Posts tagged corruption
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, and sometimes it rains.
Today had some planned and unplanned win: the planned win was multi-level.
First, the stellar success of a series of campaigns against the Tunisian government. They banned Wikileaks after a cable was released showing that the government was – shock, horror – corrupt to the core.
Well, Anonymous saw what Tunisia had done to its citizens, and Anonymous thought that it was not good.
So, waxing wonderly wroth, Anonymous mustered some forces (not many) and blew the Tunisian government out of cyberspace (but not before defacing the Tunisian PMs web-presence).
From there, Anonymous decided that th target should be Tunisian plutocracy more generally.
OK… pop quiz: in LDCs (Lesser Developed Countries) what do plutocats do, that ordinary people can't afford to?
Answer: they invest. In the stock market.
Within FIVE minutes of that suggestion, the Tunisian stock market website was no longer accessible. Lulz ensued and the Tunisian activists thought it was the best thing since sliced bread (not sure if they have that in Tunisia, but can't invent another aphorism in real time).
Second: More win was provided by the release of a cable showing that yes, indeed, US Embassy apparatchik April Glaspie did give Saddam the green light to invade Kuwait in 1990.
Your Beloved GT dared SBS News to cover the issue, but I BET they won't.
As one who has suffered – for almost 10 years – the label 'conspiracy nut' for clinging to the claim that Glaspie had done so, the release of this cable is a staggering vindication, and I feel pretty fucking good about it.
As for the 'unplanned win'?
Well, as youse all know, there is a piece of genius called a cron job – which usually prepares the OzRant's 'automagically generated' bits.
Today, that failed (probably because of a server reset at the host).
So why was it 'win'?
Today, the Oz market was closed.
Imagine if Islamic countries banned the crucifix based on the violence they suffered during the Crusades: in a very real sense that would be fairer than the treatment accorded the 7000 year old symbol of peace – because the Crusaders were explicitly furthering the cause of the people who adopted the crucifix-as-religious-symbol (yes yes, I know – the ankh is cruciform: don't try to out-symbolism-ise a freemason).
(Note – the image used as the thumbnail for this post is the division badge for the US Army's 45th Infantry Division – it is based on an American Indian symbol and has nothing to do wit hnasty old Adolf).
I don't give a shit whether this skinny woman was the subject of a 'warrant' – a warrant is nothing more than a document issued by a robed political apparatchik: every act I perpetrate is also covered by a warrant (I play dressup and issue them myself).
These doughnut-inhaling scumbags were acting like thugs, and I fully support any action to remedy the wrong they perpetrated.
History shows that once the political class over-reaches, their drone-thugs start to view themselves as above the 'law' (the collected opinion of the parasite class). Then, elements in the community start to take matters into their own hands.
If I were these two fat shitbags, I would start wearing Kevlar to bed: Youtube (and other repositories) is starting to develop real traction as a global mechanism for sousveillance… ask yourself how easy it would be to get these fat jerks' personal details – then ask yourself if you want to be in their shoes.
I have been banging on about the shocking performance of sell-side analysts since I was a grad student – I started doing so in late 1998, in fact… before blogs even existed. And (in the Australian context) folks might remember my InvestorWeb piece from 2001 (entitled "Parallel Lies") in which I showed that analyst estimates for News Corpse always had the same (upward) slope, despite NCP's earnings having been flat for ten years.
As for excoriating Abby Joseph Cohen, that is SOOOO 2003 for readers of my babbles.
In what will come as a surprise to precisely nobody, a new study by McKinsey has confirmed that sellside analysts were "typically overoptimistic, slow to revise their forecasts to reflect new economic conditions, and prone to making increasingly inaccurate forecasts when economic growth declined." In other words, as V.I. Ulyanov may wall have said, useless idiots, had he lived in a time when Tesla was being pitched to him at a N/M PE multiple. One only needs to recall AJ Cohen's bold (and slightly more than idiotic) 2007 prediction for an S&P at 1,675 (dot 11235813*) in 2008, when the market closed at least than half that number, to see just how utterly worthless these people and their garbage predictions truly are. Yet day after day they serve as content filler inbetween ads on CNBC, as they sucker whatever remaining viewers the propaganda organization has left into one failed investment idea after another.
