Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Gruntz wrote:
It’s hard for you not to feel persecuted when even your neighbors don’t want you around. But I don’t hate you. I actually feel sorry for you (and your few remaining clients ☹️). But I do enjoy the comic relief you bring to this thread. Your trolling is epic.
^Hey ?, it is Your purpose in life.
Hugs.
Great news. Love new highs!
Planning on bailing out when S+P 500 crosses 3,200 (or 3,000 if it goes the other way).
No need to get greedy
Planning wrote:
Planning on bailing out when S+P 500 crosses 3,200 (or 3,000 if it goes the other way).
No need to get greedy
That's probably not a bad idea. But the trajectory has been grinding slowly up so steadily, i might wait a little longer to get a sense it has stalled out before taking profits. Would not be surprised to see flatline through December as institutional investors lock in their gains after a very solid year.
January often brings fresh cash into the IRAs, and all that, though.
Someone once said 'buying is easy, knowing when to sell is hard.'
All things considered, I could go either way - putting more in or taking profits, depending on how the next few weeks go.
What a difference from a year ago, though! Who would of thought.
agip wrote:
re; tech...i go back and forth on this:
Tech is up c.17% per year for 10 years. That's pretty phenomenal performance.
(which is one reason some tech stock prices are so high)
The SP500 is around 20% tech.
Is there an argument to own say 40% tech in a portfolio? I think probably yes.
Someone went through the vast outperformance of the US over european stocks and found that most of the reason was tech outperformance. Europe is ok with tech but just not at the US level.
I mean I know,,2000-2002...but maybe we should all have a lot more tech.
//
unrelated - re; the lack of splits...it's just one more example of how companies are going to wean themselves off the public markets. Splits cost money to do...if you don't have to do a split why spend the money?
Plus it's a bit of a big swinging d/k move - reminds everyone that your stock is up 1000% or whatever.
dumber than dumb wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
The market has been going bonkers. Anyone who did not buy at its nadir in 2008 missed out HUGELY. Every day seems to bring new highs. 28,000 for the Dow. I think it was around 6,500 or so just over 10 years ago. Just an incredible run. Igy please comment on how these incredible gains will evaporate very soon.
I know, right. But some people wouldn't see it if hit them over their head.
Apparently, there's no telling.
It's kind of like some clueless bastards elsewhere on this messageboard trying to say global warming isn't happening. LOL!
Can you believe that?!
I hate to break it to you but in the last 20-some-odd years the Earth has pretty much quit warming. It has warmed slightly but is nowhere as warm as it was in the Middle Ages. We will be soon crying how Global Cooling will be the destruction of the Earth. You do know, I hope, that the Earth goes through warming and cooling trends. It has so in its history and will certainly do so in the future. Global Warming? Seriously? Why were some of the most esteemed Global Scientists manipulating data when that data did not support their agenda? Answer me that.
Sally Vix wrote:
dumber than dumb wrote:
I know, right. But some people wouldn't see it if hit them over their head.
Apparently, there's no telling.
It's kind of like some clueless bastards elsewhere on this messageboard trying to say global warming isn't happening. LOL!
Can you believe that?!
I hate to break it to you but in the last 20-some-odd years the Earth has pretty much quit warming. It has warmed slightly but is nowhere as warm as it was in the Middle Ages. We will be soon crying how Global Cooling will be the destruction of the Earth. You do know, I hope, that the Earth goes through warming and cooling trends. It has so in its history and will certainly do so in the future. Global Warming? Seriously? Why were some of the most esteemed Global Scientists manipulating data when that data did not support their agenda? Answer me that.
If these Global Warming "scientists" had any credibility WHATSOEVER they would question why this data ran counter to what they expected. They would do so with fervor. But Global Warming "scientists" can't do that. They would be ostracized by the liberal scientific community. They would lose their grants. They would lose their funding. They would lose their JOBS! They must stick to this preposterous narrative that Global Warming Dupes have laid out. Just a shame. Scientists used to care about science. Many still do. Just not the Global Warming "scientists." Frauds. All of them!
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
I hate to break it to you but in the last 20-some-odd years the Earth has pretty much quit warming. It has warmed slightly but is nowhere as warm as it was in the Middle Ages. We will be soon crying how Global Cooling will be the destruction of the Earth. You do know, I hope, that the Earth goes through warming and cooling trends. It has so in its history and will certainly do so in the future. Global Warming? Seriously? Why were some of the most esteemed Global Scientists manipulating data when that data did not support their agenda? Answer me that.
If these Global Warming "scientists" had any credibility WHATSOEVER they would question why this data ran counter to what they expected. They would do so with fervor. But Global Warming "scientists" can't do that. They would be ostracized by the liberal scientific community. They would lose their grants. They would lose their funding. They would lose their JOBS! They must stick to this preposterous narrative that Global Warming Dupes have laid out. Just a shame. Scientists used to care about science. Many still do. Just not the Global Warming "scientists." Frauds. All of them!
In their defense, it would be intimidating to go against the environmental fascists. They are angry and deranged and seek nothing less than the personal destruction of any who would fail to bow to their orthodoxy.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
https://mobile.twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1196016321013669888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196016321013669888&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fmarkets-day-reckoning-looms
Does this guy not know that the Russell 2000 is an index of small cap stocks, or does the 6th grade math that explains this escape him?
