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 ...
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.