|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Sorry Steven,
Maybe I was a little quick with a harsh comment about you.
Your description of the folks who believe this as being 'morons'
probably helped. You do criticize and yet you do not back up your
opinion to the contrary. You have more faith is this inept leadership
than I do. When I see their lips move, 99.9% of the time I
know that they are either lieing or twisting the truth to appease
the masses of lemmings that is the general American public.
I do feel strongly that the Fed is supporting this bubble,
have mismanaged the economy and the markets,
and are now trying to defend it with our tax dollars.
Their past and present actions show a pattern,
the markets unprecedented upside volitility point to
their involvement.
James Taylor
----- Original Message -----
From: Steven Poser <sposer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <jptaylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 8:52 AM
Subject: RE: [RT] Re: Plunge Protection team [Fwd from Steve Poser]
> You know James, I did not use your name in my post. In fact, I was not
> responding to you at all, but to the idea in general. Directly attacking
my
> name and knowledge, saying that I do not know jack, was uncalled for. I
> await your public apology.
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:listmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
> Behalf Of James Taylor
> Sent: Wednesday, April 19, 2000 11:27 AM
> To: realtraders@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [RT] Re: Plunge Protection team [Fwd from Steve Poser]
>
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
|