As I have stated in my previous response to you, all of the things you have mentioned, included but not limited to, political changes, economic news, or fundamental changes in the economics of a specific company or industry should all be take into effect when doing any sort of technical or fundamental analysis, it's not a numbers game, if it was, a computer would have figured out how to do TA on it's own long ago and make billions.
But as I previously stated, RMBS was at it's top and receded from it, as predicted and will likely continue to.
Wow, you made a prediction. Now, what would have happened if another company settled with RMBS and the stock had shot up?
Would your charts have predicted that? Hardly. Instead, you'd be scurrying around for the next "wave". But of course, your pretty charts can also predict analysis done in the back rooms of ram producers who decide when it's commercially feasible to capitulate rather than fight, or they can predict when an attorney decides enough is enough? Yes, of course, the strong version of EMH will incorporate all of those pieces of info. Obviously, as I mentioned before, you've never read Klarmann and had those silly ideas debunked.
That's similar to what most chartists do, they back-test or monday-morning quarterback their charts, yet fail to deliver any solid results on them for the long-term.
Heck, it was amusing to watch Mish writhe around with his silly Elliott Waves, that is, until they didn't work anymore.
Sorry, but you couldn't have predicted the RMBS movement either way, not from a chart. Azurik hasn't proven himself right by a chart thus far, but he has spent hours, days, weeks, months, years analyzing the RMBS situation and has delivered solid results from that FA. You, on the other hand, flipped a coin. Wow. Great. A blind squirrel finds a nut.
What's even more preposterous is that you somehow claim that what you do, rubbing a crystal ball or shaking the magic 8 ball, is similar to high-speed prop trading desks, by which hedge fund managers and banks bilk billions from their own clients or the rest of the market by getting access to dark pools and front-running trades using sub-pennying, all through "technical analysis" of millions of trades. Yeah, sure, I'm sure you do that.
Back on topic....
There's no sure-shot to looking how this situation will play out. I can tell you that banks are really leading a huge charge to lend on a securitization basis. You saw several phases to this cycle, a rapid contraction caused by extendable CP, SIVs, RMBS, and CDO warehousing. This affected the ABCP market first, followed by the term market.
Banks took lumps because the SIVs were holding the worst of the worst, they were consolidated and cleaned up. The ABCP market got whacked and issuance stopped. Now that's rolling back. ABCP is back to sub-LIBOR pricing and ABCP investors are demanding more and more transparency with multi-seller conduits.
Big banks are now consolidating their underwriting among core clients, those of which they interact on multiple levels (FX, revolvers, debt, equity, conduit, term). This consolidation is causing a lot of turmoil, as many smaller lenders are being pushed out in favor of the big guys. This creates a lot of ABCP and term market refugees, mainly the SME lenders who are now SOL, such as middle-market small-ticket leasing companies.
However, the big-guys, the multi-national large issuers, are finding deals easily.
How this will likely shake out is that you will get a re-aggregation on a national level down. SME's will get money from regional banks, multi-nationals will get money from like banks. This will take time to sort out, as many of these contracts are multi-year lending deals. A 5-year ABCP deal made in 2007 won't be done until 2012.
What this really means is that small guys are getting squeezed for spread and time, but will find pockets of liquidity in other areas. Big guys won't have a problem. It is going to cause a general malaise in the lending industry.
Contrary to many people's assertions, people DO want to borrower and banks DO want to lend, just to more certain parties on both sides. The problem isn't any easier since international regulators are fucking with the securitization market, creating a huge amount of uncertainty for capital requirements. However, many international banks are charging ahead.
It's a big clusterfuck that will be sorted out given time. I don't foresee 3%+ GDP growth, but even 2% is better than -2%. The US is far better off than most countries.
Personal holdings? I'm still with EK (w00t for this week!), IMN, CAR, DTG, FCX. I also still hold GE, AAPL (love the rollercoaster), and GOOG (In my wife's account, she loves it).
I did buy some RMBS from Azurik's recommendation and do believe that they will ultimately prevail.
Facebook
Twitter