"I would think a check issued by fido bank and deposited in a fido individual individual money account would be available the next day at the most!!!!!"
You're describing what you would like, but it's each institution's choice to go beyond what's required by law. As far as banks are concerned, you should also check out section 229.13 - the "exceptions" section. Specifically, the rule for new accounts (opened within 30 days), that lets banks apply even longer holding periods.
When I send an EFT to WellFargo, the cash is available the next day. When I send an EFT to Chase, it is held for days. (At least this was the situation the last time I checked.) Sure, electronic transfers ought to be immediate, but it's up to each bank to set its own policies, and nothing requires them to be faster just because they've received the money. When a financial institution tells me that they're speeding things up (or otherwise simply following common sense) because I'm such I good customer, I get annoyed. Because they should be acting that way for everyone, not for "better" customers. Common sense should be the norm, but most institutions just follow the letter of the law - they're better protected that way.
(Curiosity question - what was the name of the bank on the check you deposited? For example, checks issued by Fidelity brokerage accounts are processed by United Missouri Bank (UMB). So these checks are drawn on bank accounts but not "Fidelity Bank" accounts.)
Keep in mind that everything here applies to banks, not brokerages. As Catch brought up bank rules, I responded accordingly. Likewise, as you referred to your account as a money market account (a bank term) and not a brokerage account holding a money market fund, I have again followed up with bank rules.
More than likely, you're actually talking about a brokerage account, e.g. Fidelity's Cash Management Account, which is a brokerage account where the sweep is into a bank account. I believe that since the account itself (as opposed to where it puts your money) is a brokerage, it falls under brokerage rules.
I haven't found the regulation yet, but judging from the fact that a variety of brokerages put a 4 business day hold on check (and EFT!) deposits, I expect this to be the legal rule (just as 229.12 is the rule for most bank accounts).

Scout Unconstrained Bond manager interview--
Q: How much cash do you have in the fund?
A: We’re running about 30 percent net cash because of so many things we sold. We’re looking for short-term bonds and securities to purchase with one-year maturities to hold our ground against that zero cash interest rate which can eat up real returns over time. We’re looking at floating-rate securities, asset-backed securities and high-quality short-term assets. The best times are gone. Longer term, fixed income in the traditional sense is almost an uninvestable asset class and should be shunned by almost all investors.
We’re slightly short high-yield bonds, which is unusual for us. The absolute level of yield on high-yield bonds is so low now it highlights an extraordinary risk people are taking. And the reason for the runup in high yield, which is primarily because of central bank activity, makes us cautious. So we’ve exited our derivative exposure going long and now we’re in a small way buying insurance for the portfolio for what we think is likely to be a decline in the prices of high-yield securities and a rise in volatility.
We also think oddly enough the policies the U.S. Federal Reserve is pursuing in an attempt to bring volatility down are inherently destabilizing. The combination of the various quantitative easing programs they’ve undertaken are outright balance sheet expansions for the government. These expansions feel good in the short term like an injection of drugs to an addict but are destabilizing in the long term.
The Fed has absorbed the entire supply of mortgage bonds and long-term Treasuries. Central banks are monetizing everything and causing a shortage of high-quality fixed-income securities. That destroys the price mechanism because nobody knows where a BB-rated credit should be priced today in the absence of all this central bank activity to prop up the markets.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-02/the-best-bond-fund-manager-youve-never-heard-of#p1
Confessions of a fund alarm/mfo addict--holding RNSIX, MAINX, RPHYX and probably adding this one. Now where would one get those ideas. Given this infernal fixed income
market brought about by the financial engineering activities of central banks our fixed income allocations have evolved into betting on a Snowball's chance in hell. A significant cash position when warranted along with actual shorting holds capital preservation appeal
among a mix of fixed income funds.

Investment Outlook
November 2012
​Time To Vote!
William H. Gross
I pledge allegiance to the flag of
the fragmented state of America,
and to the plutocracy for which now it stands,
a red and blue nation,
under financial gods
indistinguishable,
with liberty and justice for the 1(%).
Note: Ted had already posted a link to this article, but after reading it, I felt that it needed a bit more attention.

Anyone have a guess what the new Series I Bond rates will be tomorrow?
Here is what they were the past 6 months:
From Current iBond Rates

05/01/12 Update: The Current I Bond Composite Earnings Rate is 2.20% with a Fixed Rate of 0.00% The earnings rate for Series I Savings Bonds is a combination of a fixed rate, which applies for the life of the bond, and the semiannual inflation rate. The 2.20% earnings rate for I bonds bought from May 20121 through October 31, 2012 will apply for the succeeding six months after the issue date.

