Skip to comments.U.S. stocks higher; S&P 500 at best level in nearly 6 years (NEW DOW HIGH, NASDAQ 6 YEAR HIGH)
Posted on 10/26/2006 1:13:14 PM PDT by RogerWilko
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- U.S. stocks were on the rise late in Thursday's session, after a fresh batch of earnings reports led by Exxon Mobil Corp., Dow Chemical, Comcast Corp and others lifted the S&P 500 Index to its best level in about six years. ADVERTISEMENT
With less than an hour of trade left, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, meanwhile, was on track to close at a record for the fourth straight session, while the Nasdaq Composite flirted with six-month highs.
(Excerpt) Read more at biz.yahoo.com ...
We wouldn't want anyone to think the economy's doing okay now would we?
Bump for more great economic news!
Microsoft posts earnings, revenue that top forecasts. Details soon. per http://money.cnn.com/
Oh by the way... I added the stuff in the parenthesis! That might have made the news look TOO good, if they threw all that in!
Worst economy in 3500 years!!!!
Women and minorities hardest hit!!!!
Algore says full-scale planetary emergency means that the US economy will cease to exist within 10 years!!!!
I'll expect Katie, et al to ballyhoo this all across America tonight.............not!.......
The MSM will say, "Dow up, but many Poor". If a dem was President the headline would read, "Dow Up, Prosperity for All"
Market Watch buried the new Dow high at the bottom of the third paragraph in this article.
In fact I missed it when I read the article after the closes.
Can you imagine the headlines if BJ Klintoon were still running the show right now! That's all we'd see for 10 minutes on the evening news!:
"ECONOMY ROARING!! STOCK MARKETS SOAR TO RECORD HEIGHTS!!"
Pictures of people shopping, working, spending money!
Wonder what we'll see tonight... If we watch?
Is America's economy overheating? Is the bubble about to burst?.......
You can't tell me that JUST because Iraq may be a sticky situation, that MOST people would be STUPID enough to hand Congress over to a bunch of clueless DUmmies!
Nasdaq near its highs? I think not .... you can see the huge underperformance in the chart at http://www.page88.co.za/cr/sp500-dow-nasdaq.shtml
My 401 thanks you :-)
I didn't say the Nasdaq was near it's high, I said near it's 6 year high! The last time it closed higher than 2379 was 16 Feb 2001, according to the chart I was looking at.
It closed at 2425 that day, then it was ALL downhill from there!
We have an aging population - this is what the Pubbies don't get ...
Anyone got the clip of Dick Gebhart bragging back in 2002 how every 100 points the DOW went down was another Democrat Congressional Seat pick up?
Wonder what Dicky would say today?
I remember reading about a study of the last 100 years' Presidential elections, in which the overall movement of the Dow was an almost 100% accurate predictor of the winner(IE: If the movement was up, the party in power stayed in power and vice versa). I don't know if this in any way applies to offyear elections, but if it does, we would seem to be in good shape.
Ugh. The bursting of the Clinton Bubble.
Yeah.. I was in it then, and I took a hit but not a bad one.
Sorry to soil the party, but NASDAQ still has ways to go before it reaches its all time high of over 5000. It isn't even half-way there.
I'm not holding my breath in the meantime.
Christian news and commentary at: sacredscoop.com ...
Indeed, they made the headline sound like the Dow wasn't at an all time high, just "U.S. stocks higher; S&P 500 at best level in nearly 6 years" -
"higher" should have been "highest" - and they know it. They are choking on this. thinly disguised twist to make people think - "since Clinton" -
I spent many years in the newspaper business - and published and edited.
This crap makes me steam from both ears/
...but...but...I did't see or hear this mentioned in the MSM?!?! Probably just one big oversight on their part. I can only imagine that if Kerry had been elected and the markets were doing the same thing (never would happen), the MSM would have a ticker tape parade for him every day!
Nobody else has said it yet on this thread, but it needs to be said.
LOLOL! Yeah, my kids are watching their 401 just keep cranking out the daily increases. Sad...don't they know it's all BUSH'S fault??
"Sorry to soil the party, but NASDAQ still has ways to go before it reaches its all time high of over 5000. It isn't even half-way there.
I'm not holding my breath in the meantime."
Nice try there, but this bs is getting very old.
'The Nasdaq index peaked at an intra-day high of 5,132.52 on March 10, 2000, which signaled the beginning of the end of the dot-com stock market bubble. (Wickipedia)'
Only the gloomers and doomers try to compare the Clintoonian Nasdaq made up of the most part by dot comers that never had a product, nor a service nor a profit with today's Nasdaq. Those weren't companies for the most part, they were Arthur Andersen accounting shams posing as Nasdaq companies.
The companies in today's QQQQ have real products, real services and make profits versus the Rat.com companies of the Clintoonian 1990's to 2000.
Doomers and Gloomers working for George $oreA$$ need a new whine. This so called comparison of the 2000 bubble busting Nasdac to today's is very old and is pure BS.
They probably think it's that silly financial advisor, you know, the one that can't even beat the S&P500.
If you don't want to be left behind, get into hard assets.
Paper assets are so yesterday.
You're not soiling the party, either. Anyone who got screwed when the NASDAQ collapsed was clearly over-exposed to high-risk stocks that any investor with even a modicum of financial sense would have stayed away from.
Yes, my technology-oriented mutual funds lost about 65% of their value in 2000. But since they only comprised about 15% of my portfolio it wasn't such a big deal. And anyone who has been dollar-cost averaging for the long term has been able to take advantage of ups and downs in that market anyway.
Is there anyway you can add to that chart the decrease in 2002 that came after the Rats took back control of the senate. That decrease continued until the new Republican congress was sworn in 2003 after the November 2002 elections, and GW's Tax cuts were made into law as you have noted on the chart.
The proposed tax increase of Hilliarily, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer and others stuck a knife into our post 9/11 recovery until the election of 2002 and GW's tax cuts as you have noted on the chart.
"You're not soiling the party, either. Anyone who got screwed when the NASDAQ collapsed was clearly over-exposed to high-risk stocks that any investor with even a modicum of financial sense would have stayed away from."
I was on our church's finance committee during the Clintoonian years. I took a lot of abuse for refusing to put all of a retro fit fund, the church's savings and an endowment fund mainly into QQQ and then DIA, SPY and MDY at that time. The big pressure came at the first of 2000.
One of the pushers of this madness, lost over 50% on his Keough and IRA's. He wanted to retire in 2002. He is still working as an accountant and an CFO at hire. He thanks me every time we see each other for standing against his terrible advise and preventing the finance committee from buying into QQQQ. He blames the Arthur Andersen imaginary accounting for the bursts, and people like him who forgot the basics of business and invested in the dot.com insanity.
Regarding your chart...Look how someone was able to move the Dow on a downward trend between Jan 04 and the Nov 04 election, temporarily casting gloom upon what is otherwise a straight upward trend.
Uhh, maybe that's because those stocks were ridiculously overpriced back then, with PE ratios totally out of whack. Sanity finally prevailed.
My ex-inlaws went through retirement in the 90's and placed a lot of their money with a money manager that had them in the "Clinton" stock market. They lost over half of their cash, a couple hundred thou, when the Nasdaq...PROPPED UP TO MAKE CLINTON LOOK GOOD...went bust.
They still don't get it and vote Democrat.
The Pubbies get it, that's why they want private accounts in Social Security. How would Democrats in power and higher taxes help with those shortfalls?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.