Oils well that ends well for sure; however there's no substantial indication of a ‘deal' between OPEC members to cut production levels. Nevertheless, and I'll add in-spite of the Wall Street Journal retracting the report of a ‘deal', issued at the exact moment the DJIA started going to a new sub-400 point decline low; at that very point a one-liner said the report was merely a rumor; there's more.

The ‘more' might well be a quid-pro-quo given the hateful tension between rival Islamic states Iran and Saudi Arabia, if it were conditional on a grander deal as might relate to the Syrian war, that Saudi and Turkey have threatened entering, and that Iran (and Russia) would clearly like to keep them out of. 

Remember our mentioning ‘Munich' last night? Well the talks concluded today, with little details revealed; but a statement from Secretary Kerry that ‘hostilities are scheduled to cease next week'. We've heard that before and it didn't work; and of course the odds of it holding now are slim indeed, with the Russians and Iran (and their Hezbollah proxies) so close to completing what has been called their ‘extermination campaign' around Aleppo.  

So how would one get the Russians to agree to stop, and the Iranians, since it was only a week ago when Kerry responded to a reporter; saying ‘what do you want us to do, go to war with Russia?'. The answer might be: get a deal that is a win-win for all the principle powers in this: Iran, Saudi Arabia and Russia all are in desperate need of higher oil prices. So that's the leverage Saudi Arabia has, if they want to use it, and the ‘cash reserves' chart we showed this week is revealing how draining things have been, especially with ongoing Yemen wars.

Bottom-line: that's all I know. And we're very suspicious; not only because of the ‘later-denied-rumor', but the ‘coincidence' of releasing that (not from regular wire services, but the Wall Street Journal) right at the S&P and NYA daily lows, that just happen to essentially match the January 20 low points. (Hope there is something to it, as discussed regarding Munich, but skeptical.) Also not saying the WSJ isn't right, but within minutes ‘they' backtracked the story to being just a ‘rumor'. Financial TV sounds unconvinced of an oil deal, but (from what I hear so far) hasn't emphasized that the WSJ recanted on it being a confirmed story.

Now, I'm not suggesting the WSJ or any source would contrive to post such key market-moving stories at precisely the last-ditch moment of breaking to a lower low; but that's not for me to draw a conclusion about (looked fishy, didn't it?).