Dow Jones Average Tops Record High

The Dow Jones industrial average surged to a record high this morning at the opening bell, surpassing a key level in its recovery from the 2008 financial meltdown.

The Dow rose 92 points to 14,221 at 9:49 a.m., topping the previous record high of 14,164 achieved on Oct. 9, 2007.

An index of 30 of the largest US companies, the Dow is a widely-watched indicator of the stock market. It has more than doubled from its low reached in 2009 after the government bailed out the major banks, which were crushed under the weight of bad mortgages fueled by easy-lending policies.

Stocks have been in a five-year bull market, helped by the Federal Reserve, which has kept interest rates near zero to assist in the recovery of the housing market.

The Dow is up 7.8 percent for the year, one of its best starts ever. The Standard & Poor’s index rose 11 points to 1,536. It’s also within striking distance of its own record of 1,565. The Nasdaq was up 30 points at 3,212. Asian markets rose as China pledged to stick to ambitious growth targets for its economy, the world’s second largest. European stocks also jumped because of retail sales in the region rose sharply.

WTF! Obama is one lousy socialist:rolleyes:
 
That might be interesting news, if the DOW were still an indicator of overall economic health. Averaging the individual share prices of 30 of the richest companies in the country (and mind you, not controlling for overall size of said companies or their actual market value. IBM has more weight than ExxonMobil, how does that make sense?) has no direct correlation to our economy as a whole. Chevron, WalMart, IBM, Pfizer, Verizon, Coca-Cola, Exxon, JPMorgan & Chase et al. are giants. Using their success to measure the overall economy is absurd. The prosperity enjoyed by the DOW companies is not distributed equally through the entire economy. That, along with the fact that the DOW doesn't account for inflation makes a "record high average" useless.
 
Bankers and traders makes a lot of money, Obama is surely a socialist...
 

Jagger69

Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
That might be interesting news, if the DOW were still an indicator of overall economic health. Averaging the individual share prices of 30 of the richest companies in the country (and mind you, not controlling for overall size of said companies or their actual market value. IBM has more weight than ExxonMobil, how does that make sense?) has no direct correlation to our economy as a whole. Chevron, WalMart, IBM, Pfizer, Verizon, Coca-Cola, Exxon, JPMorgan & Chase et al. are giants. Using their success to measure the overall economy is absurd. The prosperity enjoyed by the DOW companies is not distributed equally through the entire economy. That, along with the fact that the DOW doesn't account for inflation makes a "record high average" useless.

:goodpost:

As an additional thought, just like so many other supposed economic barometers (the price of gasoline for instance), the president gets way too much credit or blame for things over which he has very little direct influence.
 

Mayhem

Banned
:goodpost:

As an additional thought, just like so many other supposed economic barometers (the price of gasoline for instance), the president gets way too much credit or blame for things over which he has very little direct influence.

This is one of those things that everyone says they agree on, and it keeps being said and agreed upon. But only when the guy they voted for is in office. When the opposition gets elected, we're right back to blaming the President for using a faulty magic wand.
 
With the Dow and record corporate profits, we should all me rich any day with trickle down economics
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
The Dow is not just a rich people thing. It's tied to our investments and retirements. Confidence in our economy. The more money that gets invested the more that gets stirred into the pot to grow. That's purchasing and jobs. I don't like his health care shit but if he didn't extend unemployment after the crash and have bail outs then this country would be in deep shit. I know he wants money for all kinds of other social shit that I don't agree with, but he made the decision to keep the Bush tax cuts for the most part and put his social shit aside. No doube we are better off today than 5 years ago.
 
The american economy is strong and dynamic. It survived FDR, Carter et al. and it'll survive Obama.

Unless we convert to straight up communism our economy will recover in spite of not because of who's in power.

Wow really!?! I believe FDR saved this country from an idiot republicans lack of direction. Carter inherited Nixons corruption and yes Obama has done more than an admirable job fixing yet another unqulified halfwit GOP presidents mess.
 

Rey C.

Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
That might be interesting news, if the DOW were still an indicator of overall economic health. Averaging the individual share prices of 30 of the richest companies in the country (and mind you, not controlling for overall size of said companies or their actual market value. IBM has more weight than ExxonMobil, how does that make sense?) has no direct correlation to our economy as a whole. Chevron, WalMart, IBM, Pfizer, Verizon, Coca-Cola, Exxon, JPMorgan & Chase et al. are giants. Using their success to measure the overall economy is absurd. The prosperity enjoyed by the DOW companies is not distributed equally through the entire economy. That, along with the fact that the DOW doesn't account for inflation makes a "record high average" useless.

More so than the DJIA of 30 stocks, the S&P 500 is a better indicator of overall economic health in the U.S. - though that is not its primary purpose either. So in a way, you are somewhat correct in your statement about the Dow. But that's been true of the Dow for more than 20 years. In fact, it was becoming increasingly true near the end of the second Reagan administration, as the U.S. economy was becoming less manufacturing based. All equity indices are really just indicators of corporate health and reflect the rational (future) expectations that investors have for corporate earnings growth, not so much domestic GDP or economic growth - that has never been the case... nothing new to see here. But as corporate profits improve, whether because of productivity gains or improving revenues, it is generally seen as a positive indicator for the economy - especially since Americans, more now than ever before, must depend on stock and bond based 401k's and IRAs for retirement funds, rather than defined pension plans.

But as you look at broader indices, like the S&P 500 and/or the Russell, the better they reflect the improving or worsening macro economic environment. And those indices are also at or above record highs. And the economic indicators continue to demonstrate a continuing recovery. 1st quarter GDP is now estimated to be close to 3%. And the revisions to 2012 Q4 GDP will likely show expansion rather than the slight contraction that was first reported. Consumer spending was unexpectedly higher for January and February than first estimated and so were retail sales. So taking all of that into account, your sentiments are substantially off base.

Dow closes at record high again, S&P hits highest intraday level since October 2007. The Russell 2000 Index, which measures the performance of 2,000 U.S. small-cap companies, closed at a record high in Thursday's session, as did the Russell 1000 and the Russell 3000.
 
Of course the Stock Market is surging. The feds keep printing more money. Which in truth is a VERY BAD way to stimulate the economy. Eventually, the bottom is going to fall out.
 

bobjustbob

Proud member of FreeOnes Hall Of Fame. Retired to
Printing more money causes a loss in value, not a rise.

Agree with you and Sam. The problem is that the banks paid back their bailout pretty quickly. They are showing profits now but where is it coming from? They are lending to someone but who? The circulation of money stimulates growth we can all agree upon. But I don't see any growth other than the bank's stock holders.
 
Top