Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Gruntz wrote:
I’m calling BS on this. So someone used “Sally” as part of their username. That’s a pretty common name. I don’t know what your son’s name is, but I’m guessing you’re overreacting on that one too. Similarly in a thread such as this, you’re going to see some investment related companies mentioned.
Methinks your narcissism is getting the better of you. It’s not always about you.
I should care about what you think?
You do seem to pay a lot of attention to him.
All chosen dates and time windows are arbitrary, except maybe the data point that is today.
Igy has tried to prove that point, but has not done a very good job of it. He has proceeded by describing contrasting examples, rather than by simple explanation. 10? 20? There is nothing magic about base-10. In fact, base-2 has many advantages in math.
Likewise there is nothing magic or significant about a local minimum or maximum in a long data series.
Posters here seem to all be arguing about the appropriateness of superimposing past patterns onto the future. I approach things differently—I look around at what exists now, do research to find out why it is so and exactly what it means, and act on that information over short time-frames. I have been wrong, for instance my belief that the dollar would sink significantly last year, but I change my thinking when interventions warrant it—so I bought a small b&h and a big chunk of AAPL and some others.
The point is that from where I stand, Igy has the better view. He doesn’t do a great job articulating it, and he is running up against articles of faith that are ingrained, and frankly indispensable in maintaining this bull market. Self-fulfilling prophecy is a big thing, but one really needs to be aware of the fact that there are whales and controllers in the face of which one is powerless, if one adheres to the current retail philosophy.
Risk doesn’t matter, until it’s too late. Retail acts as though there are no risks, or as though they are minimal. Retail is often little more than an amusement ride—and yes, this year was worth the cost of admission, so far.
Just recognize it for what it is—a uniquely human endeavor, with everything that entails.
Maserati wrote:
All chosen dates and time windows are arbitrary, except maybe the data point that is today.
Igy has tried to prove that point, but has not done a very good job of it. He has proceeded by describing contrasting examples, rather than by simple explanation. 10? 20? There is nothing magic about base-10. In fact, base-2 has many advantages in math.
Likewise there is nothing magic or significant about a local minimum or maximum in a long data series.
Posters here seem to all be arguing about the appropriateness of superimposing past patterns onto the future. I approach things differently—I look around at what exists now, do research to find out why it is so and exactly what it means, and act on that information over short time-frames. I have been wrong, for instance my belief that the dollar would sink significantly last year, but I change my thinking when interventions warrant it—so I bought a small b&h and a big chunk of AAPL and some others.
The point is that from where I stand, Igy has the better view. He doesn’t do a great job articulating it, and he is running up against articles of faith that are ingrained, and frankly indispensable in maintaining this bull market. Self-fulfilling prophecy is a big thing, but one really needs to be aware of the fact that there are whales and controllers in the face of which one is powerless, if one adheres to the current retail philosophy.
Risk doesn’t matter, until it’s too late. Retail acts as though there are no risks, or as though they are minimal. Retail is often little more than an amusement ride—and yes, this year was worth the cost of admission, so far.
Just recognize it for what it is—a uniquely human endeavor, with everything that entails.
Trump needs the economy to be strong going into the 2020 election. It's well known that he's glued to the TV and has CNBC on 24/7 watching the Dow tick up and down. Aside from the fact that the economy does not equal the Dow, we have a president that will do anything to juice the market upwards. Trade "deals" with China will be teased and maybe even signed to achieve that goal.
2021 is a different story, especially if Trump wins re-election. In the meantime, everyone is gonna sit back and let it ride upwards. Why wouldn't you? Imagine being an investor and and betting against the market despite knowing about the indestructibly corrupt hurricane force headwinds pushing it forward.
agip wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
No, I don’t think so, by then the market will be down 65%. You may learn a lesson you have yet to experience as a financial advisor managing other people’s money. It won’t be fun and you will experience many sleepless nights.
Igy, come on. It's me. Agip. We've been doing this for years now.
You used to use 10 year returns, pegged to 2005/7 because they were bad.
Then when you couldn't use 10 year returns anymore because they were pegged to the 2008 lows and suddenly became good, you switched to 20 year returns, pegged to the top of the tech bubble.
And in 2022, when 20 year returns become good, you'll find something else to make the stock market look bad.
You can't pull the wool over this six-legged dragon. It's been too many posts.
Agip Igy is still touting CDs which have an annual return of 1% over the last 30 years. The Dow has returned 450% over the last 12 years or so. He is not dealing with reality. He is in fantasy land.
Right Racket. Based on that view of current conditions I will continue to hold the b&h for a while longer...
...but Drumpf is not the whole picture. He will try to govern by the index, that is for sure. His success is somewhat less sure, especially if the Fed actually does stand pat.
Public polls will be really interesting in the next year. Apparently he might have a decent approval rating, but we will see how the data evolves, and from what source. Positioning for the election will IMO be huge this time.
Maserati wrote:
All chosen dates and time windows are arbitrary, except maybe the data point that is today.
Igy has tried to prove that point, but has not done a very good job of it. He has proceeded by describing contrasting examples, rather than by simple explanation. 10? 20? There is nothing magic about base-10. In fact, base-2 has many advantages in math.
Likewise there is nothing magic or significant about a local minimum or maximum in a long data series.
