growth by the fourth quarter, says Len Darling, the chief investment officer for OppenheimerFunds.
| Len Darling Chief Investment Officer, OppenheimerFunds |
| Recent Daily Interviews |
| Montgomery Funds' Bob Rezaee |
| Morningstar's Russ Kinnel |
| Simat Helliesen & Eichner's Scott Gibson |
| Deutsche Bank's Louise Purtle |
is that they will make all the funds available for the markets to provide liquidity. The Fed did a similar thing in the Y2K event. The other two factors are some fiscal stimulus that we didn't have a month ago and a reduction in the price of energy.
to go?
Darling: I think it [could go to] 2.50% to 2.25%, but I'm not sure that's as important as the directive to provide the liquidity that the markets need.
TSC: You and the three other executives who spoke at the conference call this afternoon spelled out your outlook for the economy, and the equity and fixed-income markets, as if the Sept. 11 attacks were isolated events and that this was the end of it. Do you want to address what might lie ahead?
Darling: In times of war, markets behave differently depending on the circumstances you go into. In the eight previous military conflicts, a year after the beginning of the conflict, the markets were either flat or up, with the exception of the Yom Kippur War in '73. In that war, inflation was a problem and interest rates rose. In World War II, we were just coming out of a depression. There was excess capacity, an easing of monetary policy and interest rates were down. The markets performed extraordinarily well in '42 to '43.
So if you go into a war with excess capacity, there is an opportunity for stimulation without inflation. If you go into a period of war where you [are already at] capacity -- like in Vietnam we had the phrase "guns and butter" -- then inflation rates go up and interest rates go up and markets don't do as well.
In sum, war doesn't determine the market. It's really the state of the economy as you enter it and what happens primarily to inflation.