psyche doctor Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Didn't live in 1929; so, no idea here. But they did not have the stock broker in chief doing any cheer leading. I really don't have a name for this current rally that began in March. I am a short-term trader and, personally, don't really care if the casino goes up or down, as long as it moves - the more volatility the better for me. Anyway, it is my opinion that these post-crash rallies or whatever name you want to give them get more intense because that is the nature of bubbles. The bubble is formed, then pops, then efforts are made to reinflate and, everytime, the efforts get more intense and insane and, therefore, so do the rallies, even in the face of dismal and apocolyptic economic fundamentals. It appears that each bubble cycle gets more intense - the bubble, the crash and the post-crash rally. This economy is nothing more than a crack addict, if you know what I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Einstein Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Okay, you got me. I confess. I will give up my very meager attempts at sarcasm. when I attempt sarcasm I have always found it useful to use or or or not that I am trying to tell YOU what to do.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrStool Posted July 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Didn't live in 1929; so, no idea here. But they did not have the stock broker in chief doing any cheer leading. That's wrong too. Go back and read the headlines. Here's a good place to start- http://newsfrom1930.blogspot.com/ The parallels are stunning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche doctor Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 That's wrong too. Go back and read the headlines. Here's a good place to start- http://newsfrom1930.blogspot.com/ The parallels are stunning. There really is nothing new under the sun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorma Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Throughout 30, 31 and till March of 32 banks were going belly up and in those days if they did your money was gone. Not just individuals but small businesses. Now we have the FDIC. It's that memory of bank failure that has been perverted to save the giants. Well we call it perversion. Still it was that relentless deflation that meant the bottom in the economy happened over 2 years after the crash. Small business and small business profit was a far far larger part of the economy. That is the advantage, perhaps, of having corporate giants dominate the economy. If they can finesse themselves through this period and the rest of the world doesn't blow up, because remember all large corporations are international, the majority can pull through this. If 10 or 20% of households lose out big, so it goes. I'm not saying that how it will pan out. Just saying. Not one dollar of that almost billion they gave away in 4 days went to that bottom 20%. Instead it flowed through middle and upper middle class households to the auto corporations instantly. As long as the Treasury does not go broke the corporations will not go broke. It's as simple as that in my opinion. That's one way to look at the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patents Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 That's wrong too. Go back and read the headlines. Here's a good place to start- http://newsfrom1930.blogspot.com/ The parallels are stunning. Just so I am on the same page with you - I did not see anywhere on the linked website where it mentioned President Hoover was promoting the stock market (in particular). I am not saying Hoover did not, but could you give a little more specificity on your reference, please? Thnx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charmin Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 There really is nothing new under the sun. The thing that was new was when a bunch of people got sick and tired of government bullying and decided to form a republic, declare independence, and make a sacrifice for it. From what I heard, they didn't expect the blessings to last long so it was a constant battle even on the inside. They speak from the grave like others that had opposing views. From what I've heard lately, don't get old - you'll be speaking from the grave earlier than you might anticipate. Also, if you don't support the right spokesman from the grave, you might suffer a bit more for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche doctor Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 The thing that was new was when a bunch of people got sick and tired of government bullying and decided to form a republic, declare independence, and make a sacrifice for it. From what I heard, they didn't expect the blessings to last long so it's was a constant battle even on the inside. They speak from the grave like others that had opposing views. From what I've heard lately, don't get old - you'll be speaking from the grave earlier than you might anticipate. Also, if you don't support the right spokesman from the grave, you might suffer a bit more for it. I've heard the same thing and I think I know the spokesman you are referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nymphcaster Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 I don't see any clear tells anywhere let alone a story, other than one that says that commonity players have a lot in the storehouse, which must cost them something over time. (The question there apparently is in what printed currency.) I did see a coal article in the wsj that was consistent which what I thought, but the stocks are saying that yet. EOM, blow-up or real? My own perspective is that this won't end well, but I don't understand whether I have worthless currency or worthless bonds or worthless stocks or worthless swaps, or all four if deleveraging due to some recognizition of demographics and worldgraphics. I'm still on the mind that everywhere is overleveraged and that counterparty risk is real, and that as this drags on and more, say, commerical properties go under as their tenants go under, that we have a huge