Here's a pretty interesting clip that I came across by googling "Jim Cramer is wrong."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUkbdjetlY8

And there's hundreds more just like it if you just look at the videos on the side of the page.

What some people at CNBC do borders on criminal in my opinion.  The blatant "ignorance" of some of their analysts astounds me.
I've been saying to my girlfriend that they're consistently wrong, but this belief has recently gained prominence in the media because of the attack that Jon Stewart did on Cramer's financial aptitude.
On one hand, I will say that Cramer does recommend some fundamentally sounds stocks.  He claims to be a fundamental analyst and sometimes he recommends some good stocks.
Then, he recommends some things that just baffle.  Like in the video where he was saying to hold onto Bear Stearns.

Last week at the peak of the financial rally, his call was that "Funds needed to have some investments on their balance sheets by the end of the quarter" and then he made the bull noise for banks, etc, etc.
In the normal leverage financial ETF XLF you'd already be down more than 10%.  If you were so foolish as to REALLY believe in Cramer and buy on margin or at accelerated leverage ratios, you'd be hurting now.

I tried really hard to find stats about the inaccuracy of his picks, and I read on seekingalpha that he is 35% accurate in his picks, but I didn't bother to delve into specific data so that might be wrong.  Still, I like seekingalpha more than CNBC.

I think that a channel like CNBC is almost a blatant conflict of interest.  Their watchers are individual investors.  The companies purchasing advertising from the network are usually mutual funds.  Funds make money based on the amount of money that are in them.  If people buy stocks or buy into mutual funds, the amount of the fund goes up and the commissions of the fund manager increase.
It's been obvious for a while that mutual funds have no accountability for losing people's money.  Some perform well, and some don't.  The only incentive for a fund manager to perform on his investments is to stay in business.

Yet, after ten years of screwing miscellaneous people, it doesn't really matter if his or her fund goes out of business.  The commissions on the fund more than give the manager a golden parachute.  If their fund goes out of business, they still have all the money that people paid just to put the money in the fund in the first place.
I'm not saying that all mutual funds are bad by any stretch of the imagination.  What I am saying is that many of them have no incentive to perform.

With CNBC getting their money from advertising from investment banks, they have an incentive to constantly be bullish on stocks.  As long as people are buying, brokers get trade commissions and mutual funds get fees.
I think some take it a little bit further though.  I think some people at these financial networks either are the most incompetent analysts that I've ever seen, or that their intentions are much, much worse.
Anybody can make money trading if they learn about it.  It's really not that hard to understand.
If there's an abnormally high amount of bids for a stock that is driving the price up on high volume in smaller increments, that shows bullish sentiment.
If a stock is down fifteen percent in one day, it's probably going to be down another five before the day is out.
If there are 50000 people selling and 100 bidding, there's obviously not much of a market for the stock.
Buying at that point is like betting on the Lions to go all the way to the Super Bowl.  Maybe the 100 people out of 50100 are right, but the odds are that they're not.

Somebody with the ability to day trade with all the time and resources that they needed could easily outperform Jim Cramer.
But see, that's just it.  I don't really think that with Cramer's years of experience, his millions of dollars and his obvious intelligence when he's not jumping up and down throwing shit at you that Cramer is really as stupid as he lets on.

I think that he pumps stocks just to have somebody for short sellers to sell to.
I think that by following the advice of Kudlow, Cramer, or others at CNBC, most would stand to lose substantially, especially inexperienced traders.

I titled this blog "The Fox News of the Financial Media."  I think that that might be a little bit harsh - to Fox News.  Fox News sure can lie about things and put their slants on them, but real people depend on Jim Cramer for their retirement.  Real people depend on tips on "Fast Money."
I wouldn't recommend it, but people do.
At least Fox covers missing six year old girls and tells you that Obama sucks.  The only damage that they do is to people's ignorance.
CNBC could substantially hurt somebody's retirement.

Anybody who believes that a bear market will last forever or that a rally will last forever is sadly mistaken.
The people of Wall Street have their own ways of understanding the markets, and they are at a substantial advantage.  If you look at any chart, a stock never goes long in one direction without going another.
Further analysis of these patterns will show the predictability of them.

By learning about the patterns in the market, it's almost like the people of Wall Street conspire to collude with one another and form chart patterns to communicate intentions to one another. 
They have far more insider secrets than that, and I hope to learn all of them someday.  Still, while the patterns in behavior cannot be explained - they are repetitive to the point to be no accident.

CNBC claims to have fair reporting.  They do to some degree.  CNBC is just like Fox, there's a bullish guest and a bearish guest.  On Fox there's a conservative or three and a "liberal".  On CNBC the bearish guy is almost always drowned out by six people calling him idiots, much like the Democrat on Fox News.

On both channels, the guests are perhaps truthful.  But the hosts add bias.
But even more disturbing, both places have agendas to hide the information that they know to be true.
There were numerous news sources before the Iraq war that said Saddam failed to have weapons of mass destruction.  They had credible citations of their facts.  Yet, that point of view was omitted from Fox completely because of the agenda that they sought to promote.

The same can be said for CNBC.

Especially in the world of financial analysis, there often isn't multiple points of view.  Either a company is profitable or it is not.  Either a company has solid ratios or they don't.  The very notion that they have two points of view is dubious.  Some cases are gray and might have varying opinions, but Jim Cramer telling his audience that Bear Stearns is fine?  Come on!
And honestly if they had any real analysts on their channel, the opinions would be much more similar with only slight variations.
Like one guy saying GM will run out of money in three months and the next guy saying they could hold out for six.  That'd be credible.  But CNBC is the type of channel that has one guy saying GM is going to the freakin MOON tomorrow, and he's the attractive, youthful, good salesman.  Then you have the nerdy, ninety year old with a combover saying that GM is going down.  It's more lies by omission and implication than it is by outright deception.

Still, if you watch some of the anchors (and one in particular) she almost starts laughing when the moron is ranting on about how bullish he is and she has a look in her eye like she knows he's just SO full of shit.  And yet, no journalism takes place, like on Fox.

Opinions aren't news.  News is facts presented in a neutral way.  Not that CNN is much better by any means than Fox, but somebody ought to be.
Somebody ought to tell the truth, and somebody ought to investigate something.
Having the same morons telling their opinion day after day in an "all star panel" that is stacked to yield optimum results isn't news.

I really feel bad that we live in a time where some people are so gullible that they believe the opinions of people with an agenda, be it via the media or otherwise.

We need to get Suze Orman, Jim Cramer, Larry Kudlow and a whole slew of financial advisors off the air because they give terrible advice.
Rick Santelli is the man.  He should get his own channel. 
But then he'd probably sell out to mutual funds while getting suckers lined up to buy stocks as hedge funds short them.  Nah, I take that back.  He's no Cramer.

One thing is certain: follow Cramer and lose your money.
You'd think that they could get a guy that was right more than 35% of the time, right?

I've been bearish on this suspect rally for about a week now.  I've been seeing the shorts come in at the top of rallies, and then a little bit of positive news comes in and some people will buy past resistance levels, causing the shorts to cover their positions and leading to improbable, violent rallies.

Still, I believe that the rallies are the unintended consequences of people shorting the market and not the consequences of bullish sentiments.

We've seen double top patterns come in on the S&P and Dow, as well as the Financials Index.
People have been attempting to bring in short sales and stop this bullish trend for a week or so now, but the overwhelming bullish sentiments of the public stop them from reversing trend completely.

The bullish sentiments in the market are dubious at best at this time, especially in the financial sector.

What goes down, must come up, at least temporarily, and this bear market rally is an example of that.

Current resistance on the S&P to get to levels before the last bear market plunge stand at 840.  S&P made a run at 830 for the second time on Friday, and then was promptly squashed back down.

Financial stocks, which led the rally, have been bearish for two days now.  Many have formed high wave patterns, which indicate indecision and a reversal in trend.
Also, many stocks like WFC, C, and BAC have already made clear double and triple top patterns and have been bearish ever since.

If financial stocks lead the rally, they also will lead the decline, and they are.  Many have been decidedly bearish for a couple of days now, and technical analysis is definitely negative.  It would take miracles to get the financials to break resistance at this point, as many people that bought in the late stages of the rally are already losing money on their investments.
They're not going to double down to buy BAC at 8 or WFC at 17 again after losing money on them over the short term.

