This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Second Mini Flash Crash In Apple In Same Day

Tyler Durden's picture





 

The flash crashes will continue until market confidence returns (this is the second one in Apple today). Who is even trading this insanity anymore? This entire market is about to break hard: any piece of bad news can topple Apple like a house of cards, and that, as we noted earlier, will take the entire market with it. Oh yes, this is supposedly the second most liquid name in the market!

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:39 | Link to Comment Missing_Link
Missing_Link's picture

Do these really qualify as "mini flash crashes"?  They seem like fairly small downturns to me  ...  not really too unusual.  Certainly nowhere near the level of Accenture dropping from $44 to $0.01 on May 6.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:54 | Link to Comment B9K9
B9K9's picture

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=167728

Karl seems to think so - in fact, he's beginning to sound like a typical poster @ ZH. Too bad he ran off everyone about a year or so ago before finally figuring out the truth. Like EAP @ the Telegraph, bitter recriminations typically begin once deniers fully embrace reality. Essays from all sectors of the political spectrum calling out evil should only get better. Can Barry R be far behind?

Edit: Check out this brand new piece from Paul Farrell:

America on the brink of a Second Revolution

Admit it, something historic is brewing. And yes, it’s good for America, even the anarchy. Revolution is renewal.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/america-on-the-brink-of-a-second-revolu...

 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:44 | Link to Comment cbaba
cbaba's picture

You dont consider 2% percent drop in few second as a crash ?

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:54 | Link to Comment egdeh orez
egdeh orez's picture

2% drop in a few seconds honestly happens all the time.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:30 | Link to Comment deadparrot
deadparrot's picture

In micro-caps, yes. In Apple, no. How deep do you think the limit order book for Apple is? It should be extremely deep.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:54 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

Maybe back in the "good ole days" that was true, but hey, as posted on ZH yesterday, TPTB decided that 15% is a the definition of an actionable flash crash.

Today, 2% is merely noise.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:15 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Just to clear something up, I think you got the 15% thing wrong.

That is not the definition of a flash crash. They define a flash crash any way they like. Seriously.

That is the cut-off point within the crash below which trades are DKed. So if you got in on the crash above 15% of the total sell-off trough, you can keep your trade.

Isn't that special? You can create a crash, jump in early (of course) and keep your ill-gotten gains as realized profits. And since it's 15% of trough, you can set how far down the 15% level is by unbinding the bots at the point you want the crash to end.

It's a beautiful thing. Really.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:39 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Pure insanity and corruption are always beautiful to behold....assuming you're not on the wrong end of the maniac waving the butcher's knife or the HFT algos using their own version of the butcher's knife. Otherwise it's just plain bloody.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:07 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Now see what you've done.

That talk about knives and blood and maniacs and now I'm all thinking about lunch.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 16:49 | Link to Comment Cui Bono
Cui Bono's picture

Aaah, I probably get banned for life for this... But there is a way to keep you both happy......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9SDx4aaczg

Todt, CB

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:20 | Link to Comment ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

cbaba

If youre on any decent sized desk and you get told to dump, you fucking dump at any bids you can get. 

This is clearly just a large sell order coming in and clearing the bid-side of the book. Of course, as you mentioned Tyler, this should not happen so easily in such the '2nd most liquid name', however, the only time this stock prints 1MM+ on the 1min bars is either on open/close.

In this case i will argue it was someone dumping shares the 'ghetto' way, which doesn't involve your algo splitting the shares up in tiny blocks.

IMO, this is a poor example to have it called anything close to a flash crash.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 16:59 | Link to Comment Quinvarius
Quinvarius's picture

Clearly fat finger was working today.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 17:08 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

All the same, it scares the crap out of the "ordinary investor" who just pulls up his big-boy skivvies and gets out of the market... leading to more of this sort of thing on a larger and larger scale. 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 17:29 | Link to Comment ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

I would suggest to you the retail investor has other things to be worried about. This drop in price might have hurt for daytraders (so, non 'ordinary' investor) with tight stops, but the drop was bid back up in literally minutes.   

I agree with the general gist, RR, of how the constant flash crashes reported here are detrimental for the market, but lets call a spade a spade here and not misconstrue today's p/a in apple as something else.

Wed, 09/29/2010 - 00:39 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I'm an ordinary investor and I know several others as well.  We ain't playin'!

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 17:15 | Link to Comment overbet
overbet's picture
another bail out for the hft....no risk to front run you and spray orders NYSE Trader Update Notify

 to me show details 1:32 PM (41 minutes ago) 04:27pm 28/09/2010 Market Operations Update CEE Review Determination for RFI

The NYSE has determined to cancel all trades in COHEN & STEERS TTL RTN RLTY FD (NYSE: RFI), executed at or above $12.95 between 15:18 and 15:20 ET today.

 

This decision is not subject to appeal.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 17:18 | Link to Comment overbet
overbet's picture
AND ANOTHER ONE 04:27pm 28/09/2010 Market Operations Update CEE Review Determination for RFI

The NYSE has determined to cancel all trades in COHEN & STEERS TTL RTN RLTY FD (NYSE: RFI), executed at or above $12.95 between 15:18 and 15:20 ET today.

 

This decision is not subject to appeal.

 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:41 | Link to Comment rapacious rachel wants to know (not verified)
Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:46 | Link to Comment Arthor Bearing
Arthor Bearing's picture

If there's even a functioning economy for the present and coming generations, there will still be equities but they won't be "traded" like baseball cards. There will be people doing a weird thing called "investing," in which people familiar with an enterprise buy a significant stake in it because they are "actually knowledgeable about it" (which is different from reading fraud-laden paper disclosures). This will mostly not happen on exchanges but rather between private individuals.

