Year Of The Clone
80 replies to this topic
Posted 31 December 2002 - 02:45 AM
In my experience the most desperate liars must, for their own sakes, believe their own drivel.
Anyway, dollar has broken 102 down to 101.96
gold is showing some volitility and looking like it was last week. That is, each drop is recouping. Maybe Hung Fat (or whoever it is) is back. up .80 after up .90 and a quick dip to .60.
Posted 31 December 2002 - 04:44 AM
“Panera Bread collected $3 million from the death of its employees last year, equal to nearly a quarter of their net income. Bank of America earned $196 million in net income from the life insurance it owns on employees and ex-employees.”
Just think. If they execute employees instead of a layoff they could get the double whammy of reducing costs while increasing net income. Good corporate decision.
Posted 31 December 2002 - 08:57 AM
Piles is right in my view. The 10-13 week cycle could last another 8-9 days, and there could still be a lot more downside. Either way, it's too early to go long. As a matter of fact if I were a swing trader (2-6 weeks) I would not consider going long at any time in the first half of 2003. Talk about swimming upstream! The 6 and 12 month cycles are rolling over and the overall long term rate of trend deline is increasing! The next six months are going to be the worst of the whole bear market.
Subscribe to the Anals of Stock Proctology for the whole story! Click the link below.
If your portfolio has you feeling irregular, for fast, long lasting relief, take a subscribatory. And support your local Stool!
Posted 31 December 2002 - 09:18 AM
i believe i may have just located an article which encapsulates everything that is insufficient, misleading, and unconscionably vapid about the current state of financial journalism. it isn't shocking or surprising in any way. rather, reading it is like spooning up a lukewarm bowl of paste.
from cbsmarketwatch (link to full article here).
Bottom in place, but 2003 will be tough
Commentary: Market forecasts drawn out recovery
By Ken Tower (chief market strategist for CyberTrader Inc., a unit of Charles Schwab)
Last Update: 12:05 AM ET Dec. 31, 2002
"Corporate scandals, misleading research and a muted government response played a significant role in the bearish market conditions that had their worst moments in July and October. But there is real evidence that the market has bottomed and 2003 will be better."
seven short paragraphs follow which recount the market highlights of 2002 in a chronological factual summary. nothing even vaguely resembling 'real evidence' is offered, and no mention whatsoever is made of 2003.
"Looking ahead, we believe an important market bottom is in place.
But the long bear market suggests that economic growth will be subdued for an extended period. Some sort of economic problems/concerns are likely to dog the market over the next few years. We will leave it to economists to speculate as to the exact nature of those problems and to historians to examine in years to come.
Remember, it is the stock market that forecasts the economy, not the other way around. That's why it makes so much sense to analyze the supply/demand characteristics of the current market.
We expect the market to rally in 2003, but not in the extremely robust way it did in the late 1990's. We've been using the 1978 to 1981 bull market as an example of the likely shape of an advance That bull market rallied nearly 60% over three years, but the advance was punctuated by very sharp declines in October 1978, October 1979, and March 1980. A volatile market advance is our most likely scenario for the next two years."
and that's the article.
let's look at this again.
title: "Bottom in place, but 2003 will be tough"
thesis (from 1st paragraph): "....there is real evidence that the market has bottomed and 2003 will be better."
supporting evidence or detail for thesis: none (see for yourself)
restatement of thesis (from last paragraph): "We expect the market to rally in 2003, but not in the extremely robust way it did in the late 1990's."
you almost have to look twice to see what's wrong. it doesn't say anything. at all.
and this passes for market coverage.
Quod Severis Metes
Your life is the sum of a remainder of an unbalanced equation inherent to the programming of the Matrix. You are the eventuality of an internal anomaly, which despite my sincerest efforts, I have been unable to eliminate from what is otherwise a harmony of mathematical precision. While it remains a burden assiduously avoided, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of control. Which has led you, inexorably, here.
You haven't answered my question.
Quite right. Interesting. That was quicker than the others.
Posted 31 December 2002 - 09:42 AM
Doc, I am thinking a bit of whipsawing into Jan. 10 labor numbers and off the cliff. Doc, I will get off my ass and renew my subscription this week. I feel naked in a winter storm without my regular Anals. Caught your year end edition and absolutely loved it! What an eye-opener! Just love it! I couldn't functionin this POS market without my Anals. I've been flat the last bit and am planning my next course of action for Jan.10-17. Friday scam week I may just slam this thing hard with all available resources.
Anybody catch Frank Holmes on Procto this morning? Gave the most concise gold review you could want to hear. Most refreshing! Buried at 5:30 am for minimal ears to hear.....Loved it though.
Anthony caused pearls to be dissolved in wine to drink the health of Cleopatra; Sir Richard Whittington was as foolishly magnificent in an entertainment to King Henry V; and Sir Thomas Gresham drank a diamond, dissolved in wine, to the health of Queen Elizabeth, when she opened the Royal Exchange; but the breakfast of this roguish Dutchman was as splendid as either. He had an advantage, too, over his wasteful predecessors: their gems did not improve the taste or the wholesomeness of their wine, while his tulip was quite delicious with his red herring.here
Posted 31 December 2002 - 11:59 AM
Windy and others, wow fooled again by Market. Batting percentages way down these last weeks. Mistake has been expecting seasonal influences when there isn't much but weakness in the charts. Windy if you play the bounce game be sure and max out that prescription for Valium. Its an unkind game. Market never,ever,ever,ever bounces when you think it will and then just when you have given up and you pile in short, it bounces. Once again the lesson is to ignore the noise and the seasonal bullshit and swing trade with longer term in mind. Takes tremendous discipline. I think also if one gets well on the right side of a trade, to scale out of positions as profits swell is important especially if one is concerned about all the recent short squeezing. But as we all know, the psychological character of this market changes from month to month. I haven't seen a good short squeeze now in weeks. Before that they were common. Does this mean the next leg down will have no squeezes? Who the hell knows? Could be. Could just frustrate those who remember having been squeezed in October and are now slow to get on board. I'm leaning more and more to trading farther and farther out in time and concentrating on other things this year. Too stressful in my opinion. best to all, b.d.
The Daily Stool - Stock Market Message Board