News about the financial sector has been received well in the public's eye, but they're failing to read between the lines.

Obama met with bank CEOs yesterday to discuss a "possible overhaul" of the financial system, according to the Faux News Channel's ticker.  Possible Overhauls of an entire sector are not bullish indicators to me.

And the reason?  Leveraged investments on investments called derivatives.
http://consumerist.com/5170856/1144-quadrillion-+-total-size-of-derivatives-bubble

The total exposure of our financial system to derivatives is 1.144 QUADRILLION dollars.  What the fuck is a QUADRILLION anyway? 
The annual output of the United States, the world's largest economy, is maybe 14 trillion dollars.
A quadrillion is a THOUSAND TRILLION, and then there's another 144 trillion on top of that.
The total output of the world might be 75 trillion a year (an optimistic guess.)

Banks are leveraged on poor investments at 15 times the WORLD'S ANNUAL OUTPUT.
Just to cover national banks' losses, the entire world would have to work for 15 years straight with NO COMPENSATION AT ALL, or food, or services, just to cover the hole that the banks are exposed to.

Really, it makes no logical sense that anybody can be exposed to these kinds of liabilities.  It's fucking nuts!
But as some default on their obligations, it starts a wave of others defaulting, since the first defaulters are debtors to the second wave.
It's nuclear armageddon on the financial system.

The short term technical reasons I gave as well as the long term reasons I just gave are why I'm going short on banks. 
Banks messed up really bad over the past ten years or so, and when the full extent of their damage is brought to light, the world will see a new financial system take root.

People react to these plans in the financial sector like they're a good thing.
"Private investors to buy banks' troubled assets with government loans."

A) The banks are going to be forced to liquidate their positions at losses to private investors.
B) Liqudating these assets as substantially below market prices using public money will do a couple of things.  First, it will cause the banks to incur horrific losses.  The healthier ones may acquire additional capital, but the less healthy will be forced to close, sending their stock prices to ZERO. 
Second, it will cause the value of assets to decrease dramatically, and then increase even more dramatically.  The inflation from this plan is going to be terrible, just after a bunch of people took written down losses from mark to market.
If market to market can be somehow suspended, this will alleviate some of the pressure as far as losses go for individuals and other sectors in our economy, but not banks.

As they are forced to liquidate their portfolios to deleverage, they will incur huge losses on the investments that are only showing paper losses as it stands now.
Things are going to get worse before they get better.

Our financial system has been running the biggest Enron type schemes with assets that never existed to inflate their assets even further.
Some will fail, some will be split apart by the government.  Some will emerge strong.

Overall, it doesn't bode well for the financial sector, and I'm bearish.
This bear market rally is almost over, and these fake 300 point in five minute short covering rallies that we see every now and then have just about come to an end.  The shorts are clearly starting to gain control.

There may be some run up in the acquisition of stocks so that people can say that they participated and gained in this rally, but I believe it will be a triple top at best, and probably fail to make it to resistance.

I could be wrong about some of these things, but I think that many individual banks are toast.

There is a reason why Geithner recently was given powers "aside from bankruptcy" to split apart and seize more than just banks - but insurance companies too.
The hammer is going to come down.  The problems will be solved, and everybody's going to live happily ever after, but NOT the big banks and insurance companies.

Regional, unleveraged banks will become the forerunners in the financial system.
US Bank and Wells Fargo will be stable in the short term, and will do very well over a three to five year horizon and are in the strongest positions.  JP Morgan appears to be healthy as well, and is the likely heir to the good assets of the next two companies.
Citigroup and Bank of America will require additional capital, leading to at best dilution and decreased earnings for a few years, and at worst seizure.

AIG is kaput.  People are furious, and they'll be the scapegoats if anything else, although they did cause most of this mess.

Oh yeah, did anybody see the two stocks that I've been actively touting as good fundamental picks?
Gamestop (GME) finally reported their earnings for Q4 on Thursday, and they were 22% higher than expectations.
I've been saying that it was going to happen for months now, and there's proof if you check out their ticker.
It's a good, fundamentally sound company.  A lot of their new revenues are coming from acquisitions, but they are cornering their market.  It'll be the Wal Mart for video games in five or ten years.

Also, I recommended WWE stock to Mike at 9.17 a share, and it recently topped 12.  I can make good, fundamentally sound, long term decisions.

Still, I'd say that the bears are coming into the market, and we will see at least 7200 in the Dow, if not much, much lower.  I wouldn't buy right now, but those are some fundamentally sound companies.

Also EXLP, Exterran Partners, a small cap natural gas company with a 15% dividend and SFL, Ship Finance International - who is more than double covering their 19% dividend in per-share earnings and derives their income from financing oil tankers to oil companies, who obviously can pay their debts.

Those would all be nice holds for a portfolio if bought on the dips, although I'd probably buy either WWE OR Gamestop (probably Gamestop) and either Exterran OR SFL, since they're in similar sectors.

Here are some charts that are an interesting read if you're a dork like me: http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/Favorites.CServlet?obj=ID3271030
 
The author, Anthony Allyn, seems to be a smart dude, and he agrees with me about the charts, only I didn't make nice visuals to show you like he did.  So please, vote for him or whatever he wants and be nice to him!
They explain all the negative technical analysis that I've been speaking of.  If you can read a chart, you'll see the rising wedge pattern in many of the charts, signifying reversals in the markets.
You'll also see negative divergence and raising negative volumes.

We might have one more hurrah, but after that its all over.

Of course, I could be wrong!  Still, if you would have bought Gamestop, or WWE when I recommended them, you'd be selling them for plump profits in a volatile market.  I already traded Gamestop a couple of times, but there was some restriction on buying WWE through my broker, so I didn't.

I wrote this essay for my English class.  It's about my beliefs regarding the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.  It's not all the way revised through, but I think it makes some good points.  It's a long read, at six pages.  Still, I don't force anyone to read my blog...

