Down goes the Dow

Interesting battle going on today - the market is below the 200 day. It hasn't closed below it yet.

Statistics suggest that if the market closes one day below and then rises back up, that is very very bullish.

So probably algos will be fine if the market closes today under the 200 day and they will probably buy like mad if we move back above right away...but several days under would bring on some selling.

I'm buying some infrastructure funds...probably some government money will head to them as stimulus as the global economy cools.

I wouldn't expect them to rise in a downward market, but lose less than the market as a whole.

Racket wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Not sure anyone would ever want bonds unless he or she is in their later years. Peter Lynch preached that you have to be in equities. Historical returns - 11% (with dividends reinvested) versus 4%. To double your portfolio at those returns equities would double in 6 years and bonds in 18 years.

Did you eat paint chips as a kid? Live under power lines perhaps?

Please tell me what anything I said deserves that idiotic post. Thanks in advance!

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Paint chips with lots of lead. He is hoping for double the 5.5% return on equities over the past 20 years. Sally knows HE will live another 130 years. The math is guaranteed to work out by then.

Ghost you have been advocating for CDs when their returns are negative over the last 30 years when you consider inflation. Are you serious?

Anyone who has a lot in bonds is a fool - like you, Racket. You really want a return of 4% when you could have one of 11%? Are you that stupid?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Paint chips with lots of lead. He is hoping for double the 5.5% return on equities over the past 20 years. Sally knows HE will live another 130 years. The math is guaranteed to work out by then.

Ghost - the returns over the last 30 year are 10%. Or would you say that negative returns are better? Who has been eating the paint chips?

Sally Vix wrote:

Racket wrote:

It's also worth noting that a balanced portfolio of bonds and equities (ratios adjusted for risk) is basically modern portfolio theory which is not only mathematically rigorously proven, but the guy who came up with the theory won a Nobel Prize in Economics. I 100% guarantee you that any significant fund at Vanguard or Blackrock ascribes to this

Anyone who has a lot in bonds is a fool - like you, Racket. You really want a return of 4% when you could have one of 11%? Are you that stupid?

that's crazy talk. If you are 60 years or more and you have enough money, you should have a good amount in bonds. You don't want to take the chance of another 50% downdraft, or another 10 year period with no stock market returns. You don't need the full return of the stock market - you need to keep up with inflation and not risk losing your money.

agip wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Anyone who has a lot in bonds is a fool - like you, Racket. You really want a return of 4% when you could have one of 11%? Are you that stupid?

that's crazy talk. If you are 60 years or more and you have enough money, you should have a good amount in bonds. You don't want to take the chance of another 50% downdraft, or another 10 year period with no stock market returns. You don't need the full return of the stock market - you need to keep up with inflation and not risk losing your money.

agip - I already expressed how someone who is older should have much more in bonds. I am only saying that someone is relatively young would do wrong in putting much in to bonds. With equities - if you are 20 or 30 - they will grow much more substantially than bonds.

Sally Vix wrote:

agip wrote:

that's crazy talk. If you are 60 years or more and you have enough money, you should have a good amount in bonds. You don't want to take the chance of another 50% downdraft, or another 10 year period with no stock market returns. You don't need the full return of the stock market - you need to keep up with inflation and not risk losing your money.

agip - I already expressed how someone who is older should have much more in bonds. I am only saying that someone is relatively young would do wrong in putting much in to bonds. With equities - if you are 20 or 30 - they will grow much more substantially than bonds.

ok

although I actually know someone who, in her 20s, sold a tech stock portfolio in 1999 and put it all into long term bonds. She made a bloody fortune. But that's a rare example. I don't know if she ever bought back into the stock market. Hope she did.

Sally Vix wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Paint chips with lots of lead. He is hoping for double the 5.5% return on equities over the past 20 years. Sally knows HE will live another 130 years. The math is guaranteed to work out by then.

Ghost you have been advocating for CDs when their returns are negative over the last 30 years when you consider inflation. Are you serious?

CDs are safe! I sleep very well knowing my hard earned dough is safe and sound in CDs! You know, you can lose your shorts in a stock market crash like many people did in the 29 crash.

The market should have crashed in 08 but it didn't because the government came to the rescue and saved the day. The next crash the government may be out of tricks and sit it out - and we'll take it in the shorts like in the folks in 29. ?

Earnings Scorecard: For Q1 2019 (with 2 companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results for the quarter), two S&P 500 companies have reported a positive EPS surprise and one has reported a positive revenue surprise.

Sally Vix wrote:

Racket wrote:

It's also worth noting that a balanced portfolio of bonds and equities (ratios adjusted for risk) is basically modern portfolio theory which is not only mathematically rigorously proven, but the guy who came up with the theory won a Nobel Prize in Economics. I 100% guarantee you that any significant fund at Vanguard or Blackrock ascribes to this

Anyone who has a lot in bonds is a fool - like you, Racket. You really want a return of 4% when you could have one of 11%? Are you that stupid?

I feel bad now because you've gotta be legit on the spectrum.

And for the record I day trade futures and options (and sometimes forex when I'm feeling confident). You really want an 11% percent return when you could have 1100% return?

agip wrote:

Interesting battle going on today - the market is below the 200 day. It hasn't closed below it yet.

Statistics suggest that if the market closes one day below and then rises back up, that is very very bullish.

So probably algos will be fine if the market closes today under the 200 day and they will probably buy like mad if we move back above right away...but several days under would bring on some selling.

I'm buying some infrastructure funds...probably some government money will head to them as stimulus as the global economy cools.

I wouldn't expect them to rise in a downward market, but lose less than the market as a whole.

I saw one stat that was along the lines of when unemployment rises 50 basis points from the low then a recession is coming, back tested all the way back to 1948 (although of course it works till it doesn't). Job numbers were pretty weak at only 20k but unemployment actually fell. Max unemployment right here and wages are starting to pick up (3.4% hourly increase YoY I think). Time to see if the Fed can hold off inflation

Also I'm declaring a new oil paradigm. OPEC and Russia can turn the screws on production but when it hits 57-60 a barrel then it becomes profitable for US shale to run at full capacity and Permian Basin is BOOMING! Calling it now, oil won't go above $60 for a sustained period of time in my lifetime

OK maybe that's an exaggeration. Also palladium still on fire right now

Racket wrote:

Sally Vix wrote:

Anyone who has a lot in bonds is a fool - like you, Racket. You really want a return of 4% when you could have one of 11%? Are you that stupid?

I feel bad now because you've gotta be legit on the spectrum.

And for the record I day trade futures and options (and sometimes forex when I'm feeling confident). You really want an 11% percent return when you could have 1100% return?

Oh and by the way that's %1100 in one day

Racket wrote:

I feel bad now because you've gotta be legit on the spectrum.

A very unfortunate choice of words on your part.

Gerri wrote:

Racket wrote:

I feel bad now because you've gotta be legit on the spectrum.

A very unfortunate choice of words on your part.

OK

I've seen that yeah - it's a small sample but usually we are in recession 18 months after unemployment starts rising off a low. Hasn't happened yet, and 18 months is a really long period of time. but that's the business cycle...inflation starts to pick up when we get to full employment, which makes inflation rise, which picks up animal spirits which makes the fed step in to slow things down and kapow.

but it's a small sample.

making a run to get back above the 200day...it's a battle out there gents

that was a crazy day.

anyway, how the &^)* does my trading account trail the SPX by 5 points every freaking day, whether it's an up day or a down day? Bonds up, down, gold up down, tech up down it doesn't matter. I'm in there, 5 bps below the SPX.

Maybe I'm just no good at this.