Down goes the Dow

I see where you are coming from wrote:

Investor A, Igy’s client, started with 1 million 9 years ago and now has only 500k to lose.

Investor B, who has been invested, started with 1 million, and now has 3 million to lose.

Of course Investor B is in a more precarious position! Probably hard to sleep at night.

Making up numbers out of thin air to "prove" your point.

Frightening stupidity.

Wood Appear wrote:

I dumped wrote:

I had a toe in the market recently.

Soled about $200k of the $250k I had in equities just before noon.

I expected this to trigger a rebound (as we all think our actions magically affect the outside world).....but I am feeling pretty good about it right now.

Dow dropped another 400 plus today after I sold,

Looks like today is going to be another slaughter if the market follows what has gone on in Europe

It's going to be annihilation! When the damage is done & the massive losses are tallied up - is our great President going to come with another silly one-liner? ?

seattle prattle wrote:

Heebab wrote:

800 below where it was bought? How do you know so much about his mutual funds?

He meant that the Dow was down 800 points by the time the market closed, which would be the price by default of a mutual fund sale entered during the day (you get the closing price). Point being, he hopes the guy actually got an actuation price in the morning when the prices were higher than at the close. BUt if it was mutual funds in a 401k, he got the end of the day, which was the low for the day.

Mutual Funds are open ended share counts. Pricing is based on end of the day value of the securities in the fund divided by the number of shareholders. That is the Net Asset Value and ususally shows in your account 2 1/2 hours after market close.

Igy

Maserati wrote:

Agip in my world there is Chinese ownership of US equities, but it is all personal—but there is a heck of a lot of it

Chinese stocks at the lowest level in four years, Shanghai Composite in Bear Market.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

He meant that the Dow was down 800 points by the time the market closed, which would be the price by default of a mutual fund sale entered during the day (you get the closing price). Point being, he hopes the guy actually got an actuation price in the morning when the prices were higher than at the close. BUt if it was mutual funds in a 401k, he got the end of the day, which was the low for the day.

Mutual Funds are open ended share counts. Pricing is based on end of the day value of the securities in the fund divided by the number of shareholders. That is the Net Asset Value and ususally shows in your account 2 1/2 hours after market close.

Igy

That's terrible. Ought to be able to sell (and buy) at the present price

That's a rip-off wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Mutual Funds are open ended share counts. Pricing is based on end of the day value of the securities in the fund divided by the number of shareholders. That is the Net Asset Value and ususally shows in your account 2 1/2 hours after market close.

Igy

That's terrible. Ought to be able to sell (and buy) at the present price

That is an issue sith mutual funds. However, ETFs are no free lunch since the broad sale in a short period of time can lead to wide swings in price. This is a liquidity event driven by concentrated positions where managers of the fund have problems identifying which underlying stocks need to be sold and in what quantity. The managers of mutual funds can raise cash in advance of liquidations which is an advantage in steep and rapid market decline.

Igy

seattle prattle wrote:

Heebab wrote:

800 below where it was bought? How do you know so much about his mutual funds?

He meant that the Dow was down 800 points by the time the market closed, which would be the price by default of a mutual fund sale entered during the day (you get the closing price). Point being, he hopes the guy actually got an actuation price in the morning when the prices were higher than at the close. BUt if it was mutual funds in a 401k, he got the end of the day, which was the low for the day.

Ok, I get that, but ETFs and individual stocks were also down. And 800 points is only about 3%, so not really a big deal.

The selling point is only important in relation to the buying point. Taken together they determine the amount of any net gain/loss.

Wake-up in your make-up wrote:

I see where you are coming from wrote:

Investor A, Igy’s client, started with 1 million 9 years ago and now has only 500k to lose.

Investor B, who has been invested, started with 1 million, and now has 3 million to lose.

Of course Investor B is in a more precarious position! Probably hard to sleep at night.

Making up numbers out of thin air to "prove" your point.

Frightening stupidity.

Try telling that to Igy.

Yes not a big deal, just pointing out how it works to be clear.

Gruntz wrote:

Wake-up in your make-up wrote:

Making up numbers out of thin air to "prove" your point.

Frightening stupidity.

Try telling that to Igy.

So says the guy that never thought the Chinese markets would go down.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Gruntz wrote:

Try telling that to Igy.

So says the guy that never thought the Chinese markets would go down.

Again you prove my point. This is too easy.

Heebab wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

He meant that the Dow was down 800 points by the time the market closed, which would be the price by default of a mutual fund sale entered during the day (you get the closing price). Point being, he hopes the guy actually got an actuation price in the morning when the prices were higher than at the close. BUt if it was mutual funds in a 401k, he got the end of the day, which was the low for the day.