BTW, Today is the last day to lock in 6 months at 2.20%.
From I Bonds Explained

Series I Bonds are a low-risk, liquid savings product. While you own them they earn interest and protect you from inflation. You may purchase I Bonds at www.TreasuryDirect.gov and at most local financial institutions.
Earnings rates for I bonds are set each May 1 and November 1. Interest accrues monthly and compounds semiannually. Bonds held less than five years are subject to a three-month interest penalty. I Bonds have an interest-bearing life of 30 years. When the inflation rate is less than zero, a bond's earnings rate is less than its fixed rate (but the earnings rate is never less than zero)

I've already bought my full quote ($10,000) for 2012 or I'd buy more.

Reply to @VintageFreak: Because they either don't understand their plan or the entire concept well enough to make an intelligent decision, or because they simply don't trust the existing financial system to preserve their investment for them. I've known plenty of people in both situations.

Reply to @Ted: I've gotten more useful financial information from both of those gentlemen than from the 9 million (and counting) links that some folks like to think are so important.

All Markets Closed Monday and maybe Tuesday !! Some bad information given in this thread thanks to ZeroHedge.Com, the "National Inquirer" of the financial world. In the future, I would suggest one get their facts right before they post. Lead ! Follow ! Or Get Out Of The Way ! http://www.marketwatch.com/Story/story/print?guid=CC8541B2-1FA7-11E2-9DE3-002128040CF6

Last week Annaly Capital’s CEO Wellington Denahan-Norris (who this week replaced the late Michael Farrell who tragically passed away), said some very interesting comments to Bloomberg on the state of the risk markets. After discussing the impact of the Fed buying Agency MBS she said:
“It’s not just at the mortgage REITs where the returns in this market are being put under assault, It’s the general global landscape where you have an incredible mispricing of risk that’s being delivered at the hands of academics at the central banks of the world.”
Worst fear #1--an unforeseen sharp rise in interest rates resulting in principal losses to fixed income allocations (bond funds.)
Worst fear #2--financial repression/negative real return/negligible yield on any better credit quality/shorter duration asset continuing on and on and on for years.
Either scenario equates to a damned whether you do or don't costly outcome for those who saved instead of spent, the flip side regression to mean for fixed income funds which have enjoyed decades of gains in addition to yield.
Fidelity Floating Rate and RPHYX are held as interest rate risk hedges. A doubling of precious metals exposure from 5% to 10% (gold, silver, mining shares and funds) was done through spring and summer to hedge against the rash actions of poison Ivy League economics PhDs.
http://www.realclearmarkets.com/docs/2012/10/Population delusions 121007 great disorder.pdf
So I keep wondering to myself, do our money-printing central banks and their cheerleaders
understand the full consequences of the monetary debasement they continue to engineer?
Inflation of the CPI might be a consequence both seen and measurable. A broad inflation of
asset prices might be a consequence seen, though not measurable. But what about the
consequences that are unseen but unmeasurable – and are all the more destructive for it? I feel queasy about the enthusiasm with which our wise economists play games with
something about which we have such a poor understanding.
My point is to show that money operates in many social domains beyond the
financial, and that tying currency devaluation to social devaluation might have some merit.
-Dylan Grice/SocGen
Money doesn't talk it swears.
-a different Dylan

And yet another article on this very timely topic. Trends offer reverse in January so my radar will be especially sensitive then. I am dreading the occurrance of this great (maybe too widely predicted) reallocation because I just don't know at my age and financial situation I ever want to venture into equities again. Then again, if it's anything like the 80s and 90s.....
http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2012/10/23/bonds-at-risk-as-great-rotation-into-stocks-seen-starting-in-2013/?mod=BOL_hpp_blog_ii

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.financial-planning.com/fp_issues/42_10/treasury-inflation-protected-securities-for-planners-clients-2681060-1.html?zkPrintable=true

"...formulation relies solely upon two components: a fundamental element and a speculative element."
"The fundamental element has two sub-contributors: a corporate profit growth estimate and a dividend yield estimate."
"The speculative element is interpreted as a measure of market participant emotional zeal."
Very much appreciate.
"Always remain skeptical."
Indeed, our best engineers (and financial analysts) always remain skeptical.
The irony is, our best program managers (and traders) can not. They've got to believe.
Thanks for sharing MJG.