I like this blog but I don't think trading stocks is a particularly meaningful thing to spend your time doing.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:48 | Link to Comment rapacious rachel wants to know (not verified)
Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:38 | Link to Comment Arthor Bearing
Arthor Bearing's picture

Junking coward

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:42 | Link to Comment Joeman34
Joeman34's picture

I got your back, man

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:44 | Link to Comment hbjork1
hbjork1's picture

Junking, for some threads at least, has gotten "out of hand".  That translates as irresponsible.  I guess it is fun for some people.

 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:17 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

JUNK BAIT! Everyone pile on. Last one to junk is an old lady.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:40 | Link to Comment patience...
patience...'s picture

Said the Cougar...

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:11 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

I'm generally useful as things go, and then suddenly I'm all about the mayhem and casual destruction. Hang in there. It gets better.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:26 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

i'll add my 2¢

it does get better if you mostly laugh at yourself. a lot better.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:27 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

I regret that I have but one junk to give for my culture.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:46 | Link to Comment Joeman34
Joeman34's picture

It's contagious, BITCHEZ!

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 17:10 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Junking coward

The joint is crawling with 'em.  We need to root 'em out and string 'em up.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:12 | Link to Comment VWbug
VWbug's picture

and i don't think playing video games or watching stupid sitcoms is a particularly meaningful way to spend time either, but i don't go around preaching to others about it

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:16 | Link to Comment barkingbill
barkingbill's picture

video games are much better then sitcoms however. 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:24 | Link to Comment VWbug
VWbug's picture

i dunno, i haven't played one since i was about 16.

there's a couple of good shows on tv...flight of the concordes, eastbound and down...that's all i can think of right now

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:28 | Link to Comment Joeman34
Joeman34's picture

Wrong, in case you're not aware, we have been in a 30-year secular bull-market for bonds.  Hence the current historically low interest rate environment.  Equities have underperformed fixed income on an annualized basis over the last 20-years.  Despite the current factors that are negatively impacting the equity markets currently [read:  declining GDP, manipulation, false accounting], there is a higher probability equities will outperform fixed income going forward - based on historical data.

My thought is that sovereign default will be the pin that bursts the bond bubble.  There will also be pain in the equity markets, but I think they will recover faster than the fixed income markets.  Just MHO... 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:22 | Link to Comment Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

Why would a bond bubble pop be positive for stocks?  What do you think is propping the zombies?

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:45 | Link to Comment Joeman34
Joeman34's picture

I never said the bond bubble popping would be directly positive for stocks.  Both states can exist independently of one another.  Again, my point was simply that bonds have beaten equities for over two decades so history suggests the odds favor equities going forward.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:42 | Link to Comment Divided States ...
Divided States of America's picture

Percentage wise its small for Apple but still, if there was so much liquidity, it should not have tanked 4 bucks in a second when the spread increments are in pennies.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:10 | Link to Comment Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance's picture

Cockroach # 1: "What was that?"

Cockroach # 2: "Some damn fool keeps opening the refrigerator door."

He turns to the other cockroaches. "Guys, it's only a little light. Stop it already."

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:33 | Link to Comment Cheater5
Cheater5's picture

Haha.  Are you being sarcastic????  The B/A spreads were no where near pennies when apple was selling off.  HFTs are walking away from the market and then the stops get hit as soon as someone hits the bid and then more HFTs walk away.   I'm no great admirer of AAPL (frankly I think its market cap is plain old stupid) and was looking for a short this AM, but my system wont allow me to trade when the B/A spread blows out like they did as the risks to the downside are too high if you get a quick reversal.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:28 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

what's a spread?

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:34 | Link to Comment trav7777
trav7777's picture

oh, I think you know a little somethin about that...

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 20:00 | Link to Comment Rick64
Rick64's picture

LOL too funny.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:35 | Link to Comment Joeman34
Joeman34's picture

Generally soft, sometimes creamy, goes well with toast or any number of vegetables.  Can also be a vast assortment of food, i.e. Thanksgiving.

 

Enjoy!

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 16:13 | Link to Comment Cheater5
Cheater5's picture

Be nice people... 

A spread is the difference between two numbers.  For instance I reference the "B/A spread" which is shorthand for the difference between the bid price and the ask price for a security.  There are other spreads as well in finance.  For instance a "credit spread" is the difference between the implied rate paid on a non-government bond and the implied rate paid on a government bond of equal duration ("duration" is sort of like maturity but a bit more complicated).  I would very respectfully suggest that you go to wiki finance, investopia or whatever before asking a question like this to avoid the type of replies that you received.  I don't know what your experience level is but many (certainly not all) people who read ZH have been in the business for decades and most are less tolerant than I am (then again my tolerance level may be highly correlated to your avatar picture...).  Cheers.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 16:29 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

no, i only did limit orders. i think i learned that from jim cum...her. so i use to see the "B/A" but didn't know that was called a spread. hey, just to let you know i get to do whatever and ask whatever questions i want to here, and anywhere else i want to. i am still a free person. so don't tell me what to do.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 17:14 | Link to Comment Cheater5
Cheater5's picture

Wow!!, that was not the response I expected to receive for the 3ish mins I put in to write my last post.  I guess the "very respectfully" was lost on you.   That is unless you were joking.

By the way you are absolutely right that you have the right to ask any question you want here.   Those of us here who actually understand what we are doing also have the right to ignore your questions or, if we are really bored, treat them with derision.   From your writing style you appear to be either very young or a non-native English speaker.  Since I doubt the later given your screen name, I would very humbly suggest you spend some time listening and being somewhat respectful rather spouting off (a little diligence with respect to your writing style couldn't hurt either).   I would also suggest that only using limit orders is not particularly bright no matter what Jim Cramer says (I am assuming that is who "Jim cum...her" is - NICE TYPO!!!!!).

