https://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/2018/11/13/weekly-gasoline-price-update-wtic-down-sixth-consecutive-week?&bt_ee=MCxkGnnwdxyI3u6hAs5wtMg9FHpfa74N8QyeT2nOp3cLFDj7vhZAgdsLdY%2BFYE1a&bt_ts=1542196315601Racket wrote:
Dietz wrote:
Prices at the pump have been going down lately.
MORE!!!!!
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/11/14/risk-assets-downturn-is-starting-to-play-out-analyst-says.html
We talked about just posting links remember?
If the shoe fits wrote:
Confirmed wrote:
Stupidity analysis confirmed.
It’s K5. What did you expect?
In order to be effective in your dishonesty, one needs a minimum amount of brains. Something you clearly lack. When exposed for falsely thinking GOI and I an the same person, you try a "look over there" strategy. Now this can work if you own the MSM and so control the echo chamber, but it does not for someone like you. Sometimes you would be better served to admit you were caught in an error or a lie; it appears your ego is much too fragile to do this, however.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
The myths of this Bull Market will be destroyed as in the past, with the same questions asked, while the evidence of foolish behaviors were always there.
the problem with your argument is that by most valuation measures, this market is valued at around its 25 year average. or a little above.
Sure if you go with 10 year earnings for some reason then the market looks expensive. But I have yet to read a valid explanation of why we should care about 2010 and 2011 earnings in 2019.
The most you can argue is that margins are somehow artificually and temporarily inflated. And when they come back down to normal levels, earnings will go poof.
But if that doesn't happen, and earnings go up another 10% next year after what - 20% this year? - then the market is not expensive.
Racket wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/11/14/risk-assets-downturn-is-starting-to-play-out-analyst-says.htmlWe talked about just posting links remember?
My bad. Francesco Filia has an interesting view of the markets and relates them to physical systems in nature. So when systems in nature go to extremes the process to achieve balance is destructive.
which rules wrote:
If the shoe fits wrote:
It’s K5. What did you expect?
In order to be effective in your dishonesty, one needs a minimum amount of brains. Something you clearly lack. When exposed for falsely thinking GOI and I an the same person, you try a "look over there" strategy. Now this can work if you own the MSM and so control the echo chamber, but it does not for someone like you. Sometimes you would be better served to admit you were caught in an error or a lie; it appears your ego is much too fragile to do this, however.
This guy’s psychosis knows no bounds with lying and twisting unabated.
agip wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
The myths of this Bull Market will be destroyed as in the past, with the same questions asked, while the evidence of foolish behaviors were always there.
the problem with your argument is that by most valuation measures, this market is valued at around its 25 year average. or a little above.
Sure if you go with 10 year earnings for some reason then the market looks expensive. But I have yet to read a valid explanation of why we should care about 2010 and 2011 earnings in 2019.
The most you can argue is that margins are somehow artificually and temporarily inflated. And when they come back down to normal levels, earnings will go poof.
But if that doesn't happen, and earnings go up another 10% next year after what - 20% this year? - then the market is not expensive.
Same arguments made 2000 and 2007. Distortions made greater by Central Bank policies.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
agip wrote:
the problem with your argument is that by most valuation measures, this market is valued at around its 25 year average. or a little above.
Sure if you go with 10 year earnings for some reason then the market looks expensive. But I have yet to read a valid explanation of why we should care about 2010 and 2011 earnings in 2019.
The most you can argue is that margins are somehow artificually and temporarily inflated. And when they come back down to normal levels, earnings will go poof.
But if that doesn't happen, and earnings go up another 10% next year after what - 20% this year? - then the market is not expensive.
Same arguments made 2000 and 2007. Distortions made greater by Central Bank policies.
are you saying that central bank policies have increased profit margins at US companies? What's the mechanism for that?
or are you saying that this market, with its 20% earnings growth should have below average valuation multiples, but for the Federal Reserve?
