Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
The Swiss franc ... was on track for its biggest single-day rise against the euro in more than two and a half years. “Trump’s comments about North Korea have created nervousness and the fear is if the President really means what he said: “fire and fury”,” said Naeem Aslam, chief market analyst at Think Markets in London. “The typical text book trade is that investors rush for safe havens.” http://gulfnews.com/business/sectors/markets/trump-s-fire-and-fury-warning-hits-stocks-lifts-swiss-franc-and-gold-1.2071584
@Maurice: Congradulation , you got it figured out. "5 readers" try this on for size, "Pimco Has A Manager Who Tops Dan Ivascyn. His Name? Dan Ivascyn" 1.4K just one example ! Now deal with it !!! Regards, Ted
The day's spike in gold captured my attention. So I decided to put up a story from Reuters to see if anyone else found the gold story of interest. Shortly after linking a Reuters article on gold's move, I scanned Ted's daily briefing and observed within it the same link. I than searched the web looking for another source so I wouldn't be stepping on Ted's rather large toes (with the same link). Moving the Reuters link to second spot, I added a new link above it from Gulf News, thinking that one source Ted probably doesn't normally read.
Apparently, my evasive effort wasn't enough for Ted, who seems to be objecting not to a duplicate link, but rather to my story's mention of gold and Swiss Francs. The markets are lovely, dark and deep (borrowing from RF). So, to expect others not to cite stories on specific sectors (i.e. gold, energy, bonds, stocks, currencies, emerging markets) because another poster may have already mentioned that sector in one of his posts seems a bit excessive.
Comments
Regards,
Ted
@Ted: Thanks for commenting on Hanks' post, thus kicking it into the "Discussions +" category!
So no one else can ever start a thread about anything that happened in the markets on any day because Ted covers everything all the time?
Sounds reasonable to me.
Regards,
Ted
The day's spike in gold captured my attention. So I decided to put up a story from Reuters to see if anyone else found the gold story of interest. Shortly after linking a Reuters article on gold's move, I scanned Ted's daily briefing and observed within it the same link. I than searched the web looking for another source so I wouldn't be stepping on Ted's rather large toes (with the same link). Moving the Reuters link to second spot, I added a new link above it from Gulf News, thinking that one source Ted probably doesn't normally read.
Apparently, my evasive effort wasn't enough for Ted, who seems to be objecting not to a duplicate link, but rather to my story's mention of gold and Swiss Francs. The markets are lovely, dark and deep (borrowing from RF). So, to expect others not to cite stories on specific sectors (i.e. gold, energy, bonds, stocks, currencies, emerging markets) because another poster may have already mentioned that sector in one of his posts seems a bit excessive.