tv Fast Money CNBC February 16, 2016 5:00pm-6:01pm EST
my question is about the supreme court. >> i'm shocked. >> what recourse do you have if leader mcconnell blocks a vote on your supreme court nominee, and do you think that if you choose someone moderate enough that republicans might change course and schedule a vote, and as can you consider that choice and who to nominate what qualities are important to you, and is diversity among them? >> thank you. . >> first of all, i want to reiterate heartfelt condolences to the scalia family. obviously justice scalia and i had different political orientations and probably would have disagreed on the outcome of certain cases, but there's no doubt that he was a giant on the supreme court, helped to shape the legal landscape. he was by all accounts a good
friend and loved his family deeply and so, you know, it's important before we rush into all the politics of this to -- to take stock of somebody who made enormous contributions to the united states, and we are grateful not only for his service but for his family's service. the constitution is pretty clear about what is supposed to happen now. when there is a vacancy on the supreme court, the president of the united states is to nominate someone. the senate is to consider that nomination and either they disapprove of that nominee or that nominee is elevated to the supreme court. historically this has not been viewed as a question.
there's no unwritten law that says that it can only be done on off years. that's not in the constitutional text. i'm amused when i hear people who claim to be strict interpreters of the constitution suddenly reading into it a whole series of provisions that are not there. there is more than enough time for the senate to consider in a thoughtful way the record of a nominee that i present and to make a decision. and with respect to our process we're going to do the same thing that we did with respect to justice kagan's nomination and justice sotomayor's nomination. we're going to find someone who is an outstanding local mind, somebody who cares deeply about our democracy and cares about rule of law. there's not going to be any
particular position on a particular issue that determines whether or not i nomination them, but i am going to present somebody who indisputably is qualified for the seat hand any fair-minded person, even somebody who disagreed with my politics would say would serve with honor and integrity on the court. now, part of the problem that we have here is we've almost gotten accustomed to how obstructist the senate's become when it comes to nominatienominated. i mean, i've got 14 nominations that have been pending that were unanimously approved by the judiciary committee. so republicans and democrats on the judiciary committee all agreed that they were well-qualified for the boggs,
and yet we can't get a vote on those individuals, so in some ways this argument is just an extension of what we've seen in the senate generally and not just on judicial nominees. the basic function of government requires that the president of the united states in his or her duties has a team of people, cabinet secretaries, assistant secretaries, that can carry out the basic functions of government. it requires -- the constitution requires that we appoint judgments so that they can carry out their functions as a separate branch of government, and -- and the fact that we've almost grown accustomed to a situation that is almost unprecedented where every nomination is contested,
everything is blocked, regardless of how qualified the person, is even when there's no ideological objection to them. certainly where there are no disqualifying, as by the nominee that have surfaced, the fact that it's that hard that we're even discussing this i think is a measure of how unfortunately the venom and rancor in washington has prevented us from getting basic work done. now this would be a good moment for us to rise above that. i understand the stakes. i understand the pressure that republican senators are undoubtedly under. i mean, the fact of the matter is that the issue here is that the court is now divided on many
issues. this would be a deciding vote and there are a lot of republican senators who will be under pressure from various donors and constituentsies and many of their voters to not let any nominee go through, no matter who i nominate. but that's not how the system is supposed to work. that's not how our democracy is supposed to work, and i intend to nominate in due time a very well-qualified candidate. if we are following basic precedent, then that nominee will be presented but the committees, the vote will be taken and ultimately they will be confirmed. justice kennedy when he was nominated by ronald reagan and in ronald reagan's last year in office a vote was taken and there were a whole lot of
democrats who did not agree with justice kennedy on his position on a variety of issues, but they did the right thing. they confirmed him. and if they voted against him, they certainly didn't mount a filibuster to block a vote from even coming up. this is the supreme court, the highest court in the land. it's the one court where we would expect elected officials to rise above day-to-day politics and this will be the opportunity for senators to do their job. your job doesn't stop until you're voted out or until your term expires. i intend to do my job between now and january 20th of 2017. i expect them to do their job as well. all right. let's see who we got here.