A Crisis of Irresponsibility
                The United States of America is one of the youngest nations in the modern world, and yet has been one of the most economically successful.  America has earned a reputation for financial stability in the global markets.  Because of this, the dollar is the main currency used in international commodities trading, and American capitalism is the most widely used model in developing international financial markets.  America is widely accepted as the world’s foremost economic superpower.  There is a saying in international financial markets that “if America sneezes, the world catches a cold.”  On September 15, 2008, America sneezed, but why?
                An artificial infusion of money into the American economy in the early twenty-first century created the current global financial crisis.  The federal government of the United States encourages homeownership in America because citizens that own a piece of their neighborhoods will also be inclined to take care of those neighborhoods.  The Bush administration authored public policy initiatives to increase homeownership in the United States.  They assumed that banks would continue to be prudent in their lending practices because it would be in the banks’ interests to remain strong. Two government agencies, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, insured mortgage loans to create an incentive for banks to lend to riskier borrowers.  As the government eliminated some of the risk for banks to lend to borrowers, banks relaxed their rigid standards for lending and money began to flow freely.  Additional capital in the mortgage market sparked an artificial increase in the demand for homes, which in turn increased home values.  Banks used the increase in their mortgage loan assets as collateral to secure additional sources of capital.  Banks had more money, but less people to lend to.  With government guarantees on their assets, they used the assets to get loans to buy mortgages and mortgage backed securities from other banks.  As artificial funds in the housing market dried up, the prices of houses decreased.  Banks used artificially inflated assets to purchase more artificially inflated assets, and as the prices of their holdings decreased they had to come up with more money to cover their debt obligations.  This created a liquidity crisis that almost caused the American banking system to crash.  The recessionary effects of an overextended banking system currently threaten to plunge the United States into a depression.  The Obama administration recently passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 as an economic stimulus with the intended effect of reviving prosperity in the American economy; however, it will ultimately prove to be harmful to the American economy.  
                First, the distribution of an economic stimulus package diminishes the argument that capitalism is a superior market system.  American society takes pride in its capitalist economic system, and American economists claim that capitalism is superior to other methods of market distribution because it is based on the choices of consumer.   The “invisible hand of the market” is the defining characteristic of modern American capitalism.  Advocates for capitalism as a superior system make the argument that markets can function without outside influence because of freedom and individual choice – “the invisible hand of the market.”
                Each person wants goods and services, and the price that he or she is willing to pay for them varies based on his or her needs and financial ability.  Suppliers of goods and services are willing to fill that demand if it creates a high enough price in the free market.  Consumers will look for the best price possible, while suppliers will try to maximize profits and attract customers.  The “invisible hand of the market” is the natural way for producers and consumers to agree on prices for goods and services.  Proponents of capitalism as the superior economic system use the argument that the demand of consumers is the ultimate indicator as to how to produce goods in the most efficient manner.  They follow that a capitalist market is the superior way to allocate goods because it functions by the choices of its participants.   In a free market, as suppliers meet the demand of consumers, the market is brought into equilibrium; however, the economic recovery package interferes with the natural market forces of supply and demand.  Demand is dictated by government activity instead of market activity if an economic stimulus increases the money supply.   Free market capitalists have long argued that market forces alone are the most efficient way to allocate goods, but the admission of a need for an economic stimulus package is the same as an admission that free market capitalism cannot sustain itself.  To deny the free market is to deny the choices of consumers and the basic principles of capitalism: both are integral to America’s successful past as an international economic leader.
                Next, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 will create more of the same problems that led to the original need for economic stimulus.  The United States has used economic stimulus in the past to create artificial demand.  The prevailing theory for the success of economic stimulus is that it leads to growth of money supply in the economy.  With more money supply, more lending and growth in the economy is supposed to take place.  The theory assumes that the economy will grow fast enough to pay off the resulting debt, but all theories have their faults.
                Neither budget deficits nor accrued debt would exist if it were possible to grow artificially from economic stimulus.  The national debt of the United States is approaching one hundred percent of gross domestic product for the first time since World War II.  Economic outlooks for the future are bleak: some analysts are predicting regular annual deficits that eclipse one trillion dollars if current levels of government spending continue.  The United States has made little progress paying the debts that it has accrued in its past, and it is unlikely that this will be the first stimulus package that breaks the trend.  The result is a growing national debt obligation for U.S. citizens.  The accrual of debt creates a problem beyond debt obligations and interest payments: it creates inflationary pressure on the price of goods, services, and housing for Americans.
                 Government capital in the economy increases consumer demand because it increases the money supply that is available to purchase goods.  History proves that this creates a cycle of growth that is overcome by inflation and results in recession.  The housing market in the early 2000s was an example of this experiment.  First, it created more capital in the markets, and more capital led to an increased demand for housing.  The housing programs created an artificial premium in the price that people were able to pay for housing.  More money in the housing markets led to inflation in the value of assets, which led to increased lending and more money supply.  As the artificial demand for houses waned, the price of the assets decreased in value, and banks were forced to come up with additional capital to cover their outstanding obligations.  Forcing banks to conserve capital reduced the available money supply, and the decreased money supply led to a decrease in demand.  Economic stimulus creates artificial demand and leads to inflation, but later leads to a recession because of a decrease in capital and demand.  The demand is focused on consumption that is not sustainable and it leads to eventual bust cycles and recession.  Using government programs to grow out of this cycle would be using the same solution that led to the current recession in the economy.  Insanity: trying the same solution and expecting another result.
                Finally, the distribution of economic stimulus creates a moral hazard because it removes the incentives for both banks and borrowers to act in a financially responsible manner.  Moral hazard occurs when people do not suffer negative effects from their actions.  People will make conservative and careful choices to avoid risk and failure, but people will not act with the same regard for consequences if their risks are reduced.   Banks issued an increasing number of questionable mortgages in recent years because of government guarantees on mortgages.  People are more careful with their own assets than they are with the assets of others.  It’s the argument that the government uses for increasing ownership of homes, so it would seem to make sense to apply that principle to banks and their assets.  Banks that own assets aren’t likely to risk the loss of those assets, but removing the risks for loss leads to a disregard for the risks associated with lending.  With no incentive to lend responsibly, the banks engaged in reckless and speculative behavior that is arguably the cause of this current financial crisis.  Using government funds to save them from the effects of their own behavior lessens the chance that they will act responsibly in the future.

                Homeowners share as much responsibility for the current financial crisis as the banks.  Most homeowners believed that their houses would continue to increase in value, and some used the temporary increase in value to borrow money via home equity loans.  Some irresponsible borrowers used loans to make speculative investments in real estate that failed to increase in value.  Others used the false inflation of their assets to fund the consumption of luxury items.  Some just used favorable temporary loan terms to be able to get into houses that they would not have been able to afford otherwise.  The natural consequences of these choices would lead to bankruptcy, harm to the economy, and perhaps a shift in the future choices of consumers.  Deferring the consequences of poor individual choices with an economic stimulus removes the harm from people’s irresponsible choices and creates a moral hazard.  People respond to incentives, and by removing the incentives for people to make good decisions it becomes hard to expect them to act responsibly in the future.
                The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 is harmful because it deviates from the economic systems that have made America successful in the past.  Giving people the freedom to choose is essential to the beliefs of our founding fathers, but freedoms come with responsibility to make wise decisions.  Capitalism allows for freedom, but the consequences of poor choices have always made sure that the freedom of consumers is used responsibly.  An economic stimulus package removes harm of poor choices from the free-market system.  Removing harm from negative actions rewards undesirable behavior.  Worse, using the same solutions that led to this problem will ultimately lead to a bigger problem: one that will be both assumed and financed by future generations.  The founding fathers of this nation believed that people who agree to taxes will do so with representation.  Yet, current representation in our legislative bodies cannot consider the consent of future generations.  The economic stimulus levies debts on these generations without their consent – a concept that is opposed to the principles that founded The United States of America.  It doesn’t make sense to throw good money after bad, yet the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 does just that.  Hopefully America will learn the lessons of fiscal responsibility after this stimulus package proves to be ineffective: responsibility is the true remedy to the crisis in the American financial markets.

First of all, it helps if you don't have a college education.

If your parents paid for you to go to an Ivy league school (Bush), or several different junior colleges to get a journalism degree (Palin), and you got less than a C average there, then you get respect.

However, if you overcome poverty and living in the ghetto to pay for your own college- and rise to become the top person at the top school (Obama)- then you are merely an elitist.

Acceptable idols include such noted intellectuals as Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee.
One woman even cheered Palin's contributions to feminism today on Limbaugh. *chuckles*

It's also okay to cheer for a guy that stopped taking government money in 2009 (Jindal), even though his state was completely destroyed by a hurricane in 2005.
Don't acknowledge that he took government money to help rebuild his state from the Bush administration, or note that his state is STILL in ruins from a hurricane four years ago.
The government money only helps poor people, black people, and "welfare queens."

Then, be as selfish as possible.  Don't care about your friends, family, or fellow man.  Ayn Rand was right after all!  We're all better off when we don't care about our communities.  Just look at America today!

Next, it helps to be a pseudo intellectual.  Real intellectuals are elitists. 
You have to act like you're the last person on Earth that stays informed, even if you don't read books, newspapers or watch the "mainstream media."
Getting news from a fat guy that took so many drugs he went deaf will suffice.

Next, any time somebody challenges your outrageous claims, just tell them that you're a "student of American history." 
Especially if you've never opened an American history book or taken an American history class in college...  because if you've done THOSE things, then you've been indoctrinated by the liberal media.

Next, it helps to be negative toward everybody who has more than you, except for the super wealthy.
If there's a welfare mother down the street that doesn't have enough to feed her kids, make sure that you blame her for the trillions of dollars in budget deficits every year because of the meager 900 dollar a month check she gets.

Then, every time the government cuts taxes for rich people, applaud loudly because they "worked hard for their money," even if their positions as CEOs and corporate lawyers led to the fraud that made the American economy collapse.

Next, don't articulate intelligent arguments to describe your positions on issues.
It helps if you yell, scream, and don't give the other side time to talk.  It especially helps if you shrug off any questions that oppose your view as "tricks from the drive by media."
It's not okay to quote scientists, unless they are from some small southern private baptist university that was founded by Pat Roberts and they agree with what you are saying.
If there's one scientist that agrees with you, and twelve million that disagree, the twelve million are all part of a vast liberal conspiracy, while the one scientist who takes payroll from Exxon Mobil is an unbiased source.

Next, cite sources that don't exist.  Like a global warming study from NASA that you've never actually read.
Then, when somebody Googles your source on the internet and shows you that NASA also found that global warming exists, say that "NASA is part of the liberal media" and move on to the next poorly constructed argument that you heard on the Rush Limbaugh program without conceding that you're wrong about the NASA argument.
But, the next time that somebody ELSE argues that NASA supports global warming, you can still tell them that you "read a NASA study that says that the ice caps are freezing."
They don't know that you're lying, and it helps to be as intellectually dishonest as possible.

