NEW YORK – Investors have been clamoring for months for a bit of good news. On Thursday, they got a load of it.

The Dow Jones industrials shot up 240 points to a two-week high of 7,170, bringing its gains over the past three days to 622 points, or 9.5 percent. It was the index's biggest three-day jump since last November.

Surprisingly positive signals this week from companies across all industries, particularly banks, have made traders think twice about continuing to drive stocks lower. It's too soon to tell whether this week's upturn is the beginning of a bull market or simply a temporary rally within a bear market, but either way there has been a pronounced change in Wall Street's tone.

"How all this turned around in a week, I don't know," said Scott Bleier, president of CreateCapital Advisors. "But it's certainly a better outlook than how it looked two weeks ago."

The rally got an extra dose of adrenaline Thursday after an accounting board told Congress it may recommend an easing in financial reporting rules of tough-to-sell assets — a change that banks say would help their bottom lines. Upheaval in the banking industry has been dogging the market since 2007, and hope that banks might finally get relief in how they value their bad assets spurred a flurry of buying on Wall Street.

"We might find that the banks are not as bad, or not bad at all, if these assets are marked differently," said Doreen Mogavero, president of the New York floor brokerage Mogavero, Lee & Co.

Better-than-expected retail sales figures also helped stocks, as did positive news from four Dow companies: Bank of America Corp., General Electric Co., General Motors Corp., and Pfizer Inc.

GE's credit rating was cut by less than expected, GM said it will not need a $2 billion loan it previously requested from the government, and Pfizer reported a successful cancer drug trial. Bank of America's CEO told reporters his bank was profitable in January and February. Citigroup Inc. triggered this week's rally Tuesday with similar remarks.

No one is calling the end to the selling on Wall Street. The economic picture is too uncertain, and much of this week's rally has been driven by technical factors. One of those factors is traders' inclination to buy stock to cover "short" bets, or bets that a stock will fall.

But it's been the most reassuring week in months for the stock market. The Dow Jones Wilshire 5000 index, which reflects nearly all stocks traded in America, has jumped 11.2 percent over the past three sessions. That's a paper gain of $900 billion.

"There's a lot of money on the sidelines, and a lot of people who've been waiting for the turn to come," Mogavero said. "I think that probably, people will want to get some of their money in the market."

The Dow rose 239.66, or 3.5 percent, to 7,170.06. The Standard & Poor's 500 index climbed 29.38, or 4.1 percent, to 750.74. The Nasdaq composite index gained 54.46, or 4 percent, to 1,426.10.

The Russell 2000 index of smaller companies rose 23.82, or 6.5 percent, to 390.12.

After a modest decline Monday and three days of buying, the Dow is up 8.2 percent so far for the week. The S&P 500 index is up 9.9 percent and the Nasdaq is up 10.2 percent. Before this week's rebound, the Dow and S&P had tumbled to their lowest levels since 1997 and 1996, respectively.

Advancing stocks outnumbered decliners by more than 10 to 1 on the New York Stock Exchange Thursday, where consolidated volume came to 7.2 billion shares, up from 7.1 billion shares Wednesday.

Not all of Thursday's data was positive. The Commerce Department said retail sales dipped by a modest 0.1 percent in February, but the Labor Department reported that first time claims for unemployment benefits rose last week to 654,000 from 639,000 the week before, more than analysts had expected.

Investors are also aware that much of this week's rebound can be attributed to covering short positions. Traders have been covering short bets by buying stocks, especially after the Securities and Exchange Commission said it was considering reinstating the "Uptick Rule." The rule, eliminated in 2007, aimed at curbing short-selling by only allowing it when a stock edged higher.

On Thursday investors grew more optimistic about bank stocks after the chairman of the independent Financial Accounting Standards Board told the House Financial Services subcommittee on capital markets that the board "could have the guidance in three weeks" on so-called "mark-to-market" accounting.

