October 13, 1997

Dear Sir:

The stock market is clearly volatile. For example, in 1995 the S&P was up over 30%, in 96 up over 20%, and now in 97 it is up over 30%. That's volatility. Numerous stocks change by hundreds of percent in just a few months. For example, one of the largest computer makers is up over 400% in just the last twelve months, Lam Research fell to $25 a share a few months ago after reporting negative earnings, but shot up to $68 with no significant news and then shot back down to $43, again with no significant news reported by the company. The richest man in the world more than doubled his net worth in the last year just because of the volatility in the stock market. All anyone has to do is look in any newspaper and check the stock listings, virtually every stock changes by at least 100% during the past twelve months.

Last week Bill Wolman said the stock market isn't that volatile because so and so's report says so. As Jim Rogers keeps telling Bill and Larry, "You all need to quit talking about this report and that report and get out in the real world."

When Bill buys a stock and sees it go up 500% percent in one year and then lose half it value in one day because it misses earnings projections by one cent, he won't be making crazy statements to the public about the stock market not being volatile regardless of what this report says and that report says.

Sincerely,

October 15, 1997

Dear Sir:

As we approach October 19, 1997, the financial news media acts like the National Enquirer trying to make the stock market crash of 1987 look like the crash of 1929. It's not.

You are suppose to report the news not try to create news. By making the crash of "87" seem worse than it was will only hurt the stock market. If the stock market is going to fall let it fall because of fundamental reasons.

Just as a reminder to CNBC, after the crash of "29" the United States went into a deep depression, the US economy and stock market would not recover until after World War II, that's 16 years. The crash of "87" did not cause a recession let alone a depression, and the stock market started to recover immediately, and would fully recover in a couple of years. The vast majority of Americans severely felt the crash of "29", most Americans didn't even know the crash of "87" occurred.

Sincerely,

October 20, 1997

Dear Sir:

On Strictly Business this past week you asked the panelists if it was good that Clinton was playing more golf. Jimmy said yes as long as he takes congress with him. You all forgot about Greenspan, if the middle class and poor are going to start enjoying some of the prosperity of the economy, Greenspan needs to take an extended vacation. I personally don't even mind if he gets paid for it, just go.

Sincerely,

October 23, 1997

Dear Sir:

I have a question for Larry Kudlow:

Yesterday the effects of the Hong Kong drop were felt all over the world. The financial news media reported, "This is proof of how we are now in a truly global market."

I disagree with the financial news media and so called financial gurus and suggest that the Hong Kong drop and its effects on the world markets was based on the fact that the financial news media is turning into a media source that is becoming more and more sensational to draw more viewers and readers. This sensationalism puts panic or unsupported euphoria into the minds of those controlling most of the financial resources, that is, the institutions led by mutual funds companies that have many inexperienced fund managers.

This supports the fact that a very small market such as Hong Kong could cause such turmoil in the world markets.

I feel that the "sheep mentality" of Wall Street, that is, to buy when everyone is buying and to sell when everybody is selling, is becoming a huge problem causing unnecessary volatility and is very dangerous for the world markets.

How do you feel about this?

Sincerely,

November 11, 1997

Dear Sir:

A few weeks ago Bill Wolman talked about how the market was not that volatile because such and such a report says so. I wrote you asking that you please tell Mr. Wolman to get personally involved with stocks so he could learn first hand that the stock market is truly volatile regardless of what this report or that report says. Even if that still wouldn't convince Mr. Wolman, I hope that the market's actions this past few weeks would, anyone still claiming that the market is not volatile must have other motives for their thinking. I am very interested, as I'm sure other viewers are, does Mr. Wolman still think that the market is not volatile? If that is still his belief, why does he personally believe that. And please, don't give reasons such as, because such and such a report says so.

Sincerely,

November 12, 1997

Dear Sir:

I have a question for Bill Wolman: You claim that the "Wealth Effect" could cause inflation. Do you know that 90% of Americans have less that $70,000 in net worth and more than half of that is in home equity. Do you know that only 33% of Americans over the age of 50 have saved $50,000 for their retirement which is only, at most, 15 years away for them. Do you know that only 20% of Americans over the age of 33 have saved $50,000 for their retirements. You should, these numbers come from Business Week magazine. Do you know that most of the investment advisors advise on "capital preservation" and not capital growth because most of the money in the country is concentrated in a few pockets. That is, the rich are not worried about growing their net worth, they are mostly worried about preserving it. Most of the money being earned in this country which is by the "rich" is being saved, not spent. Bill Gates has $40 billion dollars, how much of that money do you think he is going to spend in the next year? Between 30-40% of the money made in Microsoft stock has gone to less than 10 people. Specifically, why do think that the "Wealth Effect" is a problem? Like I said the wealthy are making money in the stock market, but they are not rushing out to spend their profits and many people like myself are simply saving for retirement, again, not rushing out to spend the profits. Bill, who's making all this money in the market and spending it or going to be spending it?

Sincerely,

November 19, 1997

For the past several years the stock market gurus, including the panelists of Strictly Business, have stated that the valuation of the stock market is impacted greatly by the bond market. It seems now that the institutions who control the vast financial resources of the American people have decided that the bond market has little to do with the valuation of the stock market since they are ignoring the fact that the long bond is almost hitting in the 5 range. What makes "it different" this time, why was the stock market so dependent on the bond market before, but now the stock market wants to ignore the fact that the yield on the long bond is the lowest it has been in several months if not years?

Sincerely,

November 26, 1997

Why is it that Larry Kudlow seems to be the only person on Wall Street that seems to realize a fact. The US consumes 60% of all resources made on this planet. Our exports specifically to Asia are nothing compared to what we consume ourselves. The Asian market turmoil is impacting the US markets much more than they should be and that will be evident in the next few months. I hope that Larry will remind all those that caused an unnecessary panic here in the US and hopefully those that were clearly wrong with their thoughts and comments will, in the future, be referred to as the little boys/girls that cried wolf.

Sincerely,