jeff mason. >> thank you, mr. president. following up on that. should we interpret your comments just now that you are likely to choose a moderate nominee? would you -- >> no. i, i -- i don't know where you found that. you shouldn't assume anything about the qualifications of the nominee other than they should be well qualified. >> okay. >> following up. >> would you consider a recess appointment if your nominee is not granted a hearing? >> i think that we have more than enough time to go through regular orders, regular processes. i intend to nominate someone, to present them to the american people, to present them to the senate. i expect them to hold hearings, i expect there to be a vote. >> that means no recess? >> full stop. >> lastly, as long has we're doing this in a row. how do you respond to republican criticism that your position is undercut by the fact that you and other members of your administration who were in the
senate at the time tried to filibuster judge alito in 2006? >> you know, the -- look, i think what's fair to say is that how judicial nominations have evolved over time is not historically the fault of any single party. this has become just one more extension of politics and there are times where folks are in the senate and they are thinking, as i just described, primarily about is this going to cause me problems in a primary? is this going to cause me problems with supporters of mine? and so people take strategic decisions, i understand that. had. but what is also true is justice alito is on the bench right now. i think that historically if you
look at, it regardless of what votes particular senators have taken, there's been a basic consensus, a basic understanding that the supreme court is different and each caucus may decide who is going to vote where and what, but that basically you let the vote come up and you make sure that a well-qualified candidate is able to join the bench. even if you don't particularly agree with them, and my expectation is that the same should happen here. this will be a test. one more test of whether or not norms, rules, basic fair play can function at all in washington these days, but i do want to point out that this is
not just the supreme court. i mean, we've consistently seen just a breakdown in the basic functions of government because the senate will not confirm well qualified nominees even when they are voted out of committee, which means they are voted by both parties without objection, and we still have problems because there's a certain mindset that says we're just going to grind the system down to a halt and if we don't like the president then we're just not going to let him make any appointments. we're going to make it tougher for the administration to do their basic job. we're going to make sure that ambassadors aren't seated even though these are critical countries that may have an effect on our international relations. we're going to make sure that judges aren't confirmed despite
the fact that justice roberts himself has pointed out there's emergencies in courts around the country because there are not enough judges and there's too many cases and the system is breaking down, so this has become a habit, and it gets worse and worse each year, and it's not something that i have spent a huge amount of time talking about because frankly the american people on average they are more interested in gas prices and wages and issues that touch on their day-to-day lives in a more direct way so it doesn't get a lot of political attention, but this is the supreme court and it's going to get some attention. as a society we have to ask can we make this democracy worked the way it's supposed to, the way the founders envisioned, and would i challenge anyone who
purports to be adhering to the original intent of the founders, anybody who believes in the constitution coming up with a plausible rationale as to why they would not even have a hearing for a nominee made in accordance with the constitution by the president of the united states with a year left practically in office. it's pretty hard to find that in the constitution. all right. you've gotten at least -- you've gotten four now, jeff. tolu. >> thank you, mr. president. two different topics, first on syria. last year when president putin was about to enter into syria you said that he was doing so from a position of weakness and he would only get himself involved in a quagmire there and
now with aleppo about to fall and president putin is basically getting one before his goals which is to bolster assad and take out the rebels which is the u.s. is backing. how do you respond to critics who say that you have been outfoxed by putin, and what is your plan if aleppo does fall? do you plan to step up military action to help the rebels in syria who you have said are key to taking on isis? secondly i wanted to ask you about 2016 as well. >> you asked me a big question right there. how by just answer that one. >> okay, sure. >> the -- first of all, if you look back at the transcripts, what i said was that russia has been propping up asid this entire time. the fact that putin finally had to send his own troops and his own aircraft and his -- and
involvement this massive military operation was not a testament to great strength. it is a testament to the weakness of assad's position, that if somebody is strong, then you don't have to send in your army to prop up your ally. they have legitimacy in their country and they are able to manage it themselves and then you have good relations with them. you send in your army when the horse you're backing isn't effective, and that's exactly what's happened. now, what i said was that russia would involve itself in a quagmire. absolutely it will. if there's anybody who thinks that somehow the fighting ends because russia and the regime has made some initial advances,
about three-quarters of the country is still under control of folks other than assad. that's not stabbing any time soon. i say that with no pleasure. this is not a contest between me and putin. how did we stop the suffering, stabilize the region and stop this massive outmigration of refugees who are having such a terrible time, end the violence, stop bombing of schools and hospitals. and innocent civilians and stop creating a safe haven for isis and there's nothing that's happened over the last several weeks that points to those issues being solved, and that is what i mean by a quagmire. now, putin may think that he's prepared to invest in a permanent occupation of syria
