tippingpoint

See what?

How about the planning system as this is what was cited as a reason for an inelastic supply in housing. You will find that the west coast north of California is similar, and arguably so is the economy.

The bulls if they have the balls will buy before 1:30 GMT when the US GDP figures come out as they obviously think that after then the US markets will go ballastic.

Wake up. US has many housing markets, and parts like Oregon are constrained by planning laws as much as the UK, in the same way that some parts of the UK are more relaxed with planning than others. Perhaps do some research on the different parts of the US housing market, find the area that mosts reflects the SE of UK then compare. One can draw comparisons in their economies without doubt, and given housing markets are an intrinsic part of the economic activity, it is blindingly obvious that they are linked. To argue that our housing market is not aligned, but in a different timescale, is like saying that NYSE and LSE is not linked, or like their business cycles and the UK's is not linked.

The Fed's stress tests on banks have revealed that only 6 of 19 need more capital (at this stage). However these were only preliminary results with the actual results coming out on May 4. Obama's lot have to maintain secrecy in order to prevent excessive speculation or a run on a bank. This 10-day period before the release of the actual numbers is to prevent a shock to the banking system, thus stock markets. As it is this period has, in the main, been bullish, next week however, will be interesting. I have added to shorts all this last week on the FTSE and S&P and liquidated 90% of my equities in since Tues. I am very concerned with the contradictions which others echo too. Time for correction IMHO, back to Oct or March lows, or possibly lower. In 1932 (a comparable year for me for various reasons), after a Q1 rally, S&P then fell 50% off its peak through to July. (As a side note, from July to Sept it spiked up 111%). Now that's volatility.) I see no reason at all why we should be near 875 (or 4300 FTSE) other than delusional optimism. May be I will get the timing out, may be not? But a severe correction will come.

Citigroup Inc. (C: News ) reported first quarter net income of $1.59 billion or a loss of $0.18 per share, compared to a loss of $5.11 billion or $1.03 per share in the same quarter of last year. Total revenues for the quarter were $24.79 billion, up 99% from $12.44 billion in the year ago quarter." On average, 13 analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expect a loss of $0.34 per share for the quarter on revenues of $21.94 billion, which compares to reported loss of $1.02 per share last year on revenues of $13.2 billion. Analysts expected the bank to post a small first-quarter loss, so folks, the results are better than expected. The other big news today from a multinational is GE's results, just in. (GE is a so called bell-weather of the US economy.) Twelve analysts polled by Thomson Reuters expected GE to report earnings per share of $0.21 per share for the first quarter, with estimates ranging between $0.17 and $0.26 per share. The results were Earnings per share of $.26, which is at the upper end of expectations, again better than expected. I can't see Monday being the start of a major correction now. If anything the movement will continue to be bullish on the back of such results.

IMO if anything is going to spark large upward or downward movement in EMs tomorrow it will be the publishing of Citigroups reports. Have your eyes peeled on screens for sentiment to their 1st quarter earnings due out 6:30 a.m. EDT or 11:30 GMT. If they are worse (or better) than expected, then digestion over the weekend will intensify any trading mood on Monday perhaps? Just a hunch?

I didn't say an exact copy. And I also think this is worse than the 1970s economically - I used that as a comparison of how things can evolve over a 10 year period. I simply think contrarian. There is too much noise and hype, and cyclically and too many views supporting gold only going upwards. There needs to be a balanced argument and there is not one, hence why I am short, and will take on more short positions up to 1050 if it reaches that. I think gold bulls are the most impatient lot of investors out there and have been for a year now. They were all thrown off by the unexpected deflation which will postpone the big move up we all expect. Gold is the ultimate inflation hedge, agreed. There is way too much speculative money in the system though and mainly through ETFs. The fundamental reasons for investment have been forgotten. I am not speculating that we are at mania phase and we are soon to see a bubble, but I think that the fundamentals are now historical. Don't see this is a one way bet....not yet.

May be , but it will correct first in a big, then take off in a year or so as inflation kicks in (post deflationary period). Gold bugs are way too impatient. Look at the 1970s gold charts for comps in REAL terms. We are testing the second mid cycle peak (say 1000-1050) , after which we will the POG will revert to perhaps 650-700. Then the real lift off will begin and explosion occur. I find it extraordinary that gold bugs think that there will be only one major correction in the secular bull market from 2000. The correction last year was only 6 months long...again too brief. 18 months in the 1970s... There is too much hype and dumb money flowing into gold and he herd is following nicely. Wise up.

There are no ETCs for orange juice. How would you invest? Thanks.

I am shorting SP, Gold and Silver for the short term, and have also been shorting oil for a week for what it's worth.

SP Volume currently £123m and at 824. Gold fussing around at 915ish. Not looking that good perhaps.

English partnerships (now Homes and Communities Agency) has been subsidising and paying for infrastructure for a year min, on problematic sites (ie contaminated / regen etc) and this is not a bail out so this is not news so move on please nothing here...

A bank that is good or bad or perhaps amoral even; called "bad" as a label to acquire "bad" debt.

Is there perception management in the air, to drive down the share price to allow RBS to be bought for a mere £1 bn, then to create the UK's "Bad Bank". The idea of a bad bank, a separate entity which takes ownership of non-performing assets and then manages them in order to maximise their value, is simple. The Swedes set up two bad banks to handle the crummier assets of Nordbanken and Gota Bank, two nationalised institutions. They were effective (indeed, some borrowers complained they were too ruthless). Their efforts to restructure and sell distressed loans helped Sweden to keep the eventual cost of its bail-out below 2% of GDP. My guess is that RBS will be nationalised (or close to it) then buy the toxic crap off everyone else.