Dow Sheds Nearly 600 Points, S&P 500 in Correction in a Wild Day on Wall Street
U.S. stocks plunged more than 3.5 percent on Monday, closing off session lows in high volume trade as fears of slowing growth in China pressured global markets.
S&P 500 ended nearly 80 points lower, off session lows of about 104 points lower but still in correction territory after the tech sector failed intraday attempts to post gains. Cumulative trade volume was 13.94 billion shares, the highest volume day since Aug. 10, 2011.
The major averages had a volatile day of trade, plunging sharply in the open and more than halving losses to trade less than 1 percent lower on the day, before closing down more than 3.5 percent.
"I think we probably rallied too fast. A lot of people that covered their shorts got their shorts covered," said Peter Coleman, head trader at Convergex. He noted the Dow was still trading several hundred points off session lows and that a close better than 500 points lower would be a good sign.
Related: The Stock Market's Fed Fever Is Only Going to Get Worse
"The market's going to be focused on China tonight to see if they come on tonight with something that would be considered a viable (way) to stimulate growth in that economy," said Quincy Krosby, market strategist at Prudential Financial.
The Dow Jones industrial average ended nearly 600 points lower after trading in wide range of between roughly 300 to 700 points lower in the minutes leading up to the close.
In the open, the index fell as much as 1,089 points, making Monday's move its biggest intraday swing in history. In midday trade, the index pared losses to trade about 110 points lower.
The blue-chip index posted its biggest 3-day point loss in history of 1,477.45 points.
During the first 90 minutes of trade, the index traveled more than 3,000 points in down and up moves.
"I'm hoping for some stability here but I think markets remain very, very vulnerable to bad news (out of) emerging markets," said Dan Veru, chief investment officer at Palisade Capital Management.
He attributed some of the sharp opening losses to exchange-traded funds. "It's so easy to move a bajillion dollars in a nanosecond."
Trading in stocks and exchange-traded funds was paused more than 1,200 times on Monday, Dow Jones said, citing exchanges. Such pauses total single digits on a normal day, the report said. An increase or decline of five percent or more triggers a five-minute pause in trading, Dow Jones said.
The major averages came sharply off lows in midday trade, with the Nasdaq off as low as less than half a percent after earlier falling 8.8 percent. Apple traded more than 1.5 percent lower after reversing losses to briefly jump more than 2 percent.
"There was sort of a lack of follow-through after the morning's crazy action in the overall market," said Robert Pavlik, chief market strategist at Boston Private Wealth. "The selling really dissipated once we got to around 10 o'clock."
He attributed some of the late morning gains to a short squeeze and bargain hunting.
Art Hogan, chief market strategist at Wunderlich Securities, noted that the sharp opening losses were due to great uncertainty among traders and the implementation of a rare market rule.
The New York Stock Exchange invoked Rule 48 for the Monday stock market open, Dow Jones reported.
The rule allows NYSE to open stocks without indications. "It was set up for situations like this," Hogan said. The rule was last used in the financial crisis.
Stock index futures for several major indices fell several percentage points before the open to hit limit down levels.
Circuit breakers for the S&P 500 will halt trade when the index decreases from its previous close by the following three levels: 7 percent, 13 percent, and 20 percent.
"Fear has taken over. The market topped out last week," said Adam Sarhan, CEO of Sarhan Capital. "We saw important technical levels break last week. Huge shift in investor psychology."
"The market is not falling on actual facets of a sub-prime situation. It's falling on fear of the unload of China. That's really behind this move," said Peter Cardillo, chief market economist at Rockwell Global Capital.
The CBOE Volatility Index (VIX), considered the best gauge of fear in the market, traded near 40. Earlier in the session the index leaped above 50 for the first time since February 2009.
"When the VIX is this high it means there's some panic out there," said Randy Frederick, managing director of trading and derivatives at Charles Schwab.
However, he said with stocks more than halving losses he "wouldn't be surprised if we closed positive." "If you could move it that far you could move it another 350 points" on the Dow," he said.
Overseas, European stocks plunged, with the STOXX Europe 600 down more than 5 percent, while the Shanghai Composite dropped 8.5 percent, its greatest one-day drop since 2007.
Treasury yields came off session lows, with the U.S. 10-year yield at 2.01 percent and the 2-year yield at 0.58 percent.
The U.S. dollar fell more than 1.5 percent against major world currencies, with the euro near $1.16 and the yen stronger at 119 yen versus the greenback.
A U.S. Treasury Department spokesperson said in a statement that "We do not comment on day-to-day market developments. As always, the Treasury Department is monitoring ongoing market developments and is in regular communication with its regulatory partners and market participants."
The Dow transports ended more than 3.5 percent lower to approach bear market territory.
About 10 stocks declined for every advancer on the New York Stock Exchange, with an exchange volume of 901 million and a composite volume of 4 billion as of 2:05 p.m.
