Jump to content

B4 the Bell Fryday, July 23, 2004


Guest yobob1

Recommended Posts

"Squawkbox" this AM:

 

** Mr. Kernan sounded a wee bit testy that the latest pronouncements of Microsoft have not generated more investor interest. He ascribed this to somewhat excessive investor gloominess, a mentality that insists on "seeing the glass as half empty, instead of half full."

 

** Corporations have got lots of cash laying around. Inspired by Microsoft, they may start shoveling large amounts of it back to stockholders, triggering renewed bullish excitement.

The only way to view the Microsoft move, IMO, is that the company (which is really a tech mutual fund) cannot grow your money at an acceptable rate internally. Academic research shows that cash rich companies are poor users of cash and tend to throw it at their least profitable enterprises.

 

Meanwhile, the other, more interesting, story is that Exxon-Mobil is also buying back shares. Here, I believe, is an oil giant telling us that the prospects from exploration are not good enough for a mega-cap company. Oil prices may not be high enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 192
  • Created
  • Last Reply

While it is becoming increasingly rare, there are still a few folks who ply their trade on Wall Street who have not "sold their souls" to the Matrix yet.

Listened to a conference call conducted by Louise Yamada, head technician at Smith Barney. She's very bearish, especially regarding NASDAQ and tech stocks, sees potential for 1600 on NASDAQ Comp by October. Risk of 1025 on S&P over same time frame. She apparently utilizes cycle analysis in her "tool box" , she said the 80 week and 40 week cycles (forgive me, I'm a neophyte with respect to cycles, so they may be totally different ones than Doc's) are "weak and heading hard down through October".

 

Hope she's right! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While it is becoming increasingly rare, there are still a few folks who ply their trade on Wall Street who have not "sold their souls" to the Matrix yet.

Listened to a conference call conducted by Louise Yamada, head technician at Smith Barney. She's very bearish, especially regarding NASDAQ and tech stocks, sees potential for 1600 on NASDAQ Comp by October. Risk of 1025 on S&P over same time frame. She apparently utilizes cycle analysis in her "tool box" , she said the 80 week and 40 week cycles (forgive me, I'm a neophyte with respect to cycles, so they may be totally different ones than Doc's) are "weak and heading hard down through October".

 

Hope she's right! :D

I have followed Yamada's work for years and have great respect for her. Another good technician with integrity is Peter Lee at UBS. His longer term call is for a secular trading range, higher commodity prices, lower dollar, and, (believe it or not), lower interest rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following was?reprinted from the book "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" by Ayn Rand in 1967 which also?included several articles by Alan Greenspan, the present Chairman of the US Federal Reserve.

 

By ALAN GREENSPAN

 

The abandonment of the gold standard made it possible for the welfare statists to use the banking system as a means to an unlimited expansion of credit. They have created paper reserves in the form of government bonds which-through a complex series of steps-the banks accept in place of tangible assets and treat as if they were an actual deposit, i.e., as the equivalent of what was formerly a deposit of gold. The holder of a government bond or of a bank deposit created by paper reserves believes that he has a valid claim on a real asset. But the fact is that there are now more claims outstanding than real assets.

 

The law of supply and demand is not to be conned. As the supply of money (of claims) increases relative to the supply of tangible assets in the economy, prices must eventually rise. Thus the earnings saved by the productive members of the society lose value in terms of goods. When the economy's books are finally balanced, one finds that loss in value represents the goods purchased by the government for welfare or other purposes with the money proceeds of the government bonds financed by bank credit expansion.

 

In the absence of the gold standard, there is no way to protect savings from confiscation through inflation. There is no safe store of value. If there were, the government would have to make its holding illegal, as was done in the case of gold. If everyone decided, for example, to convert all his bank deposits to silver or copper or any other good, and thereafter declined to accept checks as payment for goods, bank deposits would lose their purchasing power and government-created bank credit would be worthless as a claim on goods. The financial policy of the welfare state requires that there be no way for the owners of wealth to protect themselves.

 

This is the shabby secret of the welfare statists' tirades against gold. Deficit spending is simply a scheme for the "hidden" confiscation of wealth. Gold stands in the way of this insidious process. It stands as a protector of property rights. If one grasps this, one has no difficulty in understanding the statists' antagonism toward the gold standard.

 

http://www.jsmineset.com/

In which year did Al have his lobotomy? :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Tell a friend

    Love Stool Pigeons Wire Message Board? Tell a friend!
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • ×
    • Create New...