|
Post by jack on Jul 28, 2010 14:15:12 GMT -5
Me too...who's this guy? "Splatt?"
|
|
|
Post by maxi on Jul 28, 2010 14:14:38 GMT -5
And my stoopid LLEN is up another 20 cent since i posted up over 1.20 since it's LOD. geeze no fair. I wanted IN
|
|
|
Post by ukarlewitz on Jul 28, 2010 14:17:51 GMT -5
Breadth NQ: 3:1 neg NY: 2.5:1 neg
Vol leading.
60' oscillators are no longer overbought; now they are near oversold, CCI -200, RSI near 40, stoch <20.
|
|
|
Post by sp7015 on Jul 28, 2010 14:18:49 GMT -5
To me this appears to be profit taking.
The sell off hasn't been that extreme. The names that are down are the names that have run up the past couple of days.
The Oil companies, who have been lagging the market are up or flat.
|
|
|
Post by ask2lern on Jul 28, 2010 14:20:11 GMT -5
I miss merrill.............................anyone know if he will be back or when?
|
|
|
Post by ask2lern on Jul 28, 2010 14:21:07 GMT -5
To me this appears to be profit taking. The sell off hasn't been that extreme. The names that are down are the names that have run up the past couple of days. The Oil companies, who have been lagging the market are up or flat. In additon vol sucks.................not a lot of conviction in this selloff IMO...................GL
|
|
|
Post by ukarlewitz on Jul 28, 2010 14:23:05 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ask2lern on Jul 28, 2010 14:23:27 GMT -5
MPEL getting down to its bounce area IMO..................time to put in a stink bid for me ;D ;D...........................GL
|
|
|
Post by ukarlewitz on Jul 28, 2010 14:24:01 GMT -5
Merrill is in MI on vacation. Probably back in another week.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Jul 28, 2010 14:24:16 GMT -5
Ticks pickin' up...
|
|
|
Post by ukarlewitz on Jul 28, 2010 14:25:53 GMT -5
MarketTells New 20-day lows not expanding w/ today's drop, currently 213 vs. 311 Tue. Would be ST positive if this sticks into the close
|
|
|
Post by elle on Jul 28, 2010 14:33:24 GMT -5
I miss 1110
|
|
|
Post by abdogman on Jul 28, 2010 14:37:56 GMT -5
Final 20 mins less than 3 mins away.....
xlf 14.69
|
|
|
Post by deadmoney95 on Jul 28, 2010 14:43:20 GMT -5
3:40pBREAKING
Calif Gov. Schwarzenegger orders furloughs: report
|
|
|
Post by jack on Jul 28, 2010 14:46:55 GMT -5
Elle, I see you've become the Cindy Lauper of the squirrel world: (substitute "squirrels" for "girls")
|
|
|
Post by abdogman on Jul 28, 2010 14:50:00 GMT -5
BB's narrowing on xlf fas faz macd's 0/0 xlf 14.69 on 1m volume solo
|
|
|
Post by ukarlewitz on Jul 28, 2010 14:53:29 GMT -5
Coincidentally, this just came across my desk. Uploaded with ImageShack.us
|
|
|
Post by abdogman on Jul 28, 2010 14:59:37 GMT -5
I went to a Formal Dance once where people traded stocks back and forth and they didn't change in price much ..................................IT WAS THE WHIFFLE BALL!!!!!!.....gOOD nIGHT ALL
|
|
|
Post by elle on Jul 28, 2010 15:04:48 GMT -5
Exactly, Wiley, that was the bubble and we all know the changes made the year it started - and sadly the effects those changes wreaked on all especially low-income neighborhoods.
"The Community Reinvestment Act, first enacted in 1977, was relatively innocuous for its first 12 years or so, merely imposing reporting requirements on commercial banks regarding the extent to which they lent funds back into the neighborhoods where they gathered deposits....amendments in 1995 gave the CRA serious teeth: regulators could now deny a bank with a low CRA rating approval to merge with another bank—at a time when the arrival of interstate banking made such approvals especially valuable—or even to open new branches. Complaints from community organizations would now count against a bank’s CRA rating. Groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) began actively pressuring banks to make loans under the threat that otherwise they would register complaints in order to deny the bank valuable approvals.
In response to the new CRA rules, some banks joined into partnerships with community groups to distribute millions in mortgage money to low-income borrowers previously considered noncreditworthy. Other banks took advantage of the newly authorized option to boost their CRA rating by purchasing special “CRA mortgage-backed securities,” that is, packages of disproportionately nonprime loans certified as meeting CRA criteria and securitized by Freddie Mac. No doubt a small share of the total current crop of bad mortgages has come from CRA loans. But for the share of the increase in defaults that has come from the CRA-qualifying borrowers (who would otherwise have been turned down for lack of creditworthiness) rather than from, say, would-be condo-flippers on the outskirts of Las Vegas—the CRA bears responsibility.
