Down goes the Dow

pinning down a detail wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Please ignore the imposter above. As to your questions, "the end" refers to a local max/min in the context of the discussion. And with regards as to how far I can see, the answer is no further than anyone else given the obvious parameters if the market. In other words, infinitely past, but not forward.

Someone would really have to work to be more unclear than you.

I'm not familiar with "anyone else", so again - how far ahead can you see?

I'm sorry about your disability.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

pinning down a detail wrote:

Someone would really have to work to be more unclear than you.

I'm not familiar with "anyone else", so again - how far ahead can you see?

I'm sorry about your disability.

Not as sorry as the entire world is about yours.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

pinning down a detail wrote:

Someone would really have to work to be more unclear than you.

I'm not familiar with "anyone else", so again - how far ahead can you see?

I'm sorry about your disability.

I'm sorry about your inability to answer a question.

No answer?

Suckers are greased and ready for the next fleecing

pinning down a detail wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

I'm sorry about your disability.

I'm sorry about your inability to answer a question.

No answer?

I've answered it already. Sorry you don't understand simple ENGLISH, Dipshit!!!!!!!

I sort of agree with this. I think particular sectors are way over-valued, but that in response everything will come down in price, and that therefore there will be some genuinely good buying opportunities--i.e. I think some things will get caught up in the downward momentum and get dragged down past a "correction" valuation.

Tech suckers should get fleeced, as they have been in the past. Tech suckers are the kinds of people I was talking about earlier, for whom tech stocks are purchased as a sort of luxury good, a vanity purchase.

However, they're so ignorant, and optimistic, that they might be likely to see a minor drop of say up to 10 percent, as a major buying opportunity, and thereby continue to buoy the market. Hope springs eternal, and there are a lot of young people involved in trading and asset management (for better or worse).

I have no idea what Monday will bring, but whatever it does bring will, I think, set the tone for the rest of the month, or into summer.

Nothing wrong with that.

More meaningless jibberish. Why does that not surprise me?

POTO you seem to have a real chip.

Meaning? It was an expression of my feelings, that was the meaning.

Summary:

1. tech and some other stocks are owned for other than financial purposes

2. tech as a sector, with IPO's, can drive the market

3. not everything is overvalued

4. even those things that are not overvalued will drop in price

5. traders and asset managers that I know are optimistic about the markets in general, and about what they see as "fundamentals"

6. the price drop in things that are not currently overvalued might not be any more than 10 or 15, or at the most 20, percent

7. that 10% price drop will still represent a good buying opportunity for those things not currently overvalued

Again, the "meaning" is an expression of my feelings.

Also, I still think there will be a much larger drop in the not-too-distant future. This 10-15% I see as coming before the end of 2014. We are already part-way there, as measured from 2014 highs. As measured from Jan 1, the slide has only just begun.

Maserati, I realize you're somewhat new to this thread, so you should know anyone posting as "Pointing Out the Obvious" is a troll who usurped the handle after I had been using it to contribute constructively to the thread. The first several posts in the thread with that handle were me, but then the troll tried to take advantage of my credibility, so I abandoned that name in favor of this registered one. As you can see, he even replies to his own posts. My advice: don't feed the troll.

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

pinning down a detail wrote:

I'm sorry about your inability to answer a question.

No answer?

I've answered it already. Sorry you don't understand simple ENGLISH, Dipshit!!!!!!!

No need for name calling.

Does "infinitely past, but not forward." mean "not infinitely forward", or "not forward at all"?

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Oh, and by the way, it does not take EFFORT to put it in the bank.

Putting money in the bank is negative investing. Inflation eats away ALL and then some of any return you might get on your money in a simple bank account, and it is RIPE for spending when just sitting there in such a liquid account.

Investments need to be separate and require some effort to get to to spend.

Flagpole wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Oh, and by the way, it does not take EFFORT to put it in the bank.

Putting money in the bank is negative investing. Inflation eats away ALL and then some of any return you might get on your money in a simple bank account, and it is RIPE for spending when just sitting there in such a liquid account.

Investments need to be separate and require some effort to get to to spend.

Good god you are dense!

Nobody claimed putting money in a savings account or money market fund is a great investment. You made the patently idiotic claim that those who pulled their money out of the market in order to attempt to reinvest it at a more opportune time also stopped saving their regular percentage from their paycheck while they stayed out of the stock market.

When challenged to back up that claim you offered ZIP.

That is, you were wrong and were caught in a lie.

When this was pointed out you made the incredibly lame statement that investing in something else (like real estate for example) takes EFFORT and therefore people would cease saving new money altogether.

It was correctly pointed out to you that keeping one's money out of the market for a period of time and failing to continue saving are 100% independent and uncorrelated actions.

That is, you were wrong.

Now you add this absurdity about "Investments need to be separate and require some effort to get to to spend." This from someone who advocates (reasonably enough) that equity mutual funds in Fidelity and Vanguard are great places to invest. Guess what? I have my investments in Vanguard. And I could call them up tomorrow and have them redeem whatever shares are necessary to send me a check for $100,000 just because. Yeah, that is a heck of an effort required to get to these funds to spend it!

That is, you are wrong again.

Is that what you do for a living? Just pile one idiotic statement on top of another? Seriously, you truly do make K5 look like a genius by comparison.

you know that the point of this thread is not to find opportunities to flame people, right?

Thanks, usually I don't respond to those things. I'll stay away from the troll.

Meantime, European markets flat this Monday.

Maserati wrote:

Thanks, usually I don't respond to those things. I'll stay away from the troll.

Meantime, European markets flat this Monday.

yeh - this selloff has been primarily an american phenomenon. Which is bullish, I think - just another example of fast money groupthink and program trading.

Down from highs:

USA: -4.7% (VTI)

World ex USA: -2.3% (VEU)

You still do not understand. Let me try to spell it out for you again (I have provided additional information tohelp you)...please read carefully and TRY to understand this.

1) Studies show that when people do not AUTOMATICALLY have money from their income put into investment accounts, they typically SPEND that money. They neither invest that money into something else nor do they "save" it in a savings or checking account. So, when someone tells you that they have stopped investing in the stock market, it is a good bet that they are NOT saving or investing that extra money. Certainly some will, but the vast majority do not. Logic should tell you this anyway as we're already starting with a population of people where the vast majority are horrible at managing their money. The subset of people who have invested at all is LIKELY a bit more money savvy than the average, but ceasing to invest for the future shows one of two things: A) A need for more cash flow right now, so they are likely to not then invest or save elsewhere, or B) Just flat out a really bad idea, and those who make bad decisions with money aren't likely to do the right thing and invest or save elsewhere; again, studies say they don't.

2) Your Vanguard example STILL requires effort. You have to contact them and then typically wait, and then come tax time, you have to deal with the ramifications...filling out additional forms, etc. I didn't say it was GREAT effort. That little bit of effort though is necessary for the vast majority of people, or they will spend that money that they aren't automatically investing.

3) You keep wanting me to provide a link to every assertion I make. I gain knowledge on investing and the habits of people in ways other than reading things on the internet. There are things called newspapers and magazines that have been around a long time, and while I don't read much of those anymore, they used to be a big source of info for me as I'm old enough to remember pre-internet days. Also, financial news shows have experts on all the time that talk about all kinds of things that I can't give you a link to.

4) This point here is just hoping that your day gets a little better. Seriously.

Yeah, I don't sense a big selloff coming today in the US.

But then again, my sense isn't based on anything tangible.

lol, DOW up 90 points minutes after the bell.

I'm telling you, the market has a life of its own. Traders are in too deep, and all believe that the fundamentals look good.

Some must be making some pretty good money on these swings.