Down goes the Dow

Say wha? wrote:

Igy, what do you mean by quoting my post then saying "when someone gives me some more crap"? I wasn't giving anyone any crap. Hell I wasn't even replying to you, unless you are "F the detector" guy.

"F" guy is K5.

K5 is Figy.

Therefore "F" guy is Figy.

So, yes, you were replying to Figy/K5/"F"/etc.

For Chrissakes V wrote:

Stating what's obvious wrote:

It didn't take long to recover most of Friday's losses. Life is good!

Better yet for those of us who were out before Friday and went back in today.

I'm calling bullshit. Claiming you made money after the fact is weak.

New Hollywood hit, Miss Sliggy Goes to Wall Street. Uses algorithmic trading to lose money and chase hot stock tips. Character has sympathetic overtones but lacks moral clarity.

Igy

Do you have any idea how offensive that term is? I'm guessing you'll claim the same weak excuses you used on other posts and threads when you were called out for being insensitive.

Sally,

Quit calling me Figgy and saying I am a troll when you know otherwise.

Igy

Econ 101 wrote:

You don't get it. There's no need for any "portfolio management mistakes". I understand that your business relies on timing the market, but experience shows us that there is a better way. I suspect that you know that, but are unwilling to admit the truth because of your employment situation. I get that.

Regarding any future drops, I continue to maintain that this time is not different. There will be drops and there will be recoveries. You can continue to believe it is different this time, but you do so at your own peril. Or should I say, you do so at your clients' peril.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Sally,

Quit calling me Figgy and saying I am a troll when you know otherwise.

Igy

You've proven yourself to be deserving of much worse. Not just here, but on other threads too. You are a disgusting human being.

And of course it is OK for you to infer and to make up stuff about me and others Miss Sliggy.

Say wha? wrote:

The hucksters are the ones who would have me trying to time the market. The smart money stays put.

Sally V wrote:

For Chrissakes V wrote:

Better yet for those of us who were out before Friday and went back in today.

I'm calling bullshit. Claiming you made money after the fact is weak.

I agree and generally leave that to you guys.

You can choose not to believe it if you wish but it's true.

Made money getting in after Brexit and then getting out.

Made money so far after getting in after the Friday meltdown.

It's really not that hard to do the obvious and make a few bucks.

Dow industrials futures on Tuesday traded more than 100 points lower, a day after a Wall Street rally that helped to erase a portion of stocks sizable losses racked up at the end of last week amid mounting anxiety about an interest-rate hike.

A drop in oil prices further hampered sentiment after the International Energy Agency warned of slowing growth in demand.

Futures for the Dow Jones Industrial Average slumped 108 points, or 0.6%, to 18,139, while those for the S&P 500 index lost 14.15 points, or 0.7%, to 2,137.15. Futures for the Nasdaq-100 index lost 30.50 points, or 0.6%, to 4,733.25.

U.S. stocks closed near intraday highs on Monday after comments from Federal Reserve Gov. Lael Brainard calmed market fears that the central bank will raise interest rates soon. The S&P 500 index rallied 1.5%, while the Dow average jumped 1.3%.

Brainard said the Fed should be cautious in tightening policy to avoid getting trapped in a low-growth, low-inflation environment.

Hawkish comments from Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren last week spurred expectations for a move by Fed policy makers at their Sept. 20-21 meeting. However, after Brainard's remarks, the probability of a rate hike next week fell to 15% from around 24%, according to the CME FedWatch Tool.

The conflicting messages have left traders struggling to assess just where the Fed stands.

"With a number of dissenting voices...the future is still unclear, and it remains to be seen if investors have the desire to push markets higher amid the backdrop of political and economic uncertainty," said Andy McLevey, head of dealing at stockbroker Interactive Investor, in a note.

"With the volatility of late set to continue, this may throw up trading opportunities at stock level for the shrewd investor," he added.

agip wrote:

holy cow, alarum! hussman says risk of recession is "imminent likelihood!"

oh wait, that was in January 2016. at ease, gentlemen.

http://www.hussmanfunds.com/wmc/wmc160118.htm

////

.