with russian military. that's going to be pretty costly. that's going to be a big piece of business, and if -- if you look at the state of the russia economy, that's probably not the best thing for russia. what would be smarter would be for russia to work with the united states and other parties in the international community to try to broker some sort of political transition. now, john kerry working with his russian counterpart has on paper said that there's going to be a cessation of hostilities in a few days. this will test whether or not that's possible. it's hard to do because there's been a lot of bloodshed, and if russia continues indiscriminate bombing of the sort that we've been seeing i think it's fair to say that you're not going to see any takeup by the opposition, and, yes, russia is a major
military. obviously a bunch of rebels are not going to be able to compete with the hardware of the second most powerful military in the world, but that doesn't solve the problem of actually stabilizing syria, and the only way to do that is to bring about some sort of political transition. we will see what happens over the next several days and we will continue to work with our partners who are focused on defeating isis to see how we can also work together to try to bring about a more lasting political solution than aerial bombardment of schools and hospitals are going to achieve. but it's -- it's hard. i'm under no illusions here that this is going to be easy. a country has been shattered
because assad was willing to shatter it. and has repeatedly missed opportunities to try to arrive at a political transition and russia has been part to that entire process and the real question we should be asking is it what is it that russia thinks that it gains if it gets a country that's been completely destroyed as an ally, that it now has to perpetually spend billions of dollars to prop up? that's not -- that's not that great a price. unfortunately, the problem is that it has spill over effects that are impacting everybody, and that's what we have to focus
on. one thing that i do want to add though, this has not distracted us from continuing to focus on isil, and we continue to press them hard, both in iraq and syria. that will not stop, and -- and if we can get a political transition in syria. that allows us to coordination more effectively with not just russia but other countries in the region to focus on the folks who pose the greatest direct threat to the united states, all right? andrew beatty. >> thank you, mr. president. i wanted to ask you, first of all, whether you think that military intervention will be necessary in libya to dislodge the islamic state from sirte and do you think by the end of your presidency the islamic state will have geographic call stroke
holds and sorry i can't help but ask a third. how was the stadium course and what did you shoot? >> the last for non-golfers is a reference to pga west, very nice course, very difficult. my score is classified. >> with respect to libya i have been clear from the outset that we will go after isis wherever it appears the same way that we went after al qaeda wherever they appeared, and the testament to the fact that we are doing that already is that we took out isis -- one of isis' most prominent leaders in libya. we will continue to take actions where we've got a clear
operation and a clear target in mind, and we are working with our other coalition partners to make sure that as we see opportunities to prevent isis from digging in in libya we take it. at the same time we're working diligently with the united nations to try to get a government in place in libya, and that's been a problem. you know, the tragedy of libya over the last several years is libya has a relatively small population and a lot of oil wealth and could be really successful. they are divided by tribal lines and ethnic lines, power plays. there is now i think a recognition on the part of a broad middle among their
political leadership that it makes sense to unify so that there is just some semblance of a state there, but extremes on either side are still making it difficult for that state to cohere. if we can get that done, that will be enormously helpful because our strong preference, as has always been the case is to train libyans to fight, and the good news in libya is that they don't like outsiders coming in and telling them what to do. there is a whole bunch of constituencies who are hardened fighters and don't ascribe to isis or their perverted ideology, but they have to be organized and can't be fighting each other, and so that's probably as important as anything that we're going to be
doing in libya over the coming months. carol lee. >> thank you, mr. president. the democratic race to replace you has gotten pretty heated lately, and you have hillary clinton saying that -- or at least casting herself as the rightful heir to your legacy and the one candidate who will be the keeper of your legacy while also saying that bernie sanders has been disloyal to you. is she right? >> well, you know, that's the great thing about primaries is everybody is trying to differentiate themselves when in fact bernie and hillary agree on a lot of stuff and disagree pretty much across the board with everything the republicans stand for so, you know, my hope is that we are going to let the primary voters and caucus voters
have their say and see how this things plays out. i know hillary better than i know bernie because she served in my administration and she was an outstanding secretary of state, and, you know, i suspect that on certain issues she agrees with me more than bernie does. on the other hand, there may be a couple issues where bernie agrees with me more. i don't know. i haven't studied their positions that closely. here's what i have confidence in, that democratic voters believe in certain principles. they believe in equal opportunity. they believe in making sure that every kid in this country gets a fair shot. they believe in making sure that economic growth is broad-based and everybody benefits from it and if you work hard you're not in poverty.
