounces of physical gold at $300 per ounce. He explained to me that gold was at a 20-year low and it had nowhere to go but up, no matter how much "They" manipulated it's price. He also divested many of his tech stocks that he had made a large profit on in 1999. He now sits in a position to benefit from many scenarios the market (manipulators) can throw at him.

In conclusion, I strongly believe that this media-driven "New Economy" philosophy is nothing more than a disinformation campaign to divert investors' attention from the fact that the US economy and the financial markets are not healthy, but on the brink of disaster.

This disaster-to-come has been created artificially by (a) politicians' selfish desires to portray a financially healthy US economy for the advancement of their own political careers, (b) to benefit small, united groups of unscrupulous, rich, and over- speculative investors that make significant (and often wrong) investment decisions but also make significant campaign contributions, (c) the absolute necessity to maintain the strength of the US dollar, even at the cost of US manufacturers having to lower their prices or accept slower sales (as evidenced by the highest trade deficit in history), and (d) refusing to warn the populous regarding the outcome of consistently overspending their income (evidenced in part by promoting debt by loosening the money supply and altering the debt/savings equation to show erroneous statistics).

Offering a sincere appeal for the rebirth of Common Sense,

Don Smith

29 August 2000


-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), August 31, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