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.
richard russell (stolen from prudentbear.com)
From Richard Russell tonite:
"So how am I celebrating 79 years on planet earth? One way is that I made a decision. Today (I've been thinking about this for weeks) I sold ALL my bonds, every last one.
Why did I do it? I did it because the US is heading for maybe the greatest financial mess in world history. The US is far too extended financially, militarily and socially (socially in the way of entitlements that we can't afford and can't pay for).
This nation has taken on too much. Too much in the way of promises, too much in the way of ambitions, too much by way of being policeman to the world, too much in the way of debt, too much in enjoying the pleasures of life such as homes on borrowed money, cars on borrowed money, vacations on borrowed money, the good life on borrowed money."
gee, haven't we had more than one of these "not with a bang but a whimper" type intel responses over the last year? big after hours excitement fades to red in the a.m. ... ?
> anyone buying into the equipment space here for more than just
> a quick trade needs to take a closer look
however, klic e.g. just broke out yesterday (? or day before), and if they run it like they ran brks ... should have some distance to go ... if one were inclined to play that way ...
though personally, i'd rather eat worms.
hmm. there be lipstick on that there hairball:
18:41 ET TER Teradyne beats by $0.02, ex items, guides Q3 below consensus (18.69 -0.43)
Reports Q2 (Jun) pro forma loss of $0.19 per share, excluding ($0.09) in charges related to asset impairments, workforce reductions, and facility closures, $0.02 better than the Reuters Research consensus of ($0.21); revenues rose 7.0% year/year to $331.5 mln vs the $326.3 mln consensus. Co also issues Q3 guidance, sees a loss of $0.11-0.19, vs R.R. consensus of ($0.11) and revs of $310-340 mln vs estimate of $340.8 mln.
re drooy @ 2.20
perhaps you meant 2 hrs?
and on nem ~ 32.25, which was tested a few times over the last week or so. but still watching ...
could someone out there explain why the dollar is so strong today? i would have thought the weakness in treasuries, etc would have been reflected there as well. my own naivete on currencies, i suppose ...
re drooy: well the only observation i'll make here is that it had a double hit today, with the article that they'd probably miss on earnings plus the drop in price of gold ...
re miners. i'm watching. anyone have an opinion on kgc (kinross)?
> Econ 101
> [...]
> (3)Money then hopefully goes into Industrial expansion.
hmm. but what happens if there's a need for contraction? or is it only the postwar recessions that are part of the curriculum?
OT
"I'd give a lot to hear Barney Franks go one on one with AG for an hour or so...."
ooooh. ooooh. i'd want the visuals on that one too ...
but then, on second thought, maybe not ...
by the way: thank to whoever it was who made observations about dis yesterday ...
> Any thoughts?
hmm. you didn't learn a lesson from extr?
(the lesson being: there be alligators in them thar sewers ...)
well the market is telling me:
the world is my oyster.
so i'm heading to the beach. laterz, d00dz. this is a little too crazy for me ...
interesting observation, though: unlike last monday's pump, or others that mlsoft has noted here: the dollar, although up last night, has pulled back to almost flat, and gold is up.
08:22 ET Pre-Market Movers
Trading Up: ARTG +23%, LOUD +17.5%, ENMD +14%, PUMA +12%, ARIA +11.6% [...]
this makes me nostalgiac ...
once it starts, its hard to stop it ...
Yet another wild assertion without a shred of proof - of course that is because there is no proof since it is patently untrue and foolish.
you're not being impartial here. the clear evidence is in the timetable, and that - if the administration *had* allowed the inspectors to complete their task, even with a firm and extended deadline (which would have been accepted by the security council), we would have gone into the war with the support of more nations that we have. the urgency. what was the urgency? absence of massive stockpiles of wmd's and, as all acknowledge, dubious ties to our terrorist foes pretty much demonstrate that 6 months wouldn't have meant much of a difference: not after a year of pounding the table on the issue already.
the least cynical answer is: it was political.
[...] all were in agreement that Saddam had WMD's. That fact will be hard for them to get around and I suspect it will backfire on them.
in fact, this wasn't the argument - then or now. hell, even the french would have agreed with that proposition, otherwise the UN inspectors wouldn't have been there in the first place.
the question then, as now, was one of urgency, sufficient urgency to justify a preemptive strike and to justify the specific timetable that took us in without UN support and now has left us there almost alone to deal with the aftermath.
oh, and an additional point. strictly speaking, chem weapons are not wmd's. most would agree that those probably existed. biological maybe. nuclear ... now that's where urgency comes into play.