they believe in preserving a strong safety net through programs like social security and medicare. they believe in a foreign policy that is not reckless, that is tough and protects the american people but doesn't shoot before it aims. they believe in climate change. they think science matters. they think that it's important for us to have some basic regulations to keep our air clean and our water clean and to make sure that banks aren't engaging in excesses that resulted in the thing we saw in 2007 and 2008 so there's a broad convergence of interests around those issues. i think what you're seeing among democrats right now is a difference in tactics, trying to figure out how do you actually get things done. how do you actually operate in a
political environment that's become so polarized. how do you deal with the power of special interests and frankly how do you deal with a republican party right now that has moved so far to the right that it's often hard to find common ground and so that's i think the debate that's taking place right now. it's a healthy debate. ultimately i will probably have an opinion on it based on both being a candidate of hope and change and a president who has some nicks and cuts and bruises from, you know, getting stuff done over the last seven years, but for now i think it's important for democratic voters to express themselves and for the candidates to be run through the paces. the thing i can say
unequivocally, carol, i am not happy that i'm not on the ballot. >> ron allen, nbc. >> let me continue the 2016 questions. on the republican side, and a lot of your guests were probably very intrigued by the fact that there's a candidate who is still winning calling for a ban on muslims and significant segments of population. >> intrigued is an interesting way of putting it. >> struck. what is the reaction, that's one of my five questions. but the -- the point is -- >> ron, let's stick to two. >> the point is in the past you've explained that as anger, resentment, insecurity, economic insecurity and the question is how much responsibility do you accept for that reservoir of feeling in the country that's propelling that sort of candidate, and a couple of weeks
ago you told matt lauer that donald trump would not win the presidency. do you now think that he will not win the nomination as well, and what about rubio and when about cruz? >> i think northern observers are troubled by some of the rhetoric that's been taking place in these republican primaries and republican debates. i don't think it's restricted by the way to mr. trump. i mean, i find it interesting everybody is focused on trump primarily because he says in more interesting ways what the other candidates are saying as well. and so he may up the ante in anti-muslim sentiment, but if you look at what the other republican candidates have said that's pretty troubling, too. he may express strong
anti-immigration sentiment, but you've heard that from the other candidates as well. you've got a candidate who sponsored a bill that i supported to finally solve the immigration problem and he's running away from it as fast as he can. they are all denying climate change. i think that's troubling to the international community. since the science is unequivocal and, you know, the other countries around the world, they kind of count on the united states being on the side of science and reason and common sense because they know that if the united states does not act on big problems in smart ways, nobody will, but this is not just mr. trump. look at the statements that are being made by the other
candidates. there's not a single candidate in the republican primary that thinks we should do anything about climate change, that thinks it's serious. well, that's a problem. the rest of the world looks at that and they say how can that be? i'll leave it to you to speculate on how this whole race is going to go. i continue to believe mr. trump will not be president, and the reason is because i have a lot of faith in the american people, and i think they recognize that being president is a serious job. it's not hosting a talk show or a reality show. it's not promotion. it's not marketing. it's hard. and a lot of people count on us
getting it right, and it's not a matter of pandering and doing whatever will get you in the news on a given day and sometimes it requires you to make hard decisions even when people don't like it. and doing things that are unpopular and standing up for people who are vulnerable but don't have some powerful political constituents. and it requires being able to work with leaders around the world in a way that reflects the importance of the office and it gives people confidence that you know the facts and you know their names and you know where they are on a map and you know something about their history and you're not just going to play to the crowd back home because they have their own
crowds back home and you're trying to solve problems, and so, yeah, during primaries people vent and they express themselves and it seems like entertainment and oftentimes it's reported just like entertainment, but as you get closer reality has a way of intruding and these are the folks that i have faith in because they ultimately are going to say whoever is standing where i'm standing right now has the nuclear codes with them and can order 21-year-olds into a fire fight and have to make sure that the banking system doesn't collapse and is often responsible for not just the united states of america but 20 other countries that have having big problems and are falling apart and are going to be looking for us to do something
