Dow tops 11,000.

[jefferson_dem]

The "Obama Recovery" in full bloom. :)

Dow tops 11,000
By Alexandra Twin, senior writer

April 12, 2010: 1:20 PM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Stocks managed gains Monday, with the Dow industrials topping 11,000, after European leaders agreed to make loans available to Greece, tempering fears that the nation might have to default on its debt.

But lingering concerns ahead of the start of the quarterly reporting period limited the gains.

The Dow Jones industrial average (INDU) added 27 points, or 0.3%, topping 11,000 -- a key psychological level. On Friday, the Dow closed at its highest point since Sept. 26, 2008, when it finished at 11,143.13.

The S&P 500 index (SPX) gained 4 points, or 0.4%, after ending Friday's session at an 18-month high. The Nasdaq composite (COMP) edged up 7 points, or 0.3%, after ending the last session at the highest point since June of 2008

<SNIP>

http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/12/markets/markets_newyork/index.htm

[onehandle]

1. It was 11k briefly on Friday. I hope it sticks. My 401k is almost back to Clinton years' value. nt

[prolesunited]

7. Mine as well

It was *very* disappointing last summer. Hopefully I can land a job soon so I don't have to raid it. Savings are just about done, even on my extreme austerity budget.

[mikelgb]

2. GD:P?

good news, but wrong forum imo

[jefferson_dem]

3. Yes.

It's his economy and his recovery. He will get credit or blame. I inserted a few words in the OP to make that more clear.

[TexasObserver]

4. Yes, it's good news!

It's not the end of problems. It's not millions of new jobs, yet. But we are headed in the right direction, and with elections in less than 7 months, we need that as a party.

[Kdillard]

5. I would like to be happy about this but everything I have been reading is saying

Danger, danger and that we are headed for a major correction.

[onenote]

36. some DUers have been labelling this a "dead cat" bounce since mid 2008.

Must be a cat made from flubber.

NOt saying the market isn't going to continue to fluctuate up and down; but those who predicted that the market was going to quickly fall back down to 6500 were idiots, as was anyone who believed them.

[progressoid]

6. Yay! I'm starting to feel trickled on!

[Dappleganger]

51. LOL!

:rofl:

[ShortnFiery]

8. BFD. Makes little to no difference in most wage earning Americans' lives. eom

[FrenchieCat]

9. Many wage working Americans have 401Ks,

so it does make a difference to them.

[ShortnFiery]

10. Yes, but the little it rises for the amounts we have, well ... it's not much. eom

[FrenchieCat]

11. many's 401K values have risen as much as 50% since last year....

and an increase of 50% of anything can't with a straight face be called "not much".

[ShortnFiery]

12. Well, that's amazing. Good for them but many others are not feeling "the love." eom

[phleshdef]

18. You really have no clue if what you just said is actually true, do you?

[ShortnFiery]

20. Uh, yes. But admittedly, I don't enjoy the guidance of a wealth management counselor. eom

[karynnj]

39. You would need a wealth quidance management counselor to

know a 50% increase is good? Yet you wrote yesterday about doing survey research - which does require math skills. Why challenge simple facts?

[ShortnFiery]

54. Yes, I have math skills but I don't like finance. Therefore, I don't attend, at times,

as well as I should. :blush:

BTW even financial figures quoted as FACT (50% increase) only APPLIES to a sub-set of individuals.

Therefore, your simple fact does not translate to the ENTIRE middle class populace with 401Ks.

[karynnj]

61. Of course that is true

but that is the average that the market has moved - some funds are higher and some lower. Now, if your entire 401K is in one badly performing stock, you could still be in bad shape. But, most diversified funds are up about that much.

The counter to yours is that if you had all your money in the right stock you could be up over 100% from the bottom.

[progressoid]

33. What is 50% times zero?

[Dr.Phool]

16. After a 50% rise, it's time to get the fuck out.. Fast

It's a bubble.

[paulk]

30. I read somewhere the other day

that the amount of trading is really low for the sort of rise we're seeing, and it has a lot of stock market watchers scratching their heads.