Frozen demand in the credit markets has sharply lowered the value of assets having anything to do with real estate or consumer credit — even though most of the loans themselves are still getting paid off. Those lower asset values have translated into huge losses for banks.

Citigroup rose 8.4 percent, Bank of America rose 19 percent, Wells Fargo & Co. rose 17 percent, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. rose 14 percent.

GM rose 17.2 percent to $2.18 after its chief financial officer said it would not need its federal loan for March.

GE rose nearly 13 percent to $9.57 after Standard & Poor's downgraded the conglomerate by one notch from "AAA" due to troubles in GE's lending arm.

Meanwhile, pharmaceutical stocks soared Thursday on more acquisition news and a positive drug trial at Pfizer Inc.

Pfizer said it ended a successful trial of its cancer drug Sutent early after data showed the drug met its goal of slowing the progression of pancreatic cancer. Shares of Pfizer, a Dow component, rose nearly 10 percent to $14.02.

Switzerland's Roche Holding AG agreed to buy the rest of Genentech Inc. for $46.8 billion, while Gilead Sciences Inc. agreed to buy CV Therapeutics Inc. for $1.4 billion. Earlier this week, drugmakers Merck and Schering-Plough agreed to merge in a $41 billion deal.

Government bond prices rose, driving the yield on the 10-year Treasury note down to 2.86 percent from 2.91 percent late Wednesday. The dollar strengthened against other major currencies, gold prices gained, and crude oil surged $4.70 to $47.03 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

Overseas markets were mixed. Britain's FTSE 100 rose 0.5 percent, Germany's DAX index rose 1.1 percent, and France's CAC-40 rose 0.8 percent. Japan's Nikkei stock average dropped 2.4 percent, while Hong Kong's Hang Seng index rose 0.6 percent.

___

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090312/ap_on_bi_st_ma_re/wall_street

I welcome the change in the tone coming out of the Obama administration for about a week and half. For too long, Obama comments were along the lines of we don't worry so much about Wall Street but more about Main Street. Wall Street has taught him a good lesson about how jobs are directly connected to successes on Wall Street and the banks. Obama let plain old "fear" run rampant just to get his stimulus passed.

Obama's Treasury Department and it's announcement of a vague bank plan without following up quickly with the details of that plan cost American jobs a plenty. The Treasury Department is still in shambles operating without staffing or a Deputy Secretary Treasurer. I worry that his new direction in energy and health care could lead to more job loss. Utility stocks and health care stocks have tanked from his recent announcement of a new directions in those areas. Many investors feel that those policies will hamper profits and are running from these sectors.

Obama has had no fault in any job losses to date.
Every job we lose for the first 6 months to a year can be attributed to things which happened prior to Obama.

Never-the-less crickster,
Im glad to see your coming along!

The market is rallying, because even in a bear market there has to be a rally, sometime, somewhere.

It goes up, in the same way, as it goes down. Both trends have bulls and bears embedded within a trend.

The government is considering (trying) to convert some preferred shares it has on Citibank, to a common equity.

This will drop the market down. The only way to make money on this for the wall street is to create a rally, then short it.

As for why the government is trying to do that, they are trying to acquire the last point of control over fiat monetary system, as they own the other two. They already control the interest rate, and the monetary base. This last bastion is the bank that is afraid to lend.

Once this takeover is completed, all three required points of control are now under the whim of government. Prepare to see *already doubled* monetary base going into action creating an increase in the quantity of money (inflation). This will make payments of debts easier.

I have to mention that there is no deflation right now. So, the coming inflation is not going to "balance out" the deflation. In fact, if it did, there would be no point in creating the inflation, as in such case, it would not relieve debt burden.

The rally got an extra dose of adrenaline Thursday after an accounting board told Congress it may recommend an easing in financial reporting rules of tough-to-sell assets — a change that banks say would help their bottom lines. Upheaval in the banking industry has been dogging the market since 2007, and hope that banks might finally get relief in how they value their bad assets spurred a flurry of buying on Wall Street.