Agip, plus ça change!!!

1/12/1995 The publisher of the Hussman Econometrics newsletter shed his bull outfit in late 1993 and now forecasts the bear market will "become particularly severe" by summer. He bases that on history: Bear markets tend to occur every four to five years, knocking down prices by 20 to 30 percent off their highs. He expects the Dow to fall below 3,000 by early 1996. ( Up over 30% a year later )

3/20/1995 With stock prices continuing to soar, let's check in with John Hussman of Hussman Econometrics, who turned bearish last year after several prosperous years as a bull.

He continues to expect the Dow to sink to 3,000 by early 1996. Among the culprits: the falling dollar and rising inflation.

Except for the weakest period -- 1965 -- all the years whose digits have ended in the number five have been banner years for stocks. But remember, those years began with unusually high dividend yields, averaging 4.7 percent. That's a far cry from the recent 2.75 percent yield on the S&P 500.

At that level, Hussman says stocks are no bargain. But then stock market bears have been saying that for about two years, during which the market has gained 9 percent.

9/12/1995 The publisher of Hussman Econometrics newsletter says that he expects a "sharp" initial bear market decline within the next 12 weeks.

Citing statistics he notes that there have only been five times during this century in which the market's total value relative to gross domestic value exceeded 75 percent. On each occasion the dividend yield of the S&P 500 was 3 percent or less, and stocks wound up underperforming Treasury bills for as long as 10 to 20 years. ( 10 year CAGR: VFINX was 10.03%; CASH was 3.76%. 20 year CAGR: VFINX was 8.90%; CASH was 2.50% )

That was a very poor choice of words to use. You seem to have that problem.

Say wha? wrote:

The hucksters are the ones who would have me trying to time the market. The smart money stays put.

Yep. Even when the market is in free fall, the smart play is always to stay put. Makes sense.

"As I’ve often emphasized, one of the most important questions to ask about any indicator is: how strongly is this measure related to actual subsequent market returns? Investors could save themselves a great deal of confusion by asking that question. Hardly a week goes by that we don’t receive a note asking, for example, that “so-and-so says that earnings are going to strengthen in the second half - doesn’t that make stocks a buy?” Well, it might, if year-over-year earnings growth had any correlation at all with year-over-year market returns (it doesn’t), or if there was evidence that earnings tend to strengthen in an environment where unit labor costs are rising faster than the GDP deflator (they don’t). That’s not to say that we can be certain that earnings or stock prices won’t bounce, but we can already conclude that so-and-so hasn’t convincingly made their case. When investors ignore the correlation between indicators and outcomes, they make themselves the victims of anyone with an opinion."

John Hussman, Weekly Commentary 9/12/2016

Not in my book, a perfect choice.

"If a person can be too smart for his own good, as the aphorism goes, portfolio manager John Hussman may be feeling the agony of high intelligence right about now....Hussman’s persistently poor performance is an object lesson in the futility of trying to outsmart the market, a temptation to which some very smart people succumb either through security selection or market timing."

From "Hussman's Returns, Like His Forecasts, Are Dismal"

Research Magazine

Gil,You are no longer with Research Magazine. That article is several years old. Here is an update if you missed it.http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/hstrx/quote.htmlGo back into retirement or do some new research.Igy

Gil Weinreich wrote:

"If a person can be too smart for his own good, as the aphorism goes, portfolio manager John Hussman may be feeling the agony of high intelligence right about now....Hussman’s persistently poor performance is an object lesson in the futility of trying to outsmart the market, a temptation to which some very smart people succumb either through security selection or market timing."

From "Hussman's Returns, Like His Forecasts, Are Dismal"

Research Magazine

If you wish to tout Hussman for managing a fund that is lower than it was 5 years ago, go for it. I'd rather stick with a winner.