 

If of course this is all a joke on your part,  then I would suggest that you should not quit your day job any time soon.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 19:09 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

You're going to need deep understanding of psychology and parapsychology to handle her which is why she hates cognitive dissonance. ;)

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 22:05 | Link to Comment Cheater5
Cheater5's picture

I'm speechless....  The funny thing is that I actually was trying to be helpful with my first reply to her.   Won't make that mistake again.  After her last reply I actually looked up her postings.  She seems to post constantly.  All useless stuff, but a constant stream.  Oh well I guess she is "important" so I suppose I will stay out of her way in the future.... 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 19:43 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

listen up ass wipe. i am very important around here. plus, my delete key doesn't function. you try life without a delete key. i can write with any style i want, fucko. look who is using her real name and real picture of herself. i want a bag over my ugly face any way. i might even put a hot iron to my face like an elder japanese woman did many hundreds of years ago. reason, so she could be taken seriously as a defect. go fuck your wife and leave me alone.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 21:04 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Just keep slapping those hoes. They'll get in line eventually.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaGvfuJgZi0

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 17:17 | Link to Comment Joeman34
Joeman34's picture

Can I trade with you?  Please!!!

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:23 | Link to Comment ZeroPower
ZeroPower's picture

Except thats the issue - there wasn't any liquidity when the block order took out all the bids. Spread might be fine now, but as poster above said, if you were trying to get long on the downturn youd be offering up probably $0.15 or more than the bid - whereas usually it is a penny or 2

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:42 | Link to Comment Bearster
Bearster's picture

To anyone who believes that more regulation (i.e. coercion) can fix this, just look at how well regulation has fixed all of the previous problems in the stock markets over the past 80 years or so.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:45 | Link to Comment chrisd
chrisd's picture

Let anarchy markets reign! Deregulation worked so well for the asbestos, tobacco, S&L, and housing industries!

 

Perhaps we should fine the right balance between over-regulation and no regulation before saying regulation is not the answer

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:59 | Link to Comment infotechsailor
infotechsailor's picture

fannie, freddie, FHA, TARP, artificially low interest rates with which to borrow and speculate...

regulate the regulators.

get rid of the feds intervention and we wouldn't have had a problem in the first place.

me thinks you need a little more austrian education.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:42 | Link to Comment The Credible Hulk
The Credible Hulk's picture

Let's do away with food safety regulation. The market will weed out unsafe products, because people won't buy stuff once it has killed enough people.

I suppose it would work, and I am quite convinced that the market is more efficient the less regulated it is. However, where, as in the case of food safety, regulation is required the argument is generally that ethics take precedence over efficiency. (Or it should be; unfortunately, the left often tries to argue otherwise).

Not saying the austrian hardliners here want to install heroine dispensers in schools and let the market sort it out, the two prior post probably simply talked about different things; my point is that it is imporant to keep that distinction in mind and that it is entirely reasonable to be in favour of "regulation" as in prevention of criminal and harmful activity. The west is being crushed under pointless regulation as in "thousands of papers that somehow syphon off money to support the bureaucratic squid of the respective nation" while at the same time activities run rampant that appear to me (admittedly an economic layman) as fraud, such as HFT.

If and when the Keynesian era comes to an end, the main task of its successor may be to re-define what excatly constitutes fraud in this day and age.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:59 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

God forbid that people should take the initiative to understand where their food comes from and what they are putting in their mouths...

Nah, I'd jsut let da gubmint der it fer me.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:10 | Link to Comment The Credible Hulk
The Credible Hulk's picture

They can only do that if producers are bound to announce what's in there.

I also find it difficult to make double-blind studies on new additives myself so my emancipated hyperborean self can be sure I'm not eating something that gives me cancer.

I will stick to my belief that poisoning people should be illegal, thank you very much.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 18:42 | Link to Comment dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Do you honestly believe that health inspectors aren't paid off by the big food processors?  Give me a break.  Keep living in your delusional rubber stamped world.

Wed, 09/29/2010 - 04:23 | Link to Comment The Credible Hulk
The Credible Hulk's picture

And another ad hominem. I'll indulge you anyway.

Of course, food inspectors are corrupt. So are cops, but I am still in favour for the rule of law and murder being illegal instead of having the market sort it out, paying for rule of law in corpses. This is not a question of the system, it is one of the modicum of honesty without which a society cannot function at all as well as checks and balances.

Where I live (not the US), health inspectors post negative results of restaurants online. I inform myself and avoid the respective places. Do I think they gently omit some who give them a shiny present? Sure. Am I still thankful they have a look at all those kitchens for which I would have neither the time nor the authority (which I also should not have).

I'm quite sympathetic towards Libertarianisms, but there are things that are too costly to leave to the market.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:32 | Link to Comment Panafrican Funk...
Panafrican Funktron Robot's picture

It's very inefficient to have to do everything yourself.  Specialization increases efficiency.  The labor markets have already decided this.

Regulations increase efficiency when they are designed to do so.  If you bring yourself out a bit and look at your life as a game, people tend to hate games that either don't have any rules at all (ie., what's the point and what are the parameters) or have rules that are rigged to favor certain players. 

I'd also just suggest researching "negative externalities" so that you have some context for why regulations are necessary and good.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:15 | Link to Comment Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

When are regulations  ever designed for efficiency? In a monopoly adjudication/legislative system you can count on those with the most political pull fashioning wording to benefit their interests. Monopoly power in regulation is usually used as a facade to hide special interest behind a veneer of some kind of decent sounding rhetoric and apparently useful regulations. The result is barriers to entry for the new firms that tend to be smaller, better at utilizing newer technology (which is often better for the environment too) and better at reading the dynamics of local market conditions in particular locations. In other words, the big guy with older capital/technology, and bureaucratic inefficiency usually can't  compete as well so they use political muscle to cheat to their advantage. In a true free market there is no "limit" to liability for the damage one may cause. In a free market adjudication system non-control of an adjudication system means a higher likelihood of paying restitution for damages and an entity tends to be much more concerned about damaging or trespassing on other parties.  Study what happened in America when the railroads  used government pull to evade  restitution and paying damages. Just one of a long list of examples of monopoly government thwarting private property rights and minimising the risks to entities with political pull. For more on a free market justice system study Irish law prior to British conquest as one example. That system worked well for more than a thousand years.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 17:17 | Link to Comment RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

Let's do away with food safety regulation.