"We might find that the banks are not as bad, or not bad at all, if these assets are marked differently," said Doreen Mogavero, president of the New York floor brokerage Mogavero, Lee & Co.

Better-than-expected retail sales figures also helped stocks, as did positive news from four Dow companies: Bank of America Corp., General Electric Co., General Motors Corp., and Pfizer Inc.

GE's credit rating was cut by less than expected, GM said it will not need a $2 billion loan it previously requested from the government, and Pfizer reported a successful cancer drug trial. Bank of America's CEO told reporters his bank was profitable in January and February. Citigroup Inc. triggered this week's rally Tuesday with similar remarks.

Surprisingly positive signals this week from companies across all industries, particularly banks, have made traders think twice about continuing to drive stocks lower. It's too soon to tell whether this week's upturn is the beginning of a bull market or simply a temporary rally within a bear market, but either way there has been a pronounced change in Wall Street's tone.


Citigroup rose 8.4 percent, Bank of America rose 19 percent, Wells Fargo & Co. rose 17 percent, and JPMorgan Chase & Co. rose 14 percent.

GM rose 17.2 percent to $2.18 after its chief financial officer said it would not need its federal loan for March.

GE rose nearly 13 percent to $9.57 after Standard & Poor's downgraded the conglomerate by one notch from "AAA" due to troubles in GE's lending arm.

The Banks reporting of losses and fears of them folding started this mess.
Now the Banks, the ones who were rescued, are showing profits this year.

I figure the banks have hit the bottom and began to recover. The rest of the economy, while naturally lagging behind, will begin to show recovery before long.

Of course I dont have the economic expertise or education that some posters claim!

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123604419092515347.html

But after five weeks in office, it's become clear that Mr. Obama's policies are slowing, if not stopping, what would otherwise be the normal process of economic recovery. From punishing business to squandering scarce national public resources, Team Obama is creating more uncertainty and less confidence -- and thus a longer period of recession or subpar growth.

The Democrats who now run Washington don't want to hear this, because they benefit from blaming all bad economic news on President Bush. And Mr. Obama has inherited an unusual recession deepened by credit problems, both of which will take time to climb out of. But it's also true that the economy has fallen far enough, and long enough, that much of the excess that led to recession is being worked off. Already 15 months old, the current recession will soon match the average length -- and average job loss -- of the last three postwar downturns. What goes down will come up -- unless destructive policies interfere with the sources of potential recovery.

What is new is the unveiling of Mr. Obama's agenda and his approach to governance. Every new President has a finite stock of capital -- financial and political -- to deploy, and amid recession Mr. Obama has more than most. But one negative revelation has been the way he has chosen to spend his scarce resources on income transfers rather than growth promotion. Most of his "stimulus" spending was devoted to social programs, rather than public works, and nearly all of the tax cuts were devoted to income maintenance rather than to improving incentives to work or invest.

The market has notably plunged since Mr. Obama introduced his budget last week, and that should be no surprise. The document was a declaration of hostility toward capitalists across the economy. Health-care stocks have dived on fears of new government mandates and price controls. Private lenders to students have been told they're no longer wanted. Anyone who uses carbon energy has been warned to expect a huge tax increase from cap and trade. And every risk-taker and investor now knows that another tax increase will slam the economy in 2011, unless Mr. Obama lets Speaker Nancy Pelosi impose one even earlier.

Meanwhile, Congress demands more bank lending even as it assails lenders and threatens to let judges rewrite mortgage contracts. The powers in Congress -- unrebuked by Mr. Obama -- are ridiculing and punishing the very capitalists who are essential to a sustainable recovery. The result has been a capital strike, and the return of the fear from last year that we could face a far deeper downturn. This is no way to nurture a wounded economy back to health.

