Is the Bull-Market Over?

Kind-of insane how fast equities sell off. I presume it's mainly from the algorithmic machines that dump massive amounts of volume all at once. The DOW opened insanely how but sold-off very fast afternoon. I have no hope in these markets anymore. Now, everyone is running around chasing all the bank stocks because hedge-funds, and quant boys are supposedly "shifting their money." Watch tomorrow the huge dump in the irrational run up in financials. This was a nice year, but the huge sell-off in the NQ wiping out months of gains has now put my long portfolio in the red, I am sad.

cheers

Hedge Fund Interview Course

  • 814 questions across 165 hedge funds. Crowdsourced from over 500,000 members.
  • 11 Detailed Sample Pitches and 10+ hours of video.
  • Trusted by over 1,000 aspiring hedge fund professionals just like you.

Comments (141)

Dec 4, 2017

Just saw LeveragedSellout is back. Clear sign we're nearing the top.

    • 13
Dec 4, 2017
More Leverage:

Just saw LeveragedSellout is back. Clear sign we're nearing the top.

I would actually prefer for the markets to top off. Quite honestly, a crash seems likely and I have no problem with it happening. There is no new money flowing in the market! Grant it, I am ready to buy put-contracts all across the board. Assuming I am correct, I will make a great deal of money.

    • 1
    • 1
Dec 5, 2017

HA! DOW is red, and the QQQ is reversing!

Best Response
Dec 5, 2017

In my nearly 40 years trading the markets (on the side), I've heard a constant chorus about an imminent crash.

There are commentators who provide very credible sounding reasons as to why equities can't keep rising. Years before the previous crashes they were predicting a crash. Day after day, week after week, month after month.

And the markets kept rising and rising and rising.

But, and here's the crunch, when a "correction" does happen these doom and gloom merchants all jump up and try to take credit for predicting the crash!

You talk about irrational dumps. Are you perhaps trying to blame the irrationality of other traders for your loss? Remember the old saying, "The market can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent".

If you do want to play the market, spend time studying some good books on technical analysis (Al Brooks is one good author). Never trade emotionally or based on hunches. Develop discipline - always calculate risk/reward before entering, always decide your stop before you enter any trade.

    • 17
Dec 5, 2017

SB . I always love speaking to veterans in the market as I am learning more.

I strictly use technical analysis on my equity trades. I don't use those silly indicators. Volume and price action ONLY. I had some nice entries on my tech-stocks (basically QQQ) but the insanely, obscenely heavy selling from institutions blasted right through all my patterns last week. I personally believe equities can fall faster than they can rise, too many weak hands on top of heavy algo dumps. It's just annoying, you can have a nice set-up but this sector rotation makes people run around in circles. There is a famous saying, "follow the smart money." At that point, millions of shares being dumped on the market don't care about a couple lines on a chart, do you agree with me?

I'm thinking about quitting this silly line-drawing, and spend more time on my option-contract trades. STD Deviation and basic math/probability is all you need to succeed. I find it amazing that you can set up delta-neutral strategies to secure premium of volatility/time. You don't even need to be directional!

    • 1
    • 3
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Dec 9, 2017

You sound like one of those guys in Wall street Bets that is always posting those charts with a bunch of random lines on them then complains when TA doesn't work.

    • 2
Oct 24, 2018

I've never really made money on delta-neutral trades, I usually break even as the margins are razor thin. I've kind of abandoned options trades. What kind of data analysis do you do for set ups? Any good books on trade strategy you can recommend?

Dec 6, 2017

This was a painful thread to read. You need to really just step back and re-think everything about your approach to the market.

Dec 6, 2017

Lets put it this way, when people of your caliper want to sell-off their holdings, does it really matter what two lines on a chart mean?

Dec 6, 2017
ForexOptions:

Lets put it this way, when people of your caliper want to sell-off their holdings, does it really matter what two lines on a chart mean?

lol 'caliper' ahhh that's a good one

"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee

    • 7
Dec 6, 2017

I don't think so. To be honest I think that actually market is priced correctly, you know, valuations are relatively high. In periods of low interest rate P/E is higher, given the CPI and the expected return on your investment.
Companies have a fair quantity of retained earnings, and US banks have a not bad buffer (Tier1) given by that. (tla 20/24%)
I'm more concerned about EU banks, mainly about Italian banks, that have been paying dividends sine the very beginning of EU regulations. Same for other EU banks.

    • 3
Dec 6, 2017

+SB

Dec 6, 2017

Great insight, +SB. I do agree with that

The name of the game, moving the money from the client's pocket to your pocket

Dec 6, 2017

OP you do realize that outside forces are shaping the market right now. The sell offs are related to the current political issues, have little to nothing to do with actual fundamentals. There are little to no fundamental issues with the broad market right now, however there could be a crash tied to a major political disruption. But that crash would be very short lived and have little impact on the economy as a whole.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Dec 6, 2017

You don't think there could be something out there flying under the radar?

Dec 6, 2017

Not really anything major, sure there are fundamental issues in individual companies. But right now there aren't any major systemic issues that could tank the entire market in my view. This is just a long running tail of pushing money out of bonds into other areas like equities and real estate. There are bubbles developing but they are far from catastrophic burst pressure. In my view politics are really the only systemic issue, but again that isn't anything directly tied to the market. That is just a ridiculous moral panic.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Dec 6, 2017

I don't see it as an issue now, but I am worried about student debt in the long term. That shit is real, and wage growth is minimal compared to debt growth

Dec 6, 2017

Student debt default isn't a problem because it is guaranteed by the government. Basically there isn't much market exposure with this,

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Dec 6, 2017

There is still private debt. Either way, I am 99% sure the market would be affected in some fashion by a move like that. You can't wave a wand and problems are gone.

Dec 6, 2017

Yes there is private debt, but the vast majority of it is either directly on or is guaranteed by public liabilities. Would it have an impact, sure but nothing like 08 or really even like 99 or 01.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

Dec 10, 2017

Didn't have any ABS on student debt sold to Icelandic banks last time I checked... You can't default on student debt - so you the students will be fucked, us mainstreet will be just fine...

    • 1
Oct 24, 2018

Student debt is an issue, but I see that as more of a slow drag on the market over decades

Dec 6, 2017

I don't see politics influencing the market. The 300 point DOW drop last Friday was due to ABC reporting false news saying Flynn would accuse Trump under oath. I hate fake news.

    • 1
Dec 6, 2017

Spreading panic in a market like this is very stupid. True!

