STOCK MARKET WATCH, WEDNESDAY 31 DECEMBER (#1)

Will profit-takers zoom in to get some black ink on the books before the end of 2003? Should we all ingest some motion-sickness meds before we look at the Dollar vs Euro thing any harder?

What's the buzz, tell me what's happening, as the song goes.

:hi: Marketeers All,
dbt

Not until next year will the markets show signs of life, or death. Company executives help engineer a stock price boost as the year ends in order to boost their annual bonuses. It happened at the end of 2002 in counterintuitive fashion. Also keep in mind that the major market players are not really engaged during the holiday season. Note the anemic trading volume.

As far as the dollar's strength goes - there still seems to be a wait-and-see approach to the impact this will have on the US economy. We see clouds already overhead as consumer confidence slipped (by word of yesterday's report), November housing sales fell and consumers are concerned over the job market. Wait-and-see is the usual approach taken by people who do not want to believe bad news.

edited for syntax

This is the time when most investors unload their losing stocks. So we could see higher volume today. (Investment loss = tax break) and so on. How that wildcard may play in today's numbers is beyond me since there are so many major league losers this year.

The dollar extended its losing streak into the last trading session of the year, falling to $1.26 against the euro for the first time and marking new lows against a wide range of currencies.

<cut>
The dollar was steadier against the yen with reports of interest from the Bank of Japan at Y106.9 - just above the three-year lows it set earlier this month. Asian trading was thin owing to a market holiday in Tokyo.

Trading conditions were thin in Europe too on Wednesday because of the holiday period, and market players said the selling was an extension of the recent pressures on the dollar and not the result of any new factors.

story

LONDON (Reuters) - Wall Street was set for a quiet end to 2003 on Wednesday, with investors nervous as the dollar slid to fresh record lows against the euro and on the look out for earnings pre-announcements.

<cut>
"It looks like it will be a very quiet session in the United States ahead of the New Year, with investors cautious about the declines in the dollar," said one U.S. stocks trader in London.

<cut>
Trading volumes were extremely light with many Wall Street participants taking vacations over the shortened trading week. Both the New York Stock Exchange (news - web sites) and the Nasdaq will be closed on Thursday for New Year's Day.

story

NEW YORK (Reuters) - New applications for U.S. mortgages fell last week to their lowest weekly level in 2003, as home sales at year's end have cooled from their early torrid pace, a U.S. mortgage industry group said on Wednesday.

<cut>
"The peak in home sales may be behind us," said Richard DeKaser, chief economist at National City Corp.

Fears over rising rates and falling sales have hurt stocks of lenders and homebuilders. Some lenders like Washington Mutual Inc. (NYSE:WM - news) announced layoffs in their mortgage units in response to the drop in loan demand.

story

Which could have affected both mortgage and jobless benefit filings--Christmas does seem to interfere a bit with business hours. I'm more interested in what January brings.

to 339k (expected 350k and previous week of 354k revised from 353k)

I think that's the lowest in shrubs "term".


On edit - The more relevant 4-wk moving average wasn't in the report, but should fall to about 355k.

Should be a positive open for the market. Futures up modestly.

All this says is that the pace of layoffs is slowing.

That makes sense since there is a new lower level of jobs available in the country due to outsourcing and greed by the BFEE.

This news says nothing about the MILLIONS that are unemployed and the MILLIONS of LONG TERM unemployed like myself.

We will know that the economy is actually percolating when we see Job growth in the 200,000 to 300,000 per month range.

This is the more correct interpretation of these numbers i.e. meaningless because so many are already unemployed.

References:

http://www.jobwatch.org/

Bush is behind in his own job creation estimates by 1,259,000.

http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20031212-fri.html#anchor0

"There seems to be a real disconnect between the actual numbers on the hiring front and the impressions that have been formed in financial markets. Total nonfarm payrolls have expanded by only 328,000 workers over the August to November 2003 period -- an average of 82,000 per month. That's far short of the pace of job creation that normally occurs at this stage in a business cycle recovery -- somewhere in the range of 250,000 to 300,000 per month. Yet many have been quick to interpret the recent modest pickup in hiring as a sign that Corporate America is finally breaking the shackles of risk aversion and emerging from the funk of recent years. The mix of recent hiring trends tells a very different picture. It turns out that fully 84% of the total increase in nonfarm payrolls over the August to November period is traceable to hiring in four segments of the labor market -- the temporary staffing industry, health, education, and government -- where combined jobs have increased by 68,000 per month. In other words, the bulk of the so-called hiring turnaround since August has been concentrated in either the contingent workforce (temps) or in those industry groupings that are least exposed to global competition. This hardly speaks of a US business sector that has consciously made an important transition from downsizing to expansion. It merely reflects the fact that scale is increasing in the most sheltered and least productive segments of the economy."

