Another day, another 'soft' data point disappointments and heads towards it 'hard' data reality. This time is the turn of the Philly Fed survey, which missed expectations and dropped to 19.5 - its lowest since Nov 2016.
Remember Philly Fed hit a 33 year high in February - what does it say about these surveys that it is now languising back at 9 month lows?
mellon wrote:
MS insider wrote:He's lying. Don't believe a word he says. Trust me.
Just like him claiming he is not the OP.
Changing handles (and he has done it a lot) doesn't fool anyone.
Sour lemons when he is wrong.
another round of all time highs
yawn
but seriously, remember these times of daily new highs...at some point the market will be mired 15% below its old highs and grinding away at nothing, day after day. We will be waiting and waiting for days like these to return.
Life is good!
another round of all time highs
yawn
but seriously, remember these times of daily new highs...at some point the market will be mired 60% below its old highs shocking everyone, day after day. We will be waiting and waiting for days like these to return
revisionist realist wrote:
We will be waiting and waiting for days like these to return
You have already waited too long. 5 years, or probably more.
At this point, you're best to take your losses and continue to sit out.
You'll be able to lick your wounds, realize your mistakes, an maybe reap the benefits of the next rise. Hopefully, you will be wiser the next time.
But, probably not!
No. I was never out of the market. You are a true believer in the cult of equity. You will ride the market down, each time thinking it will bounce back. There will be no wounds to lick, it will be an amputation.
revisionist realist wrote:
another round of all time highs
yawn
but seriously, remember these times of daily new highs...at some point the market will be mired 60% below its old highs shocking everyone, day after day. We will be waiting and waiting for days like these to return
And they will return...they always do...bigger and better than ever.
Just like the NASDAQ still below the inflation adjusted high of March 2000.
Still setting new highs.
17 1/2 year inflation adjusted return -.39%
17 1/2 huh?
ðŸ’
So anyone who bought 17.5 years ago and is still holding has essentially broken even when inflation is accounted for. That's better than most bonds! And anyone who's bought since then is ahead of the game. This is good news. Thanks!
Let's see the math.
Do the math wrote:
So anyone who bought 17.5 years ago and is still holding has essentially broken even when inflation is accounted for. That's better than most bonds! And anyone who's bought since then is ahead of the game. This is good news. Thanks!
Still waiting for your proof. I think you are not even close to being correct.
It's quite telling that Igy chooses to use a fake name to post this nonsense. Even he knows it's a crock.
Do your own research and you will see its true Trews. The Barclays Aggregate Bond Index would easily outperform the NASDAQ Commposite since March 2000.
But you can't handle the truth.
It challenges the Religion.
How about since March 2001? Or 2002? 2003?
You get the picture. Anyone can cherry pick a date to make the data fit their narrative. The glaring fault in your argument is that you have to go back over 17 years to find such a data point.
Trews wrote:
How about since March 2001? Or 2002? 2003?
You get the picture. Anyone can cherry pick a date to make the data fit their narrative. The glaring fault in your argument is that you have to go back over 17 years to find such a data point.
Wow. You think? Please help in this area b/c I'm not having any luck. I'm assuming you're talking about the "dating" scene, you know like the Fitness Singles site?..🙄
Trews wrote:
How about since March 2001? Or 2002? 2003?
You get the picture. Anyone can cherry pick a date to make the data fit their narrative. The glaring fault in your argument is that you have to go back over 17 years to find such a data point.
No. It is market top to market top. Much more valid than a low to a top. Or using 100 years of data to predict the future from here. But of course that is inconvenient to your argument.