Or, do it the way the Chinese do:  You kill some people, you get executed.

How come it's the FDA's fault when imported food makes some people sick?  It's NOT.

There is a company behind every product -- make them responsible -- not the government! 

I'm with ya on your premise, but we need the laws to check out the vittles and then drop the hammer on the creeps who sold it.  A BIG hammer.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 16:30 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

repeat after me........ fannie, freddie and FEDdie. get it, feddie.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:02 | Link to Comment Apocalicious
Apocalicious's picture

Yes, because writing words down on paper influences behavior so well! Like how outlawing drugs, prostitution and murder have gotten rid of those undesired behaviors, right, chrisd?

The failure of "deregulation" in the examples you point out is not that of deregulation at all. It is failure of government to understand it's role in markets - that of referee, not participant. This requires a level of humility, and an implicit acknowledgement of ignorance, which our government in its present form is entirely incapable of. Hence, the less is more / first do no harm mantra of most of the participants on this blog.

Singapore is much more economically efficient and free than we are because they have a simple regulatory regime, focused on predictable and stable ownership rights, ease of entry and lots of competition, and strong/quick enforcement.

Writing down a tangled mess of crap millions of words and tens of thousands of pages long, with zero potential enforcement, isn't effective. It's fiddling while Rome burns. Constantly reacting to the last disaster with more layers of complex legalese CREATES the conflicts of interest/regulatory arbitrage which are then pursued vigorously by an advantaged group of market participants leading to the next bubble/disaster.

BREAK THE CYCLE.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:18 | Link to Comment Catullus
Catullus's picture

+1.

Thanks dispelling the deregulation myth. This and the incompentent governing myth need to die. They both play into the reactionary entrenched power structure.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:35 | Link to Comment chrisd
chrisd's picture

Didn't you make my point by saying that the role of government is referee, not participant? My point was finding the balance between regulation and no regulation, which would coincide with what you said about drugs, prostitution and murder, i.e. finding the right balance, not over-regulation.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:45 | Link to Comment Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

Finding the best "regulatory" equilibrium in a complex system is a matter of incorporating the most useful information, the fastest and most efficient way. You will find that a free market adjudication/arbitration system that serves diverse parties in a free market where property rights are strictly defined is the most efficient way of minimising loss and conveying  the necessary local dynamic information in the most efficient and quickest manner. It is the system least subject to predatory interests.

 

A  more monarchical system, such as Singapore, tends to incorporate the views and interests of long term property holders who have long-term entrenched political power  It is more efficient than a winner take all political system that tends towards complexity and transitory advantages. This results in better more rational and stable long term service for the population in general compared to purely democratic systems but it is still sub-optimal to the true free-market solution. For a more complete development of this theme please refer to Hans Hermann-Hoppe and Murry Rothbard on this subject.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 16:53 | Link to Comment Apocalicious
Apocalicious's picture

Absolutely correct. A large part of our problem is the continual erosion of property rights, definition of ownership, etc. When the government can strip bondholders of their rights and hand their assets to a favored political group (willfully re-writing ownership laws and precedents), or where the government continually provides socialized risk to advantaged market participants, you have massive inefficiencies at work. Regardless of the government structure, market dynamics that focus on increased competition, stable & clearly defined property rights result in more efficient allocation of capital and creation of wealth.

If you've worked at all in distressed or restructurings you know how complicated (not simple) the process is domestically. Keeps a lot of lawyers and vulture investors in very large houses, but hardly an ideal format to resolve market disagreements. Especially when the government just starts taking companies over.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:41 | Link to Comment Gordon Freeman
Gordon Freeman's picture

Apocalicious: Very well put.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:21 | Link to Comment Commander Cody
Commander Cody's picture

But it keeps many lawyers gainfully employed.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:48 | Link to Comment nobita
nobita's picture

+1 nice post man

 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:16 | Link to Comment CulturalEngineer
CulturalEngineer's picture

Here's a suggestion: 

Transparency and what author David Brin calls :

"sousveillance" or "viewing from below," enabling the public to watch the watchers. 

Essentially a form of creating a sort of market (or sport) out of rooting out the crap...

It involves not only bounties for finding specific corruption but includes publicly available tools for finding it.

Of course, you still have to make things like HFT illegal or its all for naught... but I'm convinced you could reduce enforcement costs and increase effectiveness... and then the 'citizen' regulators could watch all the porn they want and nobody'd care... cause we're talking 'pay for performance' for this sort of regulator.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:42 | Link to Comment Joeman34
Joeman34's picture

Love it!  It's all about incentives.  If people were incentivized to spot/report corruption, that's what you would get...

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:13 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Sorry, what asbestos and tobacco deregulation are you referring to?  There has been nothing but ever increasing regulation on either of those things.

Moron.  You like regulation so much?  Move to North Korea and leave us be.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:42 | Link to Comment firstdivision
firstdivision's picture

Yes, down with the FDA.  I do not want some entity to tell me if a perscription drug is safe or not.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:28 | Link to Comment Ludwig Von Miso Soup
Ludwig Von Miso Soup's picture

The FDA doesn't prevent dangerous drugs from entering the market (Fen-phen, Accutane, et. al). What it does do, however, is prevent potentially effective drugs from entering the market which may help those suffering from potentially terminal illness because they haven't passed through all the stages of testing. Since these stages cost billions of dollars, some manufacturers decide not to proceed since it will not be cost-effective to do so. If someone is on their deathbed, it is their right to put into their body what they believe might save their life.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:33 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
Tue, 09/28/2010 - 16:19 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

"The FDA doesn't prevent dangerous drugs from entering the market.."

