mellon wrote:
montrose slim wrote:You sound like that other guy.
I sound like many other people posting here.
Only one is still touting of making an accurate statement years ago that the Dow is going down. Now he's trying to convince people that if they wait until it drops, they will be so stupid that they will feel compelled to get out then.
He feels he is the only smart investor which, as of today, has proved to be dead wrong.
Delusional narrative.
Frederick de Graff wrote:
and your handle...nothing else needs to be said.....
idiot investor wrote:More good news. No wonder the markets are setting record highs.
I'm smart enough to know that increased disposable income is a good thing for the economy.
yet stupid enough to not realize the effects of excessive debt....
idiot investor wrote:
Frederick de Graff wrote:and your handle...nothing else needs to be said.....
I'm smart enough to know that increased disposable income is a good thing for the economy.
Required reading:
http://www.bis.org/publ/othp16.pdfFrederick de Graff wrote:
and your handle...nothing else needs to be said.....
idiot investor wrote:More good news. No wonder the markets are setting record highs.
Learn the difference between stocks and flows.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/HNOLFAQ027Shttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=eLRrhttps://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=eLRuLearn the difference between organic growth versus stock buy backs and excessive rising long term debt
http://corporate.mcdonalds.com/content/dam/AboutMcDonalds/Investors/2016%20Annual%20Report.pdf
Frederick de Graff wrote:
yet stupid enough to not realize the effects of excessive debt....
According to your graph, the debt levels have mirrored the disposable income levels for a long time. Are you suggesting that it's different this time?
Earnie(ings) Fact Checker wrote:
Reality checker wrote:You are entitled to your own prediction. I believe the numbers will be closer to what Howard Silverblatt has reported.
More telling is the fact that the same Howard Silverblatt reduced the year end 2017 EPS from $135.95 on 3/31/2016 to $127.14 on 8/10/2017. Furthermore, the Forward Earnings are always a GAAP Number.
So back to work Mr. Reality Checker, because your reality is more than a little biased. Even a financial neophyte would have a hard time explaining the math of $26.99 going to $33 a share over the next year at this stage of the business cycle. Ain't going to happen. BS to convince Muppets like you that the market is cheap. Yet you foolishly ignore the 23.44 PE the market is trading at.
Really funny and typical of the DGTD posters.
Silverblatt always gives Operating and Reported Earnings. $139.95 and $127.14 are operating earnings estimates. This from 6/6/2016;
"Wall Street still projecting 2016 year end earnings of $114.72 non-GAAP and $106.00 GAAP. The 2017 numbers are equally out-of-this-world-ish at $134.47 and $125.21 respectively. S&P 500 companies would have to average record quarterly earnings to accomplish the feat."
Igy
la gente está muy loca wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:Muy Loca,
SunEd would not be one of my picks. Looks like a ship ready to hit the rocks.
igy
Which ship ???? SUNE; HSGFX; or both. Neither would be one of my pics' as well as MCD. ( # Old enough to remember Boston Market )
I am merely suggesting excessive debt is a hindrance to growth. It does not matter if consumers can currently service debt, the growth in debt will slow as consumers no longer can add or service debt. You are already seeing this in the auto sector and retail. More:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-debt-idUSKCN1AV1PY
la gente ésta muy loca wrote:
la gente está muy loca wrote:Which ship ???? SUNE; HSGFX; or both. Neither would be one of my pics' as well as MCD. ( # Old enough to remember Boston Market )
That was from 11/16/2015.
Unfortunately MCD is just one of the worst examples to this business cycle:
Frederick de Gaff wrote:
I am merely suggesting excessive debt is a hindrance to growth. It does not matter if consumers can currently service debt, the growth in debt will slow as consumers no longer can add or service debt. You are already seeing this in the auto sector and retail. More:
Of course it matters that consumers can service their debt. There is nothing more important in the debt discussion. I mean, that's basic economics. How do you not know that?
idiot investor wrote:
Frederick de Gaff wrote:I am merely suggesting excessive debt is a hindrance to growth. It does not matter if consumers can currently service debt, the growth in debt will slow as consumers no longer can add or service debt. You are already seeing this in the auto sector and retail. More:
Of course it matters that consumers can service their debt. There is nothing more important in the debt discussion. I mean, that's basic economics. How do you not know that?
A point you appeared to miss in your initial post.
Here is another annual report worth a look, this time for NFLX. Investors cheering the growth in membership and rising EPS but conveniently ignore the rising debt.
Not at all. I was painting the complete picture, unlike you.
la gente ésta muy loca wrote:
Earnie(ings) Fact Checker wrote:More telling is the fact that the same Howard Silverblatt reduced the year end 2017 EPS from $135.95 on 3/31/2016 to $127.14 on 8/10/2017. Furthermore, the Forward Earnings are always a GAAP Number.
So back to work Mr. Reality Checker, because your reality is more than a little biased. Even a financial neophyte would have a hard time explaining the math of $26.99 going to $33 a share over the next year at this stage of the business cycle. Ain't going to happen. BS to convince Muppets like you that the market is cheap. Yet you foolishly ignore the 23.44 PE the market is trading at.
Really funny and typical of the DGTD posters.
Silverblatt always gives Operating and Reported Earnings. $139.95 and $127.14 are operating earnings estimates. This from 6/6/2016;
"Wall Street still projecting 2016 year end earnings of $114.72 non-GAAP and $106.00 GAAP. The 2017 numbers are equally out-of-this-world-ish at $134.47 and $125.21 respectively. S&P 500 companies would have to average record quarterly earnings to accomplish the feat."
Igy
So Igy is now impersonating gente?
Horace Ashenpelter wrote:
Add this to your complete picture you idiot investor:
http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2017/08/just-released-more-credit-cards-higher-limits-and-an-uptick-in-delinquency.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+LibertyStreetEconomics+%28Liberty+Street+Economics%29
We wrote here about how the new peak poses little concern in and of itself—after all, the debt’s composition and characteristics are now very different than in 2008.
interesting data on wages - people have been complaining about low wage growth data for a long time, but as with most data, they have been misleading due to our aging population.
This suggests the wage data show low wage growth because aging baby boomers are retiring quickly and beiong replaced by millienials. The baby boomers had been paid much beccause they are old. the millenials are paid less because they are young.
Obviously the millenials will earn more as they age.
Adjusted for this effect, wage growth is currently more than 5%. Which would match the economy's positive other indications.
Except inflation. Why is there so little inflation? Could be just that tech is so good at creating efficiencies.
"Median weekly earnings actually rose in the second quarter to 4.2 percent, on an annual basis, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. That’s the fastest pace since 2007. Adjust for baby boomers and that would rise to 5.2 percent."
