A Quote by Alex Berenson

As the Nasdaq soared in 1999 and early 2000, demand for many offerings far exceeded the supply of shares available at the initial offering price. — © Alex Berenson
As the Nasdaq soared in 1999 and early 2000, demand for many offerings far exceeded the supply of shares available at the initial offering price.
Like any business, the oil industry runs on the basic premise of supply and demand. The more supply - the lower the price. The higher the demand - the higher price. In other words, the more people who can buy oil, the higher the price of oil.
The opinions that the price of commodities depends solely on the proportion of supply and demand, or demand to supply, has become almost an axiom in political economy, and has been the source of much error in that science.
You want supply to always be full, and you use price to basically either bring more supply on or get more supply off, or get more demand in the system or get some demand out.
The price of crude oil accounts for 55 percent of the price of a gallon of gasoline, driven by global supply and demand. The United States depends on foreign sources of oil for 62 percent of our nation's supply. By 2010, this is projected to jump to 75 percent.
The supply price and the demand price should be roughly the same. You're not supposed to have two different prices. According to economists.
The end of the 'tech bubble' in the year 2000 is, of course, widely recognized, as the NASDAQ stock index erased three-quarters of its value between 2000 and 2003.
But it is clear that the price of labour has no necessary connection with the price of food, since it depends entirely on the supply of labourers compared with the demand.
I do believe that oil production globally has peaked at 85 million barrels. And I've been very vocal about it. And what happens? The demand continues to rise. The only way you can possibly kill demand is with price. So the price of oil, gasoline, has to go up to kill the demand. Otherwise, keep the price down, the demand rises.
One of course is to insure greater supply of energy for California's needs now and in the future in the sense that we are in discussions with representatives of Oregon and Washington, where they do have a surplus supply of energy available, and at what we hope will be a very reasonable price.
The price of ability does not depend on merit but on supply and demand.
I briefly flirted with some of the new age offerings available in the early '90s and found strength in Buddhism, but ultimately I was looking for something that was not tied to tradition.
While Wall Street firms typically underwrite offerings in teams, the lead underwriter, or manager, of the offering has primary responsibility for selling the offering and reaps much of the fees and profit.
While no one wishes to incur losses, you couldn't prove it from an examination of the behavior of most investors and speculators. The speculative urge that lies within most of us is strong; the prospect of a free lunch can be compelling, especially when others have already seemingly partaken. It can be hard to concentrate on potential losses while others are greedily reaching for gains and your broker is on the phone offering shares in the latest "hot" initial public offering. Yet the avoidance of loss is the surest way to ensure a profitable outcome.
In short, what the living wage is really about is not living standards, or even economics, but morality. Its advocates are basically opposed to the idea that wages are a market price-determined by supply and demand, the same as the price of apples or coal. And it is for that reason, rather than the practical details, that the broader political movement of which the demand for a living wage is the leading edge is ultimately doomed to failure: For the amorality of the market economy is part of its essence, and cannot be legislated away.
I thought the stock was a great buy. I think anybody that bought the stock in 1999 was - saw over the next couple of years a strong growth. During the year of 1999, I significantly increased my ownership of shares in the company.
In 1998, Nasdaq started a project called Next Nasdaq - or what Nasdaq was going to become - and they decided to handpick some of the up-and-comers. I was chosen as one of the people. It was a great opportunity for me and, I guess, a reflection of the fact that I was seen as someone who was developing her career pretty well.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!