Financial topics

[wvbill]

I don't know why I watch CNBC, it kills me... !

When I turn it on to watch the numbers, I put the TV on MUTE. Its much more tolerable that way.

[StilesBC]

I don't know why I watch CNBC, it kills me

I think we both know the real answer to this question. "Rebecca Jarvis"

[umoguy]

haha.... good points both!

[JLak]

If you use 5%, the answer to the equation is over a quadrillion.

Over a quadrillion? Ha! I'll say. 1.05^2000 is about 10^42, which there is no greek prefix for. If this was on a gold standard, it would cost about $15B for 1 atom of gold.
*google this: (1.05^2009) / (((100 000 short tons) / (222 grams)) * Avogadro's number)

[freddyv]

I don't know why I watch CNBC, it kills me

I think we both know the real answer to this question. "Rebecca Jarvis"

Oh come on now, I'll take Margaret Brennan any day. She could kill me and I'd die happy.

--Fred

[freddyv]

Subprime is back.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090401/bs_nm/us_gmac

BTW, for those of you who might be getting a bit nervous about this new bull market we're in just remember all the other times we were told we had hit bottom. This mark-to-market deal is the biggest of the news they can possibly come up with and that is out and the market shows obvious signs of topping out.

Yes, it could go up a bit more but by now most of the shorts have been squeezed and the market will resume its downward trajectory within a few weeks (after a bit of consolidation), and possibly sooner.

And just so everyone understands my position, I don't want the market to go lower, it needs to go lower. If you don't know why, you haven't been paying attention.

--Fred

[StilesBC]

I see the weakness in financials today on news that should be golden for them. But I suppose it was well known that this would happen, so it was a buy the rumour/sell the news type of thing. But hey, they're still up 3% on the day.

I am struggling to figure out if this is the 50% multi month rally type, or the hit it to quit it 25% type. The average bear market rally in the early 30's was 33%. They ranged from 19-52%. We're at 26% now.

I'm watching that blue line (20wk EMA). If we close above that, or get a fair distance above it, I see the 50wk EMA acting as a magnet. That would also be 50% up, and round number resistance. Judging from what I see now in the market internals, I'm leaning toward that possibility. But I'm not confident enough to bet on it. Nor should I be. If it were to get there, I'd throw the kitchen sink at it.

[StilesBC]

Oh, I ADD'd on my point regarding the FASB. I think it will backfire. It will create more suspicion. What the market wants is transparency. This does the opposite - it legitimizes opacity. And it also puts to bed any reservations that the Obama Administration had in manipulating the markets in their favour. In other words, "political risk" needs to be included in any risk models - something usually reserved for emerging market economies in south america and the like.

I can't even think of a potential sound reason for doing this. Along with the Geithner bailout of PIMCO/Blackrock, it is readily apparent that the US is embarking on truly banana republic style economic interventionism. They're not even trying to make it look legitimate. Hell, even knobs like Krugman and Stiglitz think this is nuts.

[wvbill]

... the US is embarking on truly banana republic style economic interventionism.

To paraphrase Bill Bonner's description of where the U.S. is headed:

"The only difference between us and a banana republic is, we don't have any bananas and we ain't a republic."

[John]

Dear Bill,

> To paraphrase Bill Bonner's description of where the U.S. is
> headed:

> "The only difference between us and a banana republic is, we don't
> have any bananas and we ain't a republic."

Yes, we have no bananas, but if the US isn't a Republic, then what is
it?

Sincerely,

John