As someone who trades off the chart I have to laugh every time I see CNBC, Bloomberg and the ilk search for a reason for movements in prices. Just once I'd like to hear one of those idiots say somthing like "well it looks the market just hit resistance at the 200 day moving average and is now selling off from a double top formation". Or how about, "The dow continued it's decline from a bearish rising wedge formation today..........." NOOOO, it always has to have a reason. Otherwise Maria and Dylan would be out of a job. I was long oil from the low $90's to $100 (yes, I left a ton on the table!) but I remember when my long position started working all the headlines could say was it was due to Chavez's threats. http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8UNOD3G0&show_article=1 When that went away and the price kept moving they said it was because of the falling dollar. When the dollar rebounded and oil kept going up it was demand from China and India. Next it was OPEC's fault. Now they say it's all because of speculators. And T. Boone Pickens??? Do not believe a word HE says. When oil was at $100 he said short it. Now he says oil will keep going up because world demand is more than what is being pumped. If you believe that, you believe the world's demand went up over 100% in the last year and a half. Something tells me he just put in the top for a while. Here is an interesting thread from a while back.................. http://elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73451&highlight=jim+rogers+$100+oil
ess I could not agree with you more. I have had many of those same thoughts myself. I always have thought the most dangerous word in financial media is "on." As in "stocks fell today ON..." or "oil fell ON..." They're always incorrectly attempting to correlate a move to fundamentals. All good traders know that the shorter the time frame, the less the fundamentals apply to price movement. If Maria or the stuttering RedBull slurper Dylan would just once admit "hey, the markets tanked today for no real reason" I'd be so proud. But that will never occur. They are in business to sell advertising by doing whatever it takes to over-sensationalize current conditions and draw viewership. I totally concur with your T. Bone assessment as well. This guy is part of the small elite that CNBC fawns all over daily. (Of course Buffett is numero uno, followed by Ross, T Bone and others). Always with an axe to grind, there's no telling what positions the've put on prior to utilizing the media to profit. These bastards truly believe they are swaying the public. T Bonehead's call on shorting oil in the 90's (or 100 or whatever) was ridiculous and had he put his money where his mouth was he'd have lost huge, of course. But I suspect T Bone was loading up; he's an oil man for Pete's sake. Now I suspect he's thinnng out his longs severely, if he already hasn't done so. These guys are frauds that should be investigated. Reminds me of the Dan Dorfman days. Or Cramer today. Personally I bought some DBC 42 puts on Thursday. Hearing T Bone's "forecasts" for $5000 oil confirms I made the correct decision.
You eloquently pinpointed exactly what I meant. Be it CNBC, Bloomberg, the local six o'clock news or pick your favorite buisness news source on the web, radio or TV. It's ALWAYS "......fell on......" or "......rose on......".
While I always question whatever's presented on TV as 'financial journalism' I must admit that I feel Bloomberg at least provides facts, data, and pretty decent commentary & analysis instead of sensational cheerleading, constant hype, and glitzy special effects that pander to the retail trader that's become a trademark of CNBC in the past year or two. Fox Biz Channel is pretty useless IMO based on the little bit I've seen of it since its launch. I only watch Bloomie during breakfast and in the evenings to see what Asia's doing, and can admit learning more about how the markets work from them and their content than from the "investotainment" that makes up 90% of CNBC's daily menu. I daresay anyone using CNBC as their primary source of investing or trading information deserves whatever they lose....... Bottom line, (my own 2 cents) is that I wouldn't be so quick to lump Bloomberg in the same general category as CNBC, Fox Biz, or financial coverage on the cable networks.
Bloomberg is much better - I wouldn't lump it in with CNBC, but they still suck at times: May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Asian stocks fell for a fifth day as rising oil prices sparked concern higher costs will reduce consumer spending and erode profits. Note: Oil is up 33 cents...
FX commentary is the biggest joke. You would think there was some major move going on but if you look at the chart its just noise. Public has to have a reason so someone has to come up with a reason for them. Bad business not to as you would not be telling them what they want to hear.
May 27 (Bloomberg) -- Crude oil fell more than $3 a barrel in New York, the biggest decline since April, on signs that U.S. fuel consumption is dropping because of a slowing economy and record energy prices. Gimme a break!
That's beautiful: energy prices FALL because of RISING energy prices. How's that for circular logic??
Niow we have..."the consumer is cutting back on buying gas so the consumer spending will increase"....it never ends. "Profit taking took the dow lower today"......no shit?