Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Saddam is dead
saddam and osama found in sordid love nest amid massive cache of wmd's.
re monitors, i'd go further. i think the payoff really comes from spending less on side and more on quantity: get 2 smaller monitors and you effectively get significantly more visible desktop space. you need either a 2nd graphics car or a double headed card for this, but any operating system nowadays works out of the box with dual monitors.
well hmm. i can't quite digest all gov statistics and separate the wheat from the chaff. however, taken on the face of it, i'd say (1) increases in revenues are good, and i think everyone is just saying "stabilization" in tech, not growth per se, and (2) increases in earnings are too hard to analyze as an indicator of recovery: employees are cut, tax benefits factored in, and (and here's the gov statistics part) productivity in general is increasing faster than earnings are growing.
now i don't know the right formula to plug all this into, but i'd think that we have to see profits growing faster than productivity before we see much hope of new demand in employment; and without the latter, the employment picture could just drag us down again ...
call me young and naive but: has journalism always been this bad? i mean, lets say you do a story on the economy and what recent data is showing. well, that's a story, and the politicos will have some spin to throw in. but all i ever read in wash post, nytimes, wsj are stories that are about the spin, period.
<overly sensitive political types may wish to stop reading here>
like jobless numbers. last month, 6.4% was good, because the number went higher because of formerly discouraged workers reentering the job market. at least, that was the sec'y of labor's spin. now, its 6.2% and that's good, because the number is lower, even though more jobs were lost and apparently those workers have again become discouraged.
maybe i'm just reading the wrong stuff.
that's pretty odd. didn't i just see a report that said sf (and bay area) population is decreasing faster than any other city in the u.s. of a.?
so can this have something to do with silver prices?
RPT-Mexico silver output falls 9.4 pct in May
Thursday July 31, 3:41 pm ET
MEXICO CITY, July 31 (Reuters) - Silver output in Mexico,
the world's largest producer, fell 9.4 percent in May from a
year earlier to 231,582 kilograms, the government's statistics
institute said on Thursday.
It also said gold output rose 2.6 percent to 2,368 kg in
May.
> The real worry is what is the bond crash doing to their
> derivatives - such anomalies are just the kind of event that
> derivatives are not set up for.
hmm. this can't be the case, can it? i mean, if you can i could have speculated on the possibility of this and speculated on the possibility (and since there's enuf historical precendent for moves of this sort), then their risk analyses *must* have taken into account a move like we've seen. that's not saying someone isn't straining or there aren't losses somewhere. there have to be.
by the way, your argument last night re wealth creation by a.g. through his stock market bubble: i'll just add to that that, according to estimates i've seen in the last couple days, the losses in the bond market over the last few weeks might actually be on the order of $1-2T. so perhaps a.g. is actually just trading apples for asian pears.
"HEY! DIDN'YOU GUYS GET THE POINT? WE'RE GOING TO SIT
ON THE FED FUNDS RATE UNTIL HE!! FREEZES OVER IF NEED BE."
Unfortunately, it appears that the only market observer with the sophistication to understand Bernanke's point is a certain small, fuzzy white doggie.
they understood the point. it just wasn't what they believe they were told, and wanted to hear. from everything i've read (and roach on cnbs 2night!), the following seems a good summary - well, at least one that i can believe. i've omitted the ultra bearish stuff.
by the way, if you missed roach on cnbs, pretend sue hererra is expressing the ideas in the first paragraph and roach is expressing those of the last two, and you'll get an idea.
Comstock Partners, Inc.
The Only Economic Leg of Strength is Buckling
July 31, 2003
[...]
The folks who see only the rosy side of every story are blowing this one in the same way they have misinterpreted every other key turning point in the last few years. They blithely attribute the rise in rates to an ongoing recovery and therefore consider it a healthy omen of a strengthening expansion. They are wrong again!
There are two major reasons why long-term rates are rising, and a stronger economy is not one of them. First, the Fed, in its last FOMC statement, basically withdrew its intention to employ the non-traditional policy of buying long-term Governments to prevent deflation and decided to go along with the tradition of lowering the funds rate to zero if necessary. This obviously caused speculators to quickly unwind trades that had looked like a sure thing only to turn into a risky proposition.
Second, the administration raised its budget deficit estimates to record amounts and it suddenly became obvious that these deficits can do nothing but continue to increase as far as the eye can see. The amount of money to be financed by the Treasury Department has already increased in geometric proportions, and it's only going to get worse. Rather than getting additional stimulation, the economy is now actually losing the only aspect of stimulation that actually worked. We believe all of this is going to slam consumer spending sooner rather than later, and that the expectations for a second half recovery will soon go up in smoke.