The name of the game, moving the money from the client's pocket to your pocket

Dec 6, 2017

You don't see politics impacting the market? You then go on to say the market was impacted by politics...... The market is almost pure politics right now due to the long overhang of quantitative easing.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Dec 6, 2017

Hmm, fair point. I think the market has been propped up by tax-cuts, and great earnings/growth potential in various companies. I do see, as of NOW*******, a disruption regarding politics. Middle-Eastern conflicts with Trump recognizing Jerusalem as a part of Israel, NK ICBMs, government shutdown, tax bill falling through, etc. Reading over this, seems like this is the time for bears to shine, market can't just keep going higher from here. Would enjoy a crash. More room to make money.

Dec 6, 2017
heister:

The sell offs

The sell-offs in tech (that I mentioned in my OP) is what I'm referring too. It sold off out of nowhere, no changes in the companies, yet they have taking 10% blows in a single week due to institutional selling, and shifting of money.

Dec 6, 2017

Yea, those sell offs were profit taking due to political instability. It wasn't out of no where, it just wasn't a normal market trigger.

Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays

Life is hard, it's even harder when you're stupid - John Wayne

    • 1
Dec 7, 2017

Not over yet, the next correction will be nasty however.

"When you stop striving for perfection, you might as well be dead."

Dec 12, 2017
PeterMullersKeyboard:

Not over yet, the next correction will be nasty however.

I really just want it to happen already b/c I agree 100% it will be very nasty.

Dec 9, 2017

No one strategy works 100% in every market. Keep doing what works, and paper test new strategies until you're reasonably certain you know what your strength is. The last thing I'd like to mention is that I've noticed that professional traders or sports gamblers who consistently make money are the ones who never have 5% or more riding on any one trade. It's a matter of risk management.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

How the fuck would anyone know the answer to your question? It's impossible to predict the future

Dec 12, 2017

I'm not looking for an actual answer, I'm just looking for what other people think will happen to the market. I'm asking this question because I'm curious to see what other people think and also because I remember looking at an interview question for an ER intern position that asked the interviewee, "Predict if the stock market will go up or down?" (The question was very close to that)

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

who gives a shit about the dow. it's just 30 stocks and price weighted

    • 1
Dec 9, 2017

Banks are admittedly cheap or at least reasonable. It's taken them a long to work off the crisis lack of investor interest. And banks like Citi really benefit from the global growth picking up.

A lot of market moves seem kinda extreme to me last few years. I think it's the lack of prop desks money and more money in the quants and firms with tight stop outs like millennium. You probably have atleast 200 billion in management with strict drawdown rules. So they chase up and down. Instead of bank desks that I think 5-10 years ago could sit on losses.

Array
Dec 12, 2017

Market has priced in all of Trumps pro business policies which is an issue since there will be battles up a head. That being said, the market run up has been juiced by Fed policy which is being reeled in now. If taxes can be cut, along with lower regulations and a pro business environment, you could see actual growth fueling the market.

This administration looks to be very much focused on jobs and the economy which could continue this bull market. I do think there will be an eventual correction. Not sure when that happens though.

Dec 12, 2017
TNA:

This administration looks to be very much focused on jobs and the economy...

I don't know where you got that idea. The only thing this administration seems to be "very much focused on" are inauguration crowd sizes, censoring government agencies, and voter fraud conspiracy theories.

    • 16
    • 9
Dec 12, 2017

The media was primarily responsible for the inauguration crowd size thing. I'm center-left and hate Trump but I still haven't figured out why the media decided to make the inauguration crowd size a thing. Was it literally just to point and laugh at Trump? It's unfortunately another example of the media digging themselves a deeper hole. Were the inauguration crowds significantly less than Obama's in 2009? Most definitely. Is that surprising? No. Usually Trump sets the traps for the media but in this case the media set their own. They created the story, Trump went into a typical twitter rage, and then the media writes stories about the resulting twitter rage. The problem is the guy is actually president now. He now has the power to make real decisions that affect everyone in the entire world and all the media seemed to talk about for 5 days straight were the stupid fucking inauguration crowds. Censoring gov agencies and the voter fraud thing are both real issues. But the reporting on them have been mere announcements. Little analysis on the effects censoring those agencies will have. But of course, there have been multiple analyses of the stupid inauguration crowd sizes.

    • 2
    • 2
Dec 12, 2017

Trumps talked about cutting corporate taxes, regulations and the personal income tax. This is what I am referencing.

You know this, but wanted to make this a political jab. It's tiring.

Dec 12, 2017

4-d Chess my friend. To your point:

Crowd sizes - Trump is beating the fucking shit out of his liberal media straw-man and the Dems can't help but fuel the fire. He is cultivating and preserving political capital.

Censorship - Same as above. Liberal Bureaucrats running around with their heads cutoff, no evidence and strict denial of executive involvement. Business as usual for transfer of power, including the removal of some top executives in favor of ideological allies.

Voter Fraud - As the crowd sizes, cultivating and preserving political capital, plus a win-win for a century old Republican issue: On the one hand, we get crack-down and oversight on voting. On the other hand Trump is forcing the Democrats to argue for state rights!!

Meanwhile, the media loses credibility, the public loses interest, and he is allowed to do whatever he wants in the future, relatively unnoticed.

Dec 12, 2017

Agree. Trumps pulling the media in. He will find some fraud which he will use to push through national voter ID laws. Right before Obama left he had the election system labeled as vital infrastructure under DHS supervision.

If you read art of the deal all his stuff is in there. Oh well pepper can believe what they want.

Dec 12, 2017

Trump's policies will create actual growth in the economy, for instance his protectionist policies will deliver jobs to the working class, who in turn fuel consumption.

    • 1
    • 2
Dec 12, 2017

Protectionism is only used by third world countries for a reason, everyone else figured out 300 years ago it doesn't work. Consumers in that country just have declining purchasing power and there is less income left over to be saved and invested in order to meet the capital needs of companies within the country. In turn the cost of capital increases making more projects fail the hurdle of new projects, which means less employment and lower overall productive output. Protectionism just increases the cost of living while subsidizing inefficiency in domestic producers.

    • 4
Dec 12, 2017

You know, this is really not the case at all.

I mean don't get me wrong, nobody is as knee-jerk free market as me. However, it is not an economic argument, its a moral one, and moral arguments don't feed people, just ask Trump's base in the swing states.

To me, the biggest part of the public misunderstanding is that there is a bevy of research each year discussing the effects of free-trade. But there something very important is missing from the economic literature. Nobody seems to be asking the question What is the optimal amount of protectionism As with most things in intellectually honest academics - particularly economics The question should rarely be, "how good is this thing? and is more often "Considering the trade-offs between X and Y, what is the optimal point of X"

I understand there is a lot of game theory regarding protectionism. I am one of the few people I know who explain the great depression by the domino-wave of protectionism causing a slow-down in the American (and global) economy which was then subject to the effects of too much credit and speculation but would otherwise have been manageable. Even considering the game theory of protectionism, America has the strongest market in the world, and there is value in that, which we may be able to capture by light tariffs.