Crude oil futures settled down $2.21, or 5.46 percent, at $38.24 a barrel, the lowest since February 2009. In intraday trade, crude oil futures for October delivery fell as much as $2.70 to $37.75 a barrel, a six-and-a-half-year low.
Gold futures settled down $6.10 at $1,153.60 an ounce.
This post originally appeared on CNBC. Read More at CNBC:
- Wharton's Siegel: We're going to test, possibly break this morning's lows
- Barclays: Fed unlikely to hike before March 2016
- One of Wall St's biggest bulls throws in the towel
It’s Not Just in Your Head, the Web Is Slowing Down
It’s not your imagination, and it’s not because AT&T — and possibly others — is purposefully cutting speeds to unlimited data plan users. The Internet is slowing down. The reason: Websites are growing in size, causing slower load times.
The average website is now 2.1 MB in size, compared to 1.5 MB two years ago, according to HTTP Archive, an Internet data measurement company. Multiple reasons can explain this increase in size.
Sites have been adding more content in an effort to drum up traffic, such as videos, engaging images, interactive plug-ins (comments and feeds) and other code and script-heavy features. Websites are becoming more and more technically advanced, and other sites have to keep adding features to stay competitive.
To keep up with the rapidly increasing number of users accessing sites on various platforms, developers are offering more versions of websites as well as apps to accommodate all devices, including smartphones, watches, tablets, and other gadgets. All of these versions require additional code, ultimately adding to the weight of a given website.
Then there are the advertisers who want to get the user’s attention by creating dramatic displays for their products that consume even more bandwidth.
Websites also want to know who is visiting their pages, both welcome and unwelcome visitors. New tools that track and analyze visitors have increased in popularity, as well as stronger encryption technology to add more security. These security measures and trackers require more code, again slowing load times.
Unfortunately for websites trying to keep up with the times, Google has just introduced a new ‘Slow to Load’ warning sign in mobile search results. Since mobile searches account for more than half of the total Google searches in 10 countries, Google wants to enhance user experience for those on their mobile platform.
Although the weight of a website isn’t all that contributes to slow loading, it’s a major factor. Other reasons include users overusing data, a poor connection, or a high level of traffic in the mobile network.
Google also changed its algorithm in April, so now ‘mobile friendly’ sites are ranked higher on search results, while those that fail to meet its criteria are ranked lower.
Although the internet is only slowing by a matter of seconds, it’s still slowing down. All the more reason for a user to become frustrated with a page that’s taking a couple extra seconds to load and go to a competitor’s site.
Taylor Swift Gets Apple Music to Pay Up
On Sunday morning, Taylor Swift took Apple to task for the royalty agreement on its news music streaming service. Her open letter on Tumblr, titled “To Apple, Love Taylor,” said, “I’m sure you are aware that Apple Music will be offering a free 3 month trial to anyone who signs up for the service. I’m not sure you know that Apple Music will not be paying writers, producers, or artists for those three months. I find it to be shocking, disappointing and completely unlike this historically progressive and generous company.”
Related Link: How the Video Game Industry Is Failing Its Fans
“Three months is a long time to go unpaid, and it is unfair to ask anyone to work for nothing,” the pop singer argued on the behalf of music-makers everywhere, many of whom had voiced their discontent with the royalty policy. She concluded her letter saying, “We don’t ask you for free iPhones. Please don’t ask us to provide you with our music for no compensation.”
It was a sentiment shared by many independent music artists and producers. Just a few weeks earlier, the American Association for Independent Music had chimed in, “Since a sizable percentage of Apple’s most voracious music consumers are likely to initiate their free trials at launch, we are struggling to understand why rights holders would authorize their content on the service before October 1st.”
It took less than 24 hours for the “historically progressive and generous company” to respond via Twitter, and it didn’t wait until morning to make its announcement. Eddy Cue, Apple’s senior vice president of Internet Software and Services, personally called Swift to deliver the news before tweeting at 11:29 p.m., “#AppleMusic will pay artists for streaming, even during customers’ free trial period.”
Cue followed up with a feel-good response a minute later: “We hear you @taylorswift13 and indie artists. Love, Apple.” Later, Cue said that the company will pay artists on a per stream basis during the free trial period, although Cue declined to say what the rate would be. Once the free introductory period is over, Apple Music will pay music owners 71.5 percent of Apple Music’s overall subscription revenue in the United States.
Swift tweeted her response and addressed it to her fans and supporters: “I am elated and relieved. Thank you for your words of support today. They listened to us.”
Related Link: Apple Muscles Into Streaming Music Market
Swift’s crusade on social media showed the increasing weight that collective opinions on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook can have to force a change in corporate policy and direction. In a comic echo of that power, BuzzFeed promptly put together a list of 18 more issues Swift could fix through the power of social media, ranging from the battery life of iPhones to the size of Pringles cans.
