Down goes the Dow

Maserati wrote:

I know people with money on the sidelines.

I know that people with lots of money have a lot on the sidelines.

How much of the multi year bull market has been propelled by buy-backs, which is one thing to do with that sideline money if you are a corp?

OK, so say Person A has "a lot on the sidelines" but then decides to take the plunge and buys "a ton" of stock from Person B. Doesn't Person B then have "an equal lot on the sidelines" now? Isn't there some sort of conservation of money on the sidelines law involved here?

Isn't that pretty much what the author of your article was saying? That there really are no "sidelines"?

And money used for buybacks is certainly not on these alleged sidelines.

Wally Vixxxxens wrote:

Isn't that pretty much what the author of your article was saying? That there really are no "sidelines"?

And money used for buybacks is certainly not on these alleged sidelines.

Yes

my proprietary small cap vs. large cap indicator still says sell - even on an up day small caps are barely breaking even. Which tells me people aren't comfortable with risk yet.

I'll call a bottom if there are couple of back to back days of small caps outperforming large caps. But we aren't there yet.

Taking it out of the left pocket and putting it into the right is not putting it to work.

In fact, the money with which a company owns its own shares is very much more out of circulation than is cash in a bank account, and very much on the sidelines.

Interesting.

But, it's often not risk that is important per se--it's the pricing of risk.

DJIA up 116 so far today, darn it.

Maserati wrote:

Taking it out of the left pocket and putting it into the right is not putting it to work.

In fact, the money with which a company owns its own shares is very much more out of circulation than is cash in a bank account, and very much on the sidelines.

But it's in the pockets of someone else who is presumably doing something else with it. That's the point, is that "on the sidelines" simply means "belonging to someone else"

So now we're talking about corporate money "on the sidelines"? What happened to the discussion about personal money?

That was shown to be false, so I guess Maserati changed the subject. But money used in buybacks is hardly on the "sidelines" so that argument is going nowhere too.

It's very easy to ignore your ridiculous schizophrenic posting.

****************************

DJIA closes up 154 to 17,210, shucks.

Some talking head was saying today that the only thing keeping these numbers alive is large caps, and that everything else--commodities, oil, small caps, europe, and global stocks, suck. The numbers I see via Morningstar would seem to bear this out.

Maybe I should assemble a portfolio of exclusively large firms doing eldercare, and pharma where the main patents have some time left.

Looking at BRK at the moment.

Maserati wrote:

Some talking head was saying today that the only thing keeping these numbers alive is large caps, and that everything else--commodities, oil, small caps, europe, and global stocks, suck.

Sounds like what agip's been saying.

Maserati wrote:

It's very easy to ignore your ridiculous schizophrenic posting.

Yet you choose to reply. Who's schizo?

Maserati wrote:

It's very easy to ignore your ridiculous schizophrenic posting.

...

Wow, now where have I heard that before?...hmmm...

.

.

.

Oh yeah, it was from you earlier in this thread when someone called you out about your better definition for inflation than the CPI. You promised to put some meat behind your BS and then when called out repeatedly you said:

"It's getting easier and easier to ignore you"

You are an impressive one! Talk a bunch of meaningless BS and then hide behind 'I'll just be forced to ignore you' when called out.

LOL!

What is the matter with you?

Seriously, you have a problem.

Yes, I do have a problem. I have a problem with people who say things that are wrong and then refuse to be accountable. I have a problem with people who make numerous predictions across a wide spectrum so that they can later tout their own genius when the inevitable happens. I have a problem with fools.

Maybe, but that doesn't seem to apply here. I personally enjoy maser's comments. I have found him to be consistent, thoughtful, and to have conviction in his beliefs, as he seems to invest on them, and to do well.

But most of all I like the fact that he seems gracious and actually happy for the gains that other people achieve.

Unlike yourself, who just seems like a d-bag looking to pick a fight and bring the place down.

M* fan wrote:

Maybe, but that doesn't seem to apply here. I personally enjoy maser's comments. I have found him to be consistent, thoughtful, and to have conviction in his beliefs, as he seems to invest on them, and to do well.

But most of all I like the fact that he seems gracious and actually happy for the gains that other people achieve.

Unlike yourself, who just seems like a d-bag looking to pick a fight and bring the place down.

It should be noted that Maserati threw out the first insults. Very mature.

I have always been fascinated by the perception of criticism as insult, and by the perception of insult as morally wrong.

In other news, Maserati's articulated views are of government policy that comports with Keynsian principles (which are enjoying a renaissance), whether or not other posters understand those principles. In this characterization he is undoubtedly correct, especially concerning the savings rate, both corporate and personal, buybacks, the under-utilization of capital, and government intervention through spending and other means.

This is generally agreed-upon at the policy level. Maserati goes beyond strict Keynsianism, and that's why his contributions are interesting to observe, because he seems to think that we live in a hybrid type of society from an economic perspective. I suppose in what direction the hybrid progresses is based on fumbling and tinkering, as much as it is based on any rational response to conditions.

In any event, I welcome Maserati's continued contributions, and I would urge readers to not view insult as universally morally reprehensible.

Sometimes it is well-deserved.