OT well to my paranoid mind ....
If Bush wants to do the right thing, then quit acting like failing to get Osama is no big deal, finish the work in Afganistan, and get back to finishing off those who attacked us. While he's at it, he can also quit defending Saudi Arabia.
Even the lowliest citizen knows where Al Quaida's money comes from by now ...
one of the consequences of iraq was getting our troops out of saudi arabia, which we should have done long ago anyway, and which - coincidentally - was one of al quaida's chief (specific) demands.
Sorry, TJ, but that just isn't my recollection. This week's daily average for the Naz was 1.9bn shares and at least 2 days were well in excess of 2bn. The ball is in your court: prove me wrong and show some August '02 volume data that comes close to that.
laff. hey, i said it *felt* like last august. dunno, maybe it was just the heat. or the fact that i spent most of monday and tuesday at the beach, after seeing that the morning looked like it was developing into another "buy program" day (i.e. ramp the futures, then start out with consistent buying that follows closely the linear regression on the index; more obvious on tuesday, since it went off with the same tangent). anyway, for me, that was enuf to buy some qqq's and go away for a while. udderwise, it just gets boring.
so anyway, perhaps i should have said that these last 3 days felt like last august. i think we averaged 1.75 over these ...
and you're right, hard to find volume data. yahoo's doesn't seem to be accurate. i'll actually check, though, when i'm not sitting in a starbuck's.
moo,
parker
i suppose these volume observations could be subsumed under seasonal "summer lethargy". how does this compare to previous summers? my offhand recollection is that this week *felt* alot like last year, late august timeframe.
re miners (i guess this goes to bearmove also): am i right seeing a potential bull flag/pennant on nem? it seemed to have tested and held 32.30+ several times this week, each time bouncing back strongly.
[by the way, i mention bearmove because you mentioned a couple days ago that you have a $38 target for nem.]
hmm, i lost a reference to a message from you, augieboo, where you lamented that i had been assimilated. i suppose that was to the "conspiracy" side of things. anyway, i'm much in favor of the view of a manipulated market here; the evidence, to me at least, seems convincing. however, i wouldn't ascribe it to a 'greenspan gambit', per se. it think its just alot simpler than that: in anticipation of a major bottom in the bond market (which we've probably just seen), the big houses on the street have been marking up stocks significantly; that, in anticipation of a move from bonds to stocks. actually, i think LG said something sort of similar, when he recently suggested that the 'next leg' of the rally would be one where the bond market sells off and the stock market rallies. however, i still think it'll be a minefield.
okay. :) oddly, though, volumes have been unremarkable.
interesting stat from prudentbear.
Program trading comes in at a record 52% last week.
I thought this is a good piece and want to share it with many of you here, you know who you are. :)))
yah, but some of us who complain would complain about the ethics of that.
> this is "bullying" the market up. No use fighting it.
seems to be the attitude. under 1.5B shares on the nazdog so far. like everyone's taken an early weekend ...
all you can eat 144Kbps for $69.95. This will surely go down in time or if nothing else the quality of service will go up. Just my .02c
well, that's reasonably attractive, yes. but my hunch would be that the rate is good because the demand is extremely low. if there were huge demand, they'd run out of bandwidth, and 144kbps for $70 is actually almost infinitely (!) cheaper than any voice plan, and for more bandwidth. although i'm sure there are studies out there showing that the peak rate of 144kbps and the average rate that someone uses are much different, so perhaps the pricing is really doable for them.
dunno. we'll see. hasn't been a mad rush to adopt yet.
OT Wouldn't it be nice to sit by the pool while on vacation or anywhere else for that matter with your laptop?
but at what cost? paying per minute charges at near or above the current voice rate would certainly be a disincentive. in fact, if it were my pool, i'd install wifi in my home. if it were a hotel, i'd hope they would have it. (if it were something i needed and wanted, it could even help determine my choice of hotel.)
what's possible isn't always feasible or practical or cost-effective. e.g. look at, what, like 15 years of video-on-demand talk from cable companies. still, nothing that beats running to the store and renting a dvd in terms of cost effectiveness (bandwidth of cable vs bandwidth of transporting a dvd in your car). except of course, now, with the availablility of 500 channels on some systems (well, here in LA anyway), they can do a sort of video-on-demand for a handful of movies, via broadcast on multiple stations with staggered start times. but that wasn't what folks had intended all along ...
isn't anyone here concerned about the incredible lightness of volume in techland today?
