We will have an update Wednesday for our Peoplenomics.com subscribers on how our latest market observations are working out. Follow-up to last weekend’s discussion about Global Market Entrainment and Historical Resonance.
In the meantime, though, everything – and I do mean everything – hinges on the global markets ability to make an upside breakout.
As I showed recently, the old high in the global index we construct was 24,315 and that was the all time high in 2015.
Since then, we have seen a decent pullback, but as of this morning’s check of things, the global market was sitting at 34,245.
This means we are close (like 70 points in our odd approach to things) BUT we are not there yet in terms of a breakout.
To give you an idea of how slow and sticky this overhead resistance level is (which is what old highs are – they take some work to bust through) the UK stock market was only a point and a half from where it closed last Friday. The German market has moved about 32 points.
In asia, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng is up but the Japanese market is down.
And our own index? Down about 13.5 points which considering the raw index n umber is over 34,000 it pencils out to a move of 3.933420937363119e-4. Go ahead, slide the decimal point left 4 digits and it will all make sense…engineering notation for breakfast is a good thing.
The good news, such as it is, features the S&P looking like it will go up 5 around the opening. Should theS&P climb and close there, then we would be through the old top but by only 0.14 of a point and let’s face it – dead-banding and noise are real problems in this kind of modeling.
Remember, the only time we REALLY have confidence is when “hot money” has come off the table for the weekend and that means waiting until the Friday close.
Historical rhymes say that Trump should get his tax break and bond money should come in, especially if we get good quarterly inflows but that could be another two weeks getting here.
In the meantime, though, it is a terrible grind to watch since the market needs some decidedly good news and the Trump administration on all fronts looks to have its hands full.
And hour before the open, the Dow was up a bit but the S&P looks like it might not press our Global Index past overhead resistance. Yet.
Comey and the Big Picture
Did the Russians attempt to influence the U.S. election?
Allow me to step back and think about this logically for a moment: Yes, the Russians would likely have some interest in seeing Donald Trump win, as opposed to Hillary Clinton.
But what no one seems to be wondering is “Why? What would Putin see in Trump?”
If anything, Putin would have loved Hillary Clinton. Have you forgotten “Clinton accused of aiding Moscow ops with push for ‘Russian Silicon Valley’?”
I think the answer as to why there was no action on that one is simple: You-know-who wouldn’t drain the swamp.
Frankly, it’s a stumper until you remember that Russia used to be communist/socialist and effectively went capitalist. At the same time, however, the Obama administration – and no doubt a Clinton II administration, would have gone even more socialist in America.
When you read the news closely, in fact, you can see the U.S. is setting up for the same kind of governmental collapse that Reagan presided over as Russia fell. And now that the shoe is on the other food, maybe Putin is looking for payback.
Since Reagan, the U.S. has embarked on a huge budget deficit – and there are no plans to end it. In addition, the U.S. has become socialist even more so through expanded entitlements, more social spending, and importing as many foreigners as we can get our hands on – and prior to Trump, a good many without thorough vetting.
You can bet that if Comey and the FBI had found something, they would have tabled a case by now…but they haven’t. Instead, Comey looks to me like some of the corporate suck-ups that I had to tolerate in my management days: By “keeping the cloud” around Trump, Comey essentially makes himself fireproof.
That’s because if Trump fires Comey, the Left will scream cover-up. Already, we see tweets from the lakes of former senator Barbara Boxer who said “Glad the FBI is taking Russian interference in our elections, and Trump’s connection to the Russians, seriously.”
Trump’s “connections to the Russians?” Pray tell, what are they? And what about Clinton’s?
Where is the charge? Whny all the BS and headlines? Where is there evidence that this a) it is true, b) that it directly involved Trump, and c) was not a false flag?
Did we ever get to that point withg the Clinton deal? No sir. We did not. And why is that, Director Comey?
I’m trying to keep an open mind here, but the anti-Trump side is piling on because (and lest we forget) they have a Swamp to save.
Like most stories, this one can be written either way: Giving Trump the benefit of the doubt. Or, it can be reported giving credibility to the rumor-mill.
Even though there may have been Russian involvement, remember that Wikileaks Vault 7 revealed that the U.S./West really has the technology to make it appear as though Russia is to blame in cyber warfare, so even if the FBI were to find a smoking gun, where would the proof be that it was genuinely Russian and not a U.S. shadow government covert psy-op?
As you’d expect, the NY Times coverage plays up the currently investigating angle. And since accusation are the new national pastime, it will be instructive to see what – if anything comes of it all.
The report from the McClatchy DC Bureau that the “FBI’s Russian-influence probe includes a look at far-right news sites” simply gets us back to the “How do we know which bots were really Russian and which were false flags?”
Moreover, questioning whether a media organization too any actions to “assist” Russian operatives, to me reads like a ‘soft smear” of alt-news. Well, gee, color me surprised by that.
What is more telling is that outside of the Washington/New York corridor, life seems to have gone on.
In Philly today, a local political story leads.
Even more interesting (and telling, but you might not read about it in New York) is how the Chicago Trib this morning leads with how “Emails to (Rahm) Emanuel raise questions about dozens of possibly lobbying violations.”
Is Comey going to send FBI in to look into that?
I’m not holding my breath. Or, being fireproof for now, is conduct of Obama’s former chief of staff something the FBI doesn’t need to get involved in? I mean, it’s only Chicago, after all.
I’m still at a loss to understand why the FBI didn’t jump in last summer when the Wall St. Journal reported “The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections
Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?”
Damn fine questions there…I don’t recall it getting answered (I am an old man, though) but why no FBI grilling on that story? And the conduct of a certain foundation? Poof!
I must be a dim-witted farmer, not to understand this…I guess it’s why we live out inn the woods.
Meantime, though, we do note the Washington Post report that “Andrew Napolitano reportedly pulled from Fox News over debunked wiretapping claims.”
Debunked? Well, not quite. The reason the US has communications platforms in such scenic places as Alice Springs Australia and Menwith Hill, England is so that foreign persons can monitor U.S. persons without violating U.S. law.
That there is a “workaround” for U.S. law is obvious. But unless Napolitano can produce more detail, and prove his assertions, his assertions may have torpedoed the Trump presidency.
As a legal analyst should know, there is a difference between an assertion and a proof. And when the proof ain’t talking…
Back to the Data
Press release du jour is from the Bureau of Economic Analysis:
“The U.S. current-account deficit decreased to $112.4 billion (preliminary) in the fourth quarter of 2016 from $116.0 billion (revised) in the third quarter of 2016, according to statistics released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA).
The deficit decreased to 2.4 percent of current-dollar gross domestic product (GDP) from 2.5 percent in the third quarter. The $3.6 billion decrease in the current-account deficit mostly reflected a $19.9 billion increase in the surplus on primary income that was largely offset by a $17.5 billion increase in the deficit on goods. The changes in the surplus on services and the deficit on secondary income were relatively small.
And no, it didn’t seem to move futures prices.