You keep thinking we're on opposite sides here.

It isn't that "so many are unemployed" because the number really isn't that high except by comparison to Clinton's second term. 6% used to be considered "full employment" and anything lower than that led to unhealthy inflation.

The REAL number (as you point out) is HOW LONG so many of those unemployed are staying there. It's beginning to look like people who lost their jobs a month ago are finding work, but those who have been out for a year are getting shunned. I’m not sure why or how it’s happening. Companies are starting to hire again… but not people who have been on the street longest… what are you, damaged goods?

I would think that long-term unemployed would be willing to work for lower salaries (on average) than those who just lost their jobs…. I would think corporations would be attracted to that.




Take a look at this graph…

It’s the RED line that concerns me and it REALLY where shrub and Clinton diverge. That continued claim number has almost ALWAYS tracked along graphically with the initial claims number until about two years ago.

result of replacing workers be it for out dated skills, early retirement offerings, clearing dead-wood, etc. Workers were being "recycled", the jobs for the most part still existed.

Shrub's layoffs are due to downsizing and offshoring.

The numbers (lately) don't show a reduction in the number of jobs out there. They show a change in WHO is filling those jobs.

We'll know a lot more in two or three months once we've got a track record on what's happening.

That's likely to be too late to re-structure the campaing message if things move against us.

out there. For a handle on the number of jobs, you would need to look at the Payroll Survey (CES) vs the Population Survey (CPS) that they quote in these reports.

I understand you cannot mix these 2 reports for an accurate comparison (each is based on different data), which is your normal argument. But for a better idea of whether there has been a reduction in the number of jobs, the CES gives a clearer perspective as it comes from "the horses mouth".

I agree that the CES is the "gold standard" for number of jobs out there. AND you are correct that I think they measure very different things and can't really be compared (it isn't a question of one being "more accurate" than the other just "more usefull" for a particular discussion.

Where you make the mistake is by looking at shrub's overall record (which is dismall). I'm just talking about where we've been for the last few months. Since July, that number has been rising steadily (if unspectacularly). You just can't have a half-point drop in unemployemnt and not have there be SOME jobs forming out there.

Two college degrees: BSEE, MBA

Commercial Pilot

Former Naval Officer, Honorably Discharged

Must be damaged goods. It is the only explanation?

What is the source for the graph?

And what did you fly?

That pilot thing must be part of it. Lots of you guys looking around after 9/11 and no jobs to be found...

... unless you want to "re-up"? I hear they're always looking for new pilots these days.


The graph is from "Briefing.com". Largely a pay site, but plenty of free (after you register) information that is quite useful.

Their commentary is a little over-bullish, and their "expectation" for a new number if often better than the "market consesus". But they're great as a source for figures and what's coming up.

Flight training and experience, all civilian.

Actually, military flight experience would be a plus at this point.

However, the bulk of my professional experience is in high-technology, computer systems, telecommunications, and consulting.

Thanks for the link.

Lots of stuff to ponder there. He closes with:

This jobless recovery has just celebrated its second anniversary. Never in the modern-day history of the US business cycle has there been such a profound shortfall of hiring. For months we’ve been hearing that’s about to change. The recent sharp acceleration in the US economy, in conjunction with a modest improvement on the overall hiring front in the past four months, have led most to believe that an old-fashioned hiring-led recovery is just around the corner. Don’t bet on it. The global labor arbitrage tells me there’s something new and big going on that will continue to defy the optimistic spin that is now being put on a still very sluggish American labor market.

Add to this a few stats I've read this week:

-- We need to add about 150,000 jobs a month just to keep up with expanding workforce population.