Listening to Mr. Obama and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, on the weekend, we couldn't help but wonder if they appreciate any of this. They seem preoccupied with going to the barricades against Republicans who wield little power, or picking a fight with Rush Limbaugh, as if this is the kind of economic leadership Americans want.

Perhaps they're reading the polls and figure they have two or three years before voters stop blaming Republicans and Mr. Bush for the economy. Even if that's right in the long run, in the meantime their assault on business and investors is delaying a recovery and ensuring that the expansion will be weaker than it should be when it finally does arrive.

Only a big government man would think of calling a trillion-dollar tax increase a spending cut or "saving." Technically, of course, it is true. A trillion-dollar tax increase will reduce spending by a trillion dollars for those private citizens who were taxed. And, from the perspective of the federal government, a trillion dollars taxed is a trillion dollars saved from the greed of the taxpayers who produced the wealth - and might well want to spend or invest it in non governmental activities.

But the foregoing are merely pettifogging numbers compared to Mr. Obama's bigger ideas about energy and health care.

Our president shares a fascinating idea about energy with most of what used to be known as the "small is beautiful" crowd. It is a curious phenomenon that one needs a very big government to enforce the beauty of small.

As Mr. Obama's energy secretary, Steven Chu, said last year: The price of electricity in America is "anomalously low." You see how much smarter that Nobel prize winner is than you. You probably thought you were already spending enough on electricity and fuel.

And sure enough, Mr. Obama explained last week that in order to make alternative energy sources wind, solar - perhaps eventually human muscle power? - economically competitive, he intends to raise the price of carbon-based energy until it is so expensive that even solar power will be such-a-deal.

This level of destructive irrationality cannot be accomplished in the private sector. It will take a very big government indeed to bring such inanities into being. (disclosure: being rational, I give professional advice to carbon-based energy producers.)

If President Obama were to try to misrepresent his positions for the next four years, there would be nothing he could say that would approach the inaccuracy of his claim last week that he is not for big government. It is the essence of the man and his presidency. He doesn't like America the way it has been since its founding - and it will take an abusively big government to realize his dreams of converting America into something quite different. If you don't know that, you don't yet know Barack Obama.

Tony Blankley is the author of "American Grit: What It Will Take To Survive and Win in the 21st Century" and vice president of the Edelman public-relations firm in Washington

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/03/obama-lied-the-economy-died/

Bush gave a 1.6 trillion dollar tax-cut to the wealthiest Americans.

This just brings them back to where they were before that,
and "THAT" did't work!

Despite receiving $170 billion in federal aid and recording massive losses, American International Group is going ahead with giving millions of dollars in bonuses this week to senior officers because otherwise, said chairman Edward Liddy, "We cannot retain the best and brightest talent to lead" the company. We are rendered speechless.
http://www.commondreams.org/

And,
That was just one tax-cut he gave them.

Then he proceeded, twice, to cut checks for Americans to spend as they wanted.
That didn't work either.

All that and he never took care of this country's infrastructure.

Do you honestly expect more of the same to work?

Great, Obama has the power to stop it. So if he allows the bonuses it's his fault.

I believe we had no choice but to save the banks and AIG. Otherwise, there would be a full blown world recession right now, worst than 1929. No profit, no bonus.

AND, damnit
Tax-cuts to the Oil Companies.
Did that stop them from raising the price of a gal of gas?
Did that tax-cut encourage them to build more refineries in this country?







Let me answer for you.



NO!

Exxon contributed almost 40 billion in 2007 amd 2008 to the Us Treasury through income taxes. 2009, maybe 10 billion or 20. Are you going to make up the difference for the oil companies? Obama isn't either.

What a bargain they got we waged a war for them.

Why do some continue to preach the same economic policies and advice that have been proven over the last 8 years, not to work?

Why after this evidence are they unwilling to support a different tactic? One backed by a team of economists.
Even if it doesn't work, and there are no guarantees, at least it was tried.
One thing for sure, that we do know, is that what has been done in the past Failed!

Failed magnificently!