Huh?
hmm. let me try to write more slowly :-P
i'm just saying that i think the statistic you're presenting in the chart is an artifact of the fact that "new high/new low" is dependent on a 52-week window. since there's nothing really special about 52 weeks (well, there *is* ... but nevermind), you'd probably want to see how dependent your data is on that parameter before you draw any huge conclusions from it. but, just generally, saying that "the entire market is broadly hitting 52 week highs" - sort of the situation now - "right after spending 2-3 years descending to multi-year lows" isn't quite the same as saying that they're broadly hitting multi-year highs in the middle of a multi-year bull run ...
If i'm wrong, please forget about this post.
and if you're right, be sure to remind us!
just kidding :)
augieboo,
i believe, however, that you'll find that that particular chart and the statistic/analogy you're drawing from it is an artifact of the "52" you're using to analyze internals. i.e. as you let the value of 52 vary then for smaller values, you're likely to see quite a few other instances of what we're having now during the last 3 years, and for larger values, you'd find more striking differences between now and the longer bull runs of the 90's.
Hmmm -- I haven't seen any consumption "frenzy" at all recently.
okay, okay, i overstated. lets just say "good old american consumerism".
The answer is that the only source that Greenspan has any control over is to reflate the equities bubble once again
yes, i know that's your thesis. my only problem with what you're saying is that the effect of that wouldn't be that average joe consumer feels wealthy, borrows against the 401k and buys another few suv's. heck, as a datapoint let's observe that the most popular "mutual fund" nowadays is the pimco bond fund ... perhaps there are some buy and holders who feel better now than they did (although still down up to 60%, but these others are now getting smashed again.
> AG will have to continue to drive the markets significantly
> higher for the Gambit to work.
with even a larry kudlow - the most bubbicous of the bools - saying that the market would seem overvalued here if interest rates hit 5% - that seems like a near impossibility.
I think you missed the point - a relatively small group of "well to do" individuals and business owners will outspend a very large group of poor folks.
you have evidence for that? everything i've read says just the opposite: give poor folk money and they'll spend it; give it to the rich and they'll save it or invest it in china.
udderly boolish here. moo.
The markets affect the spending habits of only a portion of Americans, that is true. But those who are in that category tend to do a whole lot more spending than those who are not affected.
ah, here i think we disagree. the consumption frenzy we've been seeing hasn't been concentrated in coach stores and nieman marcus; its been at walmart and has boosted chinese exports by 33%.
> That is similar to the fact that most folks pay little or no
> income taxes but those in the highest tax brackets pay a hugely
> disproportionate share of all taxes
tsk tsk. its not similar. above we're talking about absolutes and here you're talking proportions. its not gonna help the italian economy much of lamborghini quadruples its yearly sales, but if fiat increased theirs by 25% ...
> by selling the stocks or as collateral for borrowing against
> the stocks, even in a retirement account.
hmm. i believe that's only for 401k and similar, right? and only if you're still employed by the same employer.
If you subtract the total market capitalization back in March from the current total market capitalization, you get an idea how much wealth has been created during this rally.
true, but the trick is getting it out. though apparently you're thinking most will just leverage it ... we haven't quite seen selling yet.
and as a bonus he gets improved consumer sentiment.
hmm, were you sleeping tuesday?
he has already written off re-fi's as a source of consumer cash. That is why he is desperately trying to drive the markets higher as a replacement source of consumer funds.
except that the markets are not a source of consumer cash - at least, for most consumers they're not ...
everyone is looking for a blowoff in price. but the big move in the bond market has at least provided a sudden blowoff in relative valuation ...
hrm. so is my thinking in error here?
if greenspan has lost control of the bond market, doesn't that mean that the old "greenspan put" no longer exists?
tnx = 10 x yield, i believe.
interesting, seems like 30-yr really pummelled. i'm seeing TYX at 53.31, which would beat its recent high at 53.13 ... TNX oddly stagnant ...
oops. maybe my charts just weren't updating. now seeing TNX at 44.16 ...
(gold) interesting observation from prudentbear (chat):
Interesting aside from Fed's McTeer on bubblevision ...
He was being interviewed by LIESman and Mr. Haney.
McTeer was telling an anecdote, and in it he revealed that he keeps tabs on the price of gold with his Blackberry.
re brks. looks like its given up its earnings run ...