It's best to articulate your beliefs in three word slogans that can easily be chanted by large groups of people.
Some examples of this include: Freedom isn't free, Support Our Troops, Democrats Own Defeat, Drill Baby Drill, Four More Years, Terrorists hate Freedom, Stay the Course, Cut and Run, etc.
In fact, the more simple and without intellectual merits your argument is, the better chance that the other conservatives will pick it up and chant it with you.

Make sure that all news sources are thoroughly discredited as "belonging to the drive by media", even Fox News if they disagree with you.
Make sure that you cite that same source the next time that they agree with you though.  There's no point in discrediting people that agree, just the ones who disagree, no matter how similar their beliefs are to yours.

Only the people that are ditchdiggers, waitresses at Wal Mart, and corporate CEOS "make America work!"
People that hold lucrative middle class jobs because of their years of training and education are merely "elitist leftists."
Only people who can't use computers, can't do fifth grade math, and can't read (apparently) make America work!

Next, talk about how liberals are "Tax and spend" liberals. (see, look, another three word slogan.  It's the PERFECT argument!)

Then, when the "liberal" brings up that Bush created more deficits than any president in history, make sure you bring up that terrorists attacked America.
Then, it helps to say general statements like "we're fighting THEM over there, so we don't have to fight THEM here."
It doesn't matter if the war you're talking about was started by America without any cause.  Just tell people that the millions of dead civilians in a pre-emptive war are "better off now than they were under Saddam Hussein."  Who cares if they're dead now and their five year old kid had his leg blown off?

War is an acceptable way to spend national resources, especially if the war takes years and never ends.
Building infrastructure and funding education and social programs are "socialist."

That way, it's better when you call the radio and tell them that the government has no place funding education, even if you were a recipient of free government education.

Every time that there's an election, tell people that liberals are going to take your guns away.
Then spread false rumors that "you can't even find ammo anywhere!" 
(Even if your son just found cases and cases of .223 ammo for his AR15 at Outdoor World, Cabela's, and the gun show)

And finally (and this is the most important)
The word "liberal" is defined as anybody who disagrees with you or Sean Hannity, regardless of where their beliefs lie on the political spectrum.
Want to end the war?  Liberal.  Want to cut spending on the war?  Liberal.  Want to lower taxes on the middle class and cut spending?  Liberal.

Want to raise government spending programs to unprecdented amounts?
"How dare you question our commander in chief in a time of war?  Why, that's treason, because it gives "aid and comfort to the enemy."

Then, make sure you define the word enemy as any other nation, political sect, or person that disagrees with the conservative ideology.

And yeah, that's about it!
Just remember that you can only question political leaders if they are Democrats, because that's patriotic, and you'll do fine.
If it's a Republican, you commit treason by disagreeing with him in a time of war.

And one more thing... tell people how much you hate Nancy Pelosi.  Then, when they ask you to name ONE of the policies that she made that you disagree with: tell them that "I just hate that Pelosi and her socialist liberal congress.  I don't trust them."

Okay, so I lied, there is ONE more final stipulation to be a conservative:
Pretend that the last twelve years of perpetual decline under Republican rule never existed, and then act like the policies that they enacted are the only programs that can save America!

If you follow all of these things, you can be part of an "alternative" culture that looks, acts, dresses, and believes the same!
I know that it must have been tough being called a "narc" in the sixties when you followed the Grateful Dead around.  But now, you can "belong" to an alternative culture!  Everybody wants to belong!

To join the conservative movement, you don't NEED college!  All you need is the "Limbaugh Institute for Advanced Conservative Studies."

It's better than a college education because it implies college without any of the petty READING or HOMEWORK that goes along with a college education.

Plus, it makes you feel like you went to college, even if you spent your youth too stupid to get a 17 on the ACT. 
(LOL... who couldn't get a 17 on their ACT besides Bush anyway?)

So stop being a "loony leftist liberal" that is "indoctrinated by the drive by media."
Leave logic and intellectual honesty behind and join the conservative movement today!
You can be a part of something!

Never ever, EVER buy stock if you get this itch like "Oh shit, I just HAVE to buy that stock right away!"  LOL.  Nine out of ten times you will lose.  Of course you still still do it after a couple of times of losing money that way, you deserve a Darwin award.

By the time you get that feeling, it's most likely because you've seen a huge rally in the stock's price in recent days, and it's usually nearing the resistance level. 
With information available at the twinkle of an eye, you'd better believe that there are other people that are watching the market second by second.  By the time you notice a HUGE JUMP, so did fifty million other people who pissed all over themselves trying to buy the stock before each other.  Rule number one:  NEVER BUY IN A MARKET FRENZY.

Next, it's usually a good time to buy when the financial news makes headlines like "people jumping out of windows, lost ass today." 

If there's one thing that I've noticed about the end of bear cycles, it always ends with panic selling.  Friday, I saw my Bank of America stock get fucking WHOOPED.  I mean, I was like... "Damn, dude, just... damn."  I could have sold it for a 50% loss.  Instead, I'm about whole on that whole trade, and I see a couple more days of rally ahead.  Rule number two: NEVER SELL IN A PANIC.  The stock will always go up some after the panic cycle is over and at least get rid of it then if you must.

Still, it's nice to buy stock on those days.  The last day of a bear slaughter is the best day to buy for the cycle trader, but sometimes the market will be like... haha, psyche!  It's nice to hold on to at least half your cash until the first day with a confirmed rally, and then you might miss out on the best part of the rally, but will still have some nice plump profits to take.  Usually, the market will make bottoms at nice, round numbers, so try to buy it as close to round numbers as possible if you're trading.  If the market is in a bear cycle, like it is now, try placing bids slightly lower than the previous cycle's resistance levels, or even at them will do fine.  Still, in a downward trend, most resistance levels are violated over and over again, and its nice to account for that.  Usually the end of bear markets have the highest ratios of asks to bids and it takes some steel ones to pull that trigger.  Then again, I've never really been disappointed.

When stocks fall the most is on the first day of a bear market and on the last day of a bear market.  On the first day, people are trying to take profits from the last rally cycle at a faster rate than each other, and on the last day, people are like "Oh NO!  It's over now... boy did I fuck up holding that one.  Better get what I can."
It's acceptable to sell on the first day of a bear market, but never days deep into a bear cycle. 
Most people that start out trading will feel SO ridden with panic on the last day of a bear market, and the first reaction of many of them is to take what they can get while they still can... and that's exactly what the market bets on.  Of course, buying stocks from people like that is awesome, but just like in anything else, the motivated sellers are the best ones to find.

The best time to buy stocks in on the first day of a confirmed rally, because there are usually a couple more days of rally to follow.
(although the second days of rallies, like today, are often down from 33 to 50% of the amount of the first days rally, with two more days of rally to follow.
The first days of bear cycles are kick ya in the nuts days and it's a lot different feeling than the feeling you get when the market is down on the second day of a rally.  It's just WAY more different feeling, I can't explain it.)
The best time to sell is on the third or fourth day of a rally.

Never really keep stock in a market like this!  There are some exceptions, like stocks with high dividend yields, but it's far more effective to trade stock than to try to hold onto it.

Trading is difficult, but it really isn't that bad.  Markets work in cycles.  The most important thing is patience.  Unfortunately, I lack patience, but a lot of times I've found ways to make even bad decisions work.
Still, I think it's a lot better to trade and take slight losses when you have to rather than hold stock and let it get pummeled.  Buy and hold just doesn't work in a market with a downward sloping linear regression line.

There are some other things I've learned, but I'm tired of writing.
I like to write blogs because it reinforces ideas in my head.
I have some really awesome ideas for my next round of buying, but I think I'm going to chill out on telling what they are until after I buy them.
I still have to get out of my last trades with the dolla dolla, balla balla, before I can concentrate on buying again.

One stock that I will recommend because I already own it is: Gamestop!  (GME)
Buy it when the market is in the tank for a couple of days, and I promise that it will not disappoint!
I've bought it twice now, and made some decent gains the first time and I'm up almost 20% since the last time I bought it the other day.
I'm a little bit wary of buying it above 25-26, but I think those are the kind of levels at which buying Gamestop can facilitate good trades.
I try not to pay more than 24 or 25, but it seems like it jumped a channel in the last cycle, so that might not be possible for any new investors.
Still, I rave about Gamestop, and it has made me some good money in my last few trading cycles.

