What the heck?

Tom Lehman TLehman at lor.net
Sun Dec 12 20:17:43 PST 1999


Ok, Jordan. Maybe there are demographic and tax policy reasons that explain the equities market. The constant infusion of 401(k) cash, which as we know is tax deferred, is a good example. Also the propensity to save money in a 401(k) type vehicle has got to increase with age and those good old defined benefit plans seem to becoming scarcer as an option for younger workers pushing them towards investment in 401(k) plans too.

That's why bad jokes like the Free Market ipo should get more scrutiny from the SEC. If the SEC still exists. My pal Terry the Toledo attorney thinks the SEC was abolished around the time of John Lennon's murder, but, he can't quite put his finger on it.

Tom Lehman

t byfield wrote:


> > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 16:04:20 GMT
> > From: Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>
>
> > it's easy to tell that you're young ...
> >
> > .. and thus easy to tell that you're old?
>
> maybe. but if your professional activities mean you know more
> about finance than i do, maybe by the same token i'm more sen-
> sitive to language than you are.
>
> > it's quite possible that you're correct in the sense that
> > the markets will continue to rise for longer than any bear
> > can bear. it's also quite possible that you're wrong.
> >
> > I guess that just about covers it? Ted Byfield: 100% correct.
> >
> > When are you starting a mutual fund?
>
> see what i mean?
>
> > if your goal is just to cop as many bucks as possible in
> > the short-term, fine, but do shut up about it.
> >
> > This isn't about money, Ted; this is about trying desperately to
> > box Doug into making irrational claims about the end of the bull
> > market. He hates to do it, but he can't help himself. He feels
> > that the market is out of whack and it *must* go back to where it
> > came from for no other reason than ... well, I guess for no other
> > reason. His latest one was simply that it had entered "old age"
> > - -- and we know what happened to Brezhnev when _he_ got old -- as
> > if there's something natural or organic going on here.
>
> and you disagree. gee.
>
> > It's especially funny when he does it for no reason whatsoever
> > (Doug: why *did* you wake up that day and declare that the bull
> > market was like Brezhnev?) and then the market goes up 15%.
>
> did you understand what i said about contingency?
>
> > It's easy to tell that you're old, Ted: you don't think that's
> > funny.
>
> the current state of things doesn't make me feel young, no.
>
> > if your goal is something bigger, though, then maybe talk
> > about that.
> >
> > I know you come and go on this list, but I've said several times
> > what I think is driving this bull market: a slick combination of
> > tax policy, wherein the government gives a huge incentive for people
> > to put money into their retirement plans which are run by people
> > whose job it is to wake up in the morning, put on a suit, and go
> > *buy* stocks -- they buy all day long, they wouldn't know what to
> > do with cash if they sold, so they keep on buying; and an acute
> > supply/demand situation wherin M&A activity and buybacks gobbles
> > up stock faster than silly Linux companies can print more.
>
> i think *that* analysis is pretty funny.
>
> > Until either of those things change (and perhaps both), I don't
> > see a significant change in the direction of this market.
>
> neither do i; but i know there's a difference between what i
> see and what is. a pre-reaganite distinction, maybe.
>
> > Doug's claim that the bull market is "showing signs of old age" is
> > just some "reversion to the mean" swag that I think doesn't hold
> > up. So you'll excuse me for needling him about it now and again.
>
> but that's not all you're doing. be honest.
>
> > Date: Sun, 12 Dec 1999 16:27:21 GMT
> > From: Jordan Hayes <jmhayes at j-o-r-d-a-n.com>
>
> > if your goal is something bigger, though, then maybe talk
> > about that.
> >
> > Ok, here's something else: if the direction of the move over the
> > last 7 weeks was negative instead of positive, every Chicken Little
> > who has a way to hit the transmit key would be crying about the
> > disaster and bloodbath taking place in the market -- but as it goes
> > up by that amount, we don't hear the same magnitude of statements
> > about it. Shouldn't we? We're just talking about a shift of
> > polarity. If the market going up 15% in 7 weeks doesn't make
> > everyone rich, why should a 15% downward move make everyone poor?
>
> ah, but we do, we do, from innumerable people like you.
>
> > With the addition of Microsoft and Intel to the DJIA and companies
> > like Yahoo being added to the S&P 500, it seems clear that the
> > _indexes themselves_ are on a PR campaign -- just think where the
> > DJIA would be today if they had added Microsoft and Intel 5 years
> > ago?
>
> higher earlier, hence less proportional gain.
>
> > Of course, Sunday Morning Curmudgeon that you are, you failed to
> > comment on that idea that we're not in a bull market at all (and
> > thus unsucceptible to a bear market). I'm not sure what to make
> > of it, but it does seem that the "market news" has become quite
> > like the "other news" in that it focusses in on specific items too
> > deeply (the way we do about disasters and other anomolous events)
> > to give a broad perspective on the market.
>
> what's your point?
>
> cheers,
> t



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list