Jester,

If the Fed can levitate the market based on smoke and mirrors, would not EA performing such a trick be a lesser feat? I swear, what flummoxes me is the wealth of contradictory data, some of it rapid fire, e.g., KBH raises guidance (or whomever, or housing starts have rocketed above expectations, etc.) one day, and the market flies - QE worked, housing is coming on strong. Next day, housing permits, signed contracts, whatever, are a disappointment, The End is Near. As I've opined before, personally, I find too much FUD, not knowing the veracity and actual impact of sources of news, the fact that most news put out there has an 'agenda' behind it, and my visibility in what I feel I can trust is near zero. I've always held that the Fed printing money until complete deforestation has occurred seems like it'll come back to bite in some nasty form. Given that the plates have kept spinning, is it delay or has QE somehow saved the economy, much as Paul Krugman et. al. has always opined?  If anyone has a convincing argument with data, please post. 

The micro seems to reflect the macro: e.g., The Saudi's all-but-declared intent was to kill off the US frackers. That doesn't appear to be happening. At least with the figures and CC transcripts that've been released, they're scaling down, getting leaner, only operating already-drilled wells that have low cost-of-production, and most have declared that their debt servicing is structured so as not to be a problem for lean times. True? I dunno - but the price of the smaller frackers (OAS, SN, etc.) have had a nice recovery - SN almost tripling from its lows to about 15 now (although it *was* a $35 stock not that long ago.) Or, as I contended at the start of the Saudi 'pump till they dump' campaign - maybe it was really about squeezing Iran, so between the inability to profit by oil, and the Western economic sanctions, Iran would be forced to make an accord with the West over nuke production, which was the real nightmare the Saudis want to avert (not to mention their Israeli 'friends' in this shared interest.) Is that the correct interp, and if so, so far the Saudis don't exactly sound convinced that their aim has been achieved. So what next? Wheels within wheels.

Late reply: Jester, you pointed out that Goldman had dropped Intel to 'sell'. Yup, they've got challenges, that's for sure, but I'm not so pessimistic. Microsoft as a partner is certainly like trying to swim with cinderblock boots, and Windows 10 is going to be a very tough sell, I think, with the added onerousnous of moving to a 'subscription' (indentured servant) model for their customers, when a great number of businesses are still running Win XP just fine, thank you. (At a lot of professional offices I visit - My MD, my accountant, my dentist, etc., have the familiar XP logo on their desktops.) But from what I've read of the new/new Surface 3, it's actually ready for prime time, rather than just a lame Apple wannabe. And it took Goldman until INFN crossed 19 to downgrade it to 'hold'. (Although today there is a story marking INFN as the 'fastest growing' optical network company, with a y/o/y growth rate of 20% - I do wonder whether the stock has 'legs' still left, given the success of their current hardware, and the progress on their next-gen.) In any case, it's always in the back of my head that Goldman, before the 2008 crash, when oil was $130/bll, predicted $200/bbl before the end of that year. Maybe they just meant after it hit $40/bll, as a 'rest stop' on the way to $200?)