Major stock market indexes fall to 1997 levels

[homedawg]

NEW YORK (AP) — Wall Street has turned the clock back to 1997.
Feb. 23,2009 4:30pm

Investors unable to extinguish their worries about a recession that has no end in sight dumped stocks again Monday. The Dow Jones industrial average tumbled 251 points to its lowest close since Oct. 28, 1997, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index logged its lowest finish since April 11, 1997.

All the major indexes slid more than 3 percent. The Dow is just over 100 points from 7,000.

"People left and right are throwing in the towel," said Keith Springer, president of Capital Financial Advisory Services.

Investors pounded most financial stocks even as government agencies led by the Treasury Department said they would launch a revamped bank rescue program this week. The plan includes the option of increasing government ownership in financial institutions without having to pour more taxpayer money into them.

Although the government has said it doesn't want to nationalize banks, many investors are clearly still concerned that this could be a possibility as banks continue to suffer severe losses because of the recession. They're also worried that banks' losses will keep escalating as the recession sends more borrowers into default.

"The biggest thing I see here is the incredible pessimism," Springer said. "The government is doing a lousy job of alleviating fears."

The Treasury and other agencies issued a statement after The Wall Street Journal reported that Citigroup is in talks for the government to boost its stake in the bank to as much as 40 percent. Analysts said the market, which initially rose on the statement, wanted more details of the government's plans.

"It's only a very partial picture of what we may get," said Quincy Krosby, chief investment strategist at The Hartford. "This proverbial lack of clarity is damaging market psychology."

Meanwhile, technology stocks fell after The Journal reported that Yahoo Inc.'s new chief executive plans to reorganize the company. But the selling came across the market as pessimism about the recession and its toll on companies deepened.

"There's no where to hide anymore," said Jim Herrick, director of equity trading at Baird & Co.

The market's decline extends massive losses from last week when the major stock indexes tumbled more than 6 percent. The major indexes plunged through the lows they reached in late November, at the height of the credit crisis.

According to preliminary calculations, the Dow dropped 250.89, or 3.41 percent, to 7,114.78. It last closed this low on Oct. 28, 1997 when it finished at 6,971.32.

The Standard & Poor's 500 index fell 26.72, or 3.47 percent, to 743.33. It was the lowest close since April 11, 1997, when it ended at 737.65.

The technology-laden Nasdaq composite index dropped 53.51, or 3.71 percent, to 1,387.72.

__________________________________________
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK:

[homedawg]

Rick Santelli and the "Rant of the Year"

[homedawg]

What it Takes to Move the Dow
Monday, 23 Feb 2009


Dow [.DJIA ] components Bank of America [BAC], Citigroup [C ] and GM [GM] are posting nice gains today, but that’s having very little impact on the Dow.

As the index now contains five stocks under $10 (GM, C, BAC, AA, & GE), the Dow Industrials has come under greater scrutiny on whether it is still a good gauge of the overall market. Since the Dow is a price-weighted index, for every dollar a stock gains or loses, the Dow will move about 8 points. This is true for each of the 30 Dow stocks, regardless of its price.

As a result, it takes significantly bigger percentage moves for a lower-priced stock to affect the overall index than it does for a higher-priced stock. For example, GM, which trades below $2, would have to move up nearly 57% if it were to move the Dow up 8 points. On the other hand, shares of IBM, which are priced near $90, would only have to move a little over 1% to move the overall index by the same 8 points.
Dow 30:

[homedawg]

Is Obama Out of His Freakin' Mind?
Stock Market | Management Dennis Kneale, CNBC Media & Technology Editor |
04 Mar 2009 | 11:39 AM ET

At the risk of redundancy I'll ask it again: Is he? Is President Obama effin' CRAZY?

President Obama blames the continuing global financial crisis for the unmitigated carnage on Monday, when the Dow fell below 7000 and closed down 300 points (or 4.2 percent) at a 12-year low of 6763.

Bullspit! The man is in denial. By now we know the economy is ailing. The main thing that has changed: The disturbing details of Obama’s tax-and-spend plans are becoming all too clear.

Most of the moves he has made in his first 43 days in office have been bad for the markets, damaging to investors, ill-advised for the economy and detrimental to repairing the financial collapse wracking the entire planet.

Yesterday Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner told a House committee the new budget’s “single most overriding priority” is to “stimulate private investment.” Yet Bam proposes to more than double the tax rate on hedge funds and private equity funds, engines of private-sector growth.

He wants to rescue housing—but aims to cut back on the tax deduction for interest paid on mortgages, targeting anyone who earns over $208,000. Aren’t these the people who could most afford to buy a new home?

