SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : MARKET INDEX TECHNICAL ANALYSIS - MITA -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: J.T. who wrote (14550)9/10/2002 3:33:24 PM
From: marginmike  Respond to of 19219
 
yes, was tempted to get out of the way for 9/11 but since I have quite a few golds, I have a decent hedge. Also Oil stocks if conflict arises. I believe rally to 950-1000 s&p before next leg down.



To: J.T. who wrote (14550)9/17/2002 5:22:50 PM
From: High-Tech East  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 19219
 
*** OFF TOPIC *** OFF TOPIC ***

J.T. ... this is the first hopeful international news I can remember reading in a very long time ... I think it is pretty amazing ...

Ken
_______________

September 17, 2002, The New York Times
Japan and North Korea Reach Agreement on Relations
by Howard W French

PYOGNYANG, North Korea, Sept. 17 — Moving to end decades of bitter hostility, Japan and North Korea reached a broad agreement to begin normalization of relations between the two countries in a groundbreaking summit meeting here today.

North Korea cleared the way for normalization talks, which will begin next month, with an extraordinary admission of the government's own criminality, acknowledging that its agents played a part in the disappearance of 11 Japanese citizens who have been missing since the late 1970's.

Moving to blunt Washington's criticism of the country as an international security menace, meanwhile, the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, said he would observe an open-ended moratorium on the testing of ballistic weapons. The self-imposed moratorium was to have ended next year.

Mr. Kim also asked the visiting Japanese prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, to convey a message to the Bush administration that his government's "door is open for dialogue."

The diplomatic breakthrough, which sets the two countries on a path to establishing diplomatic relations for the first time since North Korea was founded, in 1948, was obtained by Japan at the price of a large but still unspecified amount of "grants, long-term loans and humanitarian assistance."

Recent Japanese press accounts have said the total value of this aid could reach between $8 and $10 billion. Though not officially confirmed, these figures are based roughly on the formula Japan used when it normalized relations with South Korea, in 1965.

In a joint declaration issued today, Japan also repeated essentially the same apology it made to South Korea for suffering caused during 35 years of colonial rule.

"Japan humbly recognized the historical fact that it caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of Korea through its past colonial rule and expressed feelings of deep remorse and heartfelt apology," the apology said.

The day's agreements reflected a rare moment of clear diplomatic assertiveness by a Japan that traditionally hews closely to its main ally, the United States, in international affairs, especially those involving security questions.

The signing of a joint declaration and receipt of detailed news of the fate of the missing Japanese appeared to vindicate Mr. Koizumi's politically risky decision to visit a secretive and unpredictable Communist country that President Bush has labeled a member of an "axis of evil."

Diplomat observers here said the fact that Mr. Kim acceded to Japan's principle demands with little apparent resistance reflected Pyongyang's dire need for hard currency to stave off economic collapse, and eagerness to temper relations with the Bush administration by reconciling with its most important regional ally.

"All of the sudden the world looks very hostile to them," said a senior Western diplomat here. "This is an attempt to break out of the encirclement."

From the outset, the Japanese government had posited the fate of the missing persons as the most important issue between the two countries, and the ultimate measure of the Koizumi trip's success. And weeks of extraordinarily heavy press coverage of the disappearances had dramatically raised the stakes of failure for the Japanese prime minister.

North Korea angrily walked out of talks with Japan in 1998, when the abduction issue was first raised. But in a bit of early morning drama, even before the formal start of the summit meeting, North Korean officials relieved much of that pressure by reportedly acknowledging their agents' responsibility for the abductions.

The diplomatic breakthrough was tempered, however, by the announcement that 6 of the 11 people claimed by Japan are dead, and that another one is missing. North Korea also said that yet another missing Japanese person who was previously unknown to the government had died.

In the first of two sessions with Mr. Koizumi, Mr. Kim said of the deaths, which are being laid to natural disasters and natural causes, "this is truly regretful, and I offer my candid apology." A Japanese official quoted Mr. Kim as adding "this will never happen again."

According to Japanese diplomats, Mr. Kim said the disappearances, some of which occurred in coastal areas of Japan, and others in Europe, were caused by overzealous members of the security forces who wanted to employ native Japanese as language trainers for North Korean special services, or intelligence agencies.

The disappearances had happened against "the backdrop of bad relations," the Korean leader reportedly said, adding, "After I came to know about this, the persons responsible have been punished."