There are a couple of others that I intend to buy in the next bear market, and they're effing awesome, believe me, but that's my secret until it happens because I don't want the prices run up before I buy.

I'm starting to make some bucks here and there.  *gives self a cookie*

I believe that there is a conspiracy for the hostile takeover of banks in America.

I've been thinking about some of the recent developments with the banking stocks in the financial markets, and I've begun to connect the dots, and honestly, the picture doesn't look good for people that have holdings in banks, at least in the short term.

I received an odd offer in an e-mail from my broker.  The e-mail was legitimate, as was confirmed by a call to my broker.

I received an offer for my Bank of America stock with the following stipulations:
I was asked to enter into a contract with the purchaser of my shares that between now and June 17th, the purchaser would agree to give me a weighted average of the value of the shares between now and June 17th.
However, I must maintain possession of the shares in my account until the tender date of June 17th.
Further, the offer was a mini-tender offer (a bid for less than a 5% stake in the corporation) but it may have well been more than one mini tender offer.

The same offer was presented to holders of JP Morgan shares, although I didn't see the e-mail personally because I'm not a shareholder.

Really, the more I think about the prospect and recent action in banking stocks, the trend becomes clearer to me.

First of all, why would somebody want to ensure that I hold onto my stock until June 17th, at which time he or she would buy my shares for the value of them between now and June 17th?

That way, he or she could drive the price of the shares down, and then have a guaranteed seller no matter what the action is looking like in June.

Many analysts predict a relative economic turnaround in the markets in the latter half of 2009 because many of those stocks will be pointing to future activity, like the artificial demand of the stimulus.

Further, in recent days, many bank stocks have been completely slashed to the bone- some worse than others because of beta ratios - but they're all headed for the same place eventually.  It just takes longer for the lower volume movers to get there.
All of the bank stocks are headed down.  Believe me.

The more disturbing trend in bank trading activity is the almost complete symmetry in recent stochastic analysis of buy sell activity.
Further, I've watched bid/asks in real time for hours, and I've noticed some very disturbing trends that indicate my suspicions from stochastic analysis, and I have come to the following conclusion:

There is forced short selling of the bank stocks in preparation for hostile takeovers of their assets this summer.  I'm not saying that its necessarily a bad thing, but its probably coming.
The offeror for the mini tender offer is probably somebody with knowledge of this plan, and is skirting SEC regulators by purchasing shares "well in advance" of any activity, and its all in a plan that is not regulated by the SEC because of its mini-tender status.

In short, I think that the goal of the conspirators is to drive bank stocks into the ground as fast and as hard as they can.
You can buy most bank stocks for cheaper than a pack of cigarettes costs in New York City.
Just wait.  The worst days are yet to come.

The stochastics I spoke of earlier are one of the most telling signs of the forced selling and artificial pressure in the bank stocks.
Normal stochastics for stocks come in cycles - just like any bull or bear market.
By reading the stochastics, you're essentially reading the buy and sell activity for the stock by seeing how much is accumulated vs. how much of it is sold.

In bull markets, the K line goes up, usually for an extended period of three or four days and more or less stays over the D line for the majority of the time.
In the bear market, the D line is higher than the K line, and more people are selling, which brings prices down.
Eventually, the buying or selling gets to a point where it's way out of market equilibrium and the trend reverses.  In a bull market, selling starts.  In a bear maret, buying starts.

The stochastics in this recent bearish trend in the banking sector are almost TOO perfect.  No matter how much selling takes place, just enough buying takes place to ever let a stock get oversold, and it happens at regular intervals, like it's being controlled.

Watching the bids and asks will yield some interesting facts too.
At critical points during the day, bidders or sellers will some in briefly with WAY out of line bids and asks - like really high volume stuff.

For example, a stock is at 5.00 bucks, after a long and terrible drop.  The selling fizzles out naturally because of regular market forces.
In a completely untampered market, you'd see some correction to the decline in the stock's price.
People would be willing to start buying again, because WHO is left to sell?

Short sellers.  That's who.

People with a lot of money have a lot of ability to dictate the bids and asks of stocks on a second level and can completely inject either fear or bullish sentiment with a few clicks, but no actual purchase of the stocks.

Let me explain.  A stock's price is 5 dollars.
The stock has been sold for a long time, and it's getting to the natural end of its sell cycle.
To accelerate buying activity, all that is needed is to place a bid for a VERY large volume of shares a few cents below the current bid price.
To traders reading bids and asks, they'll have their bid in at say 4.98 on an ask price of 5.00, and maybe some trades will execute at the 4.98, maybe some people might bid the even 5, etc.
Now, if you have tens of millions of dollars, you can change the market sentiment very quickly without making any actual commitments or purchasing any actual shares.

You can put in a bid for 600000 shares at 4.95.  The trade will never execute, because people will see the bid for that many shares at that price and figure that that's the support level for the stock.
But before the price gets to 4.95, you suddenly withdraw your bid, and the trade never executes.
A bunch of people watching bids on the books will have seen that "firm" support level of 4.95 for the stock and bid it up as fast as they could.
Now the price is at 5.50.  Wow.  A quick ten percent gain for those that bought at 5.00.
Some will start selling because the gain is good enough for them.  Probably about 1/3 to half of them in a normal market.
This would bring the natural price of a stock down to the 5.25 to 5.35 range in a normal bull market before the bids take over and buying starts again.
It's the natural cycle of the market.

But let's say that the current ask is at 5.30, and the market is in relative equilibrium, with an even number of bids and asks, more or less.
Then, you take your millions of dollars, and put an ask in - that you never intend to execute - at 5.36 or so.
Buyers of the stock will see that there is no way that they'll be able to get more than 5.36 for their stock, and they will start taking lower and lower prices fo the stock.
You can then withdraw the bid, because you've taken the buying out of the market with a few threats.

It's like the asshole playing Texas Holdem with ten million dollars and he goes all in on every hand, and you can't even call him because you don't have ten million to cover.
Instead, you fold, and you never know if he was serious or not.

The same thing applies in stock trading, and is occuring in the banking sector right now.
People are putting abnormally high bids and asks at the right time to put artificial pressure on the market.

People put excessive bids on the bank stocks that were never executed, which gave false trading signals to chart technicians.
Many of them bought bank stocks because of a perceived bottom, and then sold them as quickly as they could when the false ask price was put in.
Yet neither bid nor ask was ever executed, both only served to control market direction.
Let's say you get a bunch of people to bid up the price of a stock by putting in a false support level bid, and then you put a definite "resistance" level in with a false ask bid.
First, the people buy the stock like wildfire, only to soon realize that they must have been wrong, because now there's six million shares on the market at only a few cents more than the current ask.  They'll take what they can get, while they can, sending panic selling through the market.
After months of these cycles, people get spooked, and now all the buyers are gone.  Short sellers can come in and make a large amount of money with only two people.

The buyers and the sellers are exactly the same in this market, each working to drive the price of the stock down.
After sending enough fear and volatility through the market, they can drive prices down as much as they please without worry from REAL buyers because they already scared the piss out of anybody thinking of going long on the stock.

The only buyers are other short sellers covering their shorts, and it happens in a very controlled, even manner.
This accounts for the almost perfectly symmetrical stochastics, as opposed to ones more consistent with real market activity.

I could really go into detail with exactly how the plan would work, but the short of it is: There is a big conspiracy to drive banks down as fast as they can be driven down.
The selling pressure is artificial, and the only reason there are buyers is because of other short sellers in the conspiracy looking to cover their previous short sales.
The price of the stock can be driven down as far as the people with big money like, and money can be made by all short sellers, with little consequence to anyone - except for anybody that is long.
The price of the bank stock suffers significantly as well.

Of course, after they made all that money pounding banks into oblivion, what then?
Well, why not buy them back for a dollar a share?
They're really WORTH twenty, some poor schmuck just sold them because they got spooked by the artificial bids and asks.
Then, the bank comes out with its financial results, and people know that they're WORTH twenty.
You sell the stocks that you bought for a dollar for nineteen, and you still made NINETEEN times your investment, even selling at below market prices. 
Or, you can be the majority shareholder in Bank of America because you bought two billion shares for a dollar each, and now you have unfettered access to the 200 billion dollars in its vault.
Then, you can squander all the money that so many shareholders and honest businessmen have worked for so many years to build.

