NEW YORK -- On
television show on
Fox News Channel
this weekend -- you DID watch, didn't you? -- I made a "naked" prediction about a "scary" day coming by summer's end.
Unfortunately, the show ended before I had a chance to 'splain myself. Fortunately, this column provides me an opportunity to do just that.
The prediction was based on a belief investors have too quickly overcome the "fear" -- however much existed -- during the "correction" from the mid-July highs. Yes, I know there was mucho pain, especially among Internet investors, but the
was the only "major" average to suffer a true correction -- a more than 10% decline from its all-time high.
Meanwhile, if the dot-coms are as dead as
says, how is it
TheStreet.com Internet Sector
index is still up 37% year-to-date? Sure, the DOT is down considerably from its high (29%, to be exact) but if the Net "bubble" did burst, it did so in a forest and, whatta you know, nobody heard it.
Meanwhile, recent economic data has some market players talking unabashedly about how the
will not raise interest rates at its Aug. 24 meeting.
Donald Ratajczak of
Georgia State University
as much today, and both John Ryding of
and Frank La Salla of
said the same on Neil Cavuto's show on
this weekend. La Salla and Ryding reiterated those views today, as reported in the
Ryding noted both
San Francisco Fed
have talked about the "wiggles" in the second-quarter
report, the highest since 1991. "It's too soon to know if the labor cost data mark the beginning of a trend," Ryding said.
singled out labor costs as the greatest inflationary threat during his
testimony. That -- and the fact the fed funds futures market still says there's more than a 90% chance -- leads me to believe the Fed will hike next week, and those who say otherwise are leading investors down the primrose path. (I'm proud to report the
Invisible Mouth is on my side -- at least on this issue.)
Momentum is a terrible thing to waste, so there's no telling how much farther averages can travel. But at some point (soon), investors are going to have a moment of clarity and realize the recent advance hasn't been supported by volume or breadth, much less fundamentals. Couple that with an acknowledgment the Fed IS going to tighten next week, or maybe with the actual occurrence, and you have the makings of a juicy decline. (Add vodka or rum to suit your tastes.)
Then there's Cramer, who's an easy target not because he's on vacation, but because he's an open book. As such, he's often a good proxy of what the "pros" are thinking, right or wrong.
On the TV show, he was downright giddy about the market in general and
Intel has "the momentum," JJC said, and will carry the market forward on its back (which isn't easy unless you're a yogi master).
A quick look at the accompanying chart shows the time to get bullish on Intel was about three months ago.
A Good Late-May Buy
Back then, on
May 29 to be precise, Cramer made the following observation: "Until we discover new leadership, these two circus bug pretenders
, that is will continue to let us down. They just don't have the juice right now. And we are asking them to do too much for us."
July 14, Cramer was beginning to warm up to the chip giant. But as recently as
Aug. 11 he was lamenting, "I wish I owned more Intel."
So NOW he's agog about the chip colossus? Methinks his unabashed optimism now will prove as WRONG! as was his skepticism last spring. About both Intel and the bigger picture.
, who's been tearing it up of late on the online brokerage beat, gets the nod today for
E*Trade-Instinet Pact Opens After-Hours Club to the Little Guys.
Sincerest regrets to Steve Frank (and my loyal readers). Seems I was the victim of a ruse; those comments posted
Friday were NOT from the
reporter but from an imposter.
I wish to thank the ever-so-clever emailer for allowing me to learn a valuable lesson on this issue vs. on a more "hard news" story.
Which brings me to the point raised by several readers: Why do I bother?
My "interest" stems mainly from the fact
has become THE financial television news authority and it seems nobody else in the press (financial or otherwise) has the inclination or interest to hold it accountable.
is good, it's good, and you can't afford to miss out because it does move markets. The "problem" is
could/should be better and seems too often focused on fluff -- like the latest hoopla about "Business Center" airing from the
after hours. Maybe it's unfair to single out individuals -- some of whom I gather are unhappy in their current roles -- but the network's anchors have -- by fate or design -- become part of the market, rather than just observers of it.
That being the case, it behooves
readers to have
at its best, not simply plugging anchors into different time slots (or any slot, for that matter) just because they're good at reading a TelePrompTer. Believe it or not, helping YOU is the
for this column, although it's not always as obvious as "So-and-so says buy
Also, I'm trying to help us all lighten up. Nobody on Wall Street is searching for the cure for cancer, unless -- of course -- they think they can make a buck on it.
Say what you will about
competitors, they are but gnats on the fleas on the mole on the network's behind. With Lou Dobbs having taken the
exit and more recent news of Executive Vice President David Bohrman's firing, rumors are afoot
days as an ongoing concern are numbered. That
is airing more of
programming is only furthering the admittedly unsubstantiated scuttlebutt.
spokesperson was unavailable to comment, but
officials have repeatedly assured the
staff and the press at large that the parent network's commitment to the financial net is unwavering.