Leftistfascists wrote:
In their defense, it would be intimidating to go against the environmental fascists. They are angry and deranged and seek nothing less than the personal destruction of any who would fail to bow to their orthodoxy.
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeGiven that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
Huh?? wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
https://mobile.twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1196016321013669888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196016321013669888&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fmarkets-day-reckoning-loomsDoes this guy not know that the Russell 2000 is an index of small cap stocks, or does the 6th grade math that explains this escape him?
Escape, did you come from the looney farm?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Huh?? wrote:
Does this guy not know that the Russell 2000 is an index of small cap stocks, or does the 6th grade math that explains this escape him?
Escape, did you come from the looney farm?
What?
?
Fat hurts wrote:
Leftistfascists wrote:
In their defense, it would be intimidating to go against the environmental fascists. They are angry and deranged and seek nothing less than the personal destruction of any who would fail to bow to their orthodoxy.
The scientific community overwhelmingly accepts anthropogenic global warming.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_changeGiven that fact, there are three possibilities:
1) The scientific community is made up of stupid people.
2) The scientific community is engaged in a global conspiracy.
3) The scientific community is made up of smart people who know how to do their jobs and are therefore very likely to be correct.
Those who think they know better than the scientists are picking #1. For example, you might hear someone say something to the effect of "Don't you know that some of the thermometers are in urban areas? It's hotter there."
Those who are paranoid are picking #2. For example, on talk radio I often hear, "The global warming crowd is out to destroy capitalism. It's all a hoax!"
Those who are well grounded in reality choose #3.
Well said!
This one will not be read carefully by Iggy and Maser.
It argues that the great stock returns of the last ten years were a response to very positive and improving fundamentals. Meaning earnings growth.
NOT fed tampering.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
https://mobile.twitter.com/NorthmanTrader/status/1196016321013669888?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1196016321013669888&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Fmarkets-day-reckoning-loomsagip wrote:
re; tech...i go back and forth on this:
Tech is up c.17% per year for 10 years. That's pretty phenomenal performance.
(which is one reason some tech stock prices are so high)
The SP500 is around 20% tech.
Is there an argument to own say 40% tech in a portfolio? I think probably yes.
Someone went through the vast outperformance of the US over european stocks and found that most of the reason was tech outperformance. Europe is ok with tech but just not at the US level.
I mean I know,,2000-2002...but maybe we should all have a lot more tech.
//
unrelated - re; the lack of splits...it's just one more example of how companies are going to wean themselves off the public markets. Splits cost money to do...if you don't have to do a split why spend the money?
Plus it's a bit of a big swinging d/k move - reminds everyone that your stock is up 1000% or whatever.
yeah I know and fear investing in the tech giants. I mean there is a law of big numbers, an anti-trust problem, and other problems.
I have most of my tech-specific money in an equal weighted fund, to avoid owning just Apple and Msft and goog and whatever.
It costs more and has been the wrong choice for the most part but I don't think companies made decades ago will remain the best tech investments.
agip wrote:
It argues that the great stock returns of the last ten years were a response to very positive and improving fundamentals. Meaning earnings growth.
NOT fed tampering.
https://fortune.com/2019/11/16/what-powered-such-a-great-decade-for-stocks-this-formula-explains-it-all/?utm_campaign=fortunemagazine&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&xid=soc_socialflow_twitter_FORTUNE
BLASPHEMY!!!
all time highs again.
seems that buying after a 19 month waiting spell was smart.
and the 19 month waiting spell was not a signal of a long term top.
That was a fun little shot, agip :)
I read it, completely--but I admit that I find it mystifying.
First, I would ask if Bogle's numbers are based on the SP500, or the entire US publicly-traded market. It is not specified, and could make a difference.
Second, I think some terms should be nailed down. From the shareholder perspective, "return on equities" = dividends + price change. Dividends are distributions to shareholders made at the discretion of the board. A share is a bundle of rights, one of which is the right to receive a portion of that distribution should it be made.
There is no debate that dividends contribute to overall return, as seen by a shareholder.
The other contribution, be it + or -, is from price change. Price change is defined as the difference between what you actually paid for a stock (i.e. how much you thought it was worth at the beginning of the time period, for whatever reasons), and what you could realistically sell it for (i.e. how much others think it's worth at the end of the time period, for whatever reasons).
I see nothing in the article that explains or even describes aggregate "reasons" for those who bought all the equities in question at the beginning of the time period, or any explanation or description of the aggregate "reasons" people would buy them at the end of the time period.
The hope for price appreciation is just that--hope. It is entirely speculative, unless you are doing insider trading, stock manipulation, or are big enough to move the market. The hope of price appreciation is always the hope that at some point in the future others will value things that they think are relevant to the stock price more than you valued the things that you thought relevant when you bought it.
It is hope, nothing more. It can be based on the strength of other investment vehicles, the strength of currencies, conflict, inflation, guesses about future performance for which one proxy is earnings growth, etc.
Different stock purchasers and sellers pay attention to different things. I see nothing in this article that describes the motivations for investor decisions.
Your turn.