Does today's record 936 point rally in the Dow mean that happy days are here again? I think it's a gift to investors who want to stop their losses after having seen their portfolios plummet in the last year. Last week, the Dow fell 22%, destroying $2.4 trillion in market value -- it gained back $940 billion of that today. As an unpleasant reminder, after today's 11% rally, the S&P 500 has lost 36% of its value in the last year. And, while I hope I am wrong, I don't see the conditions yet in place to believe that we have reached bottom with the economy and can now expect the earnings growth that would justify investment in stocks

Today's rally feels good but it is highly likely that there was an element of short covering driving up the market. Last Wednesday, the SEC lifted its ban on short selling. Investors who shorted financial and insurance companies were doing quite well last week as fears of another financial bankruptcy mounted. With today's successful save of Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS), anyone who was short that firm -- or other financial stocks -- was forced to buy those stocks as they spiked in order to repay their stock loans. This probably contributed significantly to a buying panic.

If you need your money in the next six years, you could sell first thing tomorrow morning and you will be able to limit the losses that could come from unpleasant surprises. What kind of surprises? Here are two:

• Credit Default Swap settlements. There is no central repository of information about who owes how much to whom for their CDS obligations. Nor is there solid data on how much these CDS counterparties have in their capital accounts in the event of a default that triggers their obligation to pay up. For instance, I was surprised to learn that Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) had a $20 billion obligation in the event of an American International Group (NYSE: AIG) failure. Who else is out there with such obligations? Do each of these counterparties have the ability to get the government to bail them out by taking over the company to prevent them from having to pay? Probably not.

The New York Times reports that Berkshire Hathaway Inc. (NYSE: BRK.A) Warren Buffett's annual letter includes some important observations about the state of the securities markets. The one I found most eye opening was that companies are using unrealistically high assumptions about pension fund returns to boost their reported earnings.

Here are three themes I found most interesting:

• 8% pension fund return assumptions. Buffett said that many companies assume their pension funds will earn 8% a year from investments, a return he deems unlikely given the low level of interest rates, but one that lets them report higher profits now. Buffett notes that by the time those managers need to lower those assumptions to be more realistic, they'll be long gone from their jobs -- along with their bonuses.
• Ending of Home Price Appreciation (HPA) exposes financial folly. Buffett coined a new acronym, HPA, to highlight a familiar point. People were willing to take on risky mortgages because they assumed that their houses would rise in value. He noted that "As house prices fall, a huge amount of financial folly is being exposed. You only learn who has been swimming naked when the tide goes out - and what we are witnessing at some of our largest financial institutions is an ugly sight."

Insurance giant Chubb Corporation (NYSE: CB) last month reported solid first-quarter 2007 earnings of $710 million in net income, $1.71 EPS, compared to $672 million, $1.58 EPS in 1Q 2006. Operating income increased a respectable 5% to $634 million, with operating income per share increasing 8% to a record $1.53. Loss and expense ratio was slightly higher in 1Q 2007 than in 1Q 2006. Chubb was able to post profits despite the fact that net written premiums declined 2% to $2.9 billion for the quarter. The 1% decrease in US-based premiums was more than offset by a 7% increase in premiums outside the US. Chubb's catastrophic reinsurrance business declined by 69% but that was due to Chubb's decision to sell its Re-Harbor Point unit. Income after taxes from property and casualty investments increased 9% to $305 million.

The Chubb personal insurance segment grew 6% to $840 million for 1Q 2007 in terms of the value of premiums with higher catastrophic losses in 2007 than 2006. Despite the major slow down in the home building industry, Chubb's homeowner insurance unit grew 7% while consumer automobile premiums declined 5%. Chubb's commercial insurance declined slightly to $1.3 billion for the quarter, with a renewal rate of 84% for US premiums. Chubb specialty insurance, including professional liability insurance, was flat at $681 million.

Chubb has plenty of money and used $605 million to repurchase almost 12 million shares of its stock. There are still 28 million shares available on the open market. In order to expand its repurchasing program, Chubb offered $1 billion of subordinated capital securities during 1Q 2007 to raise funds for accelerated repurchases. For the time being, Chubb is sticking with FY 2007 operating income per share of $5.00-$5.40. The stock recently closed at $55.64, up $0.38.

Just last week, Berkshire Hathaway's (NYSE: BRK.A) rosy 1st quarter earnings report made note of how the relatively tranquil weather of 2006 helped its re-insurance business generate handsome profits. Looking around the country today, with L.A. and Georgia threatened by fire, the Midwest flooded and one of the earliest tropical storms in history battering Florida, I wonder what this bodes for such companies in 2007?

In 2006, the ISO's Property Claims Services estimates, U.S. firms paid out $9.2 billion for catastrophic losses, in comparison to $61.2 billion in 2005. These figures make it starkly clear how difficult it is to forecast financial performance for the re-insurance market that absorbs this risk.

Unfortunately, forecasters generally expect a more active storm season this year, as the El Niño that is credited with softening 2006 weather has dissipated.

Totals from the 1st quarter of 2007 were only $1.22 billion, mostly as a result of storms that generated tornadoes. However, historically almost half of all catastrophic loss claims are caused by tropical storms and hurricanes, and that season is just beginning. The second most common loss engine is the tornado, and we're still in the midst of an active season.