Ok sure, a bunch slipped by after the right authority got slipped a few coppers, but if you are trying to tell me those drugs would have been stopped with absolutely no independent oversight at all, you are surely a very large fool. Or you simply missed the point. For the sake of courtesy I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that one.

Regards

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 16:45 | Link to Comment Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

You are underestimating the power of free market adjudication to strongly motivate a more efficient choice by a service/goods provider to minimise their potentially unlimited tort pay-outs by more consciences and socially accommodating behavior. What you want is maximum independent oversight and that is what you get with free-market adjudication where all parties having free access to efficient non-monopoly adjudication services for resolution and arbitration.  

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 16:28 | Link to Comment Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

FDA also facilitates politically connected entities from suffering damage claims from injured parties when the agency regulates away liability conditions through special interest focused rulings and fraudulently contrived and cherry picked test results: example aspartame poisoning and FDA mission failure when Rumsfeld was able to use his power for predatory purposes.

(see one of many write up here: http://www.newswithviews.com/NWVexclusive/exclusive15.htm)

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:06 | Link to Comment Not Anyone You Know
Not Anyone You Know's picture

It worked just fine.  Glass Steagall kept things 'uninteresting' for ~50 or those 80years..

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:15 | Link to Comment Apocalicious
Apocalicious's picture

Funny...this meltdown would have happened with or without Glass Steagall. Correct me if I'm wrong, but were Goldman, AIG, UBS, Credit Suisse, Merrill Lynch, Country Wide, Thornburg Mortgage, Morgan Stanley, New Century Financial, Bear Stearns, or Lehman bank holding companies or in any way, shape or form subject to Glass Steagall had it still been in effect? Are you saying the problems were localized solely in BAC, C and WaMu which actually had bank charters? Glass Steagall was repealed because it was largely irrelevant.

Try again...

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:00 | Link to Comment firstdivision
firstdivision's picture

No, but it would have prevented BoA, Citi, JPM, National City, and the hundreds of bank holding companies that went under or required bailouts.  Now for the clossial failures you are refering to occured thanks to the deregulation by passing the Over-the-Counter Derivatives Markets and the Commodity Exchange Act.  Also deregulation worked out well for California residents and investors in Enron.  How about you try again.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:55 | Link to Comment Apocalicious
Apocalicious's picture

Incorrect. The FDIC, which was CREATED by the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 laid the groundwork for federal bailout of depository institutions, which created the moral hazard of socializing risk/privatizing reward that lead to the leverage in the companies you referenced. REGULATION created the monster, not-deregulation.

The OTC Act you are referring to lead to a massive housing bubble, the extension of cheap credit to poor credit risks, and over-extended (in every sense of the word) consumer? Expound on this, as I thought Fannie, Freddie, the advent of ARMs, IO balloon payment loans, etc. CMOS and structured products had more to do with this. Of course, these did in turn lead to a confused and opaque web of risk from CDS, rather than an orderly repricing as Easy Al foolishly believed. 

Plus, I thought OTC options existed since the 70s (or maybe, that was before you were around). In fact, if you READ the act, it states that OTC derivatives notional stood at around $80 trillion at the end of 1998, one-year BEFORE the act was passed. Interesting how you assert this Act created a monster that ALREADY EXISTED.

Now, if you had somewhat intelligently referenced the Depository Institutions Deregulation And Monetary Control Act of 1980, you would have at least shown a better grasp of history, but still been clearly confused as to the difference between intent and outcome. (This DEREGULATION did a lot of REGULATION that people do not fully appreciate, such as raising the FDIC gaurantee from $40k to $100k - that is, this Act INCREASED moral hazard. But never mind the man behind the curtain.) 

How about YOU try again, fucking peion...

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 17:52 | Link to Comment Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

Yes, I agree with your point here Apocalicious. Something else to consider, much of the hanky-panky of corporate history has been aided and abetted by Monopoly government that had no authority to subvert fundamental property rights of restitution by granting limited liability through government bestowed corporate franchise. Consequently the cutout bag-holder entity has been a reoccurring ruse for deception by predatory powers who became expert at stock and speculation manipulations and veiled self-dealing, AIG/Goldman being a recent obscene criminal example.

I somewhat doubt if your words will convey much educational value to the previous poster if you choose to refer to your brother as a "fxxking peon".

Wed, 09/29/2010 - 10:23 | Link to Comment Apocalicious
Apocalicious's picture

Fair enough re: the vulgarity, VolEx. Understanding the impact of one's emotions is an important part of dispassionately analyzing anything. However, understanding and controlling for/counteracting are two different things, and part of a continual, iterative process which after many decades I have still yet to master, to my regret.

To your other point, the long and short of it is very simple, no: a problem of agency. Who is the master/boss and who is the servant/hired help, in both the public and private sector. Greed is neither good nor bad, IT MERELY IS. Like hunger, it is a predictable and knowable motivator which can create great excesses when there exists a misalignment of incentives or a severing of risk-reward.

 

Wed, 09/29/2010 - 12:31 | Link to Comment firstdivision
firstdivision's picture

Wow, you sure are a piece of shit that I am glad (from the sounds of it you are old, so I hope you choke and die on your viagra) will die soon.  First and foremost, your point was that Glass-Steagle would have done nothing to Bear, et. al.  So I pointed out no, but it would have prevented Citi, BoA, JPM, WaMu's, etc, etc.  If you know your Glass-Steagle then you know that it forbade a holding institution from also being an IB.  So it would have mitigated the risk on the balance sheets, and it did prevent TBTF.  Pre-1998, Citi was a smaller than many "small" banks of today (like 5/3rd, PNC), then after the repeal they went on a buying spree to become TBTF. 