Another important point is the real economy which understandably, we in finance often overlook. To the point of the discussion, yes this will call for a bear market or more probably a readjustment but who cares if the real economy is better off.

A final, third factor is that although protectionism comes at the expense of GDP growth and stock-market growth, it may in many ways function as a market-based substitute for welfare, by providing wealth and jobs for low-skilled laborers that would otherwise unwillingly be on the government take. Additionally, this may allow for more productive allocation of capital at the top due to decreased government bureaucracy and intervetion.

I could go on about protectionisms role in catapulting Japan, South Korea, and Germany's economies (among others) from totally destroyed to among the most competitive in the world. But I feel I have rambled enough. It it Friday night after all.

    • 6
Dec 12, 2017

Do you want to attempt to economically refute what I said or continue to ramble more about how a system that literally subsidizes losers who can't compete and raises the cost of living will work?

    • 3
Dec 12, 2017

I already have, you gauche moron.

Your string of unsubstantiated quasi-logic fueled by *moral contempt for the unemployed and moral superiority of globalism cannot be economically refuted, because you have not provided an economic argument.

As I have already stated - which is incidentally what you are asking for - the answers to the economic questions you seem to be trying to ask, despite your low-functioning intellect, requires people much smarter than either of us to spend serious time and resources looking at the issue in the framework I have suggested above, rather than the one I am decrying above, which is what you have offered.

So, they cannot be refuted economically. But, if you want me to refute the rest of your points using the framework of childish-outrage in which you have proposed them - here you go.

"Protectionism is only used by third world countries"

South Korea, Japan, China, have all amassed great wealth while protecting infant industries and claiming free-markets.

"everyone else figured out 300 years ago it doesn't work."

By the way, dumbfuck, America employed protectionism in our northeastern manufacturing base to compete with 1000 year old empires which began. And FYI (since you seem to be so uninformed about so much) America is less than 300 years old. Also, It worked.

Again, the above countries all employed the policies within the last 100 to rocket to the top of the world in the industries in which they were used.

To your point (and as already stated in my post above, you idiot), nobody figured it out as you say, until the chain reaction of protectionism that occurred before the Great Depression.

"Consumers in that country just have declining purchasing power"

No, they have more expensive products, you ignorant infant. Literally the opposite.

"there is less income left over to be saved and invested in order to meet the capital needs of companies within the country."

Invalid point. Protectionism in goods increases FDI. If people want access to the protected market they must invest there. Increased competition lowers the price of goods. To what degree is unknown.

"In turn the cost of capital increases making more projects fail the hurdle of new projects,"

Broken Logic, see above, stupid.

"ramble more about how a system that literally subsidizes losers who can't compete"

Small-minded, spoiled, entitled, selfish, and otherwise little people like yourself may attempt to deny the fact that we have social welfare in the US. But, in reality, entitlements are greater than 50% of our national budget, and represent not only a huge misallocation of capital within our economy which actually does lead to the issues you discussed above (inflation, unemployment etc.) as well as decreasing liberty through government theft through taxes and oversight. This misallocation is currently to the tun of over 2 trillion dollars a year - and increasing.

My point was, that there is probably an optimal point at which protectionism can replace a certain amount of this 2 trillion dollars by giving these people jobs, rather taxing others to put these people on permanent welfare dependence. If I had to guess I'd say there is a financial benefit to that at some point, but perhaps more importantly there are social costs such as decreased crime and drug-addiction, increased national unity, and (wishful thinking here, I know) a return to morality that develop by putting people to work in the American system, rather than forcing a government check down their throats while they watch the super-rich get super-richer.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

Got it, there is an optimal point for mommy government, an institution where economic calculation is impossible, to subsidize losers. We shouldn't let the market determine who succeeds and fails, rather we should prop up inefficiency for a feel good moment. Citing some modern countries that have subsidized waste doesn't really prove anything, certain manufacturing processes in the aforementioned countries have been made viable by making foreign goods more expensive at the expense of more efficient uses of capital in those countries. All they've really done is squander wealth and lower productive output below where it would be if the market was permitted to function. By the way, can you come across any more as an angry little guy with a micro penis?

    • 4
Dec 12, 2017

"By the way, can you come across any more as an angry little guy with a micro penis?"

Sorry, that's the best impression of you I have at the moment, but I'll keep practicing.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

Says the whiny little boy cursing and getting bent out of shape defending mercantilism.

    • 2
Dec 12, 2017

And By the way, I am arguing against mommy government.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

Mercantilism is a pretty far cry from capitalism, it is literally using government to prop up companies that couldn't stay afloat on their own. Against government would be letting the market, not bureaucrats, direct capital allocation.

    • 2
Dec 12, 2017

Look, I'm glad that you really liked your Econ 101 teacher, and that you believe in Capitalism. I did / do too. But, you are very naive if you think that we will be in a place anytime soon where bureaucrats do not direct capital allocation. Like I said, there is over $2 Trillion in direct welfare through taxes, which I am attempting to decrease through my argument.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

If you actually attended school anywhere in the western world, you'd understand that academia doesn't quite see eye to eye with me. It's a bunch of Keynesian garbage, that government has a magic wand and can create wealth through a printing press. I didn't really get along with these people too well. Arguing that bureaucracy is already rampant doesn't make it any more tenable, it's a ridiculous system and it should not be the case. I' m not delusional enough to believe that people are going to actually want individual responsibility in this world. I don't believe your argument would lower welfare payments because it is difficult, to say the least, to envision this under policies of propping up inefficient producers and hindering productive capacity. It's just an even further deviation away from the market.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

Look, nobody is more ideologically pro-Austrian-economics than me. But I am not an idealouge. We are talking about the real world, and in no case is government involvement in free markets going to be ripped away in favor of anarcho-capitalism.

So, if you're argument is government is inherently bad, immoral, illiberal, and can in every case does more harm than good in whichever economic and social institutions it intervenes, then I whole heartedly agree. But again, that is a moral argument, and we are talking economics and policy; which unfortunately do exist in the real world.

    • 2
Dec 12, 2017

As I stated, I agree we'll never get rid of the nanny state because of the amount of parasites and losers in society, but again I don't believe this makes government interference any less retarded.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

Goddamn you are a spoiled child.

    • 2
Dec 12, 2017

Way to use more profanity and call names, "spoiled child" for being consistent and not standing up for something moronic. You carry yourself like an 8 year old.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

Over a hundred years ago we had very loose government and this gave rise to monopolies. So lets not pretend that unencumbered capitalism doesn't have some negatives as well.

And calling people parasites and losers is pretty funny from anyone who works in finance, the industry that does nothing but use government to put up barriers to entry and suck off DC.

