Don't work that way wrote:
A double digit drop in value is a "correction", not a loss? And it's healthy? Boy have they got you by the balls.
Corrections help keep valuations mildly in check and are definitely healthy in an industrialized capitalistic economy. You can even argue recessions are a "healthy" part of the cycle as well. And yes, a correction is literally defined as 10% off the all time high, so yeah, I call it a correction.
Racket wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Racket,
Keep in mind the Bulls are on CNBC every day, since there is much to sell. In
In March of 2000 NASDAQ investors found it hard to imagine that it would take 16 years to get back to even. Or after attaining a high on the S&P 500 of 1550 in that same month and year we would be a 666 nine years later and 1,150 eleven years later, and finally back to even in 2013. So really 1,000 would be in-line with a run of the mill reversion to mean valuations. You only feel it is hard to imagine because you think there is something durable to the point gains. That is certainly not true when you consider all the monetary stimulus and now growing policy reversals.
Igy
Lol wow embarrassing but I forgot the NASDAQ was almost 5000 when before the dot-com crash. Since March 2009, it's gained over 400% which definitely seems like a lot in a short time. The Dow and SP500 are up 300% since then too. Guess I didn't realize the sheer magnitude of gains everyone's had access to the past 10 years till I looked at the chart again, especially the past 3 years like wtf happened.
Yes, I think people get spoiled. One tends to lose a historical perspective when things gets easy. Then at the snap of a finger the best asset class is cash.
Hussman outlines how you mathematically get down 60%:
https://mobile.twitter.com/hussmanjp/status/1073978431308791808
Racket wrote:
Don't work that way wrote:
A double digit drop in value is a "correction", not a loss? And it's healthy? Boy have they got you by the balls.
Corrections help keep valuations mildly in check and are definitely healthy in an industrialized capitalistic economy. You can even argue recessions are a "healthy" part of the cycle as well. And yes, a correction is literally defined as 10% off the all time high, so yeah, I call it a correction.
Why isn't a 10% increase called a correction?
Because this is a sales word, a business buzz word, intended to deceive. Keep all the suckers investing in the casino.
Why isnt wrote:
Racket wrote:
Corrections help keep valuations mildly in check and are definitely healthy in an industrialized capitalistic economy. You can even argue recessions are a "healthy" part of the cycle as well. And yes, a correction is literally defined as 10% off the all time high, so yeah, I call it a correction.
Why isn't a 10% increase called a correction?
Because this is a sales word, a business buzz word, intended to deceive. Keep all the suckers investing in the casino.
Gee, i thought owning shares in Microsoft, Apple, Amazon, the S&P 500 Index funds, Small Company Index Funds, made me a shareholder and a partial owner of said publically traded companies.
I HAD NO IDEA IT WAS A CASINO?!
One of us is confused, and I don't think it's me.
Don't work that way wrote:
A double digit drop in value is a "correction", not a loss? And it's healthy? Boy have they got you by the balls.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Hussman outlines how you mathematically get down 60%:
https://mobile.twitter.com/hussmanjp/status/1073978431308791808
That math is nonsense. Typical Hussman.
No, the problem is your brain.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
No, the problem is your brain.
Ok, genius, let’s start with the reason for the natural log ratio. Explain.
Uh, even I know this is wrong. So does any 6th grader.
A 10% loss is just 11.5% of a 60% loss.
Pythagorous wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
No, the problem is your brain.
Ok, genius, let’s start with the reason for the natural log ratio. Explain.
Show your balls, challenge Hussman directly via the Tweet cited.
You won’t, because you don’t have the guts or intellect.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Pythagorous wrote:
Ok, genius, let’s start with the reason for the natural log ratio. Explain.
Show your balls, challenge Hussman directly via the Tweet cited.
You won’t, because you don’t have the guts or intellect.
First, you’re feeble attempt at misdirection reveals your lack of knowledge on this specific topic.
Second, regarding intellect, I have a graduate degree in Mathematics. I am more educated than the author in that particular subject.
Third, if you are a complete reader of these tweets, then you know that he has repeatedly been called out on his “calculations”. Like you, he tends to avoid the discussion.
Bottom line: that tweet is mathematical nonsense.
OK, have the balls to challenge. Let’s see the results.
You are a puss as well as an intellectusl light weight.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OK, have the balls to challenge. Let’s see the results.
You are a puss as well as an intellectusl light weight.
(Speaking of intellectual lightweight) Please see #3 above. Been there, done that. All I got was avoidanceof the subject at hand. Reminds me of you (the real puss).
Pythagorus wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
OK, have the balls to challenge. Let’s see the results.
You are a puss as well as an intellectusl light weight.
(Speaking of intellectual lightweight) Please see #3 above. Been there, done that. All I got was avoidanceof the subject at hand. Reminds me of you (the real puss).
You claim to be the mathematical expert, you spell it out to the author. But you are such a puss you challenge me instead. Light weight pansy you need to get some heuvos. Let’s see what you got.
Nothing but heuvos rancheros.
Pythagorous wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Hussman outlines how you mathematically get down 60%:
https://mobile.twitter.com/hussmanjp/status/1073978431308791808That math is nonsense. Typical Hussman.
Over two decades of financial analysis, what have you written lately? Let’s see what you have Master Bates of Math?
https://www.hussmanfunds.com/research-insight-archive/When the mathematician is wrong, he should drop a perpendicular.
Answer Mann wrote:
Don't work that way wrote:
A double digit drop in value is a "correction", not a loss? And it's healthy? Boy have they got you by the balls.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Losing 10% or more of your money is healthy...amazing they got you buying into such nonsense.
Klondike5 wrote:
Down to 14,850 from a peak of 15,700 I believe.
Maybe 5%
What's the bottom?
I am betting sub 13,000
8/27/2013
Bumping for 30k.