Sorry!! The article you are trying to read is not available now.
Thank you very much;
you're only a step away from
downloading your reports.

Buzz Bits: Dow, Nasdaq Creep Higher

By

Your daily Buzz highlights...

PrintPRINT

Editor 's Note: This is a small sample of the content available on the Buzz and Banter



Earnings Report - MV News
  • Dell (DELL) guided Q1 GAAP EPS to $0.33, unclear if comparable to $0.38 cons, and revs to $14.2 bln vs $14.54 bln cons and $14.2-14.6 bln prior guidance.



Okay, lower, first. Then... - Rod David - 1:50 PM

S&P's
did surge from today's first tick, all the way back to Friday's cash session close. But that has been the extent of today's bullishness so far. And this consolidation through the noon hour's end needs to make another run at Friday's highs without delay, or prices could "fall of their own weight." So, new highs remain likely, but new highs also remain likely to fail. Meanwhile, buyers' disinterest is exceeded only by that of sellers. Friday's price surge seems a distant memory.

Friday's volume has already been criticized here for being too low, as was the afternoon high. Now add follow-through (the lack thereof) to the list. For awhile Monday morning, more NYSE up volume than down volume was producing fewer advancing issues than decliners. Pessimism can be bullish, at the right times and in the right doses. But this is complacency. New highs require volatility either to refuel on pullbacks, or to attract buyers into strength. Sellers have already proved unwilling to act on weakness, making new highs all the more likely. But buyers aren't proving to be any more willing to act on the recovery.


Perspective Directive - Todd Harrison - 1:22 PM

I've spent some time this morning walking through a bevy of reports that are championing the risk/reward of the current market. Some are likening the recent S&P acne to the Nikkei breakout in August 2005, which led to a monster gain. Others, using their technical pencil, are projecting an assault on all-time highs at S&P 1553ish. Still others are saying that this is 1995 all over again, where failure to buy a ticket left you off--or under--the equity train.

Can this happen? My opinion, as many Minyans know, is completely dependent on the US Dollar. I noodled this dynamic last week, wondering aloud if a sharply lower dollar would fuel higher prices still, and that remains the game from where I stand. The tie-breakers are rates, foreign "appetite," domestic "unrest" and the elasticity of debt but, at the root of it all, is the basis of valuation.

I will again offer that it's possible to see a weak dollar and weak asset prices but I strongly doubt we'll have a strong dollar and higher stock prices. And while I'm spending some time eyeballing "dollar alternatives"--the Loonie, eh?--I'm continuing to practice patience as I wait for better and more attractive entry points in the metal and energy complex.

Not the most exciting post in the history of the Buzz & Banter, I know, but it's from the heart and now it's on your screen. As always, I hope this finds you well.

R.P.


Unholy alliance... - David Miller - 11:59 AM

I've written many times that I thought Mr. Spitzer went after the wrong research analyst conflict. The conflict between the trading desk and the analysts are far more subversive than the obvious and public conflict between bankers and research. Today we have this story from the Financial Times about Lehman (LEH) essentially making their analysts salespeople.

One of the core legal and ethical rules of research is you don't play favorites, right? If you get a piece of juicy information, you tell all your clients not just your favorites. The NYSE/NASD/SEC, in fact, prohibit selective disclosure of the research product -- though one only has to be around this industry for about 5 minutes to know that rule is broadly ignored. Now Lehman is dropping all pretense, encouraging its analysts to call favored clients with trading ideas. I long ago abandoned the quaint idea that market regulators actually pay any proactive attention to their jobs, but one would presume this might at least cause some regulator to pause and think... right?


Don't look now, but we are about to have a 5 handle ACROSS THE ENTIRE TREASURY CURVE...... - Bennet Sedacca - 11:12 AM

It has been a long trip from 1% but when-issued six month bills (bond equivalent yield-see bond basics) just traded at 5.01%. When issued 3's are 4.97% and 2's are 4.96%. 5,'s, 10's, and 30's all solidly in 5's, particularly off the run bonds.

And yet, hedgers CONTINUE to press their bets to a record 265,301 long bond contracts. Open interest surged to 851,211 contracts - similar to the early 2005 high - see chart here, but no where near the 1,100,000 open interest that surrounded the flight to quality trade that surrounded the LTCM disaster in 1998.

