Down goes the Dow

seattle prattle wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

My bad, or AMZN at $2,005.

AMZN is up over 15% YTD. More than double your perennial favorite Hussman mutual fund.

And What is your point?

All i can tell is that you are among those investors ill suited to investments with differential rates of return and performance. That says more about you than the equities.

He seems to be a very unhappy person. He just talks about failure all the time. It’s very sad.

KeIIy wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

AMZN is up over 15% YTD. More than double your perennial favorite Hussman mutual fund.

And What is your point?

All i can tell is that you are among those investors ill suited to investments with differential rates of return and performance. That says more about you than the equities.

He seems to be a very unhappy person. He just talks about failure all the time. It’s very sad.

That is not fair. You believe there was some value in AMZN at $2,000 and encouraged others to support that view. In the meantime the stock has dropped dramatically to what, $1,390? A view supported by ridiculous statements about the value in the stock that quite frankly is unhinged to any valuation metric. That says more about you than the recent collapse in the market. Talk about sad and of your own making.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

KeIIy wrote:

He seems to be a very unhappy person. He just talks about failure all the time. It’s very sad.

That is not fair. You believe there was some value in AMZN at $2,000 and encouraged others to support that view. In the meantime the stock has dropped dramatically to what, $1,390? A view supported by ridiculous statements about the value in the stock that quite frankly is unhinged to any valuation metric. That says more about you than the recent collapse in the market. Talk about sad and of your own making.

I never said any such thing. It’s sad that you feel the need to lie to justify your miserable outlook. Please consider counseling. Depression can be treated.

KeIIy wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

That is not fair. You believe there was some value in AMZN at $2,000 and encouraged others to support that view. In the meantime the stock has dropped dramatically to what, $1,390? A view supported by ridiculous statements about the value in the stock that quite frankly is unhinged to any valuation metric. That says more about you than the recent collapse in the market. Talk about sad and of your own making.

I never said any such thing. It’s sad that you feel the need to lie to justify your miserable outlook. Please consider counseling. Depression can be treated.

Of course this is projection on your part.

Perhaps this report will calm your nerves, over the short run of course.

i honestly don't remember any of the bulls on here saying buy buy buy within the last several months when it came to the FANG stocks in particular. What i think was the commonly held viewpoint was that they were the superior asset class over the long term compared to fixed investments, CDs, etc., and that they were not on the verge of suffering losses in the neighborhood of 60%.

7/25/2018:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Sure, those that suck up Wall Street’s inventory have spoken.

“The dominance of FAANG stocks in the increasingly popular passive market (read: ETFs) makes the acronym (and market) risky as many of the ETFs are using the same “momentum” factor. Consider that just five stocks (FAANG) are a top 15 holding in 605 ETFs:

ETF Ownership of FAANG Equities

2018: 605

2017: 501

2016: 430

2015: 332

2014: 277

2013; 230

2012: 175

2011: 101

2010: 62

2009: 14

2008: 9”

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

7/25/2018:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Sure, those that suck up Wall Street’s inventory have spoken.

“The dominance of FAANG stocks in the increasingly popular passive market (read: ETFs) makes the acronym (and market) risky as many of the ETFs are using the same “momentum” factor. Consider that just five stocks (FAANG) are a top 15 holding in 605 ETFs:

ETF Ownership of FAANG Equities

2018: 605

2017: 501

2016: 430

2015: 332

2014: 277

2013; 230

2012: 175

2011: 101

2010: 62

2009: 14

2008: 9”

that means very little as pertains to my point, and frankly raises more questions than it answers. How long have they been holding those FAANG equities? And 605 ETFs out of a marketplace consisting of how many ETFs?

This really doesn't address what we were talking about, and i am being kind here.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Of course this is projection on your part.

Oh, the irony!

seattle prattle wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

7/25/2018:

that means very little as pertains to my point, and frankly raises more questions than it answers. How long have they been holding those FAANG equities? And 605 ETFs out of a marketplace consisting of how many ETFs?

This really doesn't address what we were talking about, and i am being kind here.

Well it is what my point is, overvalued equities that are over-owned and a mania. But you think there is something special there. OK.

How can an equity be “over-owned”?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:[

By Igy, DGTD

I say youyr purchases since 2011 will not pay off.

Still to be determined just like S&P 500 trading 2,850-3,250 in 2019.[/quote]

Exactly! So I wouldn't start tooting your horn quite yet.

purple martin wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:[

By Igy, DGTD

I say youyr purchases since 2011 will not pay off.

Still to be determined just like S&P 500 trading 2,850-3,250 in 2019.

Exactly! So I wouldn't start tooting your horn quite yet.[/quote]

you don’t sound quite so cocky

was up wid dat?

Read the post and if you can’t understand it, well I cannot help you.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Oh but there are only 1,385 US listed equity ETFs. So chew on that overweight to these grossly overvalued stocks.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Read the post and if you can’t understand it, well I cannot help you.

So you don’t understand it either. I wonder why you posted it then.

No you can’t comprehend or just want to talk nonsense, as usual.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

No you can’t comprehend or just want to talk nonsense, as usual.

I’m not talking nonsense. I asked a simple question about something you posted, but you cannot explain what you wrote. It would appear that you are the one posting nonsense.

wondering wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

No you can’t comprehend or just want to talk nonsense, as usual.

I’m not talking nonsense. I asked a simple question about something you posted, but you cannot explain what you wrote. It would appear that you are the one posting nonsense.

Read:

“The dominance of FAANG stocks in the increasingly popular passive market (read: ETFs) makes the acronym (and market) risky as many of the ETFs are using the same “momentum” factor. Consider that just five stocks (FAANG) are a top 15 holding in 605 ETFs:

Obviously I read that before asking my question. Now maybe you can answer it?