Some naughty sod has gone a bit overboard in the "Comments" on the Independent site – thought I should reprise it here in case it got moderated out of existence…
Calling it 'Sarkoland' implies that the inhabitants don't view this irksome gauche little parvenu with utter contempt. He's an errand boy, and they view him as such.
Back in the olden days when I lived in Paris (first in the XVIeme – a deux pas du Bois du Boulogne, then in the VIIeme entre la Tour et Invalides), the writing was on the wall that this "nabot méchant, nez cochu" had his eyes on the Presidency.
We had hoped that the attempt to bayonet him (ClearStream) would stick and that the garish little wide-boy would slink back to trying to sponge off the organised criminals who helped finance his rise. Sadly his handlers saw it coming and he was able to try and blame de Villepin – thereby ending dV's presidential run. (dV is not massively popular with the Paris moneyed types either – thick lips betrays a hint of spear-chucker in the mix, and the particule is soi-disant).
It can only be hoped that l'Affaire Bettencourt plus dV's new right-splitting spoiler party, will do for this grotesque little goblin's hope for a second term. May he live the rest of his stunted life in ignominy, feeling his short-man's insecurity around him like a heavy cloak.
Oh – and watch Carla go the way of Cecilia… never take up with other men's hand-me-downs, because if they will be unfaithful WITH you, they will be unfaithful TO you..
Ah, quel bonheur… on peut regarder la chute de cette espèce de fils de pute en temps réel.
(Ugh – to many 'de' in that sentence… stupid language anyway: ce soir je fêterais la Bastille – encore un jour quand l'état français n'a pas pu se défendre).
As youse all know, I don't think of the 'big line' media as 'mainstream' – hence I prefer to use the term 'mainswamp', because it's far more swamp than stream.
The entire media circus is infested with self-promoting parasites (like Tom 'Suck on this' Friedman, William 'Just So Fucking Wrong' Kristol, and Judith 'Pay Me and I Will Write Anything' Miller).
Anyway… one of our MarketMentat axioms is that eventually the mainswamp will catch up with whatever your Beloved GT was writing about five years ago. (In fact, in the case of the CES Birth-Death mode, the first time I mentioned on this blog was in 2004, but I wrote at length about it during the old investorweb days – in 2001).
Mike Shedlock (Mish) and Karl Denninger (TickerGuy) and ZeroHedge (and others) have written at length since then – and of course John Williams at ShadowStats is immensely knowledgeable on the chicanery in labour statistics generally.
And now – five years after it became important, Bloomberg has woken up… turns out that the BLS is about to wipe 880k phantom jobs from the rolls for the last year: and there's another 990k that will, most likely, be revised away in future.
So now, compare and contrast with GT Genius from 2004 (September 4th 2004 – "Rubbery Payrolls"):
While I'm ranting, let me mention the dishonesty of the US statistical authorities once again – and the fact that no journalist calls their bluff. Then I will get to the markets, I promise (this is actually important stuff – and not just because we are getting to watch an empire go through its death throes in real-time).
Why is it that nobody mentions that the 144,000 figure includes a whopping 120,000 "jobs" which are generated by the BLS's highly controversial "birth death model"? (As an aside – the other 24,000 jobs were Government – so apart from the "birth death adjustment", the private sector created no new jobs).
The birth-death model which has gone from a small "rounding error" type of number in 2001, to the overwhelming bulk of all jobs created this year. The table below demonstrates.
2001 2002 2003 2004 Last 7 months B/D "Jobs"/month 7.58 16.3 39.2 87.6 134.9
Now, bear in mind that the total new jobs in the BLS survey over the last 7 months is about 1.2 million – so a whopping 74% of all new jobs are being "created" by a statistical method that is supposed to account for the employment that results from new businesses being started.
The idea behind the net birth-death model is not controversial – it is the implementation by government-employed partisans which is the problem.
The core idea of the adjustment method is that some firms went out of business in the BLS sample, and fired some staff as a result (OK… I believe that).
Some other firms (which are not part of the BLS sample) began operations and hired some staff. Also not particularly problematic on the face of it.
However on balance, this combination of events has generated a rapidly rising net number of jobs, which also make up a rising share of all private sector jobs created. It is that aspect that I do not believe.
Here is a forecast that you can take to the bank: the birth-death numbers will all be revised away in the future. Every single one of the jobs created in the last three years using that method will be expunged from the record.
