click for updated futures
8.27.13 futes


Futures are under pressure this morning as global markets fall 1-2%. EuoStoxx50 drops 1.6%, FTSE down 0.75%, CAC40 hit for 1.5%, Deutche Bourse off 1.6%. In Asia, stocks are mixed, with some marginal green on the screen.

The real pressure is in the Middle East, where Dubai is getting slammed and other bourse are down 2% plus.

The S&P 500 has just regained its 50 day moving average, and despite a slew of negative headlines, US markets have been surprisingly resilient.

Watch to see if we have some sort of intraday recovery, or if things accelerate to the downside from here.

Back later . . .


Click for huge graphic
Source: NYT

Category: Markets, War/Defense

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.

11 Responses to “Look Out Below, Syria Edition”

  1. VennData says:

    The GOP across the board sequestor stance is going to really engender support from our troops going into Syria.

    Stop paying those bills GOP. That’s what we want.

  2. mpappa says:

    Venndata, 16.7 trillion in debt isn’t enough for you? Bush was called a war criminal for going to IRAQ. Ya see, saddam used chemical weopons as well on the kurds. We don’t need another war. What wil a us attack make obama? A hero?

    • Bush was called a war criminal for invading a country on a false (and/or falsified) premise, resulting in 100k+ casualties.

      If you want to hold Saddam accountable for using chemical weapons, perhaps its best if you a) You don’t wait decades — from 1988 to 2003 — to respond to chemical weapon usage; also, b) its helpful if you dont arm or otherwise supply the person in question !

    • ilsm says:

      “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.” *

      Nuke ‘em all!

      * Slaughter them! For the Lord knows who are his

  3. [...] Barry Ritholtz, The Big Picture, Look Out Below, Syria Edition, here. [...]

  4. Chief Tomahawk says:

    Just out of curiosity, have any of these ‘U.N. Inspectors” ever written tell-all books? Or are they bound to silence while enduring all kinds of risk traveling to a situation rife with strife? I mean, even humanitarian aide workers are kidnapped, shot at, bombed, etc. Imagine the attempts to influence inspectors one way or the other by either side…

  5. RC says:

    Good move, Obama!!!
    Help the “rebels” win in Syria and then watch them slaughter the Christians, Alawites and other Shiia, Druze, and other minorities. Heck these “rebels” (a sick euphemism for Al Queda) wont even spare moderate Sunnis.
    The last time we had supported groups resembling the Syrian “rebels” it was in Afghanistan. It gave us 9/11. American people need to brace for another attack like 9/11 once we let Al Queda win.

    I am sick and tired of the Neo-Cons still calling shots in Washington. Sick and Disgusted. The Obama sticker from my car is getting out…

  6. Francisco Bandres de Abarca says:

    It would seem that any action will likely be limited to a brief bombing campaign–essentially a tactical gesture to demarcate moral boundaries. The Israeli population is rightly concerned about the Assad regime escalating, as the postal service is issuing gas masks at a good clip. Such an escalation seems unlikely, unless the regime is convinced an endgame scenario is imminent, in which case they would probably not hesitate supplying Hezbollah with such weapons. Otherwise, the Syrian regime will attempt to ride out a bombing campaign.

    The two big elephants in the room are: how does one bomb chemical weapons facilities while minimizing the risk of broad contamination, and how does one prevent combat-ready chemical weapons from falling into the wrong hands? The first elephant requires that you keep your troops at a safe distance, while the second elephant requires that your troops be immediately engaged. A rather tricky scene indeed.

    • beaufou says:

      It isn’t tricky, just a massive mess supported by the West who seem to have forgotten what planning or having a plan means. Many applaud the social media revolutions but those uprisings create power vacuums no Twitter-facebook-group can fill, religious zealots can because they have been organizing for years.
      The elephant in the room is what the hell are they going to do once Assad is gone?

      Many in politics will disagree but we tend to live with reality and the reality of the middle east is: put a dictator or colonize the joint.
      Sadly, the only leader in the World who seems to understand this is Putin, the rest are just confused or incompetent, Putin has the merit of being consistent while others are fighting Islamists in Mali, supporting them in Syria, not too sure about what to do in Egypt.

      Make a plan and stick to it, enough of this nonsense.

      • Francisco Bandres de Abarca says:

        Of course I was writing (metaphorically) in tactical terms, and you’re writing of strategic concerns. In fact, during the White House press briefing today, it was stated that regime change is not the goal–undoubtedly out of the same concern (‘who’s assumes control?’) you voice.

        Your observation that Mr. Putin acts in a consistent manner is due largely to the fact that the Russian strategy is to respond with nearly automatic gainsay to many of the U.S.A.’s foreign policy designs (read: positioning for arms sales, etc.).

        From the strategic viewpoint, you are quite correct–those elements in the MENA theater seeking to wrest control are in all probability the greater long-term threat to American security interests. In fact, they are very straight-forward about their philosophy of overthrow.

  7. Willy2 says:

    Sure. Syria is the ONLY reason the markets tanked, right ? The markets didn’t pay attention to that dismal Durable Goods report, right ?