My main point is that the applications are endless and that cell phones are just the tip of the iceberg...
excuse me for butting in to this exchange, but this is something i've had an opinion on for a while (since i used to be of the same mind as you). the problem is, the applications aren't endless, and - for those that exist - there are probably more cost effective alternatives.
wirelss video used to be the selling point for 3g, the driver for >1mbps bandwidth requirements. but really, who cares? for entertainment, the cost will be prohibitive; and just in terms of practicality overall, carrying a dvd in your pocket gives you more bandwidth/dollar than you'll ever get from wireless. person-to-person video is a big flop on stationary phones, so why expect more from mobile? even the camera-in-a-phone is a big flop, having become little more than a james-bond device for snapping clandestine photos in locker rooms.
now data is a more convincing alternative, but there the success of wifi, and even more primitively, places where you can just plug your computer in to a public network, are again pretty much usable, convenient, and more cost effective. hey, why not have starbuck's subsidize my internet usage while i'm there; i'm all for that.
and the old arguments that ran the count of cdma devices up to N per person (for N > 1), claiming that it would be embedded in all sorts of devices, has pretty much disappeared. bluetooth can provide the short range connectivity, and for dumber devices, there's rfid's. (and note, even bluetooth is much slower out of the gate than ever predicted. the applications are not as compelling as the hype. hell, i ran out and got a wireless keyboard and mouse when they first arrived, and within 4 weeks they ended up in the closet, just because the batteries died and the new inconveniences overruled the old inconveniences.)
so anyway, i'm not a big believer. i don't think many of the applications survive real scrutiny, or provide sufficient benefit over cheaper alternatives.
but that's one boy's opinion.
(aside) oh, and by the way, re this IDCC thing. i haven't followed the thread on here closely, but what i've read amazes me. these are the same arguments, the same names from 3 years ago, repeat with reverend dalglish. (back in winter 1999, i was a novice in the market and stoopidly bought idcc (then idc) at $10 and sold for a modest profit, like a buck or two, after actually sitting down to read through the companies docs. then the "baby qualcomm" thing took off and the stock momentarily hit $80, which was my first short. at that point, i was pretty vocal on the yahoo boards, feeling like i was the only person battling the misinformation that people were spitting out there. but it did force me to go out and learn quite a bit about this stuff - most of which i've forgotten. of course, this was before i learned that yahoo is the sewer of stock discussion fora.
any of you gold guys have any feelings about gold here? my observations are pretty much that the POG doesn't seem to be suffering much more at this point, in spite of the rise of the dollar. and the miners - particularly nem, gg - keep bumping up off the rising trendline of this recent move.
my first hunch would be that this is bullish. however, many of you have been watching gold longer than i ...
i don't suppose anyone was watching the trading on klic today?
was just watching real-time charts here, but very odd behavior: it would be trading ~7.50 and then suddenly spike to 8.25 or so, all within a minute, on a few thousand shares, and all the while the ask on island remained within the lower trading range. i initially thought bad quotes, but this happened often during the day ...
anyone have any insight?
well, thankfully (to me, anyway) its having a nice negative effect on pmcs after hours. (where i'm still short.) though, dammit, i *do* want to add more to that position at some point ....
and yet, juniper is being shot down now ... apparently the bar has been raised very high by wall street's rose-colored glasses.
to whomever i was arguing supply/demand vs speculation/"greater fool theory" last night: you might take a look at brks to see this in action :)
dang, i wish i had had the balls to short more than 500 sh.
There is no bubble there is only supply and demand. If enough people want to buy a limited commodity like a stock then the price goes up. Its the market that sets the price nothing more. Today's right price is what people are willing to pay. [...]
Its not a bubble it is a price for today.
you guys are talking past each other. the bubble is still there, even if rephrased in supply/demand terms: because you're talking about demand outstripping supply, causing a rise in prices; and yet the only motivation for that increased demand is lack of supply, with the goal being to raise prices. unless you're honestly saying that there's huge demand for stock in companies with poor fundamentals that will be struggling to stay out of bankruptcy ... demand for the equities, that is, and not merely the for the effect of increased demand. otherwise, you're just rephrasing the Special Theory of Greater Foolativity in different terms.
> Someone tell me we are not in another mini bubble.
okay. we're not in another mini bubble. up 200%? hrm. nothing mini about it.
no problem. all the stats are on http://nasdaq.com, "after hours" menu, "most active" link. (overdesigned site.)
actually, from nasdaq.com, it has traded 4,163,470