overbuilt based on a Fed type scheme run rampant in all countries. But then, the impulse for all is to print even more, as the general population becomes more impoverished and cuts back. So I guess I'm Zimbawbe, but believe that having debt is a negative and spending anything is negative, but that all debt ridden countries will print into the black hole of nothingness. That's immorously negative. The positrons assume that lending to people who can't pay back is a slower bleed that the increase in the money supply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimi Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 I respectfully suggest that you understand neither what I have said, economic theory, nor history. But in response to your above arguments and invitation for comment, I advance a first point that you assume everything is a single market thereby ignoring the costs of the various type of transactions and other related factors. Assuming that we are discussing treasuries for purposes of argument, there are the underlying securities and then there are several levels of derivatives. Each of these types of instruments are treated differently for accounting purposes. Each requires different initial funds and costs to hold. There are limited number of bonds to be traded, but unlimited numbers of counterpart futures and option contracts, yet another example. Again for example, the power of futures has been long recognized as being able to move the price of the underlying securities. Another consideration relates to the mix of time frames that you address. For instance economic and market forces are different over a short time frame than a longer time frame. Just like our physical theories are vastly different at the cosmological level than they are at the sub-atomic particle level. (An apples and oranges type of argument over a time frame reference.) In general I submit that your analysis of mechanics of a complex system is not "rich" enough, that is the analysis does not consider a sufficient number of independent variables and does not adequately model the world and the rules of the game. I will simply leave it at that. I will respectfully retort that your opening observation betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of constructions involving, "neither," and further is among the most unintentionally ironic broadsides I have ever encountered on line. Regarding your second paragraph, "revise & resubmit." It isn't clear. My own post presented some honest-to-goodness financially grounded mathematical analysis of hypothesized manipulation. Not to call out Doc, by any means. That would be silly. But, instead, to estimate the economic benefit being thus generated, and to place it in some context. As I said, I am agnostic as to the question of manipulation - I just want those making it to ground it more empirically. It is up to you to explain what your departure into derivatives accounting (which I have studied) has to do with the clearing mechanism of a Treasury auction. Perhaps I don't understand your broader research project - my impression has been that it involves the effort to peel back the layers of onion-skin capital market transactions to get a better view on what's "really" going on. But then, you talk in generalities and allusions, rather than coming straight out. Like I did in my post with basic financial math. But you seem to believe there are things going on which we can see (e.g., bids you witness on IB) that confirm your view that markets are operating at something other than arm's length. Which, finally, makes your invocation of "complex systems" so amusing to me: perhaps the second most unintentionally ironic thing I have ever read on line..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bundys_dodge Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Can some of you fine folks educate me?I see these two different put options for GMCR both for Dec09 same strike price very different asks GCQLQ.X QGMLQ.X http://finance.yahoo.com/q/op?s=GMCR&k=85.000000 Question is whats the difference and which one is 'real'? I think this is due to the recent stock split and to maintain the 100 share/option contract rule, new options were probably created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charmin Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Now that looks like a wild ride of the gas guzzler. It's gasoline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
byhiselo Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 check out the O/I in SPY for august: SPY 100 226K calls vs. 8K puts SPY 99 81K calls vs. 13K puts SPY 98 98K calls vs. 31K puts max pain around 96, thats a of meat on the bone for the market makers to chew on leads me to believe market will come down and zap these premiums by opex feels good like a GS lube job should.... may sell a few of the 101 calls for $1+ to test my theory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charmin Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 As Sy Harding would say: "Aflac earnings down 35%. Hartford Financial earnings down 14%. Avery Dennison’s down 50%. Exxon Mobil’s down 66%. Goodyear a $221 million loss. Rockwell Collins earnings down 17%. Cummins down 81%. Parker Hannifin’s down 80%. And on and on. But the market doesn’t care. It’s all about speculation, hype, and hope. No one seems concerned about the market’s overbought condition above 21-day moving averages, etc." http://syhardingblog.com/new/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
psyche doctor Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 As Sy Harding would say:"Aflac earnings down 35%. Hartford Financial earnings down 14%. Avery Dennison’s down 50%. Exxon Mobil’s down 66%. Goodyear a $221 million loss. Rockwell Collins earnings down 17%. Cummins down 81%. Parker Hannifin’s down 80%. And on and on. But the market doesn’t care. It’s all about speculation, hype, and hope. No one seems concerned about the market’s overbought condition above 21-day moving averages, etc." http://syhardingblog.com/new/ I see he is showing the dow in a megaphone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.