Posters here seem to all be arguing about the appropriateness of superimposing past patterns onto the future. I approach things differently—I look around at what exists now, do research to find out why it is so and exactly what it means, and act on that information over short time-frames. I have been wrong, for instance my belief that the dollar would sink significantly last year, but I change my thinking when interventions warrant it—so I bought a small b&h and a big chunk of AAPL and some others.
The point is that from where I stand, Igy has the better view. He doesn’t do a great job articulating it, and he is running up against articles of faith that are ingrained, and frankly indispensable in maintaining this bull market. Self-fulfilling prophecy is a big thing, but one really needs to be aware of the fact that there are whales and controllers in the face of which one is powerless, if one adheres to the current retail philosophy.
Risk doesn’t matter, until it’s too late. Retail acts as though there are no risks, or as though they are minimal. Retail is often little more than an amusement ride—and yes, this year was worth the cost of admission, so far.
Just recognize it for what it is—a uniquely human endeavor, with everything that entails.
Maserati,
In regards to time frame, go peak to peak or nadir to nadir. Going nadir to peak or peak to nadir hides the cyclical nature of the market. Why else do investors get overly exuberant at a top, and despondent at the bottom?
On valuation of the market Buffett said it best “the value you get, is the price you pay.” In the late stages of a Bull Market investors pay too much and get little value. Seems like simple common sense principles on both scores to me.
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I would not advocate being out of the market.
You just knew at some point he was going to make this claim again!
Before I get roasted, YES I know that “data” is the plural form and that “evolves” is the singular.
Buffett often doesn’t know what he is saying. He has relied for too long on power.
Did he unwrap that statement?
Igy, markets might be cyclical over some time windows, but we hardly have “markets” at this point.
Then there are those who would pick a start point lower than their end point, and claim that any cycles between the two don’t matter to a b&h-type person. Indeed, over its life, the market is not cyclical, even if you adjust it for the massive asymptotic devaluation of the dollar over the last century:
https://www.rstreet.org/2017/01/26/what-dow-20000-looks-like-in-inflation-adjusted-terms/
Maybe interestingly to you, they get a 2.3% real annual price growth in the DJIA over 100 years...before tax, of course!
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Maserati,
In regards to time frame, go peak to peak or nadir to nadir. Going nadir to peak or peak to nadir hides the cyclical nature of the market. Why else do investors get overly exuberant at a top, and despondent at the bottom?
On valuation of the market Buffett said it best “the value you get, is the price you pay.” In the late stages of a Bull Market investors pay too much and get little value. Seems like simple common sense principles on both scores to me.
Igy
Emphasizing the amplitude of the cycle has much more value than going from one local max/min to another. Obviously you know this since you often speak of an impending 50-65% drop. Ultimately the only time frame that really matters is the one from buy to sell.
As for paying too much and getting little value, see my previous sentence.
J. Hardy wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Maserati,
In regards to time frame, go peak to peak or nadir to nadir. Going nadir to peak or peak to nadir hides the cyclical nature of the market. Why else do investors get overly exuberant at a top, and despondent at the bottom?
On valuation of the market Buffett said it best “the value you get, is the price you pay.” In the late stages of a Bull Market investors pay too much and get little value. Seems like simple common sense principles on both scores to me.
Igy
Emphasizing the amplitude of the cycle has much more value than going from one local max/min to another. Obviously you know this since you often speak of an impending 50-65% drop. Ultimately the only time frame that really matters is the one from buy to sell.
As for paying too much and getting little value, see my previous sentence.
Market history shows investors have been poor a picking their buy and sell points. Perhaps this time will be different.
Maserati wrote:
Buffett often doesn’t know what he is saying. He has relied for too long on power.
Did he unwrap that statement?
Igy, markets might be cyclical over some time windows, but we hardly have “markets” at this point.
Then there are those who would pick a start point lower than their end point, and claim that any cycles between the two don’t matter to a b&h-type person. Indeed, over its life, the market is not cyclical, even if you adjust it for the massive asymptotic devaluation of the dollar over the last century:
https://www.rstreet.org/2017/01/26/what-dow-20000-looks-like-in-inflation-adjusted-terms/Maybe interestingly to you, they get a 2.3% real annual price growth in the DJIA over 100 years...before tax, of course!
Equity market returns hyped by the industry. Real estate guy will tell you the same. Agree that markets no longer function traditionally. My view is that does not lead to a benign end to this cycle.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
On valuation of the market Buffett said it best “the value you get, is the price you pay.”
What he really said was, “Price is what you pay, value is what you get.”
Fact checker wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
On valuation of the market Buffett said it best “the value you get, is the price you pay.”
What he really said was, “Price is what you pay, value is what you get.”
Yes, that sounds more like it.
And that historical real DJIA, Igy, yes I know that the Dow components have changed over that time and the return is therefore somewhat cherry-picked.
Fact checker wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
On valuation of the market Buffett said it best “the value you get, is the price you pay.”
What he really said was, “Price is what you pay, value is what you get.”
Means the same thing. My memory is better than I thought.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Fact checker wrote:
What he really said was, “Price is what you pay, value is what you get.”
Means the same thing. My memory is better than I thought.
It does not mean the same thing.
Sure it is, but I would expect as much from your nonsense.
Those two quotes say very different things.
mister wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I would not advocate being out of the market.
You just knew at some point he was going to make this claim again!
Yeah! It's funny how after a few months, or years, of his market crash "SOON" prediction not happening, all of a sudden he become's Mr. Bullish.
At 3,170+ S&P 500 to reach fair value would imply drop of -65%.