|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Tomgo,
Respectfully disagree. At least in part. The association of intervention
with the assumption that Japan was about to take steps to stimulate their
economy came about in the professional market long before the media reported
on the intervention. It has been speculated for months that the FED would
only intervene to support the yen (remember this was the first such
intervention for I think six years) if given assurances that Japan would
concede something in return. Thats why when the fed intervened, there was
almost an instaneous reaction in T-bonds, T-bills, eurodollars, euroyen and
nikkei futures in chicago as well as cash JGB's in London not to mention
the SE Asian currencies. It was a good 15 minutes before CNBC muttered
something about intervention and put a quote on their screen that was 3 big
figs off market.
Remember the intervention was followed by comments from both Treasury and
White House suggesting that there would be progress at the Saturday G7
deputies meeting. In a way I actually think that maybe Rubin/Summers
thought that Japan would bow to this pressure and feel obligated to concede
something in return for the FED's role. Boy, they were wrong. But Japan is
now under even more pressure to get its house in order which I think it will
begin to do once the Upper House elections are out of the way.
The way I handle the media is:
(1) Fade Jim Rogers when he mutters anything on CNBC
(2) Never read the WSJ unless its 2 days old.
Tomgo wrote:
> Part of the problem is that the perception of intervention as being in
> return for the Japanese concessions with regard to stimulating their
> economy.
> Where did this come from?
> Reporters
> No official said anything to allow this assumption.
> It was all speculation on behalf of the various financial reporters and
> the commentaries of their anchors.
> The problem as I see it is that the news media is attempting to make the
> news and not report it.
|