Sure, drove the cost of capital to zero. Worse than that lead to malinvestment and stock buybacks. Earnings growth you quote is non-GAAP, stock buyback, peak margin, and tax cut fueled. Unsustainable with any sane policies.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Sure, drove the cost of capital to zero. Worse than that lead to malinvestment and stock buybacks. Earnings growth you quote is non-GAAP, stock buyback, peak margin, and tax cut fueled. Unsustainable with any sane policies.
cost of capital zero? Investment quality corporate paper pays a percent or two over the inflation rate and non-investment quality corporate paper pays 3-5% over inflation. Hardly zero unless I'm missing something.
malinvestment? Part of the problem with the slowness of recovery is that companies didn't invest enough. Malinvestment? Not sure I buy that.
buybacks? Sure ok. But those are good for the shareholder. Less good for the economy, but we're talking the benefits of owning stocks here.
peak margin: yeah probably. but that's not related to the fed. And who's to say that tech has permanently raised margins? It certatinly should increase margins.
tax cut fueled: yes. probably earnings growth is 9% without the tax cut. hardly bad.
Total stock market YTD: +2.9%
Total Bond Market YTD: -2.5%
the weird thing about this year is that if a client comes to me and says 'you had me too much in stocks' I can say 'hey if you had owned more bonds, you would have lost money. In stocks at least you made a couple percent.
agip wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Sure, drove the cost of capital to zero. Worse than that lead to malinvestment and stock buybacks. Earnings growth you quote is non-GAAP, stock buyback, peak margin, and tax cut fueled. Unsustainable with any sane policies.
cost of capital zero? Investment quality corporate paper pays a percent or two over the inflation rate and non-investment quality corporate paper pays 3-5% over inflation. Hardly zero unless I'm missing something.
malinvestment? Part of the problem with the slowness of recovery is that companies didn't invest enough. Malinvestment? Not sure I buy that.
buybacks? Sure ok. But those are good for the shareholder. Less good for the economy, but we're talking the benefits of owning stocks here.
peak margin: yeah probably. but that's not related to the fed. And who's to say that tech has permanently raised margins? It certatinly should increase margins.
tax cut fueled: yes. probably earnings growth is 9% without the tax cut. hardly bad.
OK, I guess that makes a market. Let’s review that stock/bond metric in a year.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
KeIIy wrote:
There is nothing permanent about the market.
Huh? How do you square that with your belief that valuations don’t matter and keep buying the dip?
LIAR!
Maserati wrote:
Switzerland owns AAPL, they have a huge interest in keeping it afloat. I will pass on them this time.
Fun being back on here, thanks guys. Taking some time off now, see you all later, and good luck!
That Maserati guy. Apple Nov 1 222.22, dropped to 207.48 I thought he would buy like the other guy did. He passed and today Nov 14 it closed at 186.80, I wonder if he would buy now. Apple is one of my main holdings. Down 10% since he passed he must have a friggin crystal ball. Down 16% since Nov 1?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
This guy’s psychosis knows no bounds with lying and twisting unabated.
Indeed.
https://i.imgur.com/ge2xcx1.jpghttps://i.imgur.com/vnFNWwo.jpgFrom now til the end of the year I'll post some of the predictions that came due this year. Just to prove how worthless predictions are.
Here's the first, from 2014.
GS woefully underpredicted the stock rally - they guessed an SP500 of 2300 by this year. We hit 2900.
And they thought the 10 year would rise far, far more than it did. They said 4.5%. It's at 3.1%.
"The firm estimates the S&P 500 will reach 2300 by the year 2018, with the 10-year yield climbing to 4.5% from its current 2.5% level. "
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
which rules wrote:
In order to be effective in your dishonesty, one needs a minimum amount of brains. Something you clearly lack. When exposed for falsely thinking GOI and I an the same person, you try a "look over there" strategy. Now this can work if you own the MSM and so control the echo chamber, but it does not for someone like you. Sometimes you would be better served to admit you were caught in an error or a lie; it appears your ego is much too fragile to do this, however.
This guy’s psychosis knows no bounds with lying and twisting unabated.
Agreed. K5 is certifiable.
Your charade is just boring and weird.
KeIIy wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Huh? How do you square that with your belief that valuations don’t matter and keep buying the dip?
LIAR!
PANTS ON FIRE!