Anyow, the "headline" payroll number was not a disaster – although there is every indication that it is just another in an increasing list of government-issued rubbery figures. It's a bit like Soviet Production figures, or the production figures out of 1984.
Well, how right have I been?
From ZeroHedge to MarketTicker to Mish, the blogsphere's prime-movers are leading the push to oust Ben "I know all about central banking because I wrote a thesis about it" Bernanke – the lead enabler of Goldman's bukkake-act on the US taxpaying classes. Perhaps I change my nickname for him from "Dr Helichopper' to "Professor Bukkake".
Funny thing about a PhD… those who have been involved in their pusuit, succeed or fail primarily based on the extent to which they 'buy' the academic bullshit – filling out forms, interacting with the 'grey matter' of Universities (those in grey suits), and so forth.
I'm not sure if it was Lachie Macquarie or Mark Harris that first introduced me to the idea that PhD stood for 'Piled higher and Deeper' – Mark finished his (and is a top bloke, for a short Pom), but Lachie went to work at PIMCO. Mark started before the layer opf professional bullshit-artists took over universities though, so he should be forgiven.
Ditch never finished… Siouclis did. Siouclis is now an ATO bureaucrat.
GT didn't… Marshall did (sorry Peter… no hard feels, K?). Marshall is now a bureaucrat (at the ACCC, I think)
Chris Ulf didn't (as far as I'm aware).
In other wirds ,the top students from my year (Me, Ditch, Ulf, Amanda Sinn) did not stick out the PhD (Sinn finished law, so the comparison shouldn't include her).
Likewise, the other 'banner year' for good students at my alma mater (with Comley, Picton, and Craig Semple taking 1,2,3) resulted in none of the top three getting a PhD (again, Semple – my tutor for International Eco – was much more interested in law and is now a partner at… if memory serves… Malice&Sons).
Anyway – not wanting to make excuses for us PhD starters-but-not-finishers… but to be frank if I wanted some analysis done I would prefer it was authored "Longmire/Ulf/Transom/Comley/Semple" (sorry Mark… Picton doesn't make the cut) in preference to "Siouclis/Marshall/Otim (sorry Sam)/Fausten/Greenspan/Bukkake".
Of course this post carries a caveat – if I ever decide to spend a year writing up a dissertation, I will get my PhD with no probs whatsoever… at which time I will switch sides, and pour scorn on anyone who doesn't have one.
But I digress…
Betting markets on Bernanke's reconfirmation have slid hard lately… odds have falled from 95% yes to just 75%, and looked weak on Friday. (Falled is a word you would never use in a PhD dissertation).
If I had to place a bracket trade, I would bet that Geithner and Summers go, and Bernanke stays after arm-twisting and cajoling… but Volcker is clearly in the ascendant since the Massachusetts senate election.
Everybody is getting energized about ‘high frequency trading‘ in the US, in which (as I understand it) brokerage houses use ‘bots’ to test whether a bidder on a stock is prepared to up their bid, by placing an order just above them and quickly removing it.
So imagine a stock is trading at $21.50 and you’re on the bid at $21.45; the last trade took place at the offer ($21.50). You want, say, 500 shares.
You’re watching market depth (so you’re not an ‘investor’ – you’re a trader) and you see a bid order for 100 shares enter the depth at $21.46.
Do you move your order?
If so, do you move it to $21.26 (i.e., into the queue behind the new order) or to $21.47 (to get in front of the new order)?
Let’s say you decide to jump above. (Why?).
You change your order to bid $21.47 and your order gets taken (doesn’t matter by whom). You now own 500 shares bought a little bit more expensive than you otherwise would have.
Then the 100-unit order disappears.
Bugger, you think. Coulda got ’em for $21.45 like I planned.
Two things need to be said here.
First: this only matters in instruments where the bid-ask spread is large relatlve to the stock price. In the example above (which is based broadly on NAB – one of the largest and most liquid stocks in the Strayan market), the spread is 5c on a stock price of $21.45 – in other words the spread is about 0.2%. In jumping your order, you paid less than 0.1% more than you otherwise would have paid. Taken over a whole portfolio, that’s not going to change your investment outcomes by more than a poofteenth.