It's going on at a larger level in general in America, but it's the new conspiracy in the banking sector, and the downward pressure is only temporary.

You have "real, credible" financial analysts saying that they're "afraid" that the banks might be nationalized.
Oh my god!  Sell your bank stocks as quickly as you can, while people make money short selling!
Who is making the money short selling?  The very same firm that the "reputable" analyst came from.

According to Ben Stein:
Alan Greenspan is one example.  He's a consultant for a large hedge fund.
The hedge fund short sells bank stocks while Mr. Greenspan uses his ethos in economics to say that "there's a good possibility that the banks will be nationalized."
The banks will not be nationalized, but everybody believes Mr. Greenspan for some reason, EVEN THOUGH HIS ECONOMIC POLICIES CREATED THIS MESS.
As the banks freefall, his partner will make a killing short selling them.
Then, when they're fifty cents even though they're really valued in the mid-fifteen range, the hedge fund can buy back all the bank stocks that people earned and bought slowly over the years, consolidating their power on the national economy and creating a couple of gazillionaires.

I'm sure Greenspan is getting boatloads of cash in "consulting fees" for his role, while the hedge fund steals money from pension plans by short selling the pension plan's holdings into oblivion, and then buying them back at a fraction of the cost.
Then, the hedge fund owns all the banks for a dollar a share.

It's happening right now in America.
It's the reditribution of wealth upward.  It's nothing new.
It's just that depserate times call for desperate measures, and the super wealthy are not wasting any time.
As the economy worsens, they must steal as much as they can.  Time is short, and there are only so many "regular" investors to take advantage of.
As the regular investors dwindle in little to nothing in numbers, the hedge funds will own everything eventually.

It's just the wealth going upward, like always.  There's always a new scheme.
See: Tech bubble, housing bubble, war in Iraq bubble, Oil Commodity bubble, and now the "great bank selloff of 2009" which happens to double as a bubble for short sellers.

It's a conspiracy for the hostile takeover of common shares and ownership in these tremendously undervalued banks.
Nationalization shouldn't be the biggest concern of a rational person here.

These banks going to going up again.  The people with the courage to buy them in their darkest hour will rule the world.  Most will be scared into taking losses on their investments, and even fewer will see the recovery trend of these undervalued assets.
Those that stick through these artificially challenging times will be rich someday.

I wouldn't buy these stocks yet, because the artificial pressure from short selling is still heavy indeed.  Buying into this wave ensures that you will get slaughtered in the short term.

Having the courage to buy these stocks after they go down a lot LATER instead of sooner will be key to transforming some people into far wealthier ones, while others curse their losses.
Still, I wouldn't buy yet, except for in small quantities at a time, at least until the bottom of the financial stocks in early Junish.

Many of the problems that have been brought on by this financial crisis are the result of Sarbanes Oxley.  Sarbanes Oxley reinstated mark-to-market accounting standards after the massive failures of Enron and Worldcom due to the overinflated and restated earnings that caused the companies to fall out of acceptable leverage ratios.

Companies overstated their earnings to such a large degree that they only had book value, on paper, to cover their loans that were based on collateral.  When the assets were not there, the banks called in more collateral to cover the massive debt levels that Enron and Worldcom had accrued.  Since they were out of acceptable leverage ratios, their assets were seized and poof - bankrupt. 
When the massive fraud in their books was discovered, more stringent accounting standards to value assets were developed to make sure that such fraud could not occur again.  These are the mark to market or "fair value" accounting principles that are the current law in America, as enforced by the FASB, SEC, and etc.

What has occured over the boom of the 2000s is easily the largest theft in American history.  Mortgage brokers made mortgages to people that were doomed to fail.  They sold junk bonds to banks, essentially, in the form of mortgage backed securities.
If the mortgages in the securities fail, the securities are worth nothing.
Further, since banks made a large amount of loans and extended huge terms of credit to people based on the collateral of these mortgage backed securities and faulty mortgages, their notes are on call for adequate collateral.
The banks can't produce this collateral, since their previously valuable assets are subject to their CURRENT market values rather than the potential values within.

Banks are realizing losses on paper as the mortgage market depreciates in value.  If they were not infused with TARP funds, they would not have had the collateral to operate and the entire banking system would have collapsed.

The question: WHERE ARE THE TARP FUNDS, AND HOW WERE THEY SPENT?
The answer:  What an uninformed question.

The Tarp funds are not spent at all.  The TARP funds are providing the collateral that the banks need to cover their outstanding loan obligations to others.  The TARP funds are being held in escrow as collateral for the loans that the banks have received and subsequently lended to consumers.
In short, they're just "there."
They're not doing anything except keeping the banks out of default and seizure.

At least that aspect of this situation is somewhat comforting to me.

Q: Why aren't banks lending?
A: Because they can't.  They're already on the verge of bankruptcy just because they're so highly leveraged.  If they lend their TARP funds, then they'll fall back out of ratio and be on the verge of being seized again.

Back to mark to market and the point of this blog.  The fact that mark to market accounting should be suspended is an absurd and simplistic solution that would do little except invite more financial fraud into the banking system.
While relaxing valuation standards might temporarily bring banks into acceptable leverage ratios, it could lead to the same overvaluation in assets that created the bankruptcies of Enron and Worldcom.

That definitely is not the solution.

The next big idea is to infuse massive amounts of "stimulus" into the economy to offset the losses in peoples' assets.
Since when does diluting your currency make the problem better?

Lets look at the theory of "supply side" economics. 
The myth: If people have the resources and capital to continue to supply and produce goods, any accumulating deficit or national debt that results from the oversupply of capital to producers will be offset by the growth caused by their production.

The reality: This "trickle down" theory depends on the assumption that money filters back into the economy to be able to be multiplied to pay for its own growth.
The money doesn't filter back into the economy, and thus the levels of capital multiplication that are assumed to occur in our banking system cannot occur.

The notion that infusing large amounts of capital into the economy will make it multiply to the point where t he growth will erase deficits is exactly the same kind of supply side strategy that we've seen in the past.
The good part of the spending strategy is that the money will get to the bottom a little bit more quickly than if traditional banks lended based on creditworthiness.

The bad part is that EVERY economic theory devised always assumes that the money doesn't all filter upward at the end of the cycle, even though it does.

Further, supply side economics by government spending allows assets to inflate when they should deflate.
The problem comes when assets have been inflated so much that deflation to their natural levels would positively kill the economy.

So much of our economy is based on the values of assets, and when the value of assets has declined in the past, we have used the same tactics of somehow infusing money into the economy to keep the values of assets artificially high.
We've been doing it for 27 years now.

Instead of letting nature takes its course and letting the economy take its medicine, we introduce yet another solution that is the same as the cause of the problem.

I believe that some define insanity as "trying the same action many times and expecting different results."

How about RAISING interest rates, and letting the economy deflate until we're back to normal?
Carter tried it, and people hated him.

Until the American consumer realizes that they're not entitled to all the things that we take for granted, the problem will never end.
We need a depression just to get people into that mindset.

Keeping the assets that have been overvalued for SO long artifically inflated by cheap government money is THE EXACT SAME THING THAT LED TO THE HOUSING CRISIS.

The more money a government prints, the less it is worth, and the more prices rise.  The assets only are valued so high because of the amount of money circulating.  Letting them deflate would permanently cripple the economy, people say.
I disagree.
Multiplying the problem with an increased monetary supply that contributes to massive inflation and keeps assets artificially overvalued will just see us facing the same problems down the road.

I've learned some useful things about the stock market over time, and I'd like to write them down to reinforce them.

An M in a chart on a chart is bad in the short or the long term.  If you see a chart making an M, it's wise to check to make sure that there are plenty of strong bids to make it past the second peak in the M.  If there aren't, and it looks like the bids are fizzling out, you should sell your stock as close to the peak of the M as possible, because the chart of the stock that you're following will make the final, fourth stroke of the M, and it will definitely be the most steepest and most rapid stroke of the M on the chart.

If the values of the points of M correspond to the value of a stock on a chart, the two optimal sell points of the stock correspond with the peaks of the M.

