|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Both of you have opinions, neither of you can quote or refer to facts to
substantiate your opinion. To slam someone for their opinion is wrong, for all
this forum provides is opinion. I have yet to see anything about the markets
that is fact, other then historical data or hind sight. So if you disagree, do
so with a little tact. When the government intercedes in the currency markets
they tell you so. Whether they do so in the stock or futures market I can't
prove or disprove. I do know for a fact they have been known to provide
liquidity to broker/dealers, firms and banks when it was necessary to maintain
an orderly market. I commend them for that. Why should the farmers and the
poor be the only ones to receive government aide? Don't you believe in equal
opportunity and access to government funds? Don't you believe that these
bastions of the American way of life need government assistance as they denude
the unwary and greedy of their assets? So when you believe that an injustice is
being done, look to those who benefit, and you will know who makes the biggest
political contributions. Looks like silicon valley is next on the list to
receive. Ira
James Taylor wrote:
> Poser's rank opinions means jack, they are just that, opinions. He offers
> no reasons or fact to back them up. His views on this prove to me just how
> little this man knows. If the Fed ACTIVELY rigs the currency market,
> practically weekly in convert with Japan, and raises the money supply at
> every sign of market weakness, how/why is it so unbelievable to you that
> they do not have a team buying futures to spark buy programs with our tax
> dollars ?
>
> Not only is it likely, it is a surety. Especially given their total
> reckless monetary policy, destructive trade deficit, and massive government
> debt. They know damn well that they better rig the markets to support them.
> I do believe that eventually, the market will prove bigger than they are,
> one can only hope that their reckless policies will not go unpunished.
>
> James Taylor
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dennis Holverstott <dennis@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 7:24 AM
> Subject: [RT] Re: Plunge Protection team [Fwd from Steve Poser]
>
> > Dennis - From this email address, I cannot post to the list. Could you do
> it
> > for me? Thanks, Steve Poser
> >
> > The moron newspaper reporters out there than think there is a plunge
> > protection team buying stocks or futures should be hung from the highest
> > rafters. While there is no doubt that there is a team of people at the Fed
> > and Treasury that monitor the markets, I'd say that the odds that they are
> > actually in there buying futures is somewhat lower than the odds of John
> > Rocker receiving a standing ovation at Shea Stadium on June 19th when he
> > arrives there with the Braves.
> >
> > It is absolutely amazing that people believe this. Might the Treasury
> (more
> > likely than the Fed) call Goldman Sachs or Merrill Lynch and ask if there
> is
> > a place to buy? Maybe. But, even governments cannot turn markets around.
> > Look at Hong Kong in 1997/1998. They bought all the way down to to 6000 or
> > so. Remember the European currency crisis in the 1990s? All the central
> > banks were trying to prop up the trading bands, and could not stop the
> > markets from going where they were supposed to go (admittedly, FX is much
> > larger than equities). If the market wants to tank, it will tank. If it
> does
> > not want to tank, it will not tank.
> >
> > To add to this, if we use 1/2 our brains and eliminate the totally
> assinine
> > idea that the government or the Fed is buying futures or stocks, then the
> > idea that the brokerage or banking community could turn it is so stupid
> that
> > it does not even merit consideration.
> >
> > What can the Treasury do? Nothing quick. Change laws I guess and jawbone
> the
> > markets. The Fed can flood the banks with liquidity. That is what they did
> > in 1987. I have not checked the data, but I doubt that is what happened (I
> > guess we will find out tomorrow with the weekly M's though the conspiracy
> > theorists will note that of course that data will be hidden -- I guess
> that
> > Fed has a Swiss bank account!). It would make little sense that the Fed is
> > trying to push the market higher, since they are concerned about it being
> > too high (though I suspect a stock market crash creates more imbalances
> than
> > minor inflation). They might desire to see less volatility, but they might
> > not know how to do that anyway. They intervene in bonds and currencies in
> > public and prescribed ways (actually Treasury does the currency trades
> with
> > the Fed acting as the agent). There is nothing public about this (of
> course
> > it is illegal and is not happening, which explains why it is not public,
> > because it is not happening).
> >
> > The other part of the idea, that they are buying S&P futures is just too
> > laughable. If futures get rich, there must be follow through buying in
> > stocks, or the markets just fall back. Remember, when these programs of
> > alleged futures purchases are going on, there are always, by definition,
> > program trading curbs on, so the Street cannot even easily buy the cheap
> > stocks to bring about proper parity. More likely then, we would see
> futures
> > fall back!
> >
> > Usually, conspiracy theories grow out because they are neat little
> > explanations that cannot be explained easily otherwise. They assume
> markets
> > are rational. They are not. This theory falls completely apart, even if
> you
> > are willing to ridiculously assume that the Fed or the Treasury are
> > illegally buying stocks or futures. It just takes a minor amount of
> thought,
> > something that the idiots in the press hope you never bother with, to blow
> > this stupidity apart. It is harder to explain the conspiracy theory than
> it
> > is to explain it away!
> >
> > Steven Poser
> >
> >
|