Second: it only matters to traders (and dumbass traders, at that… no sensible trader should be falling for anything so stupid). If you’re an ‘investor’ you should not be watching market depth. If you’re a trader, then in jumping your order you’ve signalled you really wanted that order filled. Why were you desperate to get that order filled? Did you think the market was going to run away from you? Then you’re a breakout-buyer… the nuffnuff who gets torched 80% of the time.
This ‘flash order’ malarkey happens all the time in the ES futures market during the overnight lull… you will see the bid or offer ‘blink’ during that period, with a single contract (or two, or three) flashing in and out of depth.
It’s not very interesting to watch.
I’ve actually done it myself from time to time when bored – I had my trade platform set up so that
- F5 was "Cancel all and Bid 2 at a tick above the current bid",
- F8 was ‘Cancel all and offer 2 at a tick below the current offer"; and
- F12 was "Cancel".
When the ES spreads got wide (they can get out to a full point in the lull), I would amuse myself by hitting F8-F8-F5…F12.
F5 was ‘dot’ and F8 was ‘dash’, and I would see if I could get my name spelt out in Morse Code before the order got filled.
So really? HFT is a non-issue (and it will absolutely not change the long run equilibrium price of a stock or index, as I made clear in a comment on ZeroHedge).
Those of youse who were reading my rantings back in the InvestorWeb days (and before – a letter to the Financial Review in 1998) will recall that I became highly annoyed with the issue of ‘U’ orders in the Australian market.
These were orders with an ‘Undisclosed Quantity’, which were put into market depth in order to try and get bidders (or offerors) of stock to jump the spread, by making it seem as if there was a big buyer (or seller) sitting just below (above) them. (A ‘U’order was always a big order, because to be ‘U’ it had to be at least $100k worth).
The ‘U’ was always likely to be a manipulative order – trying to get the market to move toward a counter-order on the other side of the market: if you want to buy $5k worth ofstock, you OFFER a ‘U’ above the market, and watch the nuffies on the offer run the price down to your $5k bid
Related to this was the refusal of the exchange to disclose broker details to the broader public – in other wirds, if there was a ‘U’ order, it would have been good to know whether it was from a large broker (who would be likely to have a client who actually wanted to buy/sell $100k of stock) or a small broker (where the ‘U’ might well be a manipulative order).
Daytraders were manic ‘U’ spotters. There were times when an absolute flood of traders would jump the spread in a stock when they saw a ‘U’ order, even if there was already tens of millons of dollars worth of stock on both sides of the depth.
Fortunately, both the broker depth issue and the ‘U’ order issue have gone away nowadays.
HFT is symptomatic of the corruption in the US system – it is unambiguously designed to ‘nickel and dime’ the market, in order to enrich a few favoured-access firms and their clientele. Since it’s corrupt it ought to be stamped out – otherwise people will simply vote with their feet (and exchange volume stats show that people are already doing so).
But what HFT is not, is a pox on a sensibly-constructed investment strategy (and it’s not even harmful to a sensibly-contrarian trading strategy).
In sum, there are far bigger issues when it comes to the rampant corruption in US and global equities markets. This is not so much a storm in a teacup, as it is an attempt to diligently remove a stray tea-leaf from a cup of tea, when the teapot has a gigantic turd in it.
It’s well motivated – and has been brilliant in bringing the issue to the fore – so it ought to be used as a launchpad for further work: in and of itself it’s neither important nor damaging to market functions.
Another day, another vindication for the ‘weakness until the inauguration’ hypothesis. As I have said since, it is now setting up to be weak after the inauguration as well.
It is high time that people around the globe worked out that the economy can be neither ‘managed’ nor ‘fixed’ by some bunch of scumbags who can only make a living by stealing from others using threats of violence.
Politicians never sound the alarm until after the event, they are more concerned – always – with image rather than effectiveness, and they always try to pretend that they are the solution.
So it’s no surprise that they propose ‘solutions’ that enhance control of the state over its livestock: as if we got to this pass because of the absence of cronyism and corruption.
Government is the ultimate corrupter of the human will – because it encourages normal people who would never think of stealing of bullying, into thinking that it is perfectly acceptable to force others to do things because ‘we all voted’.
What if 50.01% of us voted for a government that then decided to slaughter all redheads? What if 50.01% of us voted for a government that then decided that ‘all you babies are belong to us’?
