Citigroup and BAC jump on Friday afternoon; JPM and then the S&P 500 followed:
Stocks tanked on Friday with the ugly employment report. But stocks rebounded, led by a big rally in major banks stocks. Yesterday Goldie touted the big bank stocks. Did you get a Friday afternoon call?
The S&P 500 didn’t catch up to Citigroup and the big bank stocks until near the last hour of trading on
Monday, when informed buyers where probably unloading…Please notice that Citigroup traded flat
from 30 minutes after the NYSE open until the close. Even neophytes understand why.
So, if you’re gonna trade or play around, you better know the rules and the unofficial rules. And you
better realize that the sheriff is either to ignorant to see the obvious or doesn’t care.
Wasn’t it just a few weeks ago that the story about Goldman’s preferred customers appeared?
A few weeks ago, we again bemoaned the ‘there is so much cash on the sidelines’ canard. First, Street shills have brayed this seductive song since Peter Stuyvesant handed $24 to Indians. Secondly, cash holdings tell you NOTHING unless you know the other side of the balance sheet, namely debt.
During the prelude to the greatest crisis since The Great Depression, the usual suspects, including media cheerleaders, kept braying that stocks are cheap because corporations have so much cash on their balance sheets. We retorted that debt was growing much faster.
Now we are being pummeled with the ‘so much cash’ sophistry. But the usual suspects are mum on debt. The facts are that there has been no, or even negative job and real income growth for at least 10 years in the USA. Yet debt has mushroomed.
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.