Yes the act I am referring to is what caused the IB's that you brought up not under Glass-Steagle, to become over leveraged and fail on a systemic basis.  So you basically have proven me correct on my own point, yet try to tell me I'm a fucking peon.  You sir need to find a way to pull your head out of your ass.  You truely have shown that you are an imbecile in that you clearly pointed out that OTC derivatives were $80 trillion, now it is $600 trillion.  Yeah so by allowing rampant speculation, to continue unabated, look what we have ourselves.  As you should be able to recall, that in 1998 because of the size of OTC, the SEC wanted oversight on OTC to prevent systemic risks, but that was adamantly opposed by those that say now it was a mistake to not regulate OTC derivatives.   

Now the Depository Institutions Deregulation And Monetary Control Act of 1980 and the Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982, is what started us on the path that we are at today.  It eroded at the powers of the Glass-Steagle, through deregulation, and  facilitated the S&L crisis.  Your point that the FDIC facilitates moral hazard has no standing.  There has not been a link shown that by insuring the publics deposit in an institution, allows the bank to speculate with the funds.  So again, there have been more points showing deregulation has lead to more problems than they have solved. 

And to your one statement, no I was not around in the 70's.  I was busy itching in my dads pants.

So how about you try again you fucking piece of shit peon. 

Wed, 09/29/2010 - 14:10 | Link to Comment Apocalicious
Apocalicious's picture

"If you know your Glass-Steagle then you know that it forbade a holding institution from also being an IB."

First of all, right off the bat, thanks for the brilliant insight. Second, Glass-Steagle? No, Glass-Steagall. You've outdone yourself by clearly demonstrating an insightful grasp of the technical details of a piece of legislation which you are unable to even spell correctly. Are you a Congress-person?

I close happily content in the utter and complete irrelevance to the economy and capital markets of someone so clearly lacking in knowledge, perspective, and experience. This however is by turns also unfortunate, as I would like to compete with you in a free market environment.

Given the superior levels of both fluid and crystallized intelligence present in most ZHers, I need to respond to you no further. And so in closing, I'll let you get back to your 14 other blogs and putting the finishing touches on your ode à l'amour à Henri de Saint-Simon, while I will go back to work in real finance, preserving my clients' capital against systemic and ever-increasing political risk.

Good day.

 

Wed, 09/29/2010 - 14:30 | Link to Comment firstdivision
firstdivision's picture

Oh nosers, I misspelled it.  By gosh that means that the point is invalid. 

You scoff at the point I made about the Glass-Steagall, but you yet again show your own ignorance. 

The repeal of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between Wall Street investment banks and depository banks

So now you show you have no understanding, or knowledge of what it is you spout on about.  It is laughable that you have no retort to the points, but only try to make yourself feel superior by nit picking at spelling.  By this, I know that you cannot manage your own money, let alone anyone else let you manage theirs. 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:21 | Link to Comment Vampyroteuthis ...
Vampyroteuthis infernalis's picture

Turn off the computers. That is the simple solution. Let real traders in the pits move stock. It would stop this insanity!

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:27 | Link to Comment firstdivision
firstdivision's picture

You really have no idea about what you spout on about do you?  Glass-Steagle worked for plenty of decades and once that got repealed look what happened.  Additionally deregulation of the exchanges has lead to these pop ups that now make pricing a security impossible and causes lags across boards.  You need to read history, or do you still believe we should have lead in paint, asbestos filled houses, and spray all the children with DDT every morning.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:39 | Link to Comment Joeman34
Joeman34's picture

Regulation is the problem, not the solution.  If politicians hadn't legislated the loosening of lending requirements over the last +20 years, we would not be in the situation in which we find ourselves currently.  Couple declining lending standards with Fed intervention in the interest rate markets [read:  keeping interest rates too low for too long] and you have the seeds that sowed our current malcontent. 

 

If our markets were truly free, we would've avoided the chaos that has been the last 2.5 years.  Unfortunately, our markets are not free and the invisible hand has been usurped by the iron fist of ill-conceived regulation.  The real conundrum is, regulation very rarely works, but truly free markets are a merely theoretical construct of the human condition.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:05 | Link to Comment ZakuKommander
ZakuKommander's picture

When were the markets truly free?  Since you admit they're theoretical, their supposed benefits are also theoretical. 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:11 | Link to Comment Joeman34
Joeman34's picture

They never have been...  That's my point.  Markets can never be truly free becuase they're created by humans motivated by self-interest. 

 

Regulation generally doesn't work and more regulation generally works even less.  When you artificially remove adverse selection - which is essentialy what regulation does - it necessarily impairs the market's ability to police itself. 

 

 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:26 | Link to Comment ZakuKommander
ZakuKommander's picture

Speaking theoretically, about something that will never occur, of course.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 18:21 | Link to Comment Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

You could at least study historical examples of free markets in adjudication and security in Pre-subjugated Ireland. The most important ingredient to having freedom in markets is maintaining market freedom (non-monopoly service provision through voluntary exchange) of the two key services of security and dispute adjudication/arbitration. This means never relinquishing your "power of the purse" by granting any entity the power to impose and enforce a "tax" - or any initiation of force or fraud against the just owner of property. Also fundamental to maintaining the "power of the purse" is never allowing any party or judiciary/legislative power to  impose a non-voluntary system of money (fiat/counterfeit currency). Finally for stability these basic understandings must be culturally preserved by parents educating their dependants to maintain  and propogate these basic truths to future generations.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:42 | Link to Comment Marla And Me
Marla And Me's picture

Speaking of tinfoil, where has ZH's search function gone?  It's not anywhere on the main page...

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:15 | Link to Comment Marla And Me
Marla And Me's picture

I suppose, but I like to use the user search function to track the comments of certain commenters (whoa, sorry for the redundancy...).  I can do it the way you listed, but then I just give Google more information about what I'm interested in.  Just wondering why the change?