Democracy is thuggery writ large: it is the banalisation of absolute evil and tyranny.
Unlike other anti-democrats, I am not a believer in a class of ‘natural aristocrats’: I think all us smelly oafs (oaves?) should be able to do whatever we want to do without let or hindrance, so long as we do not do yukky stuff to others.
So we should be allowed to fill our own bodies (which we own by right) with drugs, and bear the consequences. We should be able to erect any structure on land we own, without encumbrance. We should be able to buy or sell any good or service for which we can find a willing counterparty. And we should not be constrained by passports nor borders – we are not chattels of the state in which we are born or reside, and national frontiers are fake lines drawn by megalomaniacs with massive insecurity complexes, all of whom should be killed.
If some subset of a population wants to combine and fund a "society" or any other organisation to protect its rights, such an association must be voluntary, funded with voluntary contributions, and having no power over anybody who does not subscribe (except that the association has the right to expel non-contributors who aggress against its members).
Related to this is my opposition to any Bill of Rights: within two decades of its promulgation, any Bill of rights will be interpreted as the exhaustive list of the rights which must be protected – by store-bought judges who owe their careers to a chummy relationship with the political class. All rights not specifically enumerated would be at risk – and would eventually be lost. just look at the US bill of rights – which even says that it is not exhaustive, and that powers not specifically enumerated vest in the people.
But back to the markets…
Notice that Citigroup is now heading back towards (and probably below) $5 – it was manipulated upwards for the close of 2008, simply so that portfolio managers could continue to hold it… because without institutional shareholding support, Citigroup would fail.
Nothing today – although this week is very data-heavy; no less than 19 market-moving pieces of data are slated for release between now and Friday.
That said, it is becoming essential to hold a subscription to a ‘data de-bullshitting’ service, due to the propensity of the parasite political class to simply resort to lies whenever the facts aren’t convenient (see: "Hamas started it"; "Iraq has reconstituted nuclear weapons"; "The hate us because we’re free" and so on back to the breach of the Black Hills treaty).
Take last week’s employment report – which showed unemployment at 7.2%. That’s using the post-1980 methodology. Using the old methodology (to enable direct comparison with prior periods of rising unemployment) the rate is actually closer to 18%.
So t hat is why things feel much dicier than the official stats suggest: to put it bluntly, governments lie. The bigger the problem, the bigger the lie.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 125.21 points (1.46%) to 8473.97 points. The index high for the day was 8602.60, while the low was 8421.24 (set 25 minutes before the close). the Dow still could not resist a 50-point rally in thelast half-hour… I keep saying it: nobody is really bearish: everybody thinks that there is going to be a fluffy bunny ulled from the hat at some stage.
Total volume traded in the 30 components of the index was 1.02bn shares. Decliners outpaced gainers by 6.5 to one, with 26 decliners to 4 advancers. Declining volume was greater than advancing volume by 975.43m to 41.71m shares. The main decliners (in percentage terms) were –
- Citigroup (C) -1.15 (17%) to $5.60 on volume of 292.63m shares;
- Bank Of America (BAC) -1.56 (12%) to $11.43 on volume of 120.64m shares;
- Alcoa (AA) -0.75 (6.9%) to $10.06 on volume of 30.39m shares;
- AIG (AIG) -0.08 (4.9%) to $1.54 on volume of 30.86m shares; and
- Caterpillar (CAT) -2.01 (4.7%) to $41.19 on volume of 9.5m shares.
The S&P500 index (SPX) fell 20.09 points (2.26%) to 870.26 points. Total volume traded in the 500 components of the index was 3.62bn shares. Decliners outpaced gainers by 6.2 to one, with 413 decliners to 67 advancers. Declining volume was greater than advancing volume by 3.22bn to 342.84m shares. The main decliners (in percentage terms) were –
- Developers Diversified Realty (DDR) -1.62 (21.2%) to $6.02 on volume of 5.98m shares;
- General Growth Properties (GGP) -0.35 (19.1%) to $1.48 on volume of 11.93m shares;
- Hartford Financial Svc.Gp. (HIG) -3.38 (18.6%) to $14.78 on volume of 18.08m shares;
- MGIC Investment (MTG) -0.7 (17.1%) to $3.40 on volume of 2.61m shares; and
- Citigroup Inc. (C) -1.15 (17%) to $5.60 on volume of 292.63m shares.