Mr. Kim did not appear in public after the summit meeting, and accounts of his words were provided only by Japanese officials who took part in the talks.

State television tonight stuck to a brief explanation of the joint declaration between the two countries concerning normalization.

North Korea's Central News Agency, however, quoted a Foreign Ministry spokesman as saying: "It is regrettable that these issues surfaced in the past as a product of the abnormal relationship with Japan. We will prevent such things from happening in the future."

For his part, Mr. Koizumi opened an early-evening news conference, which was broadcast live to Japan, with a mournful statement about the deceased abductees. "When I think of the feelings of the families, I have no words to express my feelings," he said. "It is extremely regrettable, to think that these people cannot return to Japan."

Mr. Koizumi's government must now walk a fine line in selling its normalization and expected reconstruction aid package to North Korea, given the high death toll among the abducted. Senior officials labored today to convey an image of sensitivity toward the families. The chief cabinet officer, Mr. Koizumi's top aide, personally informed each family of whatever the government had been able to learn about their relative.

"I was looking forward to the good news today," said Shigeru Yokota, the 69-year-old father of Megumi Yokota, whose daughter, Megumi, was 13 when she disappeared on the way home from school in Niigata in 1977.

"But the result was a very tragic one, her death. We heard that she was married and had a daughter. I cannot believe her death. I want the government to investigate specifically, on how she was brought to North Korea, and how she died."

The pressures Mr. Koizumi has faced domestically over the issue of disappeared persons have been matched by pressures from the Bush administration not to lose sight of regional and international security issues related to North Korean international missile sales, nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.

In Washington on Monday, soon after a meeting with Japan's foreign minister, Yoriko Kawaguchi, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld called North Korea "one of the world's worst proliferators," and said the country had been "aggressively developing nuclear weapons."

Mr. Kim said vaguely that his country would abide by international agreements concerning nuclear weapons. But, absent among the day's concessions by Pyongyang was any mention of something sought by Washington and Tokyo: an agreement for inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency to operate freely in the country in order to ensure that North Korea is not diverting plutonium stocks for nuclear weapons production.

The Bush administration has regarded negotiations with North Korea with suspicion almost from its inception, and Washington's skepticism is widely seen as having slowed a continuing rapprochement between North and South Korea.

Marking an unmistakable difference in both substance and tone from the Bush administration, however, Mr. Koizumi gave an impassioned defense of dialogue with Pyongyang, saying "unless you open the negotiation process, there will be no improvement on the issues."

"Progress in Japan-North Korean ties do not just benefit the two countries," Mr. Koizumi added. "It affects peace on the Korean peninsula and all of North Eastern Asia. It also contributes greatly to peace and stability of South Korea, the United States, Russia, China, other neighboring nations and the international community as a whole."

Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company

nytimes.com



To: J.T. who wrote (14550)9/20/2002 7:34:12 PM
From: Killswitch  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 19219
 
"Bernie Schaeffer: Warren Buffett's Poker Tips Plus: "If You're So Rich, Why Aren't You Smart?"
By Bernie Schaeffer
9/20/2002 9:41 AM ET

I'm writing this with one eye on the TV, checking the overnight market buzz after yesterday's wipeout. And I'm struck by the fact that financial media pundits now glibly refer to "the VIX" and to "the wall of worry" and to "selling climaxes."

This is both encouraging and downright frightening. It's encouraging because some important sentiment-based investing concepts have finally been absorbed. Five years ago when I was regularly using these terms in my media interviews the reactions ranged from the blank stare to the look that said, "I know you just landed on a spaceship. Is your planet in our solar system?"

This was during the heart of the bull market of the 1990s, which was replete with sharp and scary pullbacks. I would explain how bull markets always climb a wall of worry and how bull-market pullbacks can be scary to most investors but actually provide fine buying opportunities and how high CBOE Market Volatility Index (VIX - 45.02) levels indicating high investor fear levels are a bullish indicator. And guess what? These explanations came across as a bit flaky, as in "The market dropped 300 points yesterday and the sky is about to fall and this clown thinks this is good?"

Fast-forward to this morning. No longer do the media mavens have trouble with the concept of negative investor sentiment being a bullish contrarian indicator. In fact, that's a huge chunk of what is being discussed in the wake of yesterday's visit by the Dow Jones Industrial Average (.INDU - 7964.90) into "below 8000 land."