We live in a Democracy which means people have a voice and a vote. Companies can employ people or they can enjoy higher taxes which will be used to provide for people. This Darwinistic fetish idea of capitalism you have will never and did never fly in the USA. And where does it exist except in the minds of professors or in text books? It doesn't.

Dec 12, 2017

Dominick Armentano wrote a great book "Antitrust & Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure" which shows how every antitrust case in the US was nonsense either because consumers benefitted from falling prices or because there was never actually a monopoly. If you want to bring up a specific case I'm happy to tell you why that's wrong and why public school isn't the best place to get unbiased information. The only monopolies I see are law and defense, wonder what the common theme is there.

With the exception of bailed out companies, another bunch of idiocy that should never have happened, nobody in the private sector is reliant upon having an institution with a monopoly on legal violence stick a gun in someone's face to take their money. That's exactly how the government is funded in everything it does though, but apparently this doesn't make them parasitic.

We live in a federal republic, not democracy. Democracy is 15 people in a room where 8 vote to steal the wallets of the other 7. The founders of this country understand that mob rule was pathetic and doesn't work, something that seems lost on a lot of people. "The idea of capitalism you have doesn't exist in a pure form, so it's apparently wrong." That's some bulletproof logic. There is no pure capitalist country on earth, which is unfortunate, but I think a couple ones that are closer relative to the parasite states are the Cayman Islands and Hong Kong.

    • 3
Dec 12, 2017

Naa, I am good. This isn't going to be a discussion, it is going to be you denying anything I saw as wrong because you've read a counterpoint.

Monopoly is the purest form of capitalism. You compete to the point where you are the biggest and largest. Nowadays it is much harder for Companies to have a monopoly, but historically it has happened. And when it does happen you have price collusion, higher prices in areas without competition and very low prices in places where you are trying to stop competition.

Agree that in many instances monopoly benefits consumers, especially years ago when you needed protected profits to invest in advancements, etc.

Yes, I realize the US isn't a Democracy. Thanks for 2nd grade history. The US does give its citizens the ability to elect their representatives. And while it isn't 50.1% rule, it still means that enough people put together have a voice and can demand action. And politicians listen for the most part because not listening historically ends badly, especially for a nation with a 2nd Amendment.

So all these "losers" and "parasites" (people, not banks though) can band together and demand higher taxes on Companies. And these taxes can be used to fund welfare which is essentially what we have now. Both parties hep "parasites".

So I would much rather have a moderate amount of protectionism and a moderate amount of government influence and have people working and being productive. If that makes me not a true capitalist, cool. I'm one anyone since I work in finance, the most breast-fed-off-the-teet of mommy government industry out there.

Dec 12, 2017

Keep going on and on about monopolies without listing a specific instance, probably because these have all been shown to be nonsense. The only monopolies that exist and have existed are either government institutions or are propped up by government (such as utiltiies). Yes, most companies want to get as big as possible, but absent their ability to meet the needs of consumers in the most efficient manner this is not possible in a market system, now contrast that with government and tell me which has more likelihood to be a monopoly.

Yes, the US and many countries in the world let enough idiots vote to steal from other people. Mencken hit the nail on the head, "Voting is an advance auction on stolen goods." So now we have a situation where net tax consumers exceed net tax payers and this continues to snowball (just like it has in the EU, look how great they're doing). This is how nations go bankrupt, because people with no skin in the game are obviously going to continue to vote to leech off the productive people of society. Somehow you think this is noble and just, but advocating voluntary action by individuals is sadistic and evil. Thanks for the laugh.

You know, sweetheart, you don't need to create strawmen. I said that the bailouts were idiotic, but you still have to insinuate (incorrectly) I don't view the bailed out banks, GSEs, auto companies, etc. as a bunch of parasites and losers - although to me they're one in the same.

    • 4
    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

I really hope this caustic personality you have is strictly online. Calling people parasites and losers because they don't have good jobs available to them is utterly disgusting.

How about Standard Oil. There is one example. How about Microsoft, there is another. Monopoly reduces choice and allows for higher prices.

Furthermore, you rail against there people not working, yet advocate for unfettered free trade which will simply offshore jobs to nations with cheaper labor and lax regulations.

I am done with this thread. Not because the topic isn't interesting or there isn't a discussion to be had. I just can't engage in a conversation with someone so hyperbolic and insulting. Night.

Dec 12, 2017

Standard Oil was consistently lowering prices leading up to the court decisions, and on top of that there were more and more oil producers springing up during these times. Not even remotely close to a monopoly. MSFT was another knee slapper of an antitrust ruling, which you can read for free here https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&so...
Unfettered free trade gives consumers the most choice, it lets them give business to whomever they feel is meeting their needs the best. Why would you want to take choice away from human beings? Why would you want to prop up inefficient companies? Again, protectionism raises the cost of living and subsidizes inefficiency, perhaps you can explain how this creates more wealth.

If you're offended because I call people who are clamoring to steal more from other people losers and parasites, well, I don't know what to tell you. Here is where you make up some more nonsense to make me appear more inflammatory, lying that I said people with jobs that aren't great are all parasites. To clarify:

Guy with a less than favorable job, who wants to better himself, work his way up, be an individual, and doesn't feel he has a right to other peoples' property = a good person in my book.

Guy with less than favorable job who wants government to threaten people with violence to take their money to give to him, because he feels he has a right to others' property at the point of a gun = total loser/parasite.

    • 3
Dec 12, 2017

Standard Oil had peaked by the time Teddy slammed them. Before that they were absolutely a monopoly and ran all competition out of business through artificially lowering prices, using the railroads against their competition and threatening retailers and resellers if they carried other products.

Unfettered free trade allows businesses to maximize profits. No one is talking about banning products. In a moderate protectionist system, the prices of certain products would go up. People can still buy them, but obviously it would give the lower cost good an advantage. If those goods are made in the US and employe Americans, then the trade off is fair.

We all form the government and it exists to benefit its citizens. We pay taxes to live in a society where we have roads, bridges, a military, etc. I don't want to pay all my money to taxes and I don't want to pay none of my money to taxes. There is a middle ground.

With you it appears there is no middle ground. There is no country that operates on the level of capitalism you talk about and if you look historically in this country when there was very little regulation, companies acted horribly. Competition was driven out, environmental damage was rampant and workers were crushed. It took violence and voter desire to bring about the changes we see now.

Has the USA gone too nuts with regulations in certain areas? Sure. But we've also been to lax in not working to protect the US worker.

Glad you narrowly defined loser. Before you could have fooled me that it meant everyone not working in a white collar world. Either way, these losers have a vote and I would rather work to provide good jobs for them than sit back and watch them continually empower the government to increase taxes to provide for them as we watch a select few get richer and richer.