and the american people are pretty sensible, and i think they will make a sensible choice in the end. all right. thanks, everybody. thank you. >> that was president obama wrapping up a two-day summit with the associate of southeast asian nations. really the highlights coming in the q&a, he addressing the vacancy on the supreme court created by the death of justice scalia as well as commenting on the state of the race for president the. more hon what the president has said and let's go to john harwood who has been monitoring there. john? >> reporter: well, there were a couple of things that were significant. first of all, the president laid out a very matter of fact case that he expected the senate to act on a nominee he puts foot. he didn't say it will be someone who will be indisputably qualified even if they disagree
with their politics would be able to handle the job with honor and distinction so he began the process of putting pressure on senate republicans to back down from their threat to hold up the nomination. he was asked about the fight between bernie sanders and hillary clinton for the democratic nomination to succeed him. he said it's a healthy debate. he's going to leave it to democratic voters for now, but he indicated at some point he may express an opinion and if you see a race drag out that could be a significant statement by the president. he said he knew hillary a little bit bert because she served in his administration and suspects that she mahay grow with him somewhat more, but that there may be some issues where bernie is closer and finally you just heard him on the republican side really cast this as a debate between one party that's serious and one party that isn't. he said not a single one of the republican candidates supports anything doing anything about climate change and given international opinion and the commitment of the world to tackle that problem, that that is a problem for the united states, and he said that you've
got to have somebody who is capable when reality sets in handling the nuclear codes and being responsible with the financial system and all the other things that go into being president. he said that foreign observers were troubled by the republican race so far and not just by donald trump so the president indicating some of the lines of attack that he may ultimately use when he's out on the campaign trail in support of a nominee this fall. >> in your view, john, is it risky politically at all that the president said that mr. trump will not be president? >> no. that's not a surprising statement from a democratic incumbent president and given the profile that donald trump has struck which is pretty much the opposite of the profile that president obama has struck, i don't think anybody would be surprised by that assessment, but donald trump may have some fun with if. >> absolutely. >> and in terms of the topic at hand which is really the
summits, the asean summit. where are some of the developments there that people should be watching in terms of maybe trade agreements or things of that nature? >> well, we've got the transpacific partnership. the president wants the senate to act on it this year. senator mitch mcconnell, the majority leader, the one who said they wouldn't move on the supreme court nomination, has indicated that he doesn't want to have a vote on that. paul ryan interestingly, the republican speaker of the house, has been more equivocal and more open to the idea of a vote and i think that's still in play. the president also indicated that the allies agreed to press on the -- against chinese claims on the south china sea. those are two of the most significant issues. >> it seemed a little bit surprising that there are no questions about financial market instability or volatility coming up perksly with the backdrop of the summit as well as just the notion that the elections are coming and that's been a huge
topic. >> not quite as sexy as donald trump, bernie versus hillary. >> that's true. >> or the supreme court vacancy, so that's -- that's part of the world that we live in. >> yeah. >> all right, john. thanks so much. john harwood joining us from washington, d.c. still ahead, three days of gains has the bulls feeling pretty good, but if you're tempted to buy you might want to wait. we've got a couple of charts that shows the rally over the past few days look eerily similar to how the beginning of 2008 looked. a rough ride of apple as of late. a sign that the tech giant may have finally found a bottom and later commodities team dennis gartman is crying fowl over the opec freeze and what has him warning that the opec warning could be the ultimate head fake. stay tuned. rs trade on a trademarked trade platform that has all the... get off the computer traitor! i won't. (cannon sound)
welcome back to "fast money." it was a huge day for the markets, a look at how the major three indices finished the day. all s&p sector finishing in the green. 1.7% is the gain on the s&p 500. on the nasdaq, that was up the most of the big three, up 2.3%, so we want to ask the question here, do we believe this bounce here? this is the third straight day of grains. >> depends on your time frame. >> what i mean by that is going