-- Income is flat

-- Many of the new jobs are much lower-paying than the old lost jobs. Almost 25% of this country's workers make less than $9 an hour.

Increase in jobs in education? I really question that. States are really struggling to maintain whatever they have. In most cases, they're increasing class sizes, cutting the length of the school year, cutting supplies...Colleges and universities aren't doing much better. Non-tenured people are being let go, to be replaced by adjunct people who are either trying to increase their income by having a part-time job, or who have been laid off by some other industry or business, including the public schools.

Something's rotten here...UNLESS they count all those people as "educators" who are in the business of trying to get jobs for the unemployed, like "how to dress professionally," how to write a resume...This economy sucks.

But it was just in passing, overheard on CNBC. Funny thing was, they had a graphic up for the weekly # which dropped but didn't put up a graphic for the increase 4 wk moving avg. heh heh No cheerleading or anything. Mmm hmm. ;)

Julie

For a drop of about 6,000 in the average.

Next week could be even bigger since the number dropping off is that "unexpectedly high" 378k from three week ago. Another week like today's figure (on Jan 8th) will drop the average by around 10k. That WOULD be expected to move the market a bunch, but Jan 9th is the new unemployment report and I think the market will wait to see what THAT says.

Like I said, heard it in passing and they provided no graphic. Musta misheard. :-)

Thanks for the correct info! :hi:

Julie

forum. Don't know how to url it.

The headline, New Jobless Claims Lowest of Bush Tenure.
"The Labor Department (news - web sites) reported Wednesday that new applications filed for unemployment insurance dropped by a seasonally adjusted 15,000 to 339,000 for the week ending Dec. 27."


The reality: ETA Press Release: Unemployment Insurance Weekly Claims Report:
"The advance number of actual initial claims under state programs, unadjusted, totaled 516,501 in the week ending Dec. 27, an increase of 91,785 from the previous week."
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/eta/ui/current.htm

They aren't "lying" by doing what they have aways done. The raw numbers would only confuse the issue.

But yoou ignore the rest of the article. YES, the "real" number is 516,501 which seems high compared to 339k, but it was 620,929 in the comparable week last year. So there are more than 100,000 fewer people filing this week than in the same week last year.


Also, the "bad news" from this report was the INCREASE in the number of long-term unemployed still out there. Take out the seasonal adjustment like you just did and THAT number went DOWN 118k instead of UP 81k.

Jobless claims fall to lowest level in nearly 3 years By Rachel Koning
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) - Initial jobless claims and the four-week moving average fell to their lowest levels in almost three years. The four-week moving average of benefits claims fell 6,500 to 355,750, the Labor Department reported. For just the week ending last Saturday, new enrollees in state unemployment programs totaled 339,000, a decrease of 15,000. Weekly claims are at their lowest level since Jan. 20, 2001 and the four-week average is at the lowest since early February of that year, Labor officials said. The number of Americans who continue to collect jobless benefits rose by 81,000 to 3.32 million.

CBS MarketWatch

The number of people collecting benefits ROSE EVEN THOUGH Bush cut the extensions of unemployment insurance. There SHOULD be a decline in that number even if there was no "improvement"

Time to check out now as I get my procrastinating self to work. Progress moves at a snail's pace as I wrap things up in the wood business.

I will try to check in later today. If not, have a safe end of 2003. See you next year!

Ozymandius

We really appreciate you taking care of this thread and wish you all the best in whatever your new career turns out to be!

If we don't see you before day's end Ozy, may you and your family have a wonderful New Year! Thanks for all you do. :loveya:

Julie

Good morning everyone. :hi:

Last trade 86.45 Change -0.55 (-0.63%)

Settle 87.00 Settle Time 23:34

Open 86.79 Previous Close 87.00

High 86.99 Low 86.36



EURUSD Euro 1.2615 +0.004000 09:12 Last change

Are beginning to look less like a gift and more like an investment! :eyes: Ah, well...I wasn't planning another trip over until 2005 anyway. That much longer to save up for it...

Heading up at the start...
Dow 10,436.44 +11.40 (+0.11%)
Nasdaq 2,012.51 +2.63 (+0.13%)
S&P 500 1,110.35 +0.71 (+0.06%)
10-Yr Bond 4.269% -0.010

nice tax cut from Shrub. Think it will play into the picture?