Wish I could find the article...

[ipaint]

19. 34% have over $6000.00 in investments. About 90% of that 34% are extremely wealthy.

A very small number of middle class folks have anything substantial in the stock market.

[ShortnFiery]

21. +1

:thumbsup:

[mkultra]

24. so 30% of Americans are extremely wealthy?

I seriously doubt it.

[ShortnFiery]

25. I interpret that statement to mean 34% of those people investing NOT total number of Americans.

[mkultra]

26. maybe thats why your handle on facts is so poor

The sentence clearly states 34% not "34% of those investing."

[ipaint]

27. Here it is a little clearer with more recent numbers.

MM: A couple years ago there was a great deal of talk of the democratization of the stock market. Is that reflected in these figures, or was it an illusion?
Wolff: I would say it was more of an illusion. What did happen is that the percentage of households with some ownership of stocks, including mutual funds and pension accounts like 401(k)s, did go up very dramatically over the last 20 years. In 1983, only 32 percent of households had some ownership of stock.

By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families.

But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock.

So a lot of these new stock owners have had relatively small holdings of stock. There hasn’t been much dilution in the share of stock owned by the richest 1 or 10 percent. Stock ownership is still heavily concentrated among rich families. The richest 10 percent own 85 percent of all stock.

http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html

[ShortnFiery]

29. Thank-you for taking the time to fully explain these complex concepts.

Your patience is greatly appreciated.

[mkultra]

49. That is still 32% of all households

Not 32% of the 51%. Whatever is intended by the writer, the story just states that 51% of households have some ownership while 32% of households have over 10K.


This still doesn't mesh with your last statement that 90% of those 34% are extremely wealthy.

[ipaint]

58. One more time

"By 2001, the share was 51 percent. So there has been much more widespread stock ownership, in terms of number of families.

But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock."


I bolded the section where the author refers to 32% OF the 51% who own stock.

If that is not clear enough for you, it's no longer my problem. It has been proven with facts time and time again that the top 10% in this country own 90% of stocks. The onus on you is to now prove your flawed assumption that the vast middle class, non of which are in the top 10%, own enormous amounts of investments in the stock market.

[mkultra]

64. and again for you

I have bolded that part that DOESNT say its 32% of those families.

But a lot of these families have very small stakes in the stock market. In 2001, only 32 percent of households owned more than $10,000 of stock, and only 25 percent of households owned more than $25,000 worth of stock."


NOT 32% of these households.

Even if your incorrect reading of the sentence where true, it would still make your 90% of 32% of 51% a whopping 14% being extremely wealthy.

[ShortnFiery]

28. It was explained fully in another thread which I just perused. No explaination why ...

you handle inter-personal interactions on the web so poor. :evilgrin:

[mkultra]

50. "poorly"

[ShortnFiery]

53. I was just was reflecting your word "poor" but if you wish to get all grammarian on me ...

so be it. I stand corrected. See, it doesn't hurt much to show an inkling of compromise.

[mkultra]

55. point taken

[ShortnFiery]

56. Thanks.

I should have reworded the sentence ... but I was on a roll. ;)

[progressoid]

31. Many of us HAD 401Ks

In the last ten years it all went away.

Currently only half of America has a 401K. And how many of those are wage working.

Let's face facts, a rise in the stock market looks good and makes for great politcal clout, but for most of us its just more money going to the top while we get pissed on.

[Dappleganger]

52. Too true.

IF we still had a 401K we'd be gratified that the levels were back up. But it doesn't matter anymore because we're back to square ZERO. Now that dh has a job again we have to rebuild our cash resources in case of another layoff and then we'll concentrate on retirement. For now, it's still survival mode.

[eridani]

42. Not really. The amounts are too piddling.

In most cases, a good deal less than a year's salary.

[high density]

13. If you work for a public company, the stock price can be important

It can give the "decision makers" the ability to add jobs or at least stop cutting jobs. In my opinion it's a psychological thing, but it seems important for the public companies I've worked for. When the stock price is increasing they're more likely to spend money.