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:17 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

hear hear.

Me too, and for the same reasons.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:52 | Link to Comment Marla And Me
Marla And Me's picture

And just like that it's back.  Probably site maintenance of some sort...

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:43 | Link to Comment DavidC
DavidC's picture

Tyler,
Let's hope so, not because I have any desire to see the market fall, but so that we can get back to a market that bears some semblance of realism.

A 120 odd point turnaround following the figures today, which were ATROCIOUS, even with POMO (which, after all, was 'only' $550 million today)? Yeah, right...

Let's see what happens on Friday and next week, after this week's end of month/end of quarter's ramp to make the books look good.

DavidC

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:57 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

get back to a market that bears some semblance of realism.

Are you serious? You still think there is anything backing any of this? Without the machine ramps the dumpers come in and unload everything they have to the Fed and the PDs at rapidly dropping bids to 10 cents on the dollar, and those helpless drones buy like mad until they hold every stock in the market. Meaning there is no market anymore.

Unless you get in on the first 13 seconds of that crash, you get blown to rat shit. And there is no bounce from there.

That's your realism at work. If that's what you want then by God you will get it.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:44 | Link to Comment DavidC
DavidC's picture

cougar_w,
Obviously I wasn't as clear as I meant to be.

By realism I mean getting rid of all this crap that the Fed is perpetrating.

By realism I mean having a market that responds as it should do (UP over 100 points on the figures today - unbelievable).

By realism I mean a stock market that reflects the absolute and utter mess that the West (not just the USA) is in.

DavidC

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:50 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Oh. That kind of realism.

Then we're good.

 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:18 | Link to Comment DavidC
DavidC's picture

:-)

DavidC

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 18:41 | Link to Comment Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

It is impossible to maintain a free market in anything if you don't have a free market in money/adjudication/security. Monopoly money, especially teamed with monopoly government (monopoly adjudication and security providers) won't allow free markets or meaningful freedom  anywhere else for that matter. Those who can get away with counterfeiting have little problem controlling markets and governments and will also seek to control education, culture and communication.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:44 | Link to Comment hedgeless_horseman
hedgeless_horseman's picture

Oh yes, this is supposedly the second most liquid name in the market!

AIG is 1st?  FNM?  FMCC?

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:33 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Citi never sleeps.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:44 | Link to Comment rigorous
rigorous's picture

I lost 3.75% on the NDX.  I should have stayed in.  I guess the manipulators were simply trying to get a good price for a long play.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:45 | Link to Comment Precious
Precious's picture

How did the market absorb the bad news that Oracle is looking for a chip company?  A chip company.  Really?  They just bought a chip company.  Sun Microsystems makes chips aplenty.  And did you notice how Oracle stated the quarter?  Was that really a great quarter for Oracle, or a bad quarter considering it was the sum of Oracle and Sun.  My guess is that Sun had a terrible quarter and Oracle masked that by combining the numbers, naturally.

 

What will do damage to Apple?  Not today.  Not even soon.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:16 | Link to Comment nonclaim
nonclaim's picture

Sun designed them but production was outsourced which is a common arrangement in this area. If Oracle wants to produce it too e become a complete system company in full control of all critical parts good for them and, maybe, for their clients.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:19 | Link to Comment Precious
Precious's picture

Wow.  You superficially know the semiconductor business.  I'm impressed.  For instance, you knew that Sun outsourced product.  SWTF.  So does practically everyone else.  Are you insane?  Do you realize how integrated Apple products are?  They have no fabs, idiot stick.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:37 | Link to Comment nonclaim
nonclaim's picture

My Precious, you forgot to take your medicine today again. And your mood swings tell me you are specialist in pharmaceuticals.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:47 | Link to Comment Precious
Precious's picture

The next item on the Oracle acquisition agenda is to buy a bulldozer company so that Ellison can start mining silicon.

The fact is, Ellison doesn't know ditty about the chip business.  He might think he does, but he doesn't.  The last thing Oracle could manage is a fab company.  I give them less than a year to spin off or sell the hardware side of Sun.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:54 | Link to Comment Dr. No
Dr. No's picture

He can get Bulldozer and a chip companty in the same place: AMD

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:05 | Link to Comment NotApplicable
NotApplicable's picture

My guess is that Ellison is thinking of a future where there is significant value added in being able to control secure chip fabrication.

Thanks to Stuxnet, we are going to see a major push for hardened computing systems. Given that he has already volunteered to give fedgov a nationwide id database, he is obviously aiming for the top of the intelligence market.

 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:04 | Link to Comment firstdivision
firstdivision's picture

Sun doesn't own any Fabs (unlike AMD, Samsung, IBM, Intel, TSMC).  Fabs are really expensive to build and maintain.  Off the top of my head, I believe it costs on order of $4 billion to build a Fab, as their clean rooms are beyond that of even surgical rooms.  Fabs really are not worth it to build anymore when you can easily outsource it. 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:50 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

what happen to SUN? turn of the century they were the shit with JAVA. bill joy opened up a cool JAVA shop to explore and research for the internet application. i tried to get in on it, but wasn't cool enough. he outsourced a lot of people from kalifornication to come to aspen. damn i can't think of the name. but it was cutting edge. one of the guys covered the World Championship Mountain Bike race in Vail live over the internet , i only got 11th. then the next year he went over to germany for our World Championship Mountain Bike race, i got 10th. i met paul sherwen and phil liggett who were extremely interested in this new technology. them being the same commentators for the grand tours of cycling. they had just signed a contract with then Outdoor Life, bought by cumcast to become VS. worthless channel now. they just want to cum all over lance armstrong. oh i was going to tell you all something. when i bought my track bike from this young fellow who was graduating from CU with an accounting degree, his paper was on the similarities of drug use in the peloton to the banksters fraud. MAX KEISER on his report today had the same analogy with steroid use in sports.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:45 | Link to Comment pile of poop
pile of poop's picture

Where is the resident AAPL pumper? 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:14 | Link to Comment traderjoe
traderjoe's picture

He got stopped out on the long side. Nicely played the pump from $240 to $285 - and was quite honest in that he wasn't bullish, but simply playing the long-side. Well played it seems. And he also felt that if AAPL rolled over, the market would too. At least that's my understanding. It was a balanced commentary. Unlike Robo with his selective time frames and stock selection.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:51 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Heh. Just yesterday I was musing that probably these happen several times a day even on big names, but they get papered over by human minders.