14:03 ET Fed's Beige Book says economy "increased a notch" over the past couple months, but that capital expenditures remain "weak"
LOL - personally, I think it was far more than 10% overvalued at the July and October lows.
actually, its more significant than that, though. the full discussion went something like this: previously he thought the market was 25% undervalued. but with the rise in interest rates, its probably now 10% undervalued. "overvalued" would hit if rates get to 5% ...
now, translate that back through the "larry kudlow rose colored bull machine" and i think that's actually a pretty significantly bearish move for this perma-bool.
indeed. the dow dropped red as he said that the palestinian budget was posted to the web for transparency, "to show the world that they're not stealing money". ouch.
"congress hold the line on spending".
isn't this from a reagan press conference?
Bush press conference not going well IMO. Shorted some.
whoa! i was just talking about this this weekend.
thanks for the heads up! i'd hate to have missed this once-in-a-lifetime event!
seriously, thanks.
AG is having trouble turning this thing around, but the $USD is still climbing and gold is still down hard.
still holding my shorts here. if the fed is going to give any help here, i'd think it would be help in stabilizing the bond market. maybe i'm more paranoid than you, but all these fed governors coming on tv during the last couple days, the new terror "alert" yesterday, yadda yadda yadda, sort of play into a call to "flight to safety".
but we'll see. e.g. in spite of what i said about brks earlier, i gots me some shorts (size extra small) @ 19.10. maybe just trading position though, unless it develops into something more fulfilling ...
hey! and larry kudlow yesterday said that with current bond rates, he thinks the market is only 10% undervalued. whoa.
although ripeness might be coming ... looks like it's just gapped down to give up its "earnings" (such as they were) run. island reversal perhaps?
i'm not zeev, but as one who has followed brks for a year i'll chime in here: i'd be cautious with brks. still has a very high short interest and volume is low. i'd look for a confirmation of a downtrend; which is cool, cuz i'll be a long way down.
(i'm assuming here that you're talking about a swing position and not just a bit of the old in-out, in-out.)
> In my day, before the bull, the absolute best jobs these guys
> could have aspired too? Kudlow maybe working as suit salesman
> in a fancy clothing store, and Cramer behind the counter frying
> hamburgers in a diner.
kudlow annoys me to no end. i don't think he could have held down a retail job, though. as i remember (when i actually watched their show - but just a couple times - kudlow is the one who spends 5 minutes phrasing a question to a guest, so that he includes in it his own answer to the question. ending with something like: "don't you agree?" leaving the guest to say little more than, "yes". although usually they'll add a few more sentences (never as many as sir larry). now i haven't seen it often, but i've never ONCE seen a guest disagree with kudlow.
cramer. sigh. i sometimes wish he *had* made a fortune off thestreet.com. then they'd be unable to fit his ego into that studio ...
"For years Nortel [...]. This trend will only get worse (for Americans)."
but nt is canadian, right?
The word "shill" is not in their dictionary.
hrm. i think you're mistaken here, cuz i'm pretty that word is in their job description.
I hear Frick and Frack (Kudlow and Cramer) saying how the CC numbers are lagging indicators (like employment), but when the numbers go their way they sing a completely different tune and cannot stress enough how important the numbers are in showing that the economy is recovering.
amazingly, the title of the "debate" (*) was "is the stock market a better indicator of consumer confidence?"
laff. like they would have even dared to ask such a question during, oh, say april 2000.
(*) debate?? they used to call this thing "bull vs bear". i supppose until someone pointed out that it was more like "bull vs bull". even now the whole format is so silly: these guys aren't debating anything except the strawman they usually put up as the debate question; which they both then wail on like a pinata.
actually, i believe polls have dipped below 50%. though i suppose it depends on which polls. (cnn was < 50)
anyone else seeing odd ticks on msft (up to 26.89)? same thing as pmcs on friday, at the lows ...
For some reason, that doesn't seeem right.
!! for every reason ... its not right. there's just NO excuse for that. (laff. who would buy: "but we need an extra 1/2 hour to prepare the graphics.")
well, i kind of agree here. being in LA during the summer, i've gone back to my old metrics of consumer confidence which is (1) how crowded is westside pavillion on the weekend (answer: not very, though not as bad as feb) and (2) how many new cars are there are on the streets, i.e. no license plate yet (answer: much worse than feb).
so is this where all the clowns pile out of the little volkswagen?
though i have to say: if you're the conspiratorial type like me, and believe that these numbers are manipulated, then its not at all hard to see why we'd get a negative suprise here, to help the bond market ...
goodness. we've forgotten how to build things and now intend to protect ourselves by setting up a new casino. i remember when darpa used to build stuff. like, say, the internet.
the "Greenians," exhibit a strange combination of hubris and primitive superstition.
well, i still don't like it that i have to bet in dollars and he can match me with an equal number of zorkmids.