Defaults and foreclosures are, of course, a drag on real estate values in poor neighborhoods just as in other neighborhoods. Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke aptly commented in a 2007 speech that “recent problems in mortgage markets illustrate that an underlying assumption of the CRA—that more lending equals better outcomes for local communities, may not always hold."
|
|
|
Post by ukarlewitz on Jul 28, 2010 15:13:15 GMT -5
CRA had not much to do with it. That political myth has been thoroughly debunked. There was a global property boom in the 2000s, fed mostly by easy monetary policy. There was no CRA outside the US. It's a not so nice way for the wealthy to point the finger at someone else. www.ritholtz.com/blog/2010/07/cra-fannie-freddie-coup-de-grace/
|
|
|
Post by ukarlewitz on Jul 28, 2010 15:21:34 GMT -5
Here's a very good paper on CRA. Suggest reading: www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/governmentprograms/n08-2_park.pdfThere are many causes to the collapse of the housing market and the recent financial turmoil, but the contribution of the CRA appears marginal. While banks did engage in subprime lending in their assessment areas, they did so at a lower rate than the market in general and accounted for only a small fraction of subprime loans to lower-income borrowers and lower income neighborhoods. The data suggest that far from being forced into risky corners of the market, the institutions under the scrutiny of the CRA were crowded out by unregulated lenders.
|
|
|
Post by brosin on Jul 28, 2010 15:26:51 GMT -5
That kind of brings me to something slightly off topic. Job Creation: this term always has and always will make me cringe. Capitalism and free markets create jobs automatically. When it becomes a goal of a government to "create jobs," it is simply delaying the inevitable and distoring prices, which is unbeneficial for consumers because of the deadweight losses incurred through the distortions. Even if jobs are created, these jobs will be very inefficient, the economy will be running at less than full capacity, and eventually the market will correct this on its own through a painful process. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Works_Progress_Administrationcapitalism and free markets also create crushing unemployment, recessions, and depressions. you're not entirely wrong, but neither was roosevelt. we ain't gonna figure out the right balance on this thread, so i say let's not pretend we can. Definitely not gonna figure it out! There's definitely a fine line - a govt wants to look out for its own citizens, but at the same time its actions are very likely to put these same citizens they helped at risk in coming years. Short term happiness for long term pain is something that our country has been grappling (and failing) with for many decades now, I feel. In 2008, we started to see it coming apart at the seams, and I feel like the next one a few years down the road will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Not to mention, creating jobs here inefficiently takes jobs away from other countries who would have had these jobs otherwise due to lower labor costs. Even if you don't care about foreigners or whatever, the costs of the goods for all of us have gone up then.
|
|
|
Post by elle on Jul 28, 2010 15:53:49 GMT -5
I know it is a simple example, but the old "take the band-aid off" is the choice. Fast or slow you get to the same place - that is, a bottom must be found - so neither method is "better" or a clear choice.
It's a matter of personal preference or in the case of countries, the documents on which it is founded. Our country made a choice, other countries made other choices and the historical outcomes of those choices on various countries can be debated. And we can debate Brosin's fine line or we can dissolve this country, make a different choice with a different documents at it's core. But what cannot be debated is that for better or for worse, the United States of America was founded on a "take it off quick", eat the bread you earn, freedom to fail (or succeed) premise with limited gov't interference.
|
|
|
Post by brosin on Jul 28, 2010 16:08:29 GMT -5
I know it is a simple example, but the old "take the band-aid off" is the choice. Fast or slow you get to the same place - that is, a bottom must be found - so neither method is "better" or a clear choice. It's a matter of personal preference or in the case of countries, the documents on which it is founded. Our country made a choice, other countries made other choices and the historical outcomes of those choices on various countries can be debated. And we can debate Brosin's fine line or we can dissolve this country, make a different choice with a different documents at it's core. But what cannot be debated is that for better or for worse, the United States of America was founded on a "take it off quick", eat the bread you earn, freedom to fail (or succeed) premise with limited gov't interference. Here here Elle - problem is the biggest powers that be knew how to get around it: Buffett 2/18/09: “From this irritating reality comes The First Law of Corporate Survival for ambitious CEOs who pile on leverage and run large and unfathomable derivatives books: Modest incompetence simply won’t do; it’s mindboggling screw-ups that are required.” amoralmajority.net/2009/03/08/market-watch/Completely off topic: when I went to find this part of my post, I came across my post from Sunday 3/8/09 (mkt bottom 3/6/09)... "Just as fear can feed on fear, optimism can feed on optimism this spring. I bought stocks last week for the first time in months, and if nothing else, I think we’re due for a huge global rally. Global markets have pretty much gone down in a straight line in 2009. Just since the 2nd week of February, the DJIA went from 8300 to 6500. Even at my young age I know that kind of thing doesn’t happen often." Looking back on it, it does make me happy to have posted that when I did ;D. You should read the whole article I wrote on 3/1/09 (1st link in this post) the Sunday before if you want to read the gloom and doom side of me. But that week after I wrote it, the market had one of its worst weeks ever I believe, hence the dramatic change in tune. It didn't smell right to me as a permabear. This was a blog site I was a part of with a few others (they ran the show I just wrote and they would post it for me), but no one else was posting anything and it wasn't supposed to be a just finance blog, so I didn't bother keeping it going on my own.
|
|
|
Post by jack on Jul 28, 2010 18:29:01 GMT -5
The general consensus is that companies are not dipping into their bloated coffers and expanding and hiring because they don't trust this Administration and its policies - and I can't blame them. As long as they don't start investing in their own businesses I see us going NOWHERE FAST. I wouldn't say that's a consensus view at all. Investment will be slow because there's a 30% output gap. Disagree It just so happens that my argument was presented on tonite's PBS Nightly Business Report: "Businesses are NOT replenishing inventories, making capital improvements/expenditures and hiring new workers because of uncertainties associated with the new Administration's policies on: - Healthcare costs - Financial Regulations, and - Tax Policy There is no strong sense of the business outlook 6-12mos out. And because of this uncertainty, the largest ever amount of cash is being hoarded in banks by businesses: $837B as recorded in the first Qtr. That's equivalent to 72-weeks of revenue sitting in banks doing nuthin'." The NBR transcript will be available tomorrow. Offhand I'd say that's a nationally known and accepted consensus view.
|
|