You want to wait until all of those end-of-year 401(k) and profit-sharing distributions get dropped into the market so that they hold it up while you sell.

That's what just about every mutual fund does if they buy stocks the end of december to "clean up" their books then sell them again in January.

Bit of a bounce the last couple of minutes--maybe a wild-ride day!
Dow 10,448.67 +23.63 (+0.23%)
Nasdaq 2,009.59 -0.29 (-0.01%)
S&P 500 1,111.12 +1.48 (+0.13%)
10-Yr Bond 4.270% -0.009

Our So-Called Boom
It was a merry Christmas for Sharper Image and Neiman Marcus, which reported big sales increases over last year's holiday season. It was considerably less cheery at Wal-Mart and other low-priced chains. We don't know the final sales figures yet, but it's clear that high-end stores did very well, while stores catering to middle- and low-income families achieved only modest gains.

Based on these reports, you may be tempted to speculate that the economic recovery is an exclusive party, and most people weren't invited. You'd be right
<more>

The market has been up BIG TIME this year.

Maybe this news is from those people whose income comes largely from their invesments just acting like people who got a big raise?

his "stuff" we'd be in the middle of a revolution by now!

They should give HIM Greenspans job. }(

marker on the hill.

Last trade 86.60 Change -0.40 (-0.46%)

High 86.99 Low 86.36

be the time to worry. Until then he said the dollar and euro are really hovering around the levels they were in 1999, so he's not alarmed yet. Although he said that there is a disconnect between Bush/Snows stated "strong dollar policy" and the reality of them wanting a the dollar to be low to help our trade imbalance. However, the analyst said if investors suddenly decide that the "disconnect is too great between Admins strong dollar policy and the reality of a falling dollar, then we should watch out below!" (paraphrase)

So, I'm keeping my eye on that 1.35 target. Although what I can do about it I don't really know! :D

And sell them when it gets to 1.35

Leverage it properly and you could make a killing.


The problem with that is if we're talking real investing it's probably bad advice. This is fun to talk about from a political perspective, but advising people to buy something when it's near (or above) record highs is not my investment advice style. The dollar has been here before (and in fine economic times) and it almost always signaled the bottom of that market... not a great time to get out.

Dow 10,436.07 +11.03 (+0.11%)
Nasdaq 2,000.94 -8.94 (-0.44%)
S&P 500 1,109.38 -0.26 (-0.02%)
10-Yr Bond 4.263% -0.016

Gotta do some running with the munchkins--TTFN!

Touches on some of the topics discussed here by the Marketeers. I'll just snip a few highlights.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north233.html
Bush Imitates Reagan’s Economic Policy
by Gary North

Every incumbent President seeks the cooperation of the Federal Reserve Board in the 12 months that precede a presidential election year. No President wants to go into November with a sagging economy. The last time an incumbent President faced a recession in an election year, he lost. That was George Bush, Sr. His son does not want to repeat that experience.
(Speaks to Julies comments on the timing of Mr Greenjeans move

Spending more money than it takes in is easy whenever a nation gets into a war. No President has to justify war expenses and a rising deficit when the country is at war. The Bush Administration was able to get us into two wars because of 9/11. The Iraq war is now costing the taxpayers and debt buyers about $2 billion a week.

This war came with a tax cut. This is the equivalent of Lyndon Johnson’s "guns and butter" taxing and spending policies. Johnson refused for four years to raise taxes to pay for the war in Vietnam, but he did not lower them.
I think it was Maeve that quoted "guns and butter" here - Always so good at piecing these things together for us :-)

The policy of massive deficit spending can go on for as long as investors are willing to buy government debt at interest rates of 5% or less. But they are willing to do this now because they have not yet come to believe that the booming stock market is permanent. Why would anyone buy bonds at 3% or 4% when the stock market is producing a 20% annual return? Only because investors don’t yet have confidence in the stock market.

Why would foreigners buy T-bills at under 1.5%? The fall in the dollar more than wipes out that rate of return. The answer is simple: they are trying to keep the exchange rate from moving against their export-based manufacturers.
We've all asked these questions

This willingness of central banks to expand their own currencies to keep them from rising against the dollar is keeping pressure on American manufacturers. This keeps them from passing on all of their cost increases to customers.