Bam also wants to rebuild America’s industrial might. Yet his cap-and-trade program would slap billions of dollars in new taxes on manufacturers for the emissions that are a byproduct of making goods.

Worst of all, the President has kept Wall Street in the dark, pretty much, on how to fix the big banks’ toxic assets. On Tuesday President Obama's minions floated yet another painfully tentative trial balloon—a full four months after we elected this guy.

Uncertainty kills on Wall Street, and yet once again the Bama posse is infuriatingly vague on details. The latest plan would set up several public-private funds to bid on toxic assets with the help of government loans. But we don't know how many funds, who would run them, what the price tag might be and how government and the private guys would split up the risks and rewards.

Nor is it clear how this multi-headed hydra would heal the primary affliction infecting mortgage-backed securities: No one knows the right price for these damaged goods. That’s because we don’t know how much they have been marked down already, how bad the defaults will get, or what the government rules will be for working out this mess.

One hope: that the Obama boys would use the TALF (Term Asset-backed Lending Facility) to grant government loans to the brave souls who buy toxic mortgage assets. So far TALF aims mainly at loans for cars, college students and credit cards; using it for shredded mortgage assets is merely "under consideration," Treasury said yesterday.

Get on with it for gawdsakes! The toxic trauma is fixable, and this column has talked twice before about the “Rob plan." It would gather the banks’ sickest securities and swap them for new ETFs that pay a 4 percent tax-free dividend to the banks, which later could sell the ETFs into the open market.

A critical aspect of this approach: a government guarantee of the underlying assets. Jack Mounteer, president of a Compass Bank branch in Daytona Beach in the bubble state of Florida, says a guarantee would be “the easiest way out of this mess.”

He adds: "Why would the government lend or give money away to homeowners, private industry, or the banks when it could easily motivate a myriad of private investors to loan the same money simply by guaranteeing a portion of that debt?”

Private investors would be eager to buy guaranteed assets. They line up to buy U.S. Treasurys and settle for near zero percent interest because they seek the safety of a government guarantee.

In the mortgage meltdown, the guarantee approach would be a cheaper option than government’s buying all those bad assets outright, Mounteer says. The feds would spend nothing until a default actually occurs. “The taxpayer is left with a much smaller bill,” he notes.

Instead, he laments, “I've been watching in disgust as our people in Washington let the economy slide into the dumper, clueless.” Amen. One last thing: Jack Mounteer no longer at Compass Bank—he is one of 1,200 people who just got laid off by the parent company.

We need a fix, and fast. But so far, President Obama is making things all the worse.

[homedawg]

March 4, 2009: CNBC Gives Financial Advice

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

CNBC Gives Financial Advice

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

March 4, 2009 The Dow Knows All

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

The Dow Knows All

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things With Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Joke of the Day

[Q-Unit]

Originally Posted by homedawg

Is Obama Out of His Freakin' Mind?
Stock Market | Management Dennis Kneale, CNBC Media & Technology Editor |
04 Mar 2009 | 11:39 AM ET


We need a fix, and fast. But so far, President Obama is making things all the worse.

I thought the political forum was axed?

[homedawg]

Originally Posted by Q-Unit

I thought the political forum was axed?

This is the stock talk forum! That was a stock 411 post!
I have alot of loot invested, do you?


You want politics?



Obama Says US May Reach Out to Taliban

[Q-Unit]

sigh you win man

I wash my hands of this, and hope you've just snapped mentally and nothing more.

its incredulous to believe you are discussing stocks without adding in "digs" at our president.

I would not call you out like this if when the market crashed back in early October/late September during Bush's tenure, and you posted blurbs like the above asking what Bush was gonna do about it, or why Bush is the root of all evil and why this mess came about on his watch. Instead I know you'd just say Bush was just unlucky and/or had nothing to do with the crash (which I actually agree with to a degree), and you'd claim he was busy protecting the country.

and now with this president trying to fix (successful in only 6+ weeks or not), you're ready to call the score.

OF ALL PEOPLE. a veteran gambler like you throwing in the towel on an issue that won't take 1.5 months to recover but at least 2+ years.

