It was the weekend's sporting fixtures that dominated talk on Monday morning because most people had a number of wagers riding on the results. Regretfully, in the case of the soccer, most won - although the general consensus had been a two-nil defeat. There was more money to be made on the rugby because the forecasts for the spread had been more varied.
Some pessimists had been going for a 60-point defeat and it was hard to gauge how they felt when we actually managed to score 15 points and reduce the spread to 48. I didn't place a wager myself; I hate doing it when Ireland play because I can't separate my desire for us to win from the stark reality that we're probably going to lose.
In fact, the only sporting events on which I place bets are the Grand National (and I don't really even place a bet since I just enter the office sweep and draw the 100-1 outsider who stops to graze on the course) and Wimbledon. My track record on Wimbledon is pretty bad - I bet on Jana Novotna to win every year (a real triumph of hope over experience).
On the market front, stocks are still the dominant force, and bonds twist and turn with every move of the Nikkei or the Dow or the Hang Seng. Actually - and to show how volatile they are - we had a day last week when the Nikkei was up 2.5 per cent and the Hang Seng was down the same amount. It might have been the other way around - it scarcely seems to matter any more.
Another particular interest of mine, but purely on a personal level, has been the price of gold. I was tempted by a darling necklace when I was on holiday, but since I didn't have a spare $3,000 handy, I had to pass. Anyway, with gold plunging to a 12 1/2 year low on Friday, the price of the necklace is moving in my direction. Last July, the Reserve Bank of Australia sold more than two-thirds of its gold reserves, which certainly should have some impact on jewellery prices. Whether these will fall in the run up to Christmas is left to market forces.
The chart watchers are predicting $293 per ounce so you never know. Given the developments in Asia, I can't see many of them being big bidders in the holiday season jewellery stakes.
Apparently De Beers is concerned about diamond sales because demand has fallen so radically in Japan, where diamond jewellery sales have dropped nearly 20 per cent in the last four years. Somehow, I can't see all this managing to translate into a diamond-studded gold necklace from the one I love this Christmas, but I'm hopeful.
The news that a Japanese bank had finally collapsed came as no great surprise, in fact the Nikkei rallied sharply as people got more hopeful that a fiscal package might finally bring some relief to Japanese equities.
But our friends in Korea are still struggling. The central bank had been supporting the one which was being sold off sharply. At 00.40 GMT on Monday they were in buying it again.
Dealers made confident predictions that the bank was sending a strong signal to the market and that it was committed to bringing the won/dollar lower. At 03.42 the won was wobbling, but holding its own. At 04.55 the central bank gave up the fight and said it was no longer defending the 986 level which it had been supporting. At 0.458, the won/dollar was trading at 1,008. They did their best . . .
There were more things to bother market participants - it's not just Asian debt that's a problem - the whole area of emerging market debt has been one big disaster for the past few weeks and people are eyeing Latin America cautiously.
Iraq is on our minds too. The US bond market had a great rally last Friday on talk of hostilities in the Middle East. I've never quite got to grips with the "safe haven" status of the dollar during times of conflict when the US is in the thick of it, but it provided a brief buzz for treasuries.
All in all, we're still talking about scrappy, nervous trading, with people anxious to get back into markets but uncertain about the levels they feel are good value.
I was taken to task by my colleagues for being sexist in last week's column. On the one hand for talking about "guys" being all over the place in their trading strategies and on the other for suggesting that men didn't enjoy shopping as much as women and this was why there was a lack of shops in the IFSC.
On the second count I will bow my head and say that they probably do, although I still think that women will raise the amenities question quicker than their male counterparts.
But I've no doubt that men would rush to avail of an increase in shopping facilities (and if any of you want to buy diamond encrusted gold necklaces bear in mind that the prices should be coming down any day now).
Since I wouldn't dream of being sexist, I will apologise for calling everybody in the financial markets a guy, although I tend to use the word generically. I suppose I should really find another word, but "guys" is quick, easy and I don't have to use the spellcheck to type it. And I detest words that end in "person". The term "chairperson" makes me shudder. If we are talking about a man, it should be chairman; if it's a woman, it should be chairwoman - it seems straightforward to me.
Meanwhile, all correspondence addressed to me as Mr S O'Flanagan goes directly, unopened into the bin. I might not mind being called a guy, but being addressed as one is a different matter.
Shiela O'Flanagan is a fixed-income specialist at NCB stockbrokers.
