Down goes the Dow

Porsche Cayman wrote:

SterIing wrote:

Are you purposely trying to appear clueless?

I guess you have no clue what benchmark means. Are you purposely trying to appear clueless?

Of course I know what it means. Do you know what “cherry picking” means? I assume so since you’re very good at it.

Food for thought.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/another-epic-economic-collapse-is-coming/2018/08/17/c26fb12c-a182-11e8-93e3-24d1703d2a7a_story.html?utm_term=.b028f3dfe713

SterIing wrote:

Porsche Cayman wrote:

I guess you have no clue what benchmark means. Are you purposely trying to appear clueless?

Of course I know what it means. Do you know what “cherry picking” means? I assume so since you’re very good at it.

It is always cherry picking unless it is a time frame you choose.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

It is always cherry picking unless it is a time frame you choose.

You can't point to anything negative as it relates to market performance since you first posted on here without cherry picking.

purple martin wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

It is always cherry picking unless it is a time frame you choose.

You can't point to anything negative as it relates to market performance since you first posted on here without cherry picking.

Oh yes I can. $21 Trillion in Central Bank QE has grossly distorted market performance.

That's not a negative. And if it turns out to be, it hasn't yet.

If you were to use it to support your argument, you would need to reference the whole cycle, not just a piece of it.

seattle prattle wrote:

That's not a negative. And if it turns out to be, it hasn't yet.

If you were to use it to support your argument, you would need to reference the whole cycle, not just a piece of it.

Seattle,

Of course it is a negative. Anything that distorts price discovery comes with a cost. No different than the athlete that takes PEDs. Just because a small portion of the population has benefited does not justify the means. My contention has been and remains you will see the foolishness of this policy at full cycle. As I have said before since each share of stock must be held by someone this cannot be avoided. Whether you or someone else avoids this disaster is beside the point.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

grossly distorted market performance.

You are beyond a joke!

QE wasn't a gift to the banks, it was an infusion to help the economy during a recession, to promote growth. Things like this happen. We can debate whether or not they were the right move, or too much or too long, but they happen and investors adjust their strategy accordingly. Or they sit it out on the sidelines in objection.

I guess we know where each of us landed on that one.

Seattle,

I have never sat on the sidelines, nor do I believe QE was just a gift to the banks. It undoubtedly saved my employer and benefited me personally. That is not the point, it is where we are now and the future problems it is causing. Case in point emerging markets. Excess dollar funded liquidity flows to emerging market economies to suspect businesses and when those economies hit a bump in the road the disruption begins. We will see it here with all the junk debt keeping broken businesses models afloat, or companies like Tesla to hoodwink the public for one more day. I think the market will land us somewhere, I suspect at a place you may not be too happy with.

Igy

all of which brings us back to the question - when? With every passing year, your forecast becomes less relevant to say the least. And now it's almost hard to even cherry pick a duration which would include anything analogous to the last 4 years and still be able to prove your point.

i would think that the tax package recently passed was not a good idea in light of all that was done with QE and the relatively strong state of the economy. That only gives credence to your arguement i suppose.

seattle prattle wrote:

all of which brings us back to the question - when?

Don't you listen! He's told us when. SOON! Don't you consider 4 - 10 years SOON. Seems reasonable to me.

You've been warned.

seattle prattle wrote:

i would think that the tax package recently passed was not a good idea in light of all that was done with QE and the relatively strong state of the economy. That only gives credence to your arguement i suppose.

Seattle,

I would agree with that. In regards to timing my belief that is irrelevant. A market the goes from overvalued to more overvalued has to travel further to reach statis. Markets don’t just mean revert, they mean invert. I think you will see this. Of course if I am wrong it will be the first time in 4,000 years of financial history.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

SterIing wrote:

Of course I know what it means. Do you know what “cherry picking” means? I assume so since you’re very good at it.

It is always cherry picking unless it is a time frame you choose.

I appreciate your honesty.

Sure, something you lack.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Sure, something you lack.

Please elaborate, or shut up.

Sure, you elaborate or shut up. Anything you have said lacks substance.