Dec 12, 2017

Sorry, but Standard Oil just didn't pay their bribe money, they were never close to a monopoly. If you'd really like me to go through the book and fnd the actual numbers that prove this to be a total fallacy (# of producers, prices they were selling at, etc.) I'm happy to. I'd recommend reading his entire book though, it's a very interesting. MSFT actually got its own book from him and was a fascinating read.

Why can't roads and bridges be created and maintained by private enterprise? I'm afraid some people believe the government, and not the division of labor, created society. Unions and regulations were not the cause of better working conditions, progress was. As society became very wealthy from being formed into an industrial powerhouse (made possible by freedom, entrepreneurship, and capitalists) a 16 hour workday was no longer needed, the marginal value product of labor was increased by uses of more advanced machinery and equipment.

My point this entire thread towards protectionism is that it will not protect workers anyway. All it will do is induce poor capital allocation towards less efficient producers/industries and thus away from where the market would voluntarily invest it - AKA where it actually should be invested. People paying more for goods, producers not having the highest output of goods/services, etc. all mean less disposable income left over by people in the country. Any job "saved" by propping up their inefficient employer means another job lost because there are more efficient producers/industries suffering at the expense of subsidizing inefficiency.

"Either way, these losers have a vote and I would rather work to provide good jobs for them than sit back and watch them continually empower the government to increase taxes to provide for them as we watch a select few get richer and richer."
They don't want jobs, that's the issue. The net tax consumers are voting for more free shit, not the freedom to make their own choices and succeed in life.

    • 3
Dec 12, 2017
ThrowADart:

Sorry, but Standard Oil just didn't pay their bribe money, they were never close to a monopoly. If you'd really like me to go through the book and fnd the actual numbers that prove this to be a total fallacy (# of producers, prices they were selling at, etc.) I'm happy to. I'd recommend reading his entire book though, it's a very interesting. MSFT actually got its own book from him and was a fascinating read.

Why can't roads and bridges be created and maintained by private enterprise? I'm afraid some people believe the government, and not the division of labor, created society. Unions and regulations were not the cause of better working conditions, progress was. As society became very wealthy from being formed into an industrial powerhouse (made possible by freedom, entrepreneurship, and capitalists) a 16 hour workday was no longer needed, the marginal value product of labor was increased by uses of more advanced machinery and equipment.

My point this entire thread towards protectionism is that it will not protect workers anyway. All it will do is induce poor capital allocation towards less efficient producers/industries and thus away from where the market would voluntarily invest it - AKA where it actually should be invested. People paying more for goods, producers not having the highest output of goods/services, etc. all mean less disposable income left over by people in the country. Any job "saved" by propping up their inefficient employer means another job lost because there are more efficient producers/industries suffering at the expense of subsidizing inefficiency.

"Either way, these losers have a vote and I would rather work to provide good jobs for them than sit back and watch them continually empower the government to increase taxes to provide for them as we watch a select few get richer and richer."They don't want jobs, that's the issue. The net tax consumers are voting for more free shit, not the freedom to make their own choices and succeed in life.

ditto.

When diving into arenas like efficiency, one must address the structural effects of Automation.

First wave adopters will reap the benefits and hire programmers who make this common practice. These programmers will eventually run out of jobs when their programs become more and more intelligent and write themselves by reducing redundant subroutines. Eventually, maybe Machines will create Machines with limited or no human intervention.

Finally, with Automation running full force, all margins will be bleh and then what next... Mars?

Dec 12, 2017
TNA:

I really hope this caustic personality you have is strictly online. Calling people parasites and losers because they don't have good jobs available to them is utterly disgusting.

How about Standard Oil. There is one example. How about Microsoft, there is another. Monopoly reduces choice and allows for higher prices.

Furthermore, you rail against there people not working, yet advocate for unfettered free trade which will simply offshore jobs to nations with cheaper labor and lax regulations.

I am done with this thread. Not because the topic isn't interesting or there isn't a discussion to be had. I just can't engage in a conversation with someone so hyperbolic and insulting. Night.

There's a video where Milton Friedman EXPLICITLY addressed your monopoly concerns with reference to Standard Oil. Unfortunately, I cannot recall which video it was and nor can I find it. However, I did find a user-submitted comment on one of his videos that, if I recall correctly, approximates his argument:

From Standard Oil's inception until the anti-trust suit was filed, fierce competition caused the price of refined products to drop by 80%, and although the company controlled 90% of US oil production in 1880, by 1911 when the company was broken up, that share was only 60%, with 147 competing companies including Gulf, Shell, Texaco and Sun. Some monopoly! Consumers certainly weren't harmed by ever lower prices.

Your argument about Standard Oil is a common falsity perpetuated by socialists (@realjackryan @TNA ).

    • 2
Dec 12, 2017

I am far from a socialist. And yes, the price of oil declined as new technology emerged (driven and created by SO). Hence why I say in SO's instance, monopoly was largely beneficial. But, and there is a but, Rockefeller used unfair practices, price wars, and other tactics to limit competition. And in places with no competition, prices were increased to pay for the low prices in the areas where SO was looking to drive out competition.

Texaco and Gulf came about when oil was found in Texas. Until then it was largely thought that it was only found in abundance in Pennsylvania, where SO controlled everything. Rockefeller also allowed a number of smaller competitors to exist to show that it wasn't a monopoly, which is really was

Dec 12, 2017

No that's not my argument. I have read and believe the Austrian take on Sherman-anti trust. I am on the same side of the issue as you. Early trust busting was just a way for government to pad their pockets and that Standard Oil had done nothing but continually lower prices for their customers.

The Real danger is not free-market monopolies, but government-regulated monopolies. How's your Comcast service working out for ya? Anybody

Besides, I'm in oil M&A. If I could help create an O&G Monopoly I totally would, as long as my team got the fee.

Here you go:

Dec 12, 2017

@ThrowADart Do you feel voting should be weighted against Economic output of the individual, education level, and networth?

You've alluded to controlled decisions in Capital allocation and that's essentially how this "free" market operates at large.

I find it very odd that in one world, when you vote with money, you can have more influence over others based on your total chips on the table and in the vault, but in the 'real' world, everyone has equal chances to vote for whoever they want.

This is what I mean:

Dec 12, 2017

I'd rather have total privatization and no state. If there is a state and elections, I think the more skin in the game someone ahs the more "votes" they should have, just like with shareholders in a corporation. I cannot see any justification whatsoever for people that literally pay nothing in taxes to get to vote.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

Me neither. Then again, this gives those at the very top a lot of control, which they already have financially, over rest of the people, which is something that is already common place.

What weighting the votes does is essentially makes the world of Politics and Dollars into one entity and the Broker, being the Government, goes out of business as they add very little or negative value for the net cost on the system.

Dec 12, 2017

I think it will last 12 months at the latest, the debt cycle will eventually happen and god knows what happens after that

RIP LEHMAN
RIP MONACOMONKEY
RIP THEACCOUNTING MAJOR

Dec 12, 2017

Carl Icahn did well.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

Your typical market cycle is 5-7 up and 1-2 down. We're headed into year 8 up.