The Nasdaq Composite declined 32.8 points (2.09%) to 1538.79 points. while the Nasdaq100 dipped 21.88 points (1.79%) to 1201.13 points. Total volume traded in the 100 components of the Nasdaq100 was 759.3m shares. Decliners outpaced gainers by 8.7 to one, with 87 decliners to 10 advancers. Declining volume was greater than advancing volume by 703.51m to 50.9m shares. The main decliners (in percentage terms) were –
- Level 3 Communications (LVLT) -0.28 (18.8%) to $1.21 on volume of 27.65m shares;
- NII Holdings (NIHD) -3.26 (13.9%) to $20.27 on volume of 2.47m shares;
- Steel Dynamics (STLD) -1.39 (11.1%) to $11.08 on volume of 6.56m shares;
- Garmin (GRMN) -2.1 (10.3%) to $18.27 on volume of 2.64m shares; and
- Foster Wheeler (FWLT) -2.42 (9.2%) to $23.89 on volume of 3.04m shares.
The CBOE Volatility Index advanced +3.02 points (7.05%) to 45.84 points. and the CBOE Nasdaq100 Volatility Index gained +0.62 points (1.41%) to 44.46 points..
Breadth and Internals
A total of 3866 issues traded today on the NYSE; 899 stocks posted gains for the day, and there were 2880 losers. 11 stocks made new 1-year highs on the NYSE, while 61 shares plumbed new 52-week depths.
On the Nasdaq 2907 tickers traded today; total Nasdaq volume was 1.76bn shares. A total of 684 stocks posted gains for t
he day, with aggregate volume of 220m shares changing hands in the day’s winners. The red zone of the Nasdaq exchange comprised 2121 losers, and total declining volume was 1.53bn shares. 4 Nasdaq-listed stocks hit new 52-week highs, while 43 shares dipped to new 1-year lows.
|Major Market Statistics|
|Dow Jones Industrial Average||8473.97||-125.21||-1.46%|
|CBOE Volatility Index||45.84||+3.02||7.05%|
|CBOE Nasdaq100 Volatility Index||44.46||+0.62||1.41%|
- General Motors (GM) +0.12 (3%) to $4.15 on volume of 14.1m units
- IBM (IBM) +1.01 (1.2%) to $85.71 on volume of 7.9m units
- McDonalds (MCD) +0.09 (0.1%) to $60.16 on volume of 8.6m units
- Procter & Gamble (PG) +0.08 (0.1%) to $59.94 on volume of 11.2m units
- Citigroup (C) -1.15 (17%) to $5.60 on volume of 292.7m units
- Bank Of America (BAC) -1.56 (12%) to $11.43 on volume of 120.6m units
- Alcoa (AA) -0.75 (6.9%) to $10.06 on volume of 30.4m units
- Caterpillar (CAT) -2.01 (4.7%) to $41.19 on volume of 9.5m units
- JPMorganChase (JPM) -1.06 (4.1%) to $24.91 on volume of 58.1m units
Most Traded Dow stocks:
- Citigroup (C) -1.15 (17%) to $5.60 on volume of 292.7m units
- Bank Of America (BAC) -1.56 (12%) to $11.43 on volume of 120.6m units
- General Electric (GE) -0.17 (1.1%) to $15.83 on volume of 61.7m units
- JPMorganChase (JPM) -1.06 (4.1%) to $24.91 on volume of 58.1m units
- Intel (INTC) -0.36 (2.5%) to $13.79 on volume of 53.4m units
The Gold Bugs index (XAU) lost 7.61 points (6.64%) to 106.92 points. Total volume traded in the 16 components of the index was 114.65m shares. None of the 16 index components rose today: 16 stocks within the index fell, with downside volume of 114.65m shares. The main decliners (in percentage terms) were –
- Pan-American Silver (PAAS) -2.25 (12.6%) to $15.55 on volume of 2.01m shares;
- Freeport McMoran (FCX) -3.31 (11.5%) to $25.44 on volume of 20.18m shares;
- RandGold Resources (GOLD) -4.05 (9.9%) to $36.76 on volume of 1.56m shares;
- Silver Wheaton (SLW) -0.61 (9.9%) to $5.56 on volume of 7.2m shares; and
- Yamana Gold (AUY) -0.6 (8.5%) to $6.43 on volume of 13.42m shares.