into month end it would not surprise me to see another 2% to 3% rally. that would get us up to roughly 1950-ish where we closed out last market. there is support for that, and in general there's a lot of weakness out there. still in a bear market. >> was this actually a better bounce because oil didn't bounce as well? >> yeah. >> we didn't need that production freeze, a convincing, you know, production freeze in order to get the markets to rally? >> listen, it was an interesting day for a lot of reasons. i thought the most interesting reason was the fact that the ovx made a six-year high, traded above 81 today and then closed effectively on the low, down 9%. now crude oishlg the commodity, didn't rally today. closed effectively unchanged, but that's the first time we've seen price action like that in the oil volatility index, so maybe that for the first time is signaling a short-term bottom at least in the commodity crude oil. >> pete in the. >> yeah, it is interesting. i was looking at that and looking at the volatility index
itself and here we are looking at 509-day moving average right around 2150. until we break that the market will be up 300, down 250 days the next time. what i did like to see is the way oil did finally move a little away from the market itself. yeah, we were up about 12% the other day, a huge run on friday and when you look at today you almost expect it. i was expecting at some point to watch the markets melt off. that never happened and when you look at the retail names skiing, financial turned around. energy names moving to the upside. >> what did we trade today, sghan. >> did i get my two words in hoar quickly. i don't think there was enough capitulation to be very frank for you so i don't think that that was the bottom that a lot of investors have become used to doing. to me these guys make good points and if you look back to tuesday and saw the uvx, spiking up multi-year highs.
i don't think the vix has been a very good indicator, but the ten-year yield, that reversal got as low as 1.55 and that's come off and the ten-year yield, where, it i think when you see the dollar start moving higher heroic the lack of capitulation that we saw in u.s. stocks, i do not think it's over here so to me i think that you take some profits and lighten up at 1950. if we get between here and 2000 i think for traders out thereto 2000 becomes a very attractive target. >> let me push back on volume at the same time because it's been a great indicator. look at the way the markets are moving and what is it telling us right now at 24. it's telling us how much the market is going to move each and every day. that's exactly what. not just a fear indicator. it's an indicator of how much movement to expect each and every day and look at the high to low every single day. makes sense that the vix is trading where it is. >> what are you trading in. >> i loved seeing warren buffett getting in there, and on loosea. >> kinder morgue snaen. >> the pipelines, kmi being one
of them. amj was the other one with the huge paper just the other day. i love seeing that movement. i think the kmi, what really stood out for me is when they finally bit the bullet and did everything that they need to do to basically solidify their balance sheet, that's when we started to see this move to the upside. >> today's real, the s&p up 5% from its recent lows but according to our next guest history says take profits now. fwaes to get a lot worse. let's go off the charts and check with the head of technical analysis. rich, what are you looking at? >> when you look in the short term the comparison to 2008 is actually a good thing but over the long term and the intermediate term i'm not uncertain that the s&p 500 actually goes lower and tests 1670. let me go to the charts and i'll show you why. first the weekly charts here. what we see is this multi-year uptrend. here's the good news. signature on the 200-week moving average which has basically provided suspect throughout the entirety of the entire bull
market and at the end of the six-year bull market, you're sitting on the neckline even though every market is in a bear market and every asset class with the exception of government bonds is already in a bear market. we've got that going for us. now, on the next page we go back. you see that 2007 into 2008 decline. all people have been saying don't overreact, it's not 2008, but, you know what, it looks hey lot like 2008 and overreacting wasn't really such a bad move. here's the good news. march of 2008, we put in a little double bottom here and we get a very nice rally. this is basically 12% off the bottom, and ultimately we know how that ended, falling 53% from this level. so let's look at today. we see a similar type decline. about 13% off the top from those december highs and once again we see that little double bottom here. yes, it's february, not march and it doesn't fit the narrative. the double bottom is very similar to the double bottom we see last year which also provided the latt kist for a nice real and through the magic of the smart board we overlay the two charts and you can see
that double bottom, here's that old move that provides the catalyst for a 12% countertrend rally within the context of a bear market which i believe we are and you can see, that like that. 1955 is initial resistance and make it up for a more compelling opportunity to sell short hand get those shorts on that you didn't have a chance to because things went awry so quickly out of the gate. once again i don't think it ends well. i don't think it ends like 2008 ended but certainly it doesn't end right here, down 10% from an all time high at the tail end of a six-year bull market when the rest of the world is already in a bull market. >> a near-term bounce probably up 12% and ultimately lower, yes? >> 12% would be overly optimistic. this is a different situation than what we saw. seaworld in a worst place, japan has gone negative on operates, banks have collapsed. none of that is good for the global markets. if you've got 1950, 1970 i would be aggressively looking for the exits. >> okay.