There are no human minders now, is what this says.

Game over fuckers. Game over. It's all just machine noise and scatter until someone trips over the network cable and nukes the whole pathetic sham.

Then we'll get a chance to see what comes after. Don't get your hopes up. There's nothing left, is my sense. Someday soon some grandma with a retail account will have a few shares of AAPL to sell that she found in a cedar trunk, and there will be no buyers of any kind, and she'll get ten cents a share from a kid playing with his mom's account with $10 left on it from the last time she traded anything back in 1998.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:53 | Link to Comment mtomato2
mtomato2's picture

I honestly believe that "nothing left" beats "everything there IS is a lie."

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:58 | Link to Comment cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Agreed. Wasn't saying it was a bad thing, just saying it was baked into the cake.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:48 | Link to Comment The Axe
The Axe's picture

Its broken BAD>>>>>>

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:50 | Link to Comment cswjr
cswjr's picture

Not AAPL related, but we've got a nice quintuple-top (so far) in the RUT over the past week.  Looks like a circus tent top.  Stupid machines don't know they're supposed to stop after two attempts, three tops. 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:51 | Link to Comment ShankyS
ShankyS's picture

Did not see this on Ritholtz only something about secular bull markets and DOW 38k.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:12 | Link to Comment goldmiddelfinger
goldmiddelfinger's picture

Move begins in 2017. Mark your calander

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:52 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Poor sheep herders. Payday turns into mayday.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a3FpSfenEKo

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:25 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

You sir may be dead certain that from now on I shall think twice before clicking any link you present...

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:59 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

I'm on windows right now. Not able to check the link. Is it Dr. MacDoo's Mayday mayday song?

Links good. You're just pissed.

Wed, 09/29/2010 - 10:38 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Heh. No no, the link works fine. I just wish it had not.

 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:52 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

noting a pattern with you, and your youtube link selections.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 16:06 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

That they express what I'm trying to say at the moment? That's the only pattern there.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 16:33 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

your staunchly bizzaro.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 17:43 | Link to Comment Hephasteus
Hephasteus's picture

Weirder than kiwi's channeling latin razza music?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6tS6FsY4Ms&feature=related

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 19:50 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

S L I D E

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 19:53 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

S L I D E

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:53 | Link to Comment Riesgoso
Riesgoso's picture

I hope you are right Tyler...I'm short Apple at 291...Massively overbought any bad news can make it fall hard.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 12:58 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

The beatings will continue until morale improves. lol

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:01 | Link to Comment Caviar Emptor
Caviar Emptor's picture

Clearly taking bets off AAPL and adding to Gold here.

Many big players got out big at the top. That becomes very hard to reverse.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:00 | Link to Comment SheepDog-One
SheepDog-One's picture

I sense a Robotrader stock boner chart and pic of diseased ho to counter this news!

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:13 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

They are Chechnyan prostitutes and you will address them as such!

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:04 | Link to Comment covered
covered's picture

Am I the only one who thought that Dec gold was a little flash-crash-y with that tail to 1276.20 after Europe had been open about an hour last night?

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:36 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Apple is in a bubble; how will their sales come in the midst of depression?  A big break for sure TD, I have November 15th as the date, a day in which I think will shock the sytem into what will be the last throe for the Fed.  The doelarr to move to 73 on the DXY from now untill then, and on that date, November 15th, the doelarr will begin a move from 73 to 66.  It may only take several days, it will be a quick move.

How does a shelf life of 99 years sound?  Between November 15th, and December 21st, the Fed will go out of business.  No switch in politicos will change the fact that a segmented population lived beyond their means for the last 40 plus years.  2010 will usher in the Tungsten, err..."gold" backed era of "credi"bility.  It has already begun.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:10 | Link to Comment gumstick2003@ya...
gumstick2003@yahoo.com's picture

poor people can no longer afford ipods and iphones. reality is catching up to the american dream.  it will happen not because of any concerted effort by the power elite to turn the world into a feudal landscape, but because it's prophesy and they the prophet. just look behind the curtain.    

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 14:13 | Link to Comment Mr Lennon Hendrix
Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Squirrelly type dude with horn rimmed glasses talking into a mic suped up with a sub woofer, and it ain't Buddy Holly. 

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 15:54 | Link to Comment kathy.chamberli...
kathy.chamberlin@gmail.com's picture

i got my mr squirrelly. your funny.

Tue, 09/28/2010 - 13:11 | Link to Comment BGO
BGO's picture

Maybe this Fortune.com story will help AAPL's cause...

 

iPad owners: younger and more male. Kindle's: richer and better educated

 

September 28, 2010 8:36 AM

On Tuesday Advertising Week published the results of a Nielsen survey of 5,000 consumers who own a tablet computer, eReader, netbook, media player or smartphone – including 400 iPad owners. The survey found some curious demographic differences. Among them:

Apple (AAPL) iPad owners skew younger and male. 65% of them are male and 63% are under 35

Amazon (AMZN) Kindle owners tend to be wealthier. 44% of them make more than $80,000/year compared with 39% of iPad owners and 37% of iPhone owners. They also tend to have more education: 27% of Kindle owners have Master's degrees or PhDs.

 

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/09/28/ipad-owners-younger-and-more-male-kindles-richer-and-better-educated/

 


 


 

 

 

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!