Yet you know this. But you want to take any chance to blame this president. your president no matter what you think just to besmirch his name. He may be failing horribly or making the market worse, but your conviction of him and him alone only 1.5 months on the job is ridiculously stupid and naive.

but if you really have snapped, then excuse me and forget I said anything. I shouldn't have said anything.

what do they call these things on the internet? trolling and flames? lol

I should be trolling for ass instead and setting flames to my 401 statements

and YES I have a lot invested, but I havent panicked because my shyt isnt in one basket like many unlucky/stupid investors. Its arrogant on your part to think youre the only one hurting in times like this. But we are a few of the lucky ones who can afford internet to btch about a political office that at this point no matter if it was McCain, Obama, or Dukakis (sp?), the market would not have miraculously rebounded in 2 months.

the president needs to look like he has an effect or is trying, but no matter what any competent person can tell you this shyt is cyclical and that the market will have its ups and downs.

whats the point right? if it were McCain, assuredly with the market yet still to recover, you'd just come in here and say "well at least he's trying. give it time, its only been 1.5 months, one man cant affect the market"

what offends me most about you lately HD in specific regards to this issue alone is how hypocritical you are. and you know this. You damn well know if McCain were president today, I along other people who may or may not have voted for Obama would be supporting McCain through this tough time without hesitation.

again sorry for the rant, to you and to anyone unfortunate enough to have to read my nonsensical diatribes. But like FF would say, I've said my peace.

peace.

[homedawg]

I'm not panicking? Just dont like what is going on with the stock market! I enjoy flipping the stocks, but lately there is no flipping to be had! When I think I have the bottom of a stock and buy it, lately more times than not there are new lows soon to come!
It doesn't matter who is president, he works for us! If you have someone doing work on your house, and you don't like it, do you keep quiet about it?
As I stated many times before, this is Jimmy Carter's second term! I lived through that and I'll make it through this term.
Obama needs to grow a pair, and make some decisive decisions and speak with confidence! The market is down 3,000 since he was elected.
For example, yesterday I watched his interview, and he said " I don't think americans should hoard cash in their mattresses". I don't think? Right or wrong, make a decisive statement!
I'm not the only 1 feeling this way, check out his approval rating, or take a trip to Wall St. and listen to the people there!

[FlyersFan]

Originally Posted by homedawg

I'm not panicking? Just dont like what is going on with the stock market! I enjoy flipping the stocks, but lately there is no flipping to be had! When I think I have the bottom of a stock and buy it, lately more times than not there are new lows soon to come!
It doesn't matter who is president, he works for us! If you have someone doing work on your house, and you don't like it, do you keep quiet about it?
As I stated many times before, this is Jimmy Carter's second term! I lived through that and I'll make it through this term.
Obama needs to grow a pair, and make some decisive decisions and speak with confidence! The market is down 3,000 since he was elected.
For example, yesterday I watched his interview, and he said " I don't think americans should hoard cash in their mattresses". I don't think? Right or wrong, make a decisive statement!
I'm not the only 1 feeling this way, check out his approval rating, or take a trip to Wall St. and listen to the people there!

i agree....especially when you consider the market is reactionary. Doesn't like what it's seen so far.....and with all the proposed taxes on dividends and all profits etc....there is no incentive to invest in the market either. He's done an awful job so far and it's basically a continuation of George Bush. He didn't have a plan when he was running and he still doesn't have a plan. Therein lies the problem. I am completely out of the market and see no reason to get back in. Short term bonds/notes right now are the way to go IMO. 6month to 1 year type, nothing long term. Obama is so far in over his fking head it's not funny when it comes to economic policy.

Country is a crap mess right now and we don't have the politicians in congress or the whitehouse to lead us out of it and that is a huge issue. You have a bunch of people who have never run a business nor have any business sense whatsoever trying to dictate economic policy and decide what's best for businesses...........

Everything is cyclical and you just hope the carnage is to as much of a minimum as possible. It will turn one day but when and how much damage was inflicted is the question.

[homedawg]

Originally Posted by FlyersFan

i agree....especially when you consider the market is reactionary. Doesn't like what it's seen so far.....and with all the proposed taxes on dividends and all profits etc....there is no incentive to invest in the market either. He's done an awful job so far and it's basically a continuation of George Bush. He didn't have a plan when he was running and he still doesn't have a plan. Therein lies the problem. I am completely out of the market and see no reason to get back in. Short term bonds/notes right now are the way to go IMO. 6month to 1 year type, nothing long term. Obama is so far in over his fking head it's not funny when it comes to economic policy.

Country is a crap mess right now and we don't have the politicians in congress or the whitehouse to lead us out of it and that is a huge issue. You have a bunch of people who have never run a business nor have any business sense whatsoever trying to dictate economic policy and decide what's best for businesses...........

Everything is cyclical and you just hope the carnage is to as much of a minimum as possible. It will turn one day but when and how much damage was inflicted is the question.

I agree!

[homedawg]

Warren Buffett to CNBC: Economy Has "Fallen Off a Cliff"
Mar. 9, 2009
Posted By: Alex Crippen
Topics:Warren Buffett
Companies:American Express Co | Berkshire Hathaway Inc.

Warren Buffett tells CNBC's Becky Quick the U.S. economy has "fallen off a cliff."

