Bank of America technician Stephen Suttmeier explains why weak seasonals and tactical complacency could mean trouble for stocks heading into next month. » Read More
A huge week for earning is coming up, with companies as diverse as Coca-Cola, Bank of America, Google and GE revealing how much they earned in the third quarter. And some traders worry that the results won't be good.
"To me, 'negative' is probably the word that comes to mind when I look through this week," said JIm Iuorio, managing director of TJM Institutional Services and a CNBC contributor.
As of Friday, 31 S&P 500 companies have reported, and 55 percent of those have beaten earnings estimates, according to Thomson Reuters I/B/E/S. On the revenue side, 52 percent have beaten estimates.
And in fact, despite concerns about revenue and earnings growth, S&P 500 operating earnings per share for the third quarter are expected to post a record—and the third record in a row, according to S&P's Howard Silverblatt.
As Silverblatt writes: "We will all, legitimately, complain about slow earnings and sales growth, but in the end Q3 may set a record, which is difficult to argue with."
Gold lost $25 in two minutes on Friday morning, as the gold market experience a massive surge in volume that triggered a halt in the middle of the plunge. The move took gold down to a three-month low, and was felt across the commodity markets. And incredibly, a single sell order could be the culprit.
"It appears to have been an order to sell 5,000 gold futures contracts at market," Eric Hunsader of Nanex told CNBC.com, when asked to explain the swift move at 8:42 a.m. EDT. "About 2,700 went off and tripped the stop logic, halting gold futures for 10 seconds while liquidity replenished. When enough liquidity returned (after 10 seconds), the balance of about 2,300 completed."
Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke will not taper the Fed's bond buying before his term ends in January, says the head of U.S. rates strategy at Societe Generale. In fact, Mary Beth Fisher says, the Fed is more likely to increase its quantitative easing program than to decrease it.
And it could all come down to internal politics, Fisher said Thursday on CNBC's "Futures Now."
"I think Bernanke was a little bit more moderate than [Janet] Yellen and [William] Dudley and [Charles] Evans and clearly [James] Bullard in this situation, with inflation very low," Fisher said, referring to other members of the Federal Open Market Committee. Fisher finds it unlikely that Bernanke would "start tapering when he knows that that core of the committee, whose new leader was about to come out of it, were against the idea."
In fact, the strategist suggests that Fed Vice Chair Yellen's then-impending nomination for Fed chair could have been behind the Fed's decision not taper in September, which took markets by surprise.
President Barack Obama's choice of Janet Yellen to head the Federal Reserve was surely bolstered by the fact that her concerns about unemployment outweigh her concerns about inflation. It must have gratified him, then, to learn that her most famous theory attempts to pinpoint the specific cause behind unemployment.
Co-written with her husband, Nobel-winning economist George Akerlof, Yellen's most widely cited paper is borne out of a simple premise: "if people do not get what they think they deserve, they get angry." Yellen and Akerlof go on to argue that workers who receive less than what they perceive to be a fair wage will purposely work less hard as a way to take revenge on their employer. And the worse they are paid, the less hard they will work. Or, as the paper puts it, "workers proportionally withdraw effort as their actual wage falls short of their fair wage."
In the 1990 paper, the economists christen their theory "the fair wage-effort hypothesis," and go on to explain why the phenomenon could explain unemployment.
(Read more: Stocks shrug off Yellen, so I'm getting short: Pro)
But before that is elucidated, it is important to understand that under the admittedly "rudimentary model" used by these economists, unemployment is a bit of a riddle. After all, if the cost of hiring a worker is greater than the value that worker adds, then firms will hire no one.
In that scenario, "the demand for labor is zero, and the unemployment rate is unity," (meaning one, or 100 percent). On the other hand, if there is unemployment, then a given firm could "set its wage at any level." In that case, a given firm would choose a wage that maximizes value—and once they do so, "every firm should hire an infinite amount of labor," which would solve the problem of unemployment.
However, Akerlof and Yellen submit that since people do better work when paid more, firms pay workers a wage that workers consider fair. And since this "fair wage" is higher than the "market-clearing wage" that would lead to an "excess demand for labor," unemployment results. In this way, "this hypothesis explains the existence of unemployment," the economists declare.
That paper, entitled "The Fair-Wage Effort Hypothesis and Unemployment," has been cited in more than 300 academic articles, and has had a huge impact on the field of economics. "It's a very influential paper," said economics professor John Burger of Loyola University Maryland, who cited it in a recent paper of his own.
As recently as Tuesday, I thought news of a Janet Yellen appointment for Federal Reserve chair would go a long way toward reversing stock market weakness. But though President Obama is due to nominate Yellen for the Fed chairmanship on Wednesday, it seems the market has already priced in the news.
It's also possible that, although the market views Yellen as dovish, we realize that she's only slightly more dovish than the current chairman. In other words, all in is all in. Given Ben Bernanke's accommodative policies, how much more dovish could a reasonable Fed chair get?
(Read more: Confirmation seen for 'feisty lady' Yellen)
It the U.S. goes into default because Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, investors won't rush into bonds like they did in 2011, said Matt Tucker, BlackRock's head of iShares fixed-income strategy. Instead, Treasurys could sell off.
Many have compared this situation to the one in 2011, when Standard & Poor's downgraded U.S. debt because of "political brinksmanship." That tanked stocks, which sent people into Treasurys as a safe haven. So, investors paradoxically ended up buying more of the very asset class that S&P had downgraded.
But on Tuesday's "Futures Now," Tucker said that if the government is prevented from paying bills or spending money, the story could be very different.
(Read more: Reluctantly, market faces a real default threat)
"The difference here is that in 2011, we had a lot of concern about what was happening in Washington. This triggered a flight to safety, and Treasurys rallied," Tucker said. But, he added, "if we actually saw a default, whether it was a technical or otherwise default by the Treasury, that could be a very different reaction. You actually could see a more mixed response from Treasurys, even a selloff."
In fact, Tucker is already seeing holders of very short-term Treasurys demanding more yield to compensate them for the risk.
He noted that the Treasury bill maturing Oct. 31 is yielding more than the those maturing in January, which is quite unusual.
"The fact that the October T-bill is trading so high is a reflection of the uncertainty people have about the government making its payments," he said.
CME Group brings buyers and sellers together through its CME Globex electronic trading platform and trading facilities in New York and Chicago.
Take your trading to the next level with a platform that lets you trade stocks, options, futures and forex all in one place with no platform or data with no trade minimums. Open an account with TD Ameritrade and get up to $600 cash.