The Oil Services index (OSX) dropped 6.39 points (4.95%) to 122.72 points. Total volume traded in the 15 components of the index was 85.98m shares. None of the 15 index components rose today: 15 stocks within the index fell, with downside volume of 85.98m shares. The main decliners (in percentage terms) were –
- Weatherford International (WFT) -0.99 (7.7%) to $11.82 on volume of 10.05m shares;
- Transocean Inc (RIG) -3.97 (7.3%) to $50.53 on volume of 10.91m shares;
- Global Industries (GLBL) -0.24 (6.5%) to $3.47 on volume of 1.09m shares;
- BJ Services (BJS) -0.75 (6.2%) to $11.35 on volume of 4.73m shares; and
- Halliburton (HAL) -1.08 (5.7%) to $17.93 on volume of 16.3m shares.
The nine-stock group that makes up the Rant bellwethers declined on average by 3.7%. The fallout occurred as follows:
- General Electric (GE) -0.17 (1.06%) to $15.83 on volume of 61.68m units.
- Citigroup (C) -1.15 (17.04%) to $5.60 on volume of 292.65m units.
- Wal-Mart (WMT) -0.19 (0.37%) to $51.39 on volume of 18.24m units.
- IBM (IBM) +1.01 (1.19%) to $85.71 on volume of 7.87m units.
- Intel (INTC) -0.36 (2.54%) to $13.79 on volume of 53.44m units.
- Cisco Systems (CSCO) -0.3 (1.8%) to $16.40 on volume of 54.13m units.
- Google (GOOG) -2.38 (0.76%) to $312.69 on volume of 3.28m units.
- Fannie Mae (FNM) -0.03 (4.05%) to $0.71 on volume of 14.64m units.
- Freddie Mac (FRE) -0.05 (6.58%) to $0.71 on volume of 10.21m units.
Other Indices of Interest…
The Banks index (BKX) dipped 2.43 points (6.1%) to 37.42 points. Total volume traded in the 24 components of the index was 659.37m shares. None of the 24 index components rose today: the main decliners (in percentage terms) were –
- Citigroup Inc (C) -1.15 (17%) to $5.60 on volume of 292.63m shares;
- Bank Of America (BAC) -1.56 (12%) to $11.43 on volume of 120.64m shares;
- Huntington Bancshares (HBAN) -0.63 (9.5%) to $6.01 on volume of 11.66m shares;
- Comerica Inc (CMA) -1.67 (9.3%) to $16.23 on volume of 5.81m shares; and
- Fifth Third Bancorp (FITB) -0.62 (8.3%) to $6.87 on volume of 14.75m shares.
The Semiconductor index (SOX) dipped 6.19 points (2.88%) to 209.09 points. Total volume traded in the 18 components of the index was 207.99m shares. None of the 18 index components rose today: the main decliners (in percentage terms) were –
- Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) -0.17 (6.3%) to $2.52 on volume of 13.05m shares;
- Infineon Tech (IFX) -0.07 (5.6%) to $1.18 on volume of 0.79m shares;
- Altera (ALTR) -0.8 (5.1%) to $15 on volume of 11.19m shares;
- ST Microelectronic (STM) -0.33 (5%) to $6.21 on volume of 1.87m shares; and
- Sandisk (SNDK) -0.61 (5%) to $11.69 on volume of 5.94m shares.
The ChildKiller ("Defence") index (DFX) fell -5.36 points (2%) to 263.31 points. Total volume traded in the 17 components of the index was 86.08m shares. Decliners outpaced gainers by 7 to one, with 14 decliners to 2 advancers. Declining volume was greater than advancing volume by 81.34m to 4.74m shares. The main decliners (in percentage terms) were –
- Gencorp (GY) -0.39 (11.1%) to $3.11 on volume of 0.68m shares;
- Embraer Empresa (ERJ) -0.88 (4.8%) to $17.4 on volume of 0.62m shares;
- Esterline Tech (ESL) -1.07 (2.8%) to $36.57 on volume of 0.27m shares;
- ITT Corporation (ITT) -1.32 (2.7%) to $47.08 on volume of 1.07m shares; and
- FLIRr Systems (FLIR) -0.54 (1.8%) to $29.99 on volume of 1.39m shares.