And that is the fact that stock traders don't *always* pay what they think stocks are worth — they sometimes pay more for stocks if they think the price will rise, *regardless* of the health of the company (or the economy).

When the "mob" dives into a particular stock — or set of stocks (e.g., tech) or the stock market as a whole — traders will ride a stock up if they think they can make money on the frenzy and still get out before the whole thing tanks.

Thus, when stocks tank because companies are doing poorly, or the economy (really, the economic psychology) is in a funk, stock traders will actually start *buying* so-called "undervalued" stocks in order to kickstart a run-up and make money off of so-called bargains.

They don't care if the stock goes down again, because they're only in it for the short-term gain. This why paying attention to short-term stock trends — *any* of them (including the ones Naureckas cites in his post — is nonsensical.

We'd all be better off if the media — including FAIR and the progressive media — stopped trying to perform "Kremlinology" on the stock market and paid attention to more accurate and reliable metrics of corporate performance and the economy. The stock market is a financial soap opera, not seismograph …

We all much of what the banks hold is worthless and they know that we know. So why all of the secrecy?

My guess is that if the banks books ever become public we would learn something more sinister. We might learn how much of their business is off shore or how much is with world drug dealers or the Russian Mafia or pick you own unsavory business.

We might learn they have been cheating on their taxes or about other illegal transactions. We might learn how many politicians or other elites have used these banks for illegal transactions. I don't think that we will never see the books of the bankrupt banks.

- acomfort