What cost increases? Raw materials.
There's that pesky inflation they keep telling us in non-existent!

This means that anyone who holds T-bills or a commercial CD is losing money. He pays an income tax on his earnings, yet even if his income were tax-free, he would be falling behind. Are people nuts? Why are they willing to do this? Because they don’t think the stock market will hold up. They don’t want to go into real estate.

Why not? Because they know the truth: rising inflation will produce higher interest rates, which will end the recovery or place limits on it. The booming stock market is the result of falling interest rates. But price inflation will force an increase in interest rates.


There is so much more in this. Hopefully you have some time to read it. I know I've been posting a lot of articles lately that are all over the spectrum - sorry about that. But hey, I've got an excuse - I'm a sub :evilgrin:

Loved the end:

CONCLUSION

The stock market has hit a ceiling: Dow 10,000. It may break through, but when it comes to ceiling breaking, gold’s penetration of $400 is more impressive. (Can I get an "Amen!"?)

The ability of the stock market to maintain its pace is facing a challenge by the falling value of the dollar. Consumers are shopping, but they are not saving. The future of capitalism is dependent on saving. When foreigners decide not to bankroll the America’s Federal deficit of $500 billion a year and its balance of payments deficit of $500 billion a year, then the consumer will find out that there are no free lunches in life. Interest rates will rise, bonds will fall, mortgage investments will fall, and the stock market’s giddy increase, which is not based on rising profits, will end.

Your best investment is still you.

You're right 54anickel, that article certainly sounds a lot like this thread. BTW, I think you're a fabulous sub and I hope you continue to contribute regularly after UpInArms returns. :-)

Julie

And thanks for the invitation. I would love to continue contributing, but my research will probably have to slow down a bit next week. (Ya! not so much to read :evilgrin:.

I promised the "Old Fart" that I would begin my job search in earnest after the new year, so my free time will become a bit more "budgeted".

Here is one last article for the day. And now that Ino is back up, I'll give another peak at the all might buck-a roo!

http://www.economist.com/finance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2312598
Don’t believe the hype
Dec 30th 2003
From The Economist Global Agenda

From overly cautious to overly trusting: the tale of 2003

Just the summarizing last few paragraphs:

Indeed, one of the biggest questions in the coming year is whether Asia can take up more of the slack for powering world growth from America. The region has grown mightily this year and there is no reason why it should not continue to do so as intra-regional trade expands. The sharp rise in commodity prices this year says more about demand in China than it does about inflationary pressures in the West.

For now, though, the world economy is still heavily reliant on America, whose financial markets are replete with risks and seeming paradoxes. This supposed bastion of free trade is rife with protectionism. In an election year, only the brave would bet on the Bush administration resisting calls from interest groups for more of the same. The administration also risks creating a dollar crisis by talking down the value of the dollars it gives back to those investing in the country. That isn’t very clever, given how much America has to borrow from abroad. There are already signs of unhappiness about this: portfolio flows to America have been drying up as the dollar continues to fall. It could get a lot worse.

But the paradox that most concerns Buttonwood is this: why, despite the strong pick-up in growth and growth expectations around the world, the surge in equities and corporate bonds, and the dramatic rise in the price of gold, do ten-year Treasury bonds—the world’s benchmark risk-free asset—yield only a fifth of a percentage point more than they did at the start of 2003? In this, Buttonwood is a little lost—and a little worried.

Dow 10,421.85 -3.19 (-0.03%)
Nasdaq 1,998.55 -11.33 (-0.56%)
S&P 500 1,108.35 -1.29 (-0.12%)
10-Yr Bond 4.257% -0.022


A wee bit of profit taking. The cheerleading on CNBC this morning was sickening BTW. To listine to those people one would think '04 will be the year everyone in America strikes it rich, there will be Zero unemployment and we achieve Utopia.

Oy!

Julie

We'll see how the buck fairs when the big boys come back to play next week.
Quick trip to the slaughterhouse?
Oh wait no, that can't be it....
No more downed animals to slaughter.

:evilgrin:

Last trade 86.67 Change -0.33 (-0.38%)

High 86.99 Low 86.36

Per Yahoo Fi below, the markets seem to be uninteresting today, although they are dislocating their shoulders patting themselves on the back over the current bear market rally...

