As i sit here awaiting my trusty turbo tax software to print my 1999 tax returns, my mind drifted off to Mr. Greenspan's Humphrey Hawkins testimony from last week.(Yes...I have no life. Not only am I preparing taxes on a beautiful President's Day weekend, but now I'm thinking about Alan Greenspan. Oh well.)Is it me or has Mr. Greenspan gone over the line in suggesting that he'd like to see stock prices somehow correlated to wage growth. As that great contemporary thinker of our time....Jim Carey said in a line from Ace Ventura...."Obsess Much??"Personally, I'd like to see the Fed spend more time worrying about the real inflationary demons out there such as energy prices. He seems much more concerned about stock prices than I think his role truly warrants. As evidence, look at the sectors of the market that have been most impacted by the fed's recent and perceived future rate moves. You guessed it, he's hitting sectors that have not outperformed at all during the last year. He needs a scalpal to apply to the NASDAQ and he's using a butcher knife on the overall market.My real peeve is in his testimony on Friday. I just don't understand his inference about his desire to see stock prices correlated to wage growth. Huh??Final point (the really shallow, immature and petty one!) I remember seeing in a recent disclosure that Mr. Greenspan has been out of US Equities COMPLETELY.His portfolio is 100% fixed income. Is it blasphemy to suggest that our Fed chief would just love to smugly remind his intellectual friends at the next Washington cocktail party that he "told you so" when the markets violently correct his perception of irrational exhuberance.Whew, I feel better already....my tax return finished printing......I owe how much?@#$% So much for increased consumer spending from increasing stock prices!!Maybe I'm just not WISE enough to understand all this complex economics.
>>Maybe I'm just not WISE enough to understand all this complex economics<<Who says AG is when he cannot adequately explain the correlation between MZM and fiscal matters.:O)
I remember seeing in a recent disclosure that Mr. Greenspan has been out of US Equities COMPLETELY.His portfolio is 100% fixed income.That really shouldn't come as a huge surprise. Could you imagine the conflict of interest it would generate if he did own equities? I wouldn't be surprised if there was a law that forbids him to purchase equities.-- Ryan
Previously he had a Blind Trust with his funds invested in equities. There was a rumour that the Blind Trust had some of the funds in LTCM and after that bailout AG thought that to avoid this type of speculation that he had better invest in straight bonds!Pity Hillary Clinton did not do the same... he blind trust was allegedly linked to the forward sales of gold before the Bank of England announcement of gold sales last year. Would have made a small fortune to buy that new house they have moved into!
Think about it. How would ownership of equity securities be any more of a conflict than interest rate sensitive fixed income securities?Conflicts aside, I think the point is simply that Mr. Greenspan's portfolio is a reflection of his fundamental belief that the market is overvalued.Personally, I'd rather see him in a balanced portfolio of stocks and bonds. P.S. WSJ reports on his testimony today on page A2.
How would ownership of equity securities be any more of a conflict than interest rate sensitive fixed income securities?I don't know much about fixed income securities, so I can't really say. But for the sake of argument, maybe there is a conflict of interest in his owning fixed income securities. Sounds like another conspiracy to me. =)-- Ryan
"Sounds like another conspiracy to me. =)"Well try this on for size. I did not request that this board be put up ... it was here when I was investigating claims of Fed alleged conspiracy in the gold market. I thought that I would post and I have kept posting articles ever since. Now if you read the Act this Board is technically a conspiracy!
When you really think about it, it is an absolute, 100% total impossibility for Alan Greenspan not to have a conflict of interest. Even if he has nothing more than a bank account like all us plebeians, if it pays interest his actions at the Fed affect his income. Even if he has a non-interest bearing account, his actions at the Fed affect the condition of the financial system and its individual institutions, and thus affect the safety of his deposits. So no matter how you slice it, AG has a personal interest in the outcome of his actions.
true ... i had not thought of that issue!
hi there demiller1, I am a lurker here and just wanted to let you know that I find this board very interesting and informative and will continue to hang out. Unfortunately, I know very little on these matters and will probably not post anything. Just wanted to touch base. Fooling around, simsim
roflIf you see anything interesting on the Fed's operations just post on through the link.Luv anything that would bring Greenspan down to earth!TIA
I don't give a turkey whether or not Greenspan is ever brought down to earth, I just want him to stop messing up my stocks!
After today, I'm as much worried about him causing a depression and throwing millions of people out of work as am about him messing up my stocks. Bill, you screwed up! FIRE HIM!!!
I doubt that anyone can after his confirmation by congress
Maybe not, but days like thar get a little scary.
i believe a lot of investors think that they don't have the education or intellect to doubt alan greenspan's wisdom.i believe that they are wrong.it is becoming apparent that fools and individual investors understand the economy far better than greenspan.they make better investments than greenspan,than mutual funds,than stockbrokers.since they have broken ranks with the so-called financial experts(thanks in part to the motley fool),individuals have made tremendous investments.they have done because they understand the markets and the economy better than the experts .we are a part of this economy.we have to trust our intuitions more.we do know what we are doing.greenspan seems bent on proving that we do not,even if he has to wreck this prosperous economy in the process. the computer and internet has brought power to the people and the establishment does not like. greenspan is worried we are too prosperous and may spend too much.is there something wrong with being prosperous? he doesn't worry when only a few prosper,but when a lot of people prosper he worries.he wants to limit our prosperity.doesn't sound american does it. the prosperity that we have gained is not a fluke.it has been gained by the freedom of thought that we assumed that we already had in this country.we did not have such freedom.we are taxed and regulated that our entrepeneural spirit had been stifled.that spirit has awakened with new technology.alan does not understand and wants to stifle it. one of the main things that has given this economy such a boost is most this technology is not yet over taxed and regulated. the individuals investment dollar is the fuel that is propelling this boom. prosperity good. greenspan bad! he claims to be fighting inflation,but the only inflationary item is oil. are high interest rates going to reduce oil prices? i don't think we need a degree in economics to answer that.what is he doing to fight high oil prices???? who stands to benefit from high interest rates? not me. not you. maybe the finacial sector.the one thatcan't quite hack it in the new economy. so alan is going to wreck the new economy and take us back to the old economy.hmmm,he may benefit since he holds fixedincome investments. motely fool should stand up and address this issue.are they fools or do they just talk foolish? come on guys step up to the plate. clinton understands economics better than any president that i have seen. he also needs to corect this problem. nuff said
I wish Clinton could get rid of the old blankety-blank, but apparently he cannot. I think it's time for some Democratic Senators to start giving him some serious heat in the hearing rooms and through the media. The old sonofagun may be too obtuse for that, but it's all we've got.
IMO nothing can rattle his tree. He has now an excuse for everything (y2K) and liquidity that he has released. Regardless of what happens in the next 8 to 12 months the Y2K liquidity fiasco will take the blame.;O)
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |