If you are really trying to convince people that Igy and K5 are not the same person, try waiting a little longer after posting with one name before posting with the other.
If you are really trying to convince people that Igy and K5 are not the same person, try waiting a little longer after posting with one name before posting with the other.
...and considering your insane posting, it is about time you seek treatment for infatuated psychosis...
You are wise not to deny.
Earnings Scorecard: For Q2 2018 (with 17% of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results for the quarter), 87% of S&P 500 companies have reported a positive EPS surprise and 77% have reported a positive sales surprise.
Little Earnie: Non-GAAP EPS and stock buybacks with little organic earnings growth.
Earnings Growth: For Q2 2018, the blended earnings growth rate for the S&P 500 is 20.8%. If 20.8% is the actual growth rate for the quarter, it will mark the second highest earnings growth since Q3 2010 (34.1%).
Separate at birth wrote:
Real K5 wrote:
No? Then why do you speak only with your fellow true believers when posting your ad hominems?
Because I usually prefer not to converse with idiots.
Only usually?
Two are one wrote:
If you are really trying to convince people that Igy and K5 are not the same person, try waiting a little longer after posting with one name before posting with the other.
Why would I care if some spectacularly stupid people believe that I am also Igy?
You guys credit yourselves with far more importance than you have.
Oh, the irony!
Purple Martin wrote:
Of course, this bull market has run through all kinds of warning signs and proven its skeptics wrong time and again. Rising from the ashes of the financial crisis, it's famously been one of the most unloved bull markets in history.
Surging corporate earnings due to lower tax rates and a strengthening economy should give the market more fuel this year. Plus, one important ingredient for a market top is still missing — the wave of buying that comes as investors succumb to the fear of missing out, said Matthew Miskin, market strategist with John Hancock Investments.
Well we know one person this bull market has been unloved by!
Well, maybe two people. Although, it doesn't matter, their view point and message has been the same.
And it's been wrong. Either 3 1/2 or 5 years.
And in the end you will be very wrong. The time does not matter. You will be shocked.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
And in the end you will be very wrong. The time does not matter. You will be shocked.
Well, you have to admit, with the passing of each year of stock appreciation, a fall from that point becomes less of an issue.
seattle prattle wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
And in the end you will be very wrong. The time does not matter. You will be shocked.
Well, you have to admit, with the passing of each year of stock appreciation, a fall from that point becomes less of an issue.
That was not the experience following the Technology Bubble or Housing Bubble. It is reasonable to see most gains since 2010 wipped out and valuations back to 1998 levels or around S&P 500 1,000. That is why all this talk about the last several years of gains matters little.
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
And in the end you will be very wrong. The time does not matter. You will be shocked.
With the markets, there is no “end.”
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
The time does not matter.
It does for somebody who bought in to your narrative back in 2015 and moved to ultra conservative or out of the market vs doing that on 7/20/2018. Tell me how doing that in March 2015 was the better decision?
mellon wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
The time does not matter.
It does for somebody who bought in to your narrative back in 2015 and moved to ultra conservative or out of the market vs doing that on 7/20/2018. Tell me how doing that in March 2015 was the better decision?
Sure there are those that can be that lucky. Collectively investors can’t avoid the fall in valuations since each share of stock must be owned by someone at each moment in time.
investing is not done collectively that i know of.
seattle prattle wrote:
investing is not done collectively that i know of.
Seattle,
“Investors collectively” refers to the fact there is no cash on the sidelines and likewise there is no stocks on the sidelines. Someone always holds those assets at each moment in time. So in a bear market stock “investors collectively” hold the losses just as they hold the gains today.
Now if one investor can successfully navigate markets then good for you or them. But that is not history and actually investors’ performance has been rather poor versus the indices. And stock markets do not compound at an even 8-10% because they also compound at negative rates in a bear market, this is especially harmful for those in retirement who are withdrawing funds in a down market (reverse compounding). The importance here is sequence of returns. You retire right before a bear market your financial plan could be in jeopardy if you are over allocated to stock.
You are correct investing is not done collectively, but the collective returns of investors as a group over time have significantly underperformed the indices.
Why is that? Over excitement at the top and disinterest as the bottom. Poor asset allocation relative to liquidity needs and risk tolerance.
None of the above is or should be controversial. It is the history of the markets.
Igy
you say the time doesn't matter. It matters everything.
If an investor had ridden the stock market rise up for the last several years, he/she would have more of an opportunity to sell at a profit if the market turns down.
If they do (sell), someone else buys, as you say, but that person is not necessarily a loser either. If they buy at the reduced price, they may well reap a solid profit as the market rebounds.
What makes or breaks each of these investment strategies is timing.
Which leads some here to question your downplaying of that crucial element to timing. A down turn would mean profit taking for some and perhaps a buying opportunity to others. I think what might be the presumption here is that the markets eventually rise over time, which historically has been true thus far.