And here's the frightening part. This particular market analysis ("investor fear = market bottom") that worked like a charm during the bull market of the 1990s is no longer the solution. In fact, it has become a major part of the problem. Why? Because we're deep into a bear market. And in bear markets, investor fear and market volatility and wholesale dumping of stocks are to be expected. And while such situations can present trading opportunities, they seldom represent the ultimate market bottom except in a rare case that I'll discuss in my closing comments.

Remember the September 21, 2001 "bottom?" There was near-absolute certainty in the minds of the investment community as we moved out of that deadly month that the worst was behind us. And much quoted in the rationale for this "market bottom" were the half-learned lessons from the 1990s bull market, i.e., the belief that "high investor fear levels" guarantee a bottom.

Why do I refer to this lesson as "half-learned?" Because the power of contrarian sentiment analysis is derived not from focusing solely on sentiment on market declines. One focuses instead on the sentiment on counter-trend moves. In bull markets, the counter-trend moves are to the downside, and it is a bullish contrarian indicator when there is an excess of investor fear on such moves. In bear markets, the counter-trend moves are to the upside, and it is a bearish contrarian indicator when there is an excess of investor complacency on such moves.

Has there been an "excess of investor complacency" on the rallies off the September 21, 2001 and July 24, 2002 "bottoms?" Surely you'd be jesting by asking this question if you're a regular reader of this space or if you follow the daily market observations of my analyst team. With so much having been detailed in our various commentaries about this disturbing complacency, I'll mention just a few recent examples.

The excess of bullish-over-bearish newsletter pundits in the Investors Intelligence weekly compilation is currently about 10 percentage points and was as wide as 14 percentage points in late August.
The CBOE equity put/call ratio 21-day moving average plunged from a peak of 0.76 in July to a low of 0.56 in August as options traders rushed to buy calls in the wake of the July "market bottom."
Wall Street strategists currently recommend a 69.6-percent portfolio allocation to stocks, down just a tad from their record high recommended allocation of about 72 percent during the bull market. And this 69.6-percent allocation is a full 10 percentage points higher than it was during boom times in September 1999.
Despite the market carnage that has occurred over the past year, the short-interest ratios (short interest/average daily trading volume) for both the NYSE and the Nasdaq have been essentially flat.
Seat prices on the New York Stock Exchange remain near record-high levels.

But, undaunted by this mega-complacency in face of one of the worst bear markets in modern times, the "usual suspect" analysts and the pundits instead display a not-so-subtle sense of superiority when they prattle these days about what a good omen it is that investors bailed out of equity mutual funds in July. And "how about that high VIX?" as in "it looks like those options fools are going to give us another market bottom."

You've been waiting patiently for my Warren Buffett take, so here it comes. As Mr. Buffett once so aptly put it: "If you're in a poker game and you can't figure out who the patsy is, then you're the patsy". And in the throes of a bear market, the public who is redeeming their mutual funds and bidding up the VIX to high levels and fearing for the sake of their jobs and the economy is the smart money! And those smug pundits who five years ago wouldn't have known a "VIX" from a Twix and who now turn their nose up at the "dumb panicky public" are - you got it - the patsies!

And (back to the title of this piece) while no one doubts that Wall Street analysts and pundits are rich, we have every reason to doubt they are smart as regards calling a bottom in a bear market. As for their wealth, let's just say I have my doubts that it emanates from successfully trading stock index futures.

Early on I stated that there is a rare case in which climactic investor fear would in fact define the bottom in a protracted bear market. What would this look like?

Forget "high" VIX numbers like 56 and 57. At a climactic bear market bottom, the VIX will come in north of 100, as it did in October 1987. I'm glad you asked - the VIX peak in October 1987 was 172.79.
The CBOE equity put/call ratio 21-day moving average will post readings in excess of 1.00. The highest such readings since 1990 have been in the 0.75+ area.
There will have been many consecutive months of equity mutual fund redemptions, climaxing in an off-the-charts single-month figure.

In other words, if the bear-market bottom is, in fact, climactic, we will not have a mere "extreme" of bearish sentiment - we will have an EXTREME!!! of bearish sentiment.

And where will the Dow be when this occurs? In my opinion, at 6000 or south thereof.

- Bernie Schaeffer"