Dow 10,426.30 +1.26 (+0.01%)
Nasdaq 2,000.06 -9.82 (-0.49%)
S&P 500 1,108.45 -1.19 (-0.11%)
10-Yr Bond 4.261% -0.018

"1:00PM: The major averages remain stuck in the same range that they have been in since roughly10:15 ET, with the Dow and the S&P 500 hugging the unchanged line and the Nasdaq remaining stuck in negative territory... As 2003 winds down, it looks to have been a great year as NYSE member profits more than doubled... According to a Reuters report, in 2003 Wall Street is likely to post its third most profitable year ever, although it will earn less than previously thought, citing the Securities Industry Association..."

Or so it seems. How come no one ever mentions what the basement might be?

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=domesticNews&storyID=4053507

Dow 10,000 May Be Ceiling for Years, Patterns Show
Mon December 29, 2003 10:37 AM ET
By Nick Olivari

Like the 100 mark though, the 1,000 point level had been an upside barrier for 17 years, Shaw said, and investors endured another five bear markets and four bull markets.

Fast forward to 2003, and investors have seen just one bear market between the time the Dow first closed above 10,000 in 1999 and its return to those dizzying heights in recent weeks.

While investors are confident that the most recent bear market has ended and the positive economic data will continue through 2004, they also believe much of the good news has already been priced in.

That's not to say that anyone is predicting a bear market anytime soon, but investors know that its going to be a hard slog to break above the Dow's closing high of 11,722.98 on Jan. 14, 2000.

:scared:

Let's not talk about the basement and maybe we'll never have to see it!! ;-)

Julie

Good to see you!

Know what youmean about patting themselves on the back. Cnbc is so terrible I can't watch it today. Ugh!!

Here's a little update, pretty dull stuff.

1:23:


Dow 10,430.74 +5.70 (+0.05%)
Nasdaq 2,000.24 -9.64 (-0.48%)
S&P 500 1,108.81 -0.83 (-0.07%)
10-Yr Bond 4.261% -0.018

See ya'll at 2:34! ;-)

Julie

we've put a fresh coat on things and it's drying. Don't mess with it or you'll screw up the finish.

In the meantime, we'll be out of the office, doing those last minute New Years Eve things.

But everybody leave things exactly where they are!

Couldn't hold on though:

High 87.15 Low 86.36

Last trade 86.91 Change -0.09 (-0.10%)

Have this tidbit:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000006&sid=aaCkmpm1k6Q8&refer=home

Dec. 31 (Bloomberg) -- The yen weakened from its high for the day on speculation the Bank of Japan sold its own currency and bought dollars, traders said.

``The line in the sand for the BOJ is 106.90,'' said Grant Wilson, a trader at Mellon Financial Corp. in Pittsburgh, which manages more than $100 billion of assets. ``We've been there the past three days and we can't break through it. The only buyer who is that big at those levels would have to be official interest.''

The yen traded at 107.07 per dollar at 9:37 a.m. in New York from 106.98 late yesterday. It strengthened to as much as 106.90.



From the Yen chart (timing looks about right):
Last trade 107.4 Change +0.51 (+0.48%)

Open 106.89 Previous Close 106.89

High 107.7 Low 106.66

Bid 107.4 Ask 107.45


On edit add
Found this explanation:
The dollar reversed early morning declines as some traders closed out positions before the New Year's Day holiday that would have benefited from a further decline in the dollar, said Jason Bonanca, a currency strategist in New York at Credit Suisse First Boston.

source:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000085&sid=aRsWBFodktU8&refer=europe

Gotta LOVE this line:

``The market decided that if the U.S. administration wanted a weaker dollar, it would get it,'' Paul Chertkow, head of global currency research at Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi in London, said in a televised interview with Bloomberg News

little help from my friennnnnnnnds.:hippie:

What happens when two of the largest world economies (Japan and China) have to quit propping up the dollar, for whatever reason? I mean, come on, it can't go on for ever...the two countries' economies added together are barely 1/3 the size of the US (okay, that's a guess - if I'm wrong, please let me know), therefore, if *, Snow, and company keep forcing the dollar down they can push it past the point that China and Japan say "Uncle" and stop the support policies.

What happens then?

