An odd title, I suppose....
Art Cashin is a floor trader of Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS) and appears regularly on CNBC where he discusses some of the technical aspects of market trading.
On two occasions I'm aware of - once today, and once Monday - he has made a pointed comment that stock trading might be substantially affected by a "geopolitical event" associated with Ramadan. Ramadan apparently starts in the U.S. on the 22nd of August.
Here's a link where some other people are posting a few items about it, so at least there is some confirmation I'm not imagining things. LINK (http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=106863&findnew#new) :D
I have heard that Iraq is having some disruption; and North Yemen seems to have a Shiite insurgency that concerns Saudi Arabia - but those conflicts don't seem likely to have an effect on U.S. stock trading.
So...does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? (assuming it doesn't violate OPSEC, of course.)
NMAP,
Hi, Art is articulate and entertaining though CNBC is a hype machine. Posted below are topic relevant excerpts from his recent daily columns you might find interesting.
8/17 column
My Dinner With Andre – As you may recall, about a week and a half ago, I had the good fortune to dine with some very bright and interesting people There was Ron Insana, John Mauldin with his son Trey and Meredith and George Freidman of Stratfor fame. As I’ve noted previously, having access to the Freidmans tended to turn much of the conversation to geo-politics – particularly Iran.
As I recall, I introduced the contention that has been floating around in U.S. markets for months. That hypothesis holds that, barring some back-off by Iran on its nuclear program, Israel might feel “compelled” to take out the facility. The Freidmans presented a variety of alternate scenarios, some of which were a bit disquieting. Since there were no notes and the conversations were not taped, you’ll have to rely on my recollection.
First, there was the role of Russia in the “negotiations”. Russia portrays itself to Iran as their “best friend.” Iranian leaders flew to Moscow even as turmoil poured into the streets of Tehran after the disputed elections. Yet Russia has held back on strategic arms sales and other “commitments”. That let’s Moscow play both sides and maintains their image as a “negotiator” for either side. The trouble for the West might be the very high price Moscow might hope to extract for its aid in resolving the “crisis”. That price could well be a dominant influence over its former satellites (George, Ukraine, etc.). Not a return of full political control but a hegemonic dominance, with the West looking the other way. That might be tough to swallow although it would never be officially announced or acknowledged, like Kennedy’s deal on the Turkish missiles.
Then there was the discussion about whether Israel had the correct type of armaments (bombs) that could “take out” a presumed Iranian facility. They were assumed to have had an effective pre-emptive strike against a potential Syrian facility. Yet, they might not have the proper “bunker buster” to take out an Iranian facility. (The Iranians may have also learned from the Syrian experience.) So that might leave the resolution to U.S. forces if Iran persists. Yet, even in that event, a single surgical strike might not be an option. It might take several days of de-grading defenses to set up a “take out”.
Perhaps the most disquieting discussion involved what I will call the Iranian “Doomsday Machine”. Confronting the world’s major military power and not fully certain of Moscow’s protection, Iran might want to have a “checkmate” move of its own. One “Doomsday” opportunity would be to quickly blockade the Straits of Hormuz, either with mines or sunken ships, or both. There was a debate as to whether this might be counterproductive to Iran (struggling economy/social unrest). Yet, George Friedman contended that such a swift and complete shutoff would, in Iranian eyes, punish the West greatly and quickly, causing them to sue for relief. If the blockade were to kick in (and it worked), there would be a devastating blow to fragile economies and markets around the globe – all in a matter of days.
8/18 column
My Dinner With Andre – An After Dinner Mint – We’ve written several times of the dinner discussion about the Iranian nuclear scenarios. Yesterday, George Freidman discussed the topic in Stratfor. Here’s bit of what he wrote:
We have always been of the view that Iran’s ability to deploy a nuclear device is far from imminent. Moreover, Israel is incapable of delivering a sufficiently large attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities because of airspace issues, the distance, the number of sorties required and the fact that Israel lacks the means to counter Iran’s nuclear response — which would be mining the Strait of Hormuz. The size of the target set vastly outstrips Israel’s capability.
This is a point we have made in the past. Readers have chided us by pointing out that Iran would be as badly hurt as any other state by closure of the strait. We agree with that. However, many of the same readers frequently argue that Iran would launch a nuclear strike against Israel regardless of a devastating Israeli counterstrike. It is a little hard to imagine that Iran would not be deterred by nuclear annihilation, but would be deterred by an economic crisis. In any event, the Israelis cannot count on Iran’s reaction, and being responsible for a global economic meltdown is not something that Israel really needs. The threat would have to be far more immediate for them to strike.
I think that hits on the dinner conversation as I recalled it. In the article he also reminds that there is a September 20th deadline for Iranian compliance. The G8 deadline was set to come with harsh sanctions.
Thanks, AKV. I appreciate the info.