Dec 12, 2017

How long do you think it will push into this abnormal category?

Dec 12, 2017

No idea how long. I just recognize where we are on the risk spectrum.

Dec 12, 2017

1929 all over again...

Dec 12, 2017

do you count 2015 as down? S&P was negative before adding back dividends...

I'm torn on this, because yes I agree with TNA, market is pricing in some warranted optimism from Trump, but earnings growth has been anemic, sales growth has been worse, and valuation is not quite bubbly yet, but still nerve racking. I think we have a couple more years of up markets to go before we see 20-30% declines.

in previous expansions, the rate of growth (GDP) was much higher, so from an economic standpoint, one could argue that this one deserves to last for longer. from a market standpoint however, I have my worries. I'm bullish, but more "hold your nose and stick to quality" bullish, than I am excited about everything bullish.

    • 5
Dec 12, 2017

There have been a few points throughout this bull market that I've thought it would be over and obviously that was wrong...especially when credit window was shutting.

Having said so, let's assume someone is TNA Trump supporter level bullish and thinks the market can sustain a 25x multiple and over the next 3 years earnings growth pushes to a lofty 6.3% (20% over that time), that gives you an S&P 500 target of 2832. Let's assume you're really bullish and think a 20x multiple with the same earnings growth is probable. That puts your target at 2265...below current prices.

Meanwhile we keep hitting new all time highs lol.

Dec 12, 2017

Yawn. My support for Trump has nothing to do with recognizing that a Republican controlled Congress and President, whose openly talking about the cutting regulation, cutting corporate taxes, being domestic energy, spending 1T on infrastructure and other growth policies, could very well juicy the economy going forward.

This site is pretty sickening when politics and personal insults need to infect every fucking thread. This isn't a Trump thread. I brought him up because his stated administration policies could fuel further market run up.

Dec 12, 2017

Get a thicker skin. Your market analysis is a lot like your politics--short on details. In the event those policy changes occurred overnight...what multiple and earnings growth would those policies justify over a 3 year horizon?

Dec 12, 2017

My skin is sufficiently thick. I'd prefer to engage in political discussions in threads for that. This is a thread talking about dow 20k and if there is room for more growth.

My thought is that the market has seen previous growth through financial engineering and government spending. This leaves room for additional growth if businesses invest, if consumers spend, if wages increase.

This Republican congress is talking about fixing Obamacare. This would reduce costs to businesses which could be passed along as increased wages or higher profits. The president and Congress seem serious about cutting taxes and regulations. Both would allow money held overseas to be repatriated. This will fuel dividends, stock buy backs or capex.

Personal income taxes have been talked about being reduced at lower income levels. Lower income earners tend to spend additional income, which would fuel consumer spending.

The has also been talk about being pro domestic energy. Coal, pipelines, fracking.

So there is my theory. Would be the same if any standard Republican was in office. I still think there is a chance of a downturn and the only thing that delays this is fundamental fixes to the economy.

And ultimately, fuck off. You critize me for vagueness, yet your comments are broad brushes as well. Didn't realize a response needed to be a thesis everytime.

Dec 12, 2017

It's odd to contribute this to a "pro business" Trump considering there have yet to be any actual plans that someone could point to that would help the economy. He's been all over the place in terms of regulation. From a financial standpoint he's been a mixed bag, saying that he wanted to curb large scale M&A, bring back glass steagall, but get rid of Dodd-Frank (except for capital ratios, because that's never going away). Then he said he will bring down regulations by "75% or more" which is a ludicrous number that has no basis in reality and it's a clear indicator he has nothing specific in mind and hasn't thought through this critically. His strong dollar policies will make imports cheaper, but then the protectionist border taxes/tariffs will off set that and likely end up with net costlier imports. The plan to bring manufacturing home will increase the price of goods, if they actually do get manufactured here, and the retaliatory taxes/tariffs other countries will bring (assuming we bring ours) hurts those local businesses. The only thing you can actually point to that is unilaterally good for businesses and consumers is lower taxes, but most companies are already paying effective tax rates that are extremely low and simply repatriating cash has never shown to be a boom for US economy beyond artificially inflating stock prices (which makes sense in Re: the dow).

So, all in all, it certainly isn't a "pro trump policy rally" unless you don't believe in efficient markets. I would expect some of it has to do with the fact that previously worries about stronger policies from Clinton were priced in. But more than that, and most importantly, earnings have been good, we are in the upswing of a traditional cycle, and the economy has been showing increased growth since middle of last year.

    • 6
    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

https://cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/amp.businessinsider...
https://cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/amp.businessinsider...
https://cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/amp.businessinsider...
https://cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/amp.businessinsider...
The red line denotes Election Day. I have no idea why it's so hard for people to admit that Trump's election improved the economic outlook in the US. It's not even a political statement- these trends could easily reverse once his policies actually come into play.

Spare me the causality/correlation spiel. This isn't a coincidence.

    • 1
    • 1
Dec 12, 2017
PeterMBA2018:

https://cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/amp.businessinsider...https://cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/amp.businessinsider...https://cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/amp.businessinsider...https://cdn.ampproject.org/i/s/amp.businessinsider...

The red line denotes Election Day. I have no idea why it's so hard for people to admit that Trump's election improved the economic outlook in the US. It's not even a political statement- these trends could easily reverse once his policies actually come into play.

Spare me the causality/correlation spiel. This isn't a coincidence.

I don't think you fully read what I said. There is a difference between "trump has good pro business policies" and "We now no longer have to worry about stricter regulations under Clinton that were previously priced in". He doesn't have coherent policies that would help businesses, so the rally was likely the latter and then macro economic trends are going to carry that.

    • 2
    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

The mental gymnastics that otherwise normal people engage in when it comes to politics shocks me.

So you are saying that the anticipation of Clinton's anti-business policies were already priced into the market, which held it artificially low. Once Trump won the election, the market didn't have to worry about anti-business policies anymore, despite Trump "not having policies that would help businesses", and the market rallied.

A rational interpretation of this would be that Trump's policies are expected to be more pro-business than Clinton's, or even Obama's.

Most people are ok with calling this a Trump rally as a result, the reasoning being that if Trump hadn't won this wouldn't be happening (you even admit yourself that the markets would be reacting different if Clinton had won).

This is why I like business - it cuts through the political rhetoric.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

lol, right? Like Trump has talked about cutting corporate taxes, repealing Obamacare, cutting regulations and spending on infrastructure. If that isn't enough for people to think profits could go up, I don't know what is.

Whether it happens is another story, but the business community has seemed pretty pleased with the economic aspect of Trump. Time will tell if this holds out.

