DavyJ

First Call of a Double-Dip Recession: Setting Up a Market Bottom?

Why is it that when the market is down, so many try to call the bottom?

Yet when it is up, so few try to call the top?

One of life's mysteries, I guess.

Worst Housing Number in Decades: What Is the Wall Street Media Smoking?

Seasonally adjusted, Lake Erie never freezes.

Grand Illusion: The Federal Reserve (Part 3)

James, for future reference when calculating percentages, the equation is (x/y-1) x 100.

So 211.1/10.0 - 1 equals 20.11 or 2,011%.
Maybe not much difference from your 2,111%

But 211.1/30.9 -1 equals 5.83 or 583%.
That's a difference 100% from your 683%.

And if in some future article you want to show that something has doubled, it will be 200/100-1 or a 100% increase not 200% which would be a tremendous difference.

Still maybe the "average American", or "Regular Joe", wouldn't catch the mistake.

The Fallacy of 'Money on the Sidelines'

Gee, every time I sell a stock I check with Trim Tabs to insure that my proceeds are reflected in their numbers. But it seems that whoever bought my stock made a corresponding withdrawal so the net amount in the money market funds remains the same.

One of life's mysteries, I suppose.

1929 All Over Again?

It seems to me that Rosenberg, and the others, may be about 20 days too early in trying to make a comparison, considering that the 100 day point where we are now was "the" top in the 1929/1930 rally.

Waiting another 3 or 4 weeks won't make a significant difference to an investor. Not waiting could make a difference.

Check back in 20 days.

The S&P 500 PE Ratio: Looking Ahead to 2010-2011

Re: "After earnings for the S&P 500 companies fell off a cliff, investors anticipated the market would recover, leading to the record high PE ratio for the S&P 500."

Actually they did not fall off a cliff. A few financial companies had tremendous losses and that pulled down the sum of the earnings, but the vast majority of companies reported acceptable earnings considering the state of the economy.

A prudent investor would, or should, dig a litter deeper.

S&P 500 Priced in Gold

Yawn. What difference does it make? Either you invested in one or the other or both. The past is past.

Now you're asking a question about the future. The truth is that I don't know and since you're asking I guess you don't know either. Yawn.

Economic Data Showing Signs of Negative Trends

Why is it that we need two negative quarters to declare a recession has begun and only one positive quarter to declare a recession has ended?

Is the Jobs Data a Concern?

Re: "First, don't panic. It's just normal market fluctuations. Stocks have risen for 7 consecutive months, so we're overdue for a pullback. Even the strongest of bull markets incur periodic bad days (and weeks)."

On the other hand, when there is panic, he who panics first gets the best price.

The Best Quote of 2009

This should be the quote of the decade:

"The most recent projections from the OMB indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011…The most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade."

Alan Greenspan speaking in the 2001 Congressional Testimony

$33 Billion in Taxpayer Money Subsidized Wall Street Bonuses

Just for the record, Goldman Sachs converted from an investment bank to a traditional bank in order to receive TARP funds. That hardly seems that they "were forced into it".

It seems to me they saw the huge one time investment opportunity using taxpayer money and couldn't resist.


On Jul 31 05:31 PM homogenik wrote:

> You are right for the most part however goldman and jpm didnt need
> the bailout but were forced into it. ...

Monday's Closing Update

The insanity continues. Microsoft has $25 billion in cash and until they raised $2 billion last year they had 0 debt. Now they want to raise $3.75 in a bond offering?

If they aren't making more in interest or dividends on the cash than the interest they will pay on the bonds, someone enlighten me as to how this makes sense.

Fed, Treasury Propose the Dissolution of Capitalism

Good article. Thumbs up!

The Rally, When It Comes, Will Be a Doozy

Back to the subject of the article, there is no increase in money on the sidelines. When Heckel buys from Jeckel, Heckel's money that was on the sidelines now becomes Jeckel's money on the sidelines. And when Jeckel buys again the process repeats.

The only time money moves from the sidelines into the market is when a company issues new stock, and it moves out to the sidelines when a company buys back it stock.

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

"With the financial industry stabilized, and many banks having or about to repay the government's aid with interest, the government is in talks with lawmakers to use unspent TARP money to offset jobs spending and aid the long-term unemployed."

Yep, once the money is out there, there is no getting it back. $200 billion at 3.5% (~ten year bond rate) interest is $70 billion over ten years that is automatically added to the deficit with no accountability.