Christopher Bush_

Are We Seeing Shades of 2003 Markets?

There is indeed a point; be cautious of overt optimism, and a broad based "bottom calling" sentiment. The negative and positive breakdown was to outline what might happen in the new year (things that aren't priced in, if you believe in the efficient markets hypothesis).

The point is with low yields, we will eventually be forced back into equities, and US Debt won't be a good investment unless the Fed actively targets long-term rates.


On Jan 04 09:10 AM Paul Price wrote:

> And your conclusion is...?
>
> You didn't make a case for going long or short. You merely said that
> in 2003 things got better early in the year before bottoming in March.

>
>
> Is there a point to this piece?

Will the Fed Target Long-Term Rates?

PST targets bonds of a shorter maturity; but you bring up a good point in that TBT, which targets the 30yr, is down more.

Either way, the "flight to safety" is getting more risky. Once people decide that there is a better margin of safety in equities over bonds, just sit back and watch the yields drop.

On Dec 04 12:32 AM novice_investor wrote:

> Are there any criteria for choosing between PST and TBT? TBT seems
> to be down a larger % than PST. Thanks.

Would Glass-Steagall Have Stopped this Mess?

Granting the brokers leverage ratios of 40:1 is an ineffective governing system, as you said. However, a corollary to repealing Glass-Steagall was that we could rely on these very systems of governance...So, AlexS, hopefully that provided clarification.


On Nov 24 12:09 AM AlexS wrote:

> I don't believe that Merrill Lynch, Bear Stearns, Morgan Stanley,
> Lehman Bros., and Goldman Sachs were commercial banks (please correct
> me if I'm wrong), so they were already choosing to be brokerage rather
> than commercial banks. So the repeal of Glass-Steagall would have
> no effect on what they did to bring on this crisis, since they didn't
> take advantage of its repeal anyway. But I don't quite understand
> if the author is attempting to lay the blame for this problem on
> the repeal of Glass-Steagall (as in the title and first part of the
> column) or on an ineffective regulatory apparatus (as in the major
> portion of the text). The two are two different things, and one
> does not prove the other.

Speed with Which Financials Have Fallen Is Disconcerting

Ames,

It looks like you were right (although you're time line was pretty arbitrary)
However I was never disagreeing; my post was to point out the danger out there, and the lack of clarity in the mid-long term.

Owens-Illinois Continues to Grow

Yeah, this stock strikes me as a sleeper...No one (including cramer) has said a word about this stock during its fall from the highs of 60 a share. Also, I like the 70% exposure overseas...Europe and China actually act on green legislation and have enough intelligence to switch from plastic containers to glass. It's economically viable, and less likely to have litigation cases from toxins causing cancer...(look how GE was burned)

Goldman: Total Leveraged Credit Losses = $1.2 Trillion

SKF looks like a good buy....