Methinks there's a nasty bit of brinkmanship going here. And the ham-handed economic policies of this administration give me little confidence that they can handle the game, or the results.

(on edit - clarification)

Mexico did and we bailed them out.

Heck we will be such a military power house empire with lots on nukes and stuff, Who'd have the kahunas to ask us to pay up?

Of course, I'm just talking outta my butt today. Suffering from cranium-rectal inversion. :evilgrin:

I think we're such a major player that the rest of the world doesn't want to see us fall, entertaining as some may find that prospect. It would be too much like living next to the beanstalk when the giant takes his trip...everything would be pulled into the hole with him! Only the worst haters would risk that...

(see, I'm not always a pessimist!) :D

We'll be together , Nelly, Byyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyeeeeeeee and Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
Happy New Year all.

http://business-times.asia1.com.sg/story/0,4567,103942,00.html

Published December 31, 2003

Indon, China set for mega forex swap

INDONESIA'S central bank said yesterday it will sign a foreign exchange swap agreement worth US$1 billion with China, part of regional efforts aimed at giving countries access to foreign currencies at short notice if needed.

'The Bank of China has also given its commitments to revise upwards the agreed swap amount if needed,' Bank Indonesia said in a statement.

The deal is given added importance by Indonesia's decision not to extend a multi-billion loan programme with the IMF, which expires at the end of this year.
snip>

The signing came after Indonesia and Japan earlier this year signed a US$3 billion forex swap deal. Bank Indonesia is also been expected to sign a US$1 billion currency swap deal with South Korea this month.

The deals are part of moves by Japan, China, South Korea and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations under the Chiang Mai Initiative to make foreign exchange reserves available at short notice to countries facing a rapid deterioration in their balance of payments and whose currency comes under speculative attack. - Reuters


Not to be an alarmist or anything.....but this old article come to mind now. Interesting times indeed! :evilgrin:

http://www.minesite.com/archives/features_archive/2002/Aug-2002/dinar210802.htm

afoot, to quote Holmes.

with 8. It is an interesting take though, isn't it?

Dow 10,413.48 -11.56 (-0.11%)
Nasdaq 1,998.07 -11.81 (-0.59%)
S&P 500 1,107.09 -2.55 (-0.23%)
10-Yr Bond 4.257% -0.022

That's ok though since '04 will be the best year ever!! ;-)

Julie

promised! :hi:

Dow 10,424.78 -0.26 (0.00%)
Nasdaq 2,001.17 -8.71 (-0.43%)
S&P 500 1,108.23 -1.40 (-0.13%)
10-Yr Bond 4.257% -0.022

And since some of y'all seem to have started the party already, I'll give my toast now:

May you live as long as you want
and never want as long as you live!
Happy 2004!

Thank you and cheers.
:beer:

Bloody computers! :grr:

Anyway, I was also wondering if anyone else was working in an office today? I am in an office tower where about 500 - 600 people work, and today there are barely 100 people in the building.

Makes me want to slip out in the next 30 minutes, since no one will notice... :evilgrin:

the folks in Marketeering.:D

Nope, no office here. But then, I am one the the bazillion uncounted unemployed. :evilgrin:

:toast:

Final figures for 2003

Dow 10,453.55 +28.51 (+0.27%)
Nasdaq 2,003.37 -6.51 (-0.32%)
S&P 500 1,111.71 +2.07 (+0.19%)
10-Yr Bond 4.257% -0.022

Y'all have a safe New Year's Eve and a wonderful New Year's Day and we'll see you next year! :hi::party::hi:

Last trade 86.79 Change -0.21 (-0.24%)

Settle 86.92 Settle Time 14:35

Open 86.79 Previous Close 87.00

High 87.20 Low 86.36


Have a great New Year everyone! :hi:

thanks to you fine folks in the SWT. You all rock.

May '04 be everything we hope for! Happy New Years All!!

Julie

This comes from one who doesn't post here much, but has appreciated having this every day to come to. It beats my old CNBC addiction for Market news and info.

So many great articles linked in this thread today and other days. Thanks again to you all for a "great job" which I don't think you all know contributes to DU in ways you might not imagine.

:-)'s to you all. And if next year isn't a winner...well at least we have information we can use to keep the "wolf from the door."