Apple Music is launching on June 30, offering users a free, three-month subscription period. After that, the service will charge $9.99 a month for individuals and $14.99 a month for families with up to six members.
Most Americans Wouldn’t Vote for a Socialist President
Memo to Sen. Bernie Sanders:
Americans by overwhelming numbers say they would vote for a qualified presidential candidate nominated by their party who is Catholic, a woman, black, Hispanic or Jewish.
They say they would be somewhat less inclined to support a Mormon, a gay or lesbian, an evangelical Christian or Muslim for president, according to a new Gallup Poll released Monday. Yet more than half of those Americans surveyed said they would be accepting of anyone from this group who managed to garner their party’s presidential nomination. Even a qualified atheist would be acceptable to 58 percent of those questioned.
But only 47 percent said they could vote for a socialist for president. Fifty percent said they would absolutely not.
Related: Where Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley Stand on the Issues
Sanders, 73, an independent who is challenging Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, is the only Jewish candidate in the race. And while many wrote him off early on as a fringe candidate with limited appeal, Sanders has subsequently generated considerable buzz among liberals and progressives, and has made respectable showings in some of the early polling, including in New Hampshire.
With his ringing anti-Wall Street populist message, Sanders is tapping into the Democratic Party’s progressive wing – including some who had hoped at one time that Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) might change her mind and enter the race. However, the former University of Chicago student radical and self-described democratic socialist, supports proposals similar to those of mainstream social democratic governments in Europe, particularly those of Scandinavia.
Five of the declared candidates for president are Catholics – including Republicans Jeb Bush, George Pataki, Marco Rubio and Rick Santorum, and Democrat Martin O'Malley. Two are women -- Clinton and Republican Carly Fiorina. Republican Ben Carson is the only black candidate in the race, while two candidates are Hispanic -- Republicans Rubio and Ted Cruz.
Here are Gallup’s findings:
The Hidden Costs of Home Ownership: $6,000 a Year
Most new homeowners are prepared to pay their mortgages, but they may not be ready for other unavoidable costs that can amount to thousands of dollars every year.
The average homeowner shelled out $6,042 last year in homeowners insurance, property taxes, and utilities, according to a new report from Zillow. The average costs varied by location, with Boston homeowners spending the most ($9,413) and homeowners in Phoenix spending the least ($4,513).
“Home buyers too often fixate on the sticker price or monthly mortgage payment on a house, and don’t budget for the other expenses associated with ownership -- which can add up quickly,” Zillow spokeswoman Amy Bohutinsky said in a statement.
Related: How to Decide if You Should Rent or Buy a Home
The maintenance costs included in the report included things like lawn care and carpet cleaning.
The country’s homeownership rate fell to 63.7 percent in the first quarter, the lowest level since 1989. The rate peaked at 69.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2004, right before the housing bubble burst.
As rents in many cities continue to skyrocket, however, homeownership may be becoming more appealing. However, in addition to hidden homeownership costs, new buyers should also consider the opportunity costs of potential earnings if buyers had invested their down payment. The New York Times has a handy calculator that incorporates these and other factors to help weigh whether it makes more sense to rent or buy.
Nearly two-thirds of consumers say that home ownership is a “dream come true” and an accomplishment to be proud of, according to a survey released last week by Wells Fargo.
Here’s How Much Boomers Are Giving Their Kids
Money has always tended to flow from parents or grandparents to children and grandchildren, whether it’s as outright gifts, help with living expenses or paying for things like school. But the pace of that inter-generational transfer of wealth has picked up in recent years — and it could be threatening the retirement prospects of some baby boomers, according to a new report from the Employee Benefit Research Institute.
The report finds that the number of cash transfers going from older households to younger family members increased from 1998 to 2010. High-income households are more likely to provide support to their adult children, but middle- and low-income families are also providing cash to younger family members. Overall, from 2008 to 2010, households of adults aged 50 to 64 gave an average of $8,350 to younger family members, and households age 85 and older gave $4,787 to younger family members.
“For older households, cash transfers can reduce their retirement assets, raising concerns about retirement security, particularly for low-income groups,” EBRI research associate Sudipto Banerjee said in a statement.
Related: Sandwich Generation Squeezed Once Again
In just 5 percent of families, wealth is passed from the younger generation to the older, and the amounts are far smaller. During the same period, households age 85 and older received an average of $359 from those in younger generations.
The EBRI numbers confirm a trend highlighted in other recent reports. A 2013 Pew study found that about half of adults ages 40 to 59 have provided some financial support to at least one grown child in the past year, with more than a quarter of them providing the primary support.
Obviously, the economic climate of recent years may be a big reason for the increased cash flowing from parents to their grown children. More than half of parents of millennials think that it is harder for today’s young adults to live within their means than it was for them, according to an April Bank of America survey.