Rutte elogia Trump por fazer Europa "pagar em GRANDE" os gastos com defesa

[Pata-Hari]

Artigo que achei interessante e que expressa bem a visão dos mercados do cramer neste momento.

By James J. Cramer
08/05/2003 02:49 PM EDT
Click here for more stories by James J. Cramer

Market Analysis
Bonds have continued to rise.
It could be due to economic growth or crowding.
Rates moving above 5% without an economic turn would be cause for bearishness.

For the longest time, nothing kept me up at night. I was extremely confident, after the exquisite moment, that we were all systems go.

And then the bonds spiked. And spiked. And spiked.


They still aren't to a point where I am panicked about them. But there is a
simple fact here: There have been massive buyers of bonds (that stock money that I keep talking about), and not a lot of really great news on the
economy. Yet, I still don't feel rates have stabilized. So, yes something is now keeping me up at night: the possibility that the government's borrowing is going to spike rates.

Understand that there are two camps on this. There is the camp that ascribes the rise in yields to economic activity and the camp that ascribes the rise in yields to crowding out. The folks who belong in the latter camp, if they are right, are going to make a lot of money being short bonds here because
if we are getting crowded out now, you ain't seen nothing yet.

But if it is economic activity that has the rates up, we can handle that. In fact, if we didn't start seeing some economic activity, we were going to
have to roll back that whole Nazz run, as we have had to do last year when the orders didn't develop.

How do we know which it is?

First, I think we have to recognize that the crowding-out thesis is a viable one. That's something that my television partner and friend, Larry Kudlow, will not agree to. Me, I come at it after a lifetime of trading bonds and knowing that when supply balloons, you can't find enough buyers. In other words, I come at it from a trader's point of view, and no amount of theory is going to change my mind.

Why am I dwelling on this issue? Because:

I am and have been bullish.
If rates keep spiking through 5% without some definitive economic improvement, I am going to turn bearish.
My 1991 road map didn't include a big spike in yields, so we are diverging from what took me here to date. (This rate rise does hurt the
dividend-yielders for certain.)
As I have become an expert at anticipating questions, let me just add that this view does not contradict anything I have written on the subject (the rates must spike further than they have), and it doesn't make me anti-tax cut if the economy comes back. Because if it does, we then should try, once
again, to balance the budget. I never will be someone who believes that running deficits in both bad times and good is a wise idea.