During a three-hour appearance on Squawk Box this morning (Monday), Buffett said economic developments have been very "close to the worst case" that he had imagined, although conditions would be far worse if the Federal Reserve hadn't stepped in last September.

Other highlights:

• The economy "can't turn around on a dime" and a turnaround "won't happen fast."
• Predicts unemployment rate in U.S. will go well above its current levels before the downturn ends
• But, five years from now, the economy will be running fine. The strength of the American system will pull it through, just as it has many times in the past.
• Democrats and Republicans should work together and not try to take advantage of the economic situation to achieve partisan goals.
• Inflation has the "potential" to be worse than the 1970s.
• Most banks are in "pretty good shape" and can "earn their way out" of the current problems given the low cost of funds. Banks, however, "need to get back to banking."
• Extremely important that the government make clear depositors won't lose their money if banks fail. Obama needs to make a "clear statement" in support of the banking system.
• Berkshire is restricted from buying more American Express [AXP 10.64 0.38 (+3.7%) ] stock, but that doesn't mean it is not a "hell of a buy" at $10 a share.
• Wishes he had written the New York Times "Buy American" piece a few months later, but stands by the basic argument that you'll do better over a ten-year period with stocks that you will with Treasuries. He said in the article he wasn't calling the bottom of the stock market, and he still isn't.
  
  
• Buffett says derivatives are not "evil" and to be avoided at all costs, but they are "dangerous" and should be used very carefully. He still expects to make money on the long-term "put option" equity derivative contracts Berkshire has written.
• Housing market could work through, or "sop up," its excess supply in as little as three years if new construction is reduced to a level below natural population growth
• The U.S. economy was not a "house of cards" over the past ten years, but mistakes were made when it came to borrowing money.
• Mark-to-market accounting should be retained, but regulators shouldn't use it so much to require insitutions to increase their reserves.
• "Probably the uptick rule" is a good idea.
• Mistake to "demonize" corporate executives for using private jets. Having a jet has helped Berkshire make deals in the past.
• Praises Ben Bernanke's leadership as Federal Reserve Chairman

Current Berkshire stock prices:

Class A: [US;BRK.A 73195.0 --- UNCH (0) ]

Class B: [US;BRK.B 2310.05 -16.95 (-0.73%) ]

[Kevin]

Wow, I had no idea axp was down to 10 bucks a share.

I gotta go collect some cans so I can buy some of that chit!

[homedawg]

Wow, here's something I haven't seen in a looooonnnnngggg time:

Dow 30
March 10, 2009






It's all GREEN!

[homedawg]

Buffet, Gates, & Slim, lose $68 Billion in '08

TOP 10 RICHEST MEN IN THE WORLD
March 11, 2009

Here is Forbes magazine's Top 10 list of the world's richest men and their net values (this year compared to last year).

1. Bill Gates

2009 - $40 billion

2008 - $58 billion

2. Warren Buffet

2009 - $37 billion

2008 - $62 billion

3. Carlos Slim

2009 - $35 billion

2008 - $60 billion

4. Lawrence Ellison

2009 - $22.5

2008 - $25 billion

5. Ingvar Kamprad

2009 - $22 billion

2008 - $31 billion

6. Karl Albrecht

2009 - $21.5 billion

2008 - $$27 billion

7. Mukesh Ambani

2009 - $19.5 billion

2008 - $$43 billion

8. Lakshmi Mittal

2009 - $19.3 billion

2008 - $45 billion

9. Theo Albrecht

2009 - $18.8 billion

2008 - $23 billion

10. Amancio Ortega

2009 - $18.3 billion

2008 - $20.2 billion
_________________________________________________

BLOOMBERG IS THE RICHEST MAN IN NYC
MAYOR RAKING IT IN - BUT NOBODY ELSE IS

Looks like the rich aren't getting richer - unless you're Mayor Bloomberg.

As the recession continues to chew away at everyone's wallets,
the net worth of the world's billionaires has also taken a massive hit this year, according to Forbes magazine.

In its 2009 list of world billionaires, the total number dropped from 1,125 last year to just 793.

Even worse, the total net worth of everyone on the list is now a paltry $2 trillion - down from $2.4 trillion last year.

Although the city now only has 55 billionaires - compared to 71 just a year ago - Bloomberg's net worth skyrocketed.

The magazine claims Bloomberg is now the richest man in the city - and No. 17 on this year's list - with a net worth of $16 billion.

Last year, Forbes claimed Bloomberg was worth $11.5 billion.

Forbes claims Bloomberg's windfall is a result of buying back shares of his company from Merrill Lynch.

Leading the list of the world's richest is Microsoft founder Bill Gates, who is worth $40 billion, followed by financial guru Warren Buffet at $37 billion and Mexican tycoon Carlos Slim at $35 billion.