rich, thank you. so that's about 55 points above where we are >> cam newton, the guy wearing the pants. >> yeah. >> okay. >> i know you don't know. we have an abbreviated show, a lot of ground to cover. >> sorry. >> b.k. said 1930, level we've been talking about, and i think anywhere between 1930 and 1940, lines up with what pete is saying. volatility index is still sell, high at these levels. you see that bounce to 1950. >> the last couple of weeks, fundamentally nothing really changed, right? we had more easing potentially, more easing from japan but qe in other countries is not the same as qe here. it actually makes things worse so nothing has changed. oil looks like it's going lower. dennis is probably going to talk to us about that later so nothing has changed and 1950, sell them again. >> still ahead, apple did something today that if history is any guide could signal big gains for the stock. what that is next and goldman sachs saying it's time to short
gold and the commodities king does not agree. why he thinks they will rally after the break. you're watching cnbc, first in business worldwide. i'm here at the td ameritrade trader offices. steve, other than making me move stuff, what are you working on? let me show you. okay. our thinkorswim trading platform aggregates all the options data you need in one place and lets you visualize that information for any options series. okay, cool. hang on a second. you can even see the anticipated range of a stock expecting earnings. impressive... what's up, tim. td ameritrade. [martha and mildred are good to. go. here's your invoice, ladies. a few stops later, and it looks like big ollie is on the mend. it might not seem that glamorous having an old pickup truck for an office... or filling your days looking down the south end of a heifer, but...i wouldn't have it any other way.
look at that, i had my best month ever. and earned a shiny new office upgrade. i run on quickbooks. that's how i own it. all across the state the economy is growing,arts today. with creative new business incentives, and the lowest taxes in decades, attracting the talent and companies of tomorrow. like in the hudson valley, with world class biotech. and on long island, where great universities are creating next generation technologies. let us help grow your company's tomorrow, today at business.ny.gov man 1: he just got fired. man 2: why? man 1: network breach. man 2: since when do they fire ceos for computer problems? man 1: they got in through a vendor. man 1: do you know how many vendors have access to our systems? man 2: no. man 1: hundreds, if you don't count the freelancers.
welcome back to "fast money." where did to imcome from? what is the meaning of life and will gold hold its gains for the rest of the year? questions our next guest can answer. dennis gartman is the publisher of "the gartman lefter" and let's start with oil here. higher or lower, dennis? >> pretty serious questions asking about the meaning of life, but we'll just talk about oil. i think on balance it quietly wants to go lower. i don't think it will dramatically sell. there's nothing much more left on the downside. if you made me do anything, i'm not going to sell it. i'd sell it aggressively. >> gold, higher or lower? >> higher from here. i think there's no question about that. there's continued expansion on the monetary aggregates amongst all of the central banks around the world. kuroda has made that abundantly clear, we're moving from tightening to easing. gold wants to go higher and today was a nice correction that you needed. >> all right. the dollar. higher or lower? >> depends on oil and which
currency. probably lower against the kane and the aussie and higher against the euro and japanese yen so it's no longer just a -- a one-sided bet. the bet i think >> how about the dixie. let's just do dixie, keep it simple. >> quietly higher hand not dramatically so because so much of the dixie is comprised of the canadian dollar. >> and how about this opec, this production freeze i should say, dennis, yeah, i know. apparently that was what people thought in the markets as well. was that sort of the last great hope for oil and it happened to be something that nobody cared about in the end? >> that was the last great hope for oil, a great disappointment. anyone who thought there would be talk of a production cut had to understand that the one thing that you can know about opec is they cheat. they cheat on everything, even if they had announced a production cut and nobody would have taken it seriously and this was really a great disappointment. >> all right. dennis, good to see you. we'll do the meaning of life next time. dennis gartman of "the gartman letter.