There is a psychological reason why the selling of the stock follows this pattern.
People will bid up the price of the stock to the first peak in the M.  Then, some of the people who bought at the beginning of the M will take their profits at the peak, which is a natural progression.  This makes the second stroke of the M on the stocks chart.
As long as more people hold onto their stock in the second phase of the M than bought in the first stroke of the M, the stock's price will stay above what probably at least half of the people bought at, and a few will be out a percent or so, but not compelled to sell.
If the stock's price only goes down to the center of the M, it is typically considered a good sign, and buying will commence, since the recent movement of the stock price is upward.
The buying will commence to approach the level of the first peak of the M, making the third phase.  The second peak of the M is a crucial time. 
If the stock price makes it over the peak, the stock will most likely go higher and the peak of the M will now serve as the lowest price that the NEW buyers of the stock are willing to sell at, at least for now, since all the buyers after the peak of the M will be paying higher prices than the previous peak.  The logic follows that the new buyers would not be willing to sell for less than they bought at, and most of the profit takers from the first phase of the rally already got out of the stock in the second phase of the M.
However, if the stock price approaches the second peak of the M and isn't able to make it over its previous peak, most of the buyers involved with the rally know that they've tried to bid it over the resistance twice with little effect, and that the second peak of the M is all that they can get for the stock.
This will cause people to sell as quickly as possible, shooting the stock down into a temporarily oversold position, and make the fourth stroke of the M.

This logic applies to both short and long term trading, only the peaks and troughs take longer to build in long term trading, and are obviously the result of longer cycles.

Ws are the same thing, only reversed.  The stock gets oversold to and makes the first stroke of the W.
Then the stock's price will gradually creep up and make the second stroke of the W.  This is usually a longer process because people have the fresh memories of the whoopin that the stock just took.
People realize that there is no more selling pressure, and the stock has made a low, at least for now.
They're slowly, and then more rapidly willing to buy the stock, until it makes the second stroke of the W.  This stroke of buying activity usually isn't as high as the first stroke of the W started, despite what a typed W looks like.
People just saw the stock get rapidly sold from the first level, and they aren't willing to try that level again anytime soon.  People lose their balls, and chicken out buying it.  The stock's price goes lower again.  The people who bought at the very bottom last time might take some profits, because the middle of the W just might be the highest price that they can get.  They're happy with a small gain, and why wouldn't they be?
The stock sells, until it reaches the second trough in the W.  By the time it hits the second trough, people stop selling it again.
Nobody was willing to sell at that trough the first time it went there, so if nobody sells at that amount the second time that it goes there, then people will rapidly buy the stock again because the stock has found its support.
Since all the people willing to get into the stock are waiting for the lowest price, they will all bid as fast as they can to get in at the lowest point on the final stroke of the W, and as long as the final stroke of the W goes above the second peak created by the first stroke of buying, than it will likely send the stock higher.  Now, more buyers are willing to get in because they know that the downside is only to the troughs in the W and the upside is in most cases higher than the first stroke of selling activity started.
Once the rally makes its final stroke of the W on a stocks chart, some selling will commence, mainly from the profit takers who bought at the very beginning of the fourth stroke of the W.  Roughly half of the people who bought are willing to sell, because those are the people that bought in the first half of the W, and now they've seen the second rally in the W get to the recent high in the stock.
The stock price will then come down to the second level of the W again, and if it does not break that level, more people will buy the stock again.  If it goes higher than the first peak at the end of the W, than even more people are willing to buy.

A W constitutes the bottom of traders' willingness to sell and generally signals a rally.
An M constitutes the end of traders' willingness to buy and generally signals a bear cycle.
Both are reversal patterns on a stock chart.

If there's a bear market in effect, and you see a W forming in a stock's price, the third stroke generally constitutes the end of the bear market, and the fourth stroke is the beginning of the rally.
The Dow made the W on Thursday, and Friday it went down to test the second peak of the W.
I believe that we should see a rally on Monday, based on my best estimates, and I believe that the first stage of the rally started on Thursday, even though the down was still slightly down for the day.
The reason why is because you have to subtract the standard daily deviations of the linear regression from the average to see if it has truly made a reversal.
The Dow is headed downward, in general.  Still, it was down to 7700 before it shot up 200 points the same day.  If that rally of 200 points came the next day it would have been considered a bull cycle... but since it was already down slightly more people still consider it a "down" day.
I believe that it was the first stage of the rally.
Stock prices came down back to the second peak of the W, and both fast and slow stochastic oscillators are showing oversold conditions for the majority of stocks in the Dow.  After going up 200 points, the selling seems to be fizzling out after dropping about 80.
And that is why I believe that there may be a little bit of down Monday, but we should see a true rally that day.
But I still maintain that the rally actually began Thursday, and Friday's selling was just profit taking from the first stage.

Of course, I could be wrong...

Barring anything major, I think that we'll see about two days of rally coming, with maybe a little bit of selling on Monday morning, but there shouldn't be much. 
I think that I'll probably check out some bids then and see what the action looks like, with the intention of buying.

Either way, it'll either go up and hit the last peak it made for a quick gain, or I'll see that the asks are outweighing the bids and I can put in a bid at the last support level below the W and most likely get a good bounce off of that.

I still think that the bear market is ending temporarily for a couple of days.
Volume in the last stroke of the Dows W was very strong, and I believe that it was strong enough to constitute support around the middle peak in the W, which is further confirmed by oscillator trends.

Still, the bear market in general isn't over yet!
Some stocks have been headed higher, but most are getting effed by the market over time.
There are some long term winners still left in the mix, but holding really isn't going to make you any money in this market, for sure not in the short term, and probably not for a while, so why hold?

Get the few bucks here and there if you can based on other people's behavior, and get the eff out.
It beats losing your ass.

If I keep practicing my financial kung fu, someday I'll be a black belt.
If I can win in this market, I'm going to be the shit in the bull market.

Trust, believe, execute.  It's all I can do.  The knowledge will pay off big someday.

I think that after I graduate from college, I'm going to look into taking my Series 6 exam.  I've already been reading textbooks to take a Series 6, and then I can do what I love to learn about for a living.

I'm glad I found something so vastly interesting.  It's really more complicated than just reading charts, because of the economic, political, and social reasons involved with the charts.
Still, it keeps me out of trouble, although it keeps me from studying for my other classes a little bit more than it should.

I finished closing all of my positions in the market today, and I got about 14% between all my stocks for my trouble. 

The bear market today has been in the works as long as the last rally.  The last rally was relatively short in terms of upside movement, and the Dow clearly made two runs at the 8300 resistance level, before being thwarted back down.

The fact that it made two attempts at the 8300 means that the Dow has reached the top of it's current channel, and I really doubt that the bottom of the channel has been reached at 7900ish because of that.

Today's drop in the dow further illustrates this.  Bear cycles and bull cycles last around 4 days without artificial pressures on the market.  The fact that the dow has already breached support after its FIRST DAY in the bear cycle is a pretty good indicator that we're going lower. 
The fact that it tried to break 8300 twice and couldn't is a good indicator that we will not see a break of 8300 until at LEAST the next cycle, although I believe that it will be much longer than that, as general technical analysis for the Dow is down.

I bought Sony Corp (SNE), and Microsoft (MSFT) on the last day of the last bear cycle.
I already held a long position in Gamestop (GME), which jumped it's channel after I bought it. 
Friday, I sold all of my positions in these companies, because it was obvious that the Dow was going to go down on Monday.  The Dow didn't go down MUCH on Monday, but that was because it had to go up and retest the 8300 resistance level before it could trend back down.  After it hit that mark, it was all bears.

I made close to ten percent on my position in Bank of America from Friday night until Monday night.

Today, I woke up determined to sell Bank of America.  I deposited additional funds in my account last night to ensure that I didn't sell my position in a free ride, which is against Federal Trade Commission laws.
Then I woke up, and something strange was happening.  Bank of America was skyrocketing!
It was up almost 5% in pre-market trading, and it was trending WAY down before the open, at superhuman speeds.  I'm glad I was watching it tick by tick.
I sold my position before work today, and I was glad I did.
The stock lost 20% today, and I got to keep my nearly 10% gain, which is fucking awesome for a one day return.

Over the long term, I'm actually very bullish on Bank of America.  I believe that the worst hits have come in terms of news, nationalization is ruled out, and CEO Lewis says that they plan to repay all TARP funds within three years.
Once these TARP funds are paid back, the stock will be back to paying more than a 20% dividend at current stock prices if they reinstate their last dividends.

