The Dow Jones Industrial Average topped 11020.15 with much hoopla on January 9th, but the media coverage that resulted can best be described as incomplete.

As a place to start, how many stories mentioned that the 30 stocks which now comprise the DJIA are not the same 30 stocks that formed the list in 2001, the last time the Dow was above 11,000. Gone from the list since April 2004 are AT&T, Eastman Kodak and International Paper. In their place we now have AIG, Verizon and Pfizer. In effect, the list today and the list before 2004 are about as comparable as apples and loganberries.

Of course, breaching 11,000 should be seen with perspective. The Dow stood at 10783.01 on Dec. 31, 2004 and at 10717.50 on Dec. 30, 2005. Whoops. That means the Dow average lost ground for the year and it's significantly below the record of 11722.98 set on Jan. 14th, 2000.

For those who believe that performance counts, the "stability" seen on Wall Street certainly has not dented stockbroker benefits. While the Justice Department is busily investigating the real estate industry, it perhaps has not noticed that in 2005 Wall Street bonuses amounted to $21.5 billion during the year -- an all-time record according to Alan G. Hevesi, New York state's comptroller, who said the average payout was $125,000.

"The securities industry had a very good year during 2005. The industry paid record bonuses based on exceptional revenue growth and solid profits," Hevesi said.

Good for whom? Did not the benchmark Dow decline?

In addition to topping 11,000, an assortment of analysts mentioned that five consecutive days of Wall Street increases at the start of the year were certainly a good omen for 2006.

Actually, five days of rises or losses suggest nothing. If it is true -- as they say repeatedly on Wall Street -- that past performance does not guarantee future results -- then past performance provides no guidance for the coming year or even next Thursday.

One reason for movement in the stock market generally is that many companies have fewer shares outstanding. In 2005 securities worth $456 billion were repurchased by publicly-traded companies according to TrimTabs Investment Research .

If Smith & Jones industries has 10 million shares valued at $100 each and each share has a $1 dividend, it means the company has a market capitalization of $1 billion and pays out $100 million a year to shareholders. If S&J buys back 1 million shares, the dividend per share can "increase" to $1.11 (because there are fewer shares) even if $100 million is still distributed to shareholders. Since the shares now pay larger dividends, share values can go up even though overall company earnings are stagnant.

Does the $456 billion used to buy back company paper create additional productivity, reduce corporate debt or increase business payrolls? Is this the best use of corporate money?

Meanwhile, what happens if China seeks to diversify its U.S. investment portfolio, to put its $800 billion in accumulated trade surpluses in something besides U.S.-denominated securities? If such a trend develops, then to attract investors rates will have to rise -- and that's not good for those who want mortgage loans, hold adjustable-rate financing or invest in companies that must borrow cash to expand.

My advice for 2006? Hold the hoopla, pay down debts and use fixed-rate mortgages instead of adjustables in a modest effort to find economic sanity.

For more articles by Peter G. Miller, please press here .