Hi Guys,
“Things should be made as simple as possible, but not any simpler.” That remarkable aphorism came from the fertile mind of Albert Einstein. The proper balance is critical.
That’s certainly not a modern insight. Leo Tolstoy noted that “There is no greatness where there is not simplicity, goodness, and truth.” Venturing further into history, Leonardo da Vince observed that “Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.”
Financial modeling has become more complex with the easy access to supercomputer power. The issue is to identify just how much modeling detail is needed to fully capture the essential trends in the forecast. Adding complexity to a model structure by expanding its elements doesn’t always improve the accuracy of the forecast. Many examples of modeling over-specification exist.
One recent problem class illustration is with climate change predictions. Climate researcher James Hansen made rather crude projections as early as 1981; these have subsequently been reasonably validated by worldwide temperature records. The modeling at that time was notoriously incomplete since it omitted major factors (like clouds) that potentially would alter the predictions. By 1988, Hansen improved the climate model fidelity by incorporating three-dimensional atmospheric effects and more physical elements. The 1988 computer model, when tested against out-of-sample recent data, failed to achieve the accuracy achieved by the simpler model.
In many instances, Occam’s razor is a useful concept when confronted with highly complex, interactive problems like equity returns forecasting. One popular form of Occam’s razor quoted in Nate Silver’s “The Signal and the Noise” book is “Other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one.” I firmly support that axiom, and usually take the simplest decision pathway whenever possible.
Following Occam’s guideline, I have consistently searched for simple ways to forecast annual equity returns. Since I am a longer-term investor (in contrast to a speculative agenda), I am quite satisfied with a technique that gets things about right over an extended period (like a multi-year cycle), not necessarily one that has immediate annual accuracy demands attached to it.
For several decades, I’ve practiced the Occam-like approach reported by John Bogle in his wonderful 1999 book titled “Common Sense on Mutual Funds”. Using an Occam’s razor philosophy, Bogle demonstrates the power of that technique over 10-year periods. His formulation relies solely upon only two components: a fundamental element and a speculative element. Its correlation with equity market data is remarkable.
The fundamental element has two sub-contributors: a corporate profit growth estimate and a dividend yield estimate. The speculative element is interpreted as a measure of market participant emotional zeal. It usually is characterized by the market’s current P/E ratio relative to its historic average. The speculative assessment adopts a return-to-the-mean mentality.
To forecast upcoming equity market rewards, the various components in Bogle’s approach must be estimated for next year, and then updated annually. Here is how I do that forecasting.
For the fundamental component, I evaluate the corporate profit growth rate by estimating the US real (after inflation) GDP growth rate. Analytical work that I completed years ago show a tight correlation between corporate profits and GDP growth. The correlation is that Corporate Profits equal 1.7 times the estimated GDP Growth rate.
GDP growth rate has been historically composed of mostly two basic factors: population growth and productivity growth. Again, historically in the US, population growth is about 1 % annually and productivity growth has been about 2 % per year. You get to pick your own values by assessing current macroeconomic factors. If you feel Apple will introduce a new technology and/or the auto industry will invent a new rechargeable battery system, you should upgrade your productivity estimate. It’s always your call.
Historically, dividend yield has been much higher than today’s 2 % rate. Again, it’s your call. I often input an estimate close to the current level unless I anticipate a jump in inflation rate.
Now for the challenging task of estimating market participant emotional behavior. I have never had a comfortable handle on this illusive parameter. The Behavioral research community has contributed some very generic guidance, but few actionable rules in this arena.
But Nate Silver’s book provides a deployable clue. In his chapter that discusses equity markets (“If You Can’t Beat’em”), Silver shows a series of data sets that highlight equity returns to P/E ratios. By curve fitting the longer-term data, an algebraic equation can be developed that shows a linear influence relationship.
If you assume that the regression-to-the-mean hypothesis holds, and allow for a 50 % correction overshoot (a nod to Behavioral studies of overreaction), a best fit equation can be derived to evaluate the P/E adjustment needed to estimate the speculative contribution potential on an annual basis.
If a baseline P/E ratio of 15 is postulated (reasonable, perhaps a little low), then the speculative component is positive for an undervalued market, and the incremental speculative contribution is 0.53 times the factor (22.5 - current P/E). For an overvalued market, the incremental speculative component is negative and is 0.53 times the factor (11.0 - current P/E).
Real expected equity return is simply the sum of the three components identified.
Actual Return is Real Return plus an inflation estimate. Today, inflation rate is about 1.7 % annually. Historically, it has been at least double that figure. Again, it’s your task to make the call. I anticipate a moderate increase.
Now for the mandatory disclaimer and some obvious reservations about my analysis.
I have not checked this exploratory formulation against any actual data. That’s an arduous task needing completion. I may never do that task because I am a committed equity investor who plans to always hold some equity positions in a diversified portfolio. My incentives are minimal given by cautious and incremental approach to portfolio modification. I’m sure your incentives differ sharply and logically from mine.
The method does enjoy the merit that it is in substantial agreement with that proposed and tested by John Bogle. I surely do not expect this analysis to be absolutely correct for any given year. It is long-term macro by design. But it does have the prospect of being approximately correct over more extended timeframes, like a 10-year cycle. This approach is definitely not for day-traders or short-term speculations.
As always, buyers beware of any "How Wall Street Works" models.
I do not recommend that you act on my formulation. I present it to this forum to simply inform. It just might help you make some portfolio adjustment decisions. It might not. It does suggest that expectations for outsized long-term returns are highly unlikely.
The markets are dynamic entities in perpetual motion. The marketplace participation has shifted from mostly individual to institutional dominant. Trading volume has increased exponentially. Position holding periods have decreased by an order of magnitude. Media hype is everywhere. All this makes models and modeling more vulnerable. Always remain skeptical.
Best Regards.