Dec 12, 2017

I think Trump wants regulate wall street (the big banks especially) but for pretty much every other industry he will cut regulation and red tape

RIP LEHMAN
RIP MONACOMONKEY
RIP THEACCOUNTING MAJOR

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

Even banking has seen a lift because of his talk about rolling back some Dodd Frank regulation which has hurt smaller/MM banks. Hopefully it all gets done.

Dec 12, 2017

Dodd Frank is a beast! Get it outta there!

Dec 12, 2017

This market is totally bullshit. Money is paper at 27 times earnings. But, there's so much head room. Margins are at 15.4%, corporate profit growth is at 6.3% so far, the highest in this decade, and the Fed confirms higher inflation expectations, predicting a FFR at 1.5% at the end of this year, which is way lower than the long-term rate. Lofty optimism would have most likely continued. But it's shit like this recent Muslim ban that will have a negative impact on outlook. Risk and uncertainty is Trump's game so far, so I bet the market isn't going to like this news and it could be the first to trigger the reality that we're in for a potential clown show with this administration.

    • 2
Dec 12, 2017

Where do you think it should be?

When do you think it will start to correct?

Dec 12, 2017

Year end probably still higher. Most BB's expect market to sustain current levels until end of Q2-Q3. Should be some good buying opportunities.

Dec 12, 2017

Wow this thread delivers. Would one of you gents mind giving me some insight into the evolution of the market economy in the Southern colonies?

My contention is that prior to the Revolutionary War, the economic modalities, especially in the Southern colonies could most aptly be characterized as agrarian, pre-capitalist.

    • 2
Dec 12, 2017

Have to say that I agree with @TNA comments on capitalism, competition, monopolies. By law, competition ought to lead to monopoly, otherwise it's not competition. The thing about capitalism is that it's nice on paper or as an ideological principle but reality is a completely different beast. Once you get into the nitty gritty details of every day life in a capitalist world, the picture is no where near what academic papers and media describe. Unless of course you suffer from cynicism or enjoy turning a blind eye. So what @ThrowADart says, much like every other academic out there, they all have a common denominator; an (intended?) absentiism of what happens in every day reality and instead they are just self-secluded in their own theories and ivory towers. They present you with numbers that we ought to take as gospel or, well, scientific yet they are subjective/political since inception. Same thing happened with election/poll results, nice numbers (low unemployment, some growth, recovery etc) yet you end up with people longing for Trump, Brexit etc. Why?

Get real.

Colourful TV, colourless Life.

    • 1
Learn More

Side-by-side comparison of top modeling training courses + exclusive discount through WSO here.

Dec 9, 2017

This thread gave me AIDS

Dec 12, 2017

I think stocks continue to rise until we see something happen to change the momentum. I would keep an eye on interest rates for signs the stock move is ending.

Dec 12, 2017

Bernanke is a student of the Great Depression. When unemployment started easing in 1937 and interest rates went up, the economy spiraled back into another recession.

Don't expect Bernanke to raise rates this year. There are no looming asset bubbles and deflation is more concerning than inflation at this point.

I would agree though that things are looking rather expensive. Banks still trading on book value rather than earnings multiples. However, it is very difficult to get someone to bet against the trend right now...

Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.

Dec 12, 2017

.....

Dec 12, 2017

I don't think it's sustainable but so far I'm making a killing. Will probably pull out by June.

Dec 12, 2017

what's the deal with this prophet? pretty interesting...

Dec 12, 2017
Dec 12, 2017

no

Dec 12, 2017
overclass:

I don't know whether this is a scam or not

Wow, you're fucking dumb.

Dec 12, 2017

agree with bonkers...change in fed language/rates will be key. we saw a correction earlier this year when pboc began tightening, would think that when fed takes out "exceptionally low for extended period" will mark sell off as good economic news will turn to bad news for markets. that being said, would view sell off as buying opportunity...longer term trends of deleveraging/high debt to gdp/sovereign risk will play out over much longer period. at least for next 2yrs or so, with earnings growth expected to be off the charts and multiples at reasonable levels and retail investors largely not participating, i think we can be at 1400 by end of 2012....but just a hunch...

Dec 12, 2017

Don't need voices from God to know that a market rally of this magnitude built on absolutely anemic volume is destined to crash and burn.

This pessimist is right here where I've always been. I'm a buyer at Dow 5,000.

Dec 12, 2017

for my 2 sec analysis, i predict higher move before a correction later this year to about 10000

Dec 12, 2017

here's a thing about that prophet guy. it looks like we're all going to die within the next 20 years:

http://farectification.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/ju...

Dec 12, 2017

Forward PE ratio for stocks is estimated at 15, the market is not over valued by this measure. Earnings estimates will have to miss by a mile to cause a correction. There is no data that I can point to that says that it will, unless you want to speculate on Black Swans.

Dec 12, 2017

I think that consumer confidence is strong. Soon people will buy with credit, which will lead to better rises but a possible crash due to debt and etc. So it depends on governments actions, new tariffs or etc, but I predict is will sustain till government interference or consumer debt. (When government interference i mean such as Banks, GM, and possible medical areas getting affected. )

Dec 12, 2017

Consumer confidence is a bogus metric. It rarely is indicative of meaningful drivers in the market. Been watching it for years and find it absurd.

Dec 12, 2017

In terms of the corporate earnings that have actually been accrued, we are talking about a $57 (U.S.) trailing four-quarter trend in S&P 500 operating earnings per share (EPS).

The last time the S&P 500 was rallying towards the 1,200 level in late 2004, the trend in EPS was $68, or 20 per cent higher than it is today, and back then, we had solid and sustained employment growth, low and falling unemployment rates and high and rising capacity utilization rates.

Not to mention that credit was abundant and available to everyone at an extremely low cost, housing and commercial real estate were rising to new heights, and household balance sheets and wealth were hitting new all-time highs.

Market overvalued by 20 - 30%. Correction should come, tough to time - I would say after 2nd quarter of this year.

Dec 12, 2017

I don't think they are over valued and have potential to go higher

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

Inflation, speculation, stock manufacturing for now .... Interest hike coming up, hedge funds making big shorts = market correction.

And the whole prophet bull... come on now! Let me guess, is this the same man that told John Paulson to bet against the economy to make close to $4billion in 1 year right?
Not only that, he is also shorting stock on his e*trade account...