[Aramchek]

15. you hate any news that is good for Obama. admit it.

[mkultra]

22. well, many companies gague succes by stock price

and will cut heads if stock price tumbles. Not to mention that many companies own shares of other companies. It effects wage earners.

[CBR]

34. My husband teaches Pre-K. He has a 401k, matched by employer.

It means a lot to an employee making little salary with a great match and immediate vesting.

[Yavin4]

14. The Dow Is A Measure of Future Confidence

And if confidence is growing, there's a good chance that the rest of the economy will grow as well. Yes, this run up is built upon the back of major economic stimuli, but it is what it is. It's confidence.

This is a positive sign, esp. given where we were in March 2009.

[Dr.Phool]

17. Lately, the Dow is a measure of how many suckers are about to be fleeced.

[Cali_Democrat]

23. Please explain

[phleshdef]

32. It means that its trendy to hate the DOW and investment in general...

...and if you don't hate it too, you aren't a liberal.

[ipaint]

37. It seems the trend is to try and convince people the middle class has substantial investments

on wall street, that the current upswing is directly tied to the vast invested wealth of the middle class and then trying to pass that piece of right wing fiction off as liberal.

[impik]

35. Nooooooooooo! The market HATES Obama!!!!

Idiots.

[Canuckistanian]

38. I feel richer already n/t

[DonCoquixote]

40. All this proves

Is that the Dow is a USELESS symbol for actually judging the propserity of the nation. If an over 10,000 dow meant half of what it was supposed to mean, this economy would be golden.

[Yavin4]

41. For All of the Negative Nellies on this Thread

If the Dow was at 2000, then that would be good news? The Dow is a reflection of what investors think about the future of the economy. No, it's not directly tied to the economy, but it does give us a view that the people are betting that the economy will improve. It's a sentiment, much like Consumer Confidence is a sentiment.

And, the sentiment is POSITIVE. Now, I do admit that a lot of this is based on massive economic stimuli being pumped into the economy, but that's what we were screaming for when Obama became president. That's what Krugman was screaming for.

The next step is for the sentiment to translate into new investments on new projects, and that's when we will start seeing new hiring. I hope so because I am currently unemployed, and my advice to you is to use this time to continue to build up your network of contacts and develop new skills for when the jobs come back.

[eridani]

43. What investors think is that the rest of us are sheep, good only for fleecing and slaughtering n/t

[jefferson_dem]

44. You're sexy when your so protesty.

Unfortunately, however, your comment bears no relevance to reality. When the markets are up, all benefit, albeit to varying degrees.

Anyway, try not to be so glum. Have a nice day. :hi:

[progressoid]

59. "albeit to varying degrees"

That goes under the heading

UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE DAY

[eridani]

62. I have not benefitted, nor has anyone I know at my income level n/t

[jefferson_dem]

45. Thanks for your uplifting post. Of course, you are correct.

Others here are so predicatable. The real sheep are those who parrot the same doom and gloom regardless of the news. Some folks feel destined to be disappointed.

[progressoid]

60. Ooh yeah, and remember how we all cheered during the Bush years when the DOW hit 13930??

That was great!

[Kltpzyxm]

46. Well bully for the investor class (NT)

[HughMoran]

47. Yeah, us poor folk who made more money in their 401k than earnings are really pissed off

Pissed that we can't use our 401k money for daily living - lol.

[HughMoran]

48. The responses are excessively negative

:rofl:

Not that I couldn't have told you so, but it's hilarious seeing the usual group of perpetual whiners pissing and moaning about the end of the world. We all know that this news is not the be-all end-all indicator for good economic times, but it isn't bad news. Only an idiot would spin this in a bad way. Ooops. :rofl:

[FrenchieCat]

57. Kicking relevant stories!

That's not about teabaggers! :)

[golfguru]

63. It's great about DOW but the real market is SPX

DOW has only 30 stocks and they keep weeding the bad ones out
regularly. OTOH SPX represents 500 largest US corporations
accounting for 90%+ of equity in the entire stock market.