he said higher on oil. >> i disagree. couple days of pain but the move to the upside is still intact. i say higher as well. >> how about hill, what do we do here with oil? >> if anything you want to sell it. i don't think you buy it. i don't think the bottom is in, but it's a tough short at these points. down so much. be careful and you have to be nimble. no longer short. >> love all the option paper you've seen over the last couple of weeks, a month, gtx. after the move that we've had it's still going to go high. i agree with guy. >> all right. come up next, the traders tell you what they are watching for tomorrow right after this.
hey, jesse. who are you? i'm vern, the orange money retirement rabbit from voya. vern from voya? yep, vern from voya. why are you orange? that's a little weird. really? that's the weird part in this scenario? look, orange money represents the money you put away for retirement. save a little here and there, and over time, your money could multiply. see? ah, ok. so, why are you orange? funny.
see how voya can help you get organized at voya.com. companies must adapt.changing environment, but one thing should remain constant - a financial relationship with someone that understands and cares about your business. pnc corporate and institutional banking offers strategies tailored to your company's needs. know that our dedicated teams of local experts offer insight to help you achieve your business objectives. see how working with pnc can help your company grow at pnc.com/ideas
december of last year. also other notable names getting rid of it, at least cutting their positions, david ironion's green light capital reducing their position in apple shares as well and larry robbins over at glenview reversing their stakes, and getting and dissolving 300,000 shares. tech fund manager chase coleman over at tiger global took a new position of around 10.5 million shares. again, a very interesting piece of action here. two-way street for apple shares. a lot of people getting out and chase coleman making a big beth getting in. >> interesting, because all the guys were trimming shares of apple. not because apple stock has risen. simply because maybe they are cutting losses at this point. >> real importantly it wasn't working so they trimmed and the other point is for some of the guys looking for an entry it's getting really close. sentiment has turned so quickly so fast, stock is down 30%. 2% dividend yield and to me i think there's an opportunity that they surprise on the
product at some point in the next few months and we haven't seen it yet. >> just quickly as of today, would you be more inclined to buy or to sell a israel? >> really easy. >> done. >> all right. >> time for the final trade. let's go around the horn. pete najarian. >> i'm looking at kmi. talking about some of these files as well. when you look at many so of the files, this name seems to be popping up every we are. i think kmi is going higher. >> b.k.? >> i like the defense space, on fire for most of the year. pull back a little bit. buyer of general dynamics, gd. i think that will get you done. >> giddy-up. >> did you say the general of dynamics. >> that is so weak. >> dan? >> kind of is. >> the u.s. -- >> are you talking to me? >> the stock rally that we've seen over the last few day, i think it peters out this week. i think you have an opportunity to sell on jpmorgan's my choice. >> guy? >> interesting show. condensed a lot into a small amount of time. the fresh market, tfm. you don't hear that bandied
about for good reason. >> i mean, out. >> i'm melissa lee. thanks so much for watching. we'll see you back here tomorrow at 5:00 for more "fast money." meantime "mad money" with jim cramer starts right now. my in addition is simple -- to make you money. i'm here to level the playing field for all investors. there's always work somewhere. i promise to help you find it. "mad money" starts now. hey, i'm cramer. welcome to "mad money." i'm trying to make you money. my job is not just to entertain you but educate and teach you. call me. of course, tweet me @jimcramer. i'm letting you in on something big, the method of