Charles -
Thank you so much for your comments. As for me ever thinking about running for office - I suppose my views lean a little towards the Marc Faber-ish as to whether or not what I feel is a broken political system can be fixed before it eventually winds up leading to a crisis of some sort. I don't believe we can go another four years of having a political system this dysfunctional without leading to major problems.
"But I think you are warning that their ultimate health is dependent on structural changes in the macro economic framework of our nation." Yeah, I suppose my view is that a sustainable recovery is not going to be Wall Street finding new ways to "financialize" something (in the manner mortgages turned into derivatives), but a sustainable recovery comes out of improvements in education, infrastructure, regulation, healthcare and a host of other sizable issues. We also need a change in philosophy at some point about what this economy is about beyond consumer spending, and I think a plan from both parties as to goals and real change over the next 5-10 years would not be a terrible idea (an unlikely one, but not a terrible one) as this country needs more of a defined path and sense of real direction and ideas for how to evolve - because we need to evolve as a country.
It's 2012 and almost 2013 - four years after 2008, the amount of money that continues to be funneled into a still-troubled in ways financial system is remarkable (and really, who continues to pay for it while everyone who caused the problems and who were totally wrong never got in trouble?), and makes one wonder when the focus will shift to the majority/rest of the country and the issues they are facing. As for stocks doing well, I think they could continue to do well - heck, we could see DOW 20,000. However, the bottom 50% of the country owns something like 0.5% of the stocks and bonds.
Nothing that will be solved overnight, but things that needed to be started years ago, and in many cases will only be more costly the longer they take to get going. I think the print our way out of any and all problems philosophy is tremendously short-term in its thinking and it just doesn't lead to a sustainable recovery, nor does it begin to fix any of the issues that the majority of the country faces.
If some of the problems are not addressed, I think you could see some degree of social instability and other such problems. At the core, my problem is that you have a congress that tells Bernanke, "Mr Bernanke, get to work." We need a lot more than easy monetary policy, and if congress doesn't want to agree on anything or make difficult decisions, that leads to - I think - even bigger problems down the road. I don't have confidence in the current administration, nor do I think Romney is the solution, either (and as Faber said the other week, as much noise as Romney has made about Bernanke, Romney isn't going to change anything if he got into office.)
As concerning as I think some big picture aspects are, I'm actually very bullish on some things, such as agriculture, infrastructure (hard/productive assets) and some aspects of technology and nutrition.
-------------------------------------------------
As for Pandit:
http://dealbreaker.com/2012/10/zen-gardens-that-never-were-vikram-pandit-walks-away/

Today - Oct 15
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/citigroups-results-buoy-financial-sector-2012-10-15
Citigroup’s results buoy financial sector
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — Citigroup Inc. shares extended earlier gains Monday, up nearly 5% as the company reported better-than-expected financial results for the third quarter, sparking gains in financial stocks and a modest advance for the broader market.
The results, and the market move higher, came as welcome relief as investors look to recover from the worst week of trading since June.
Citigroup’s third-quarter net profit fell 88% to $468 million as the company (C +4.45%) took charges tied to the value of its debt and the sale of a stake in its brokerage joint-venture, but core revenue in its main businesses continued to improve.
Nomura Securities analyst Glenn Schorr told clients that there were signs of “mostly progress” for Citigroup in its quarterly results.