So far, the smart money ain't looking so smart, but only time will tell. They usually are, but who knows in this wacky world of derivatives if they are hedged somehow? Just a guess as this cyclical bear is feeling more secular all the time.

Position in various Treasury securities



Pin Spin - Adam Warner - 10:53 AM

Do large hedgies/traders manipulate stocks to close at/near strike on expiration? A couple of "professors" (the college kind) say yes, but color this professor dubious.

I do not doubt that they may *attempt* to pin. But it would require both massive size, and the assumption of the ensuing market risk. In other words, if someone is short a straddle near strike, and willing to "double down" and buy below and sell above the strike on expiration day, he is hugely exposed to a move away from the strike. And the fact that he is at risk of the market and could easily justify his actions ("hey, I was already willing to buy stock below strike by virtue of my put sales, why can't I buy more?") makes the term "manipulation" a tad misleading.


Golden West take-out - Brian Gilmartin - 9:59 AM

It is no surprise that Washington Mutual (WM) is $1.50 higher in early trade on the Golden West (GDW) take-out, since WM is also a thrift and has been rumored to be an acquisition candidate for years, since the late 1990's in fact.

I own a little WM in some of my more conservative portfolios given its 4.5% dividend yield and its 1.5(x) book and 10(x) earnings valuation.

Bill Nygren of Chicago's own Oakmark Funds has had a substantial position in WM since 1997, consistently stating that any buyout would be in the $70 range, or essentially a doubling of current values. Although Bill and Oakmark was a tad early, nonetheless he is a fabulous value investor and will likely be right eventually.

WM ran into troubles in the early 2000's due to a faster than expected branch build out (higher fixed costs) in the face of a large refi boom, and obviously has been hurt by the flatter yield curve, and the drying up of the ARM mortgage market, as they lowered q2 '06 slightly in their last earnings report, but the stock has still managed to move higher since WM last reported earnings.

I'd like to own more WM for client portfolios, but will not chase the stock.

Position in WM


THIS CONTENT IS FOR EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES AND IS NOT INTENDED AS ADVICE.

Minyanville contributors may trade securities that are discussed on the site, both before and after the articles are published and/or may have a position in such securities for either personal or firm account(s). Minyanville contributors will indicate whether he or the firm has a position in stocks or other securities in any of the companies he discusses in an article. He will not disclose his or the firm's ownership of any securities issued by companies that are not discussed in an article. The disclosures will be accurate as of the time of publication of an article and may change at any time thereafter without notice to the reader.

The information on this website reflects an analysis of market conditions by Minyanville contributors and should not be interpreted as or deemed to be a recommendation to any investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security. Any investment decisions must in all cases be made by the reader or by his or her investment adviser. Minyanville contributors will not respond to requests for individual and specific investment advice.

The views expressed on this website are solely those of the writers whose articles appear on this site and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Fund or of any other person except where expressly indicated.

Copyright 2006 Minyanville Publishing and Multimedia, LLC. All Rights Reserved.

No positions in stocks mentioned.

The information on this website solely reflects the analysis of or opinion about the performance of securities and financial markets by the writers whose articles appear on the site. The views expressed by the writers are not necessarily the views of Minyanville Media, Inc. or members of its management. Nothing contained on the website is intended to constitute a recommendation or advice addressed to an individual investor or category of investors to purchase, sell or hold any security, or to take any action with respect to the prospective movement of the securities markets or to solicit the purchase or sale of any security. Any investment decisions must be made by the reader either individually or in consultation with his or her investment professional. Minyanville writers and staff may trade or hold positions in securities that are discussed in articles appearing on the website. Writers of articles are required to disclose whether they have a position in any stock or fund discussed in an article, but are not permitted to disclose the size or direction of the position. Nothing on this website is intended to solicit business of any kind for a writer's business or fund. Minyanville management and staff as well as contributing writers will not respond to emails or other communications requesting investment advice.

Copyright 2011 Minyanville Media, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

PrintPRINT
 
Featured Videos

WHAT'S POPULAR IN THE VILLE