Ok, I get that, but ETFs and individual stocks were also down. And 800 points is only about 3%, so not really a big deal.

The selling point is only important in relation to the buying point. Taken together they determine the amount of any net gain/loss.

Nope. That's realized gain/loss for tax purposes. When your holdings drop in value, you lose wealth.

What matters now is what happens next.

Sounds like you plan to hang on. I left $40k to $50k in to cover any bounce back but feel good about being 97.5% out of equities at this point.

Gruntz wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

So says the guy that never thought the Chinese markets would go down.

Again you prove my point. This is too easy.

Face it your only point has been harrassment.

It’s not terrible, it’s just a fact born of convenience. The precise value of a fund cannot be instantaneously calculated in the flux of trading, with orders pending.

By the same token, if you buy, you also get the lower, settled price. Also, the price can rise into close, therefore benefiting sellers.

Interesting day coming. To our camp, all of this came exactly on cue before the midterms. Today real money, not just 401k stuff, might come into play, but not to acquire long positions. Rates have finally made one fundamental somewhat meaningful again, that being debt load. Also profitability. If other fundamentals regain some meaning, that will be a huge step toward market rationalization, and “true”, or undistorted, price discovery.

This whole thing wih China...the problem is that Chinese are greedy, and went everywhere they thought they could make a quick buck—including the US, and oil and US-strategic countries around the world. Many Chinese are just as interested in the US doing well as they are in China doing well—not just as a market for their goods, but as an investment.

That interest, battling their need to save face, means unrest within China, which is difficult to read, even for Chinese. The US believes it has the screws on China, and I think they’re right, China is in too deep.

So I don’t see China as an actual factor in a real market correction; what I do see as the factor is US politics. Not US policies, but politics, which center around elections. I think that there will be turbulence until midterms, but that once they are concluded, markets will rise mo matter what the outcome.

I think that the big one is still in the future, but that some money can be made over the next month. If R wins midterms I think there will be a market bump, but that resistance forces will crash it for real before the next presidential election. Only by really burning pensions and retirements to the ground can they successfully sell their preferred brand of socialism to a (super)majority of voters.

Right now there is still made an argument that people find believable that we can right the ship by working within the existing system. That has been the situation for a long time now, through this whole bull market. For real socialism to have any chance, this system will have to be proven unworkable—which means inflicting pain on the everyman now, not just kicking the can a bit further down the road by assuming more debt.

Can this be achieved by the D’s without the presidency? Maybe. I used to think that they couldn’t do it without slitting their own throats, but at this point the electorate has proven that it is impervious to reason and votes not the facts, but its prejudice. In the battle for “hearts and minds” within the US, I think that you can now forget about the minds.

What would be the exact mechanism they would use to burn it to the ground? We have our ideas, but acting through the Fed is a significant one, if for no other reason than that it is even possible, in the short term. Banks won’t mind, the ones that matter are completely propped up and insulated with guarantees. If you want consistent returns, go with banks in eiher bonds or equities, depending.

My 2 cents. Futures down a bit, I am sensing pre-open confusion. We will see if they can get it together.

That is, the Chinese tendency is to be greedy rather than strategic. Short-term gains in a landscape they don’t control, rather than a longer-term interest in controlling the actual game itself.

Maserati wrote:

That is, the Chinese tendency is to be greedy rather than strategic. Short-term gains in a landscape they don’t control, rather than a longer-term interest in controlling the actual game itself.

Gruntz wrote:

Wake-up in your make-up wrote:

Making up numbers out of thin air to "prove" your point.

Frightening stupidity.

Try telling that to Igy.

Why? He's not the one who made up numbers out of thin air to push his view?

You're rather confused.

[quote]Maserati wrote:

It’s not terrible, it’s just a fact born of convenience. The precise value of a fund cannot be instantaneously calculated in the flux of trading, with orders pending.

Why not?

Stocks, bonds, CDs, ETFs are all valued instantaneously.

What's so different about mutual funds?

Why would anyone buy one? Fees for expertise that does not exist and not knowing what the price is when you buy or sell.

Seems to me they are for the suckers.

You pay fees for etfs too, you know?

mutual funds make sense for buy and hold investors where the difference in price in the middle of the day and the end of the day is negligible compared to the difference in price on buy and sell date.

Also, there is as much of a possibility that the delay will be beneficial as detrimental

value of mutual funds is the value of the holdings dividing by the number of shares in the mutual fund

value of everything else is what someone is willing to pay you for it

that's the difference