Further, their acquisition of Merill Lynch was essentially FORCED by the feds.  Some people see the acquisition as a result of a poor CEO lacking in doing his due dilgence before buying the shares.  Lewis was basically coerced by the Fed to acquire Bank of America even after he wanted to pull out of the deal, with a wink.  The wink was basically that the federal government would help Bank of America cover losses from the acquisition without taking equity stakes in return for the capital.
As such, I believe that the asset base and claims on equity made by the government are relatively stable at this point.  We're not going to see much more bad news, and the majority of news is all accounted for in the current stock's price.

Bank of America is extremely undervalued.
It trades with a Book Value per share of around 33 dollars for a 5 something dollar stock.
The tangible book value (which is all assets minus all liability claims on the assets) is somewhere around 13 bucks a share.
If they were forced to go out of business and liquidate tomorrow, their shareholders would receive roughly 13 dollars a share.

And yet, the stock is highly volatile and extremely low in comparison.  The stock is trading around 1/2 of it's tangble book value ratio, which is a key indicator to me that it's extremely undervalued at this point.

I wouldn't recommend going out and buying it tomorrow, but it's definitely going to pop at some point and provide a nice return for somebody.

We still have a few more days of bear cycle, so why not see how low it can go before picking some up?  I don't see it jumping any channels downward soon and if bought at the bottom it will provide 40% in returns in its regular channel cycle because of the high beta ratio.
Please, do your own homework and analysis before taking any advice here, because my strategies work for me, but only with very precise implementation.
Hell, I still goof now and then with my execution.

I can't sing Gamestop's praises enough.  That's a good buy and hold.  It has long term upward technical analysis and it's GOING to beat its Q4 estimates.  You can write it down.

There are a few other stocks that I'm bullish on in the long term.
I like SFL because of its steady 20% dividend and its business has a nine year backlog.  It's a hell of a buy at these levels for the long term investor.  It'll pay for itself in five years and the dividend is not going anywhere.  Their business is SO stable.  It might not increase or grow, but they should have plenty to cover dividend distribution at least for the next nine years.  At 20% return a year, nine years is long enough.

I like the WWE now.  While I think that their overall business is in decline, they're trading with a 16% dividend.  Further, jobs were cut and dividends were not.  I don't think that it's the kind of company to cut dividends because the majority of officer compensation is in dividends.  It's a great buy down in the low nines and I think that it could be up to 12 or so by March, when they make gobs of cash off of Wrestlemania.

There are a few other stocks that I'm interested in, but I haven't executed my strategies yet.
All of the stocks mentioned previously are great buys if you buy at the end of a bear cycle because the majority have upward technical analysis for the long term.
The only exception with regard to the technical analysis is Bank of America, but I think that the volatility will pretty much wash away if bought at the bottom of its channel.
It's not out of the woods yet, but I don't think there's much, if any more downside either.

My boss is suddenly very interested in my opinions of the market.  I called this bear market on Thursday of last week!  I told him "we're going to see a hell of a bear cycle starting either Monday afternoon or Tuesday!"
I was totally right.  While I don't have proof for my blog, I did tell him and my beloved girlfriend.
They are both witnesses to my nearly 15% gains in less than a week in this market.
Try getting that in a treasury bill.

I'm not saying that I'm an expert.  In fact, I'm FAR from it.  I kinda suck still.  I know my fundamental analysis pretty well, but I need to get sharper on pulling the trigger.  This time was my best decision making yet.
 
I'm not an expert.  I don't have some cool mentor to teach me or money to piss away. 
What I do have is a work ethic, unlimited ability to improve, and the willingness to learn lessons without giving up.
I could be down on my next trades for sure.  Still, I'm going to do everything I can to ensure that that does not happen.

I didn't get into stock trading because I'm greedy.  I got into it because it fascinates me.  I love it.  I love learning about the companies I study every day.  I love analyzing the markets.  I love seeing supply and demand in constant action.

I don't want a lot of money in life because I want to have a lot of things.  I want money because I want to be free.  I could be happy as can be with a modest car and house as long as I never have to starve again.
I want to live my life and not rely on anybody.  I want to learn the skills to be completely free.  I don't want to have to depend on anybody else in life for my next meal.  I don't want to ever rely on the charity of other people again.
I've learned that no matter how hard I work and how much I give, I'm back on my own when the winter comes.
I'm grateful for the people in my life, and I'm grateful to have a job and a good boss and money and stuff, but that's all ancillary to my primary concern in this world.
I want to live to dictate my own story, with no obligations - financial or otherwise - to anybody.
I never want to starve again.  I never want to worry again.
It's the pain that drives these eyes.  It's what gets me out of bed at 4 am.
I want to do better.  Not because I want to be better relative to anybody else, but because I want to be the best person I can be.

I know that I can live my life to lesser means.  I know that I can give up and settle.  I know that I can get worse grades than I strive to get and it will not affect me at all.   Lord knows I don't need to get 859 out of 850 points in every class.
I want to be able to look myself in the mirror in the morning and know that I gave everything I did my absolute best.

I used to always tell a friend of mine (who isn't really around much anymore)
"What have you done to improve your own life today?"
I don't really feel that I should give advice unless I follow it. 

I realized that for too long in my life I was "settling" for a medicore existence that was good, but only relative to average people.
It's why I work so hard every day.  I want to make sure that I've done everything I possibly can to improve my condition and work toward my ultimate goal - freedom.

Some people might think I was crazy for entering the market when I did.  In fact, I lost my ass on my first trade.  I've made some huge mistakes since then.

Although I've been mostly up on my trades, I'm really not up in my account from where I began.  I'm getting there though.
The knowledge has been worth every penny that I lost and more.
I don't lose money really now.  I might lose a little here or there but the gains are definitely better than the losses in my recent history.  My last cycle of trading was pretty good, but could have been improved.  Still, 15% is the shit for a week.
The money isn't even that important to me.  It's more of the challenge that comes with it.  It's something I LOVE to do.  All my life, I've heard everybody say that "You can't beat the market."  If that was so true, than why are there mofos with a billion dollars from beating the market?
I don't mind taking my whoopings if it helps me learn a lesson.  I just think of myself as the student in Shaolin temple getting my ass beat for missing a backflip.
Sure, the pain is harsh and the pain is real, but the knowledge, experience and confidence that comes with DOING far outweighs any pain that I've experienced financially.  It even looks like I might be able to make consistent gains in the future.  Of course, the future is a long time away from the present.  It's so easy to say those things now.

I'd rather take an ass whoop from the Kung Fu master once in a while if it ensures that I too can learn Kung Fu.

Still, anybody who knows me should know that I was born on the "Day of Tenacity." (seriously.. check out the Secret Language of Birthdays, March 31st.)
I plan to prove this through my unrelenting pursuit of higher goals.

I stand proud of my recent acheivements, but being proud isn't going to get me to higher levels.  Only with knowledge, careful planning, and hard work can I reach my goals.

I feel so lucky to be in a cycle of self-actualization.  I feel lucky to have my friends and a wonderful woman by my side.  I feel lucky to be alive.  In some ways, it really makes me want to be humble.

Then there's the other side of me that reminds me of the old cliche: I reap what I sow.
If I stop running, I'll be trampled by the herd. 
I'll just have to run faster.

Making decisions is never easy when it comes to hair trigger events like stock trading, but I'm engaged in having the time of my life by doing it.  It's just so fascinating.  I love it.  I'm going to succeed at it too.

Some day, I'll be the crazy motherfucker pushing the bull and bear buttons and yelling at you on CNBC.

Hi y'all!
It's 2009, and it's tax season!
I am now accepting clients for 2009 tax preparation.
This year will be my fifth year of doing taxes "professionally" for people.
I'm in college getting my CPA license now, and I have a 4.0 gpa.
In addition, I work as a staff accountant for my company.
I am able to supply numerous references from happy customers upon request.
My rate is 30 dollars an hour (since I'm not a full fledged CPA yet), and most returns shouldn't take longer than an hour.  Additional time is negotiable.
This year, I will not prepare taxes without payment in advance.  Last year, a couple of my clients never paid me, despite promises to do so.
If your question is: "Can I pay you when I get my return back?""
The answer is NO!
Cash on delivery, and satisfaction guaranteed!
If you are interested, please contact me any way that you know how, and I promise you'll be satisfied!