Sometimes I'm thankful I'm not Scott Patterson, the Wall Street Journal reporter who has to explain each day why the stock market did what it did. His lead on yesterday's market wrap-up showed promise: 'A victory lap by stocks turned into a run for cover by day's end.' But by the end of the next paragraph, he was threatening to run off the rails: 'Higher most of the day, thanks in part to stock rebounds in Europe and many emerging markets, stocks tumbled in the final hour of trading, dogged by worries about rising oil prices and the instability of overseas markets.' In fact, oil prices went no higher yesterday than they were for most of last week, and overseas markets were no more unstable than they've been for, oh, the last five years. But don't get me wrong, for I do not mean to criticize poor Scott, who was only doing his job. In his defense, I should note that if there is one thing that eases the stress and anguish of trading, it is knowing each night before we go to bed just what it might have been that 'dogged' us that day. So thank you, Scott, even if you've got to stretch the truth occasionally to find a compelling story in something so abstruse and inscrutable as the stock market's behavior. But don't try telling it like it really is, since you could eventually lose your job with a lead like this: 'Stocks gyrated wildly yesterday for no apparent reason. There was speculation in some quarters that a program trader had gone postal. However, informed sources said the day's action was completely normal, driven as it was by the mood swings of men and women whose job is to look for the investable significance of virtually every
LATEST TRADES