I hope, given you hold it, it does well and I think it could do okay in the short-term (hopefully better than the reaction to WF and JPM the other day.) I think in the long (5 years) term, the world of personal finance (basic banking, not mortgages, etc) looks very different than it does today - I think you're going to see far less in the way of bank branches than you do today, for one thing. Partly due to technology and partly because it would appear Visa, Amex and MC want into the basic banking business in a considerable way.
------------
I think stuff like this is only the beginning, although it won't happen larger-scale overnight:
http://www.dallasnews.com/business/columnists/pamela-yip/20121014-will-new-wal-martamex-prepaid-card-help-unbanked-and-underbanked-consumers.ece
"Eckert said that while Wal-Mart doesn’t know exactly how many of its customers are unbanked and underbanked, the percentages that fall into those categories are slightly higher than the FDIC figures.
“We actually believe that Bluebird is designed for not just that segment,” Eckert said. “In fact, our specific aims with American Express were to bring Bluebird to the millions of Americans whom we would describe as ‘unhappily banked’ or ‘ambivalently banked.’ They’re just not getting the value that they once expected and felt they deserved with everyday checking services and the like.”
That’s largely due to the “increasingly high fees and maze of fees that have been attached to these products,” he said."
--------------
"Bank Branches: Withering Away"
http://www.economist.com/node/21554746
This article notes the ING Direct Cafes, which I think are an interesting example of what branches may look like. They certainly seem popular, although I don't know how successful the model is in terms of creating new financial customers (are people just going in for good and cheap coffee and free wifi in an environment that looks like a sleek Starbucks?) I guess if they've continued to open them, they can't be doing badly.
http://www.costar.com/News/Article/Bucking-Historical-Trends-Bank-Branches-Disappearing-Rapidly/141624
"Bank branch closings have outpaced openings by an average of 48% in every quarter since the first quarter of 2011, including the quarter to date. Banks have closed 3,839 branches in that time while opening 2,595 for a net loss of 1,244 branches. At an average range of 2,000 to 4,000 square feet of space per bank branch, that represents a loss of 2.5 million to 5 million square feet of retail absorption. "
_________________________________________________
This doesn't even get into mobile payments and other technologies that will likely rise up further in the years ahead (well, that are already commonplace in other countries,but haven't gotten going in this one.) In terms of financial services technology, I think Fiserv is an interesting name (well, kind of "the" name, as I believe it's the largest company in the financial services tech industry) - I don't own it. http://www.fiserv.com/ Intuit would be another one (which I also don't own)
Again, I don't think the TBTF banks are going anywhere, but I think the financial industry will see a lot of change due to technology and increasing competition for basic services over the next 5-10 years.
As for the "great recession", I think there are some considerable structural problems that need to be addressed before there's any sort of a sustainable recovery, but the banks will likely continue to be bailed out and catered to - and like I've said in the past, addressing some of the structural problems means difficult decisions and we have a government that doesn't want to make difficult decisions and can't even agree on naming a street, much less addressing education, infrastructure and an enormous array of other problems.

Hi Anna,
Absolutely yes. Given any market event, expect a wide range of reactions. In essence, that is what markets are all about.
Your proposed group reaction, as well as those suggested by Catch and Investor, are all plausible actions.
Even in an Efficient Market whereby all relevant information is 100 % distributed to all participants, action plans and decisions will vary dependent upon risk tolerance, financial goals, current wealth status, and investment timeframes. The interpretation of the available information coupled with the diversity in portfolio objectives guarantee a huge array of distinctive responses that are particular to any single investor or an institution. The perturbations are almost endless.
Even Complexity Theory with its multidiscipline scientific staff and unlimited access to supercomputers has failed to make much progress in this arena. These computers explore thousands of random trials using thousands of market participant agents. Some very general insights have been teased from these efforts, but measurable progress is painfully slow with many reservations.
One fundamental issue is the modeling of the individual agents (participants) in the simulations. Faithfully characterizing these agents is an elusive task. All agents do not react in a time or situational consistent manner; real world agents are emotional. As noted, the market players change. We are all exposed to and are influenced by others, some trustworthy, some charlatans. Modeling in this environment is a Herculean ordeal. I’m not sure it can ever be done with acceptable fidelity.
The overall investment world is highly nonlinear with countless feedback loops. Critical thresholds that can not be predicted in advance are violated and group think can be established that devolves into manias and panics. Bifurcation tipping points are frequently violated that are not anticipated and escape any analytical analysis. The future can not be forecasted.
So your group of investors exists, my group and Catch22’s group and Investor’s group all exist, as do a host of others. The precise number of groups and the population within each group remains a mystery. This is one of the mysteries that keeps research outfits like the Santa Fe Institute and others from accurately modeling the complex investment universe. We all keep trying to develop a better understanding however.
This well might be overkill in a sense that it exceeds your current modeling interests, but here is a Link to a Santa Fe research paper that discusses agent modeling:
http://tuvalu.santafe.edu/~jdf/papers/aimr.pdf
Good Luck and Best Wishes.