Dec 12, 2017

There's awhile for this thing to run. The bears will have their day...but as usual people who actually know how to trade will play on the momentum

Dec 12, 2017

If this Prophet was for real he'd have been snapped up as an Equity Research Analyst years ago! :p

Dec 12, 2017
Geraint Anderson:

If this Prophet was for real he'd have been snapped up as an Equity Research Analyst years ago! :p

Yeah that's true. In fact, if some people really can do that I'm surprised they wouldn't capitalize on it. Although have you heard of Edgar Cayce? He was a documented prophet, but people started taking advantage of him (i.e. getting stock tips) and I guess he couldn't physically withstand it after a while, so he had to go back to helping people heal illnesses/problems first and foremost

Dec 12, 2017

Someone bumped this thread and I'm glad they did. Most people said to sell when the S&P was at 1200. The market has a similar P/E ratio and much better fundamentals and people are still saying 'sell' today. Needless to say, the market is substantially higher now than when this post was first written.

Buy you fucking pussies.

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

we are still unsure....kinda like the existence of Teo's gf

We can't rely on anyone these days, we just have to do things ourselves don't we?

Dec 12, 2017

There doesn't seem to be anything in our current economic situation to justify this bull market. Consumers are still de-leveraging, we're still setting new poverty records and our GDP growth is languishing at around 1%

But low interest rates, tech investments, cost cutting, QE, outsourcing, etc are helping corporations see record profits in this environment. Banks have tightened up underwriting and are having a blast buying treasuries and making the easiest money they've ever made. Given how cash rich big companies are are these days I'd consider this the real deal w/ a caveat that it's predicated upon the strength of our bondholder confidence

Dec 12, 2017

The S&P index is based off of the total EPS for the index. The S&P is not a good gauge of the U.S. economy. 50% of the revenue for S&P companies is outside the U.S. Not to mention, companies have become more efficient and have held down cost especially on interest expenses due to low rates.

Dec 12, 2017

These are systemic changes along the same order of magnitude of when the dollar was originally decoupled from an official gold standard and gold prices began to flutuate in ways that the previous framework did not have the capacity to explain. I'm not an economist and don't posess the vocabulary to express what I see, so I'm working on it. In the big picture, the market and companies in general are slowly recovering to more sustainable models while the overaching financial system is building an upgrade out of existing infrastructure. Economists heads' were exploding when FDR decided to allow gold prices to change, and they freaked out again when Nixon finalized the process.

It's a paradigm shift

    • 1
Dec 12, 2017

The sea of liquidity the fed is pumping out on a daily basis has to be put somewhere

Dec 12, 2017
Amphipathic:

The sea of liquidity the fed is pumping out on a daily basis has to be put somewhere

Yes. My guess is that the government was hoping this money would be invested in the form of loans to small companies and/or expansion of operations with the self fulfilling anticipation of a generally improving economy. In reality, they are pumping this money into the institutional side of things, so returns are being chased in the market: just as the entire housing market was juiced from 1995 to 2006, this time it's the entire economy. Is it a bubble? maybe. But I think there's too much overall change and too much at stake, so instead we see a realignment of the entire global economy. If some small country inflates a bit, they're the only ones that suffer. If the largest and most powerful country inflates a bit....everyone else suffers.

Unfair perhaps, but that's what I see happening.

Dec 12, 2017
UFOinsider:
Amphipathic:

The sea of liquidity the fed is pumping out on a daily basis has to be put somewhere

Yes. My guess is that the government was hoping this money would be invested in the form of loans to small companies and/or expansion of operations with the self fulfilling anticipation of a generally improving economy. In reality, they are pumping this money into the institutional side of things, so returns are being chased in the market: just as the entire housing market was juiced from 1995 to 2006, this time it's the entire economy. Is it a bubble? maybe. But I think there's too much overall change and too much at stake, so instead we see a realignment of the entire global economy. If some small country inflates a bit, they're the only ones that suffer. If the largest and most powerful country inflates a bit....everyone else suffers.

Unfair perhaps, but that's what I see happening.

Ah, I'd love to see some study on how much of that gov't money ends up at the those intended destinations you mention.

Dec 12, 2017
Amphipathic:
UFOinsider:
Amphipathic:

The sea of liquidity the fed is pumping out on a daily basis has to be put somewhere

Yes. My guess is that the government was hoping this money would be invested in the form of loans to small companies and/or expansion of operations with the self fulfilling anticipation of a generally improving economy. In reality, they are pumping this money into the institutional side of things, so returns are being chased in the market: just as the entire housing market was juiced from 1995 to 2006, this time it's the entire economy. Is it a bubble? maybe. But I think there's too much overall change and too much at stake, so instead we see a realignment of the entire global economy. If some small country inflates a bit, they're the only ones that suffer. If the largest and most powerful country inflates a bit....everyone else suffers.

Unfair perhaps, but that's what I see happening.

Ah, I'd love to see some study on how much of that gov't money ends up at the those intended destinations you mention.

Sarcasm aside (and I totally feel you on this) personally, I'd hire a consulting firm to assist with identifying capital targets and then give directly. If the gov't was trying to stimulate the economy, why send money to banks to send to people/companies? Why not just do a direct deployment? Either they are hoping this will stimulate the economy, in which case there could likely be a totally devesating blowout ...OR... they're literally changing the liquidity of the entire financial system while businesses adopt more long term viable progams of their own.

I sincerely hope this is the case because otherwise the gloom and doom survivalists are going to have a veritable field day

Dec 12, 2017
UFOinsider:
Amphipathic:
UFOinsider:
Amphipathic:

The sea of liquidity the fed is pumping out on a daily basis has to be put somewhere

Yes. My guess is that the government was hoping this money would be invested in the form of loans to small companies and/or expansion of operations with the self fulfilling anticipation of a generally improving economy. In reality, they are pumping this money into the institutional side of things, so returns are being chased in the market: just as the entire housing market was juiced from 1995 to 2006, this time it's the entire economy. Is it a bubble? maybe. But I think there's too much overall change and too much at stake, so instead we see a realignment of the entire global economy. If some small country inflates a bit, they're the only ones that suffer. If the largest and most powerful country inflates a bit....everyone else suffers.

Unfair perhaps, but that's what I see happening.

Ah, I'd love to see some study on how much of that gov't money ends up at the those intended destinations you mention.

Sarcasm aside (and I totally feel you on this) personally, I'd hire a consulting firm to assist with identifying capital targets and then give directly. If the gov't was trying to stimulate the economy, why send money to banks to send to people/companies? Why not just do a direct deployment? Either they are hoping this will stimulate the economy, in which case there could likely be a totally devesating blowout ...OR... they're literally changing the liquidity of the entire financial system while businesses adopt more long term viable progams of their own.

I sincerely hope this is the case because otherwise the gloom and doom survivalists are going to have a veritable field day

Well I think after getting their hands burnt with solyndra et al. that won't be happening anytime soon. Would be hilarious though if gov't gave a firm headed by Romney tons of money to invest.

Dec 12, 2017
Dec 12, 2017
Dec 12, 2017
Dec 12, 2017

We can't rely on anyone these days, we just have to do things ourselves don't we?

Dec 12, 2017
Dec 12, 2017
    • 1
Dec 12, 2017