Down goes the Dow

Oh Phats!

Sigh...yet another Igy lie.

The current bull market is officially 101 months old, which might sound old (and it is), but remember that bull markets don’t die of old age, they die of excesses. As we laid out in the Recession Watch Update and update monthly on our House of Charts site, we simply aren’t seeing the type of excesses that have historically preceded major market and economic peaks.

All in all, within the near term we do have our concerns, but when looking at the bigger picture, the global economy continues to chug along, inflation is low, the odds of a recession over the next 12 months are low, and central banks remain accommodative. All of that suggests that this bull might be old, but it still could have some tricks up its sleeves.

Oh no you dint wrote:

Sigh...yet another Igy lie.

The lie is that passive investing is a one stop solution.

No one said it was.

Oh yees dai deed.

Earnings Scorecard: For Q3 2017 (with 6 companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results for the quarter), 4 companies have reported positive EPS surprises and 4 companies have reported positive sales surprises.

(with 6 companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results for the quarter)

= non-GAAP EPS

Actual results

The numbers quoted by Earnie are non-GAAP.

So what’s the problem if he’s comparing apples to apples as you suggest?

That’s a very interesting position. Bears here like to point at increased corporate debt, buybacks, etc as being negatives, but this author points out that they have had no effect on economic growth. That’s a different spin. I don’t think Igy will like it, but it’s hard to argue rationally with the truth.

Stanley Morgan wrote:

That’s a very interesting position. Bears here like to point at increased corporate debt, buybacks, etc as being negatives, but this author points out that they have had no effect on economic growth. That’s a different spin. I don’t think Igy will like it, but it’s hard to argue rationally with the truth.

Huh? That is an ignorant conclusion. Typical thinking of your posts.

Try reading it before responding, if you don’t want to sound like a doofus.

Sev wrote:

Stanley Morgan wrote:

That’s a very interesting position. Bears here like to point at increased corporate debt, buybacks, etc as being negatives, but this author points out that they have had no effect on economic growth. That’s a different spin. I don’t think Igy will like it, but it’s hard to argue rationally with the truth.

Huh? That is an ignorant conclusion. Typical thinking of your posts.

Your reading lacks basic comprehension.

Lisa Abramovich said buy backs and debt were good for the stock market but not for economic growth. Anyone with a brain could interpret that as short term benefit with long term negative implications.

But you are a Muppet, so your ignorant post is to be expected.

You are as dumb as those other two posters. Try thinking before you post.

Yes, she talks about how these corporate actions are supposed to be detrimental to the economy. But the reality is that the economy is humming along on all cylinders. The reality is very different than what the narrow minded expect.

Go, Pats!

You’re the dumb one, if you think all three of those posters are different people. They’re obviously the troll Reid Harter.

Stanley Morgan wrote:

You are as dumb as those other two posters. Try thinking before you post.

Yes, she talks about how these corporate actions are supposed to be detrimental to the economy. But the reality is that the economy is humming along on all cylinders. The reality is very different than what the narrow minded expect.

Go, Pats!

The economy is humming along at below 2% GDP growth. Totally underwritten by a $4.4 Trillion Federal Reserve balance sheet. Just wait until QE becomes QT.

Go Fats!