FYI:
Regards,
Ted
http://www.fa-mag.com/component/content/article/1-features/12461-the-plan.html?tmpl=component&print=1&page=
savingforcollege.com: http://www.savingforcollege.com/

Reply to @LarryH: The thing with magic is, if people know how you do the trick, they won't pay to see you do it. You could make an argument that the financial industries collects rent by making things complex. Okay, so yeah, they definitely do that.

I think there are more important lessons to learn. In this post-credit-crisis world I believe we need to manage uncertainty in addition to managing risk and selecting investments. The reason for the past crisis may have been the instability of the financial system. An interesting article on instability:
Right click to open the following link on a new tab or window.
how change happens

Earnings are likely going to disappoint, but I think there's still going to be elements of hedge funds playing catchup and money having to go somewhere (and more printed money on the way) taking stocks higher. I'd say there may be money coming out of fixed income and into stocks, but that continues to not happen. Over time, I think there's going to be nominal gains and those selectively in equities will likely benefit from some degree of protection as purchasing power declines.
As I've noted in other threads, I continue to think that various sectors will continue to do well - agriculture, infrastructure/hard assets and mobile-related, etc. The other key sector that I think will do well is financial services/tech, as I believe more and more basic banking will be done via mobile and online.
There are 1.7B people with a phone and no bank account (and probably millions who are unsatisfied with their bank for basic banking due to monthly fees and otherwise), and Amex, MC and Visa are going after them. There will be - I think - a lot less bank branches over time. While I think it won't happen overnight, it will be interesting to see companies like Visa trying to move more into offering basic banking services.
American Express just launched their new Bluebird bank account alternative at Wal-Mart yesterday.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49327154
"A prepaid debit card called Bluebird, created through a partnership with American Express Co. (AXP), will be available in more than 4,000 U.S. Wal-Mart stores and online next week, the Bentonville, Arkansas-based company said yesterday in a statement. Services include direct deposit, automatic bill pay and remote check capture using a smartphone application. The card has no monthly or annual fees, and doesn’t require a minimum balance.
“Bluebird is designed as a checking and debit alternative,” Daniel Eckert, vice president of financial services for Wal-Mart U.S., said in an interview. The product is for “those customers who are waking up to the skyrocketing costs of having a checking account.”
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-10-09/wal-mart-offers-bank-account-option-with-american-express
Again, earnings are going to disappoint to some degree - I think - in many instances, but while the overall market may become more volatile again, I think there are a lot of big changes going on in (or due to) technology (big names like HP just unable to catch up), finance ("financial inclusion" as Visa and others go after over a billion people with a phone and no bank account) and elsewhere that may provide opportunities.
Additionally, I'm finding it rather curious that Amazon and Google are now essentially offering a variation of vendor financing.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-08/online-retailers-launch-vendor-financing-apple-credit-corp-imminent
Finally, as for bond inflows, from Marketfield's August letter:
"Week after week, billions of dollars leave domestic equity funds and relocate in fixed income vehicles, despite the apparent lack of return
potential in the latter. The rationale, as far as we can determine, has nothing to do with prospective returns and everything to do with a combination of hindsight and emotion.
People are fed up with stocks not because they believe the return characteristics to be inadequate, but because they cannot tolerate the emotional impact of equities’ volatility. The present day volatility of publicly traded companies is a function of regulatory failure as pertains to market structure and not anything intrinsic in businesses. We don’t dismiss the real, emotional pressure of dealing with seemingly random, violent
moves in quoted prices. It is a constant factor in our daily lives as fund managers. We do, however, see enough of it first hand to realize just
much of it has to do with failures of market structure and how little with real business or economic results. Bonds have become the favored retail asset because of their historical results and apparent lack of volatility. "
http://www.nylinvestments.com/public_files/MainStay/PDF/Marketfield/MFLDX201208.pdf