Down goes the Dow

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

https://www.marketwatch.com/amp/story/guid/14EC083E-1D8C-11EA-A37B-63BB81D511AD?__twitter_impression=true

Chris Rupkey spent his early career at Paine Weber working for Larry Kudlow!

In Kudlow’s before or after cocaine days?

Maybe he has some inside information!

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

In Kudlow’s before or after cocaine days?

Maybe he has some inside information!

It was back in the 70s, his cocaine days were years later. The Mathew McConaughey lunch scene in Wolf of Wall Street is how I would always picture him. Another Kudlow fact, he was a member of the SDS while attending the University of Rochester.

Hard to imagine SDS and one of his current day pin stripe suits. One of the early Dean Witter colleagues talked of evening cold calling in a Bay Area office while smoking pot. When I started in 1996 there was more color to the business. Rather boring these days, at least for now. Perhaps something exciting will happen before I retire.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Drawdown is what destroys compounding.

Ok, so you mean compounding at a higher rate takes place AFTER (or late into) a drawdown. I thought you meant that was the case at all times. My bad. Obviously compounding is best during times like now with stocks near highs.

Seattle prattle (on a different, read: faster, browser) wrote:

Then U Know Nothing wrote:

So what do you base your investment strategy on if not the past?

whatever you build it on, if it continues to deliver sub-par returns, you might consider it wise to change it. How long you hold out until you reach that conclusion, and how much you are willing to wager based on your level of certainty and comfort with risk, is a personal decision.

But as for a 20% level, and for this long to hold that view, well, let's just say that that is not indicative of my levels or time to reach the aforementioned conclusions.

WTF does that mean?

Helloooooo? wrote:

Then U Know Nothing wrote:

So what do you base your investment strategy on if not the past?

Seriously?

Simple enough question.

You can't answer this?

Seriously?

Anglais s'il vous plais wrote:

Seattle prattle (on a different, read: faster, browser) wrote:

whatever you build it on, if it continues to deliver sub-par returns, you might consider it wise to change it. How long you hold out until you reach that conclusion, and how much you are willing to wager based on your level of certainty and comfort with risk, is a personal decision.

But as for a 20% level, and for this long to hold that view, well, let's just say that that is not indicative of my levels or time to reach the aforementioned conclusions.

WTF does that mean?

Seems obvious.

Nutella fan wrote:

Anglais s'il vous plais wrote:

WTF does that mean?

Seems obvious.

Well if its so obvious then I would think you could explain it.

Welly then wrote:

Nutella fan wrote:

Seems obvious.

Well if its so obvious then I would think you could explain it.

I could, but since the meaning is obvious it would be a waste of time.

Nutella fan wrote:

Welly then wrote:

Well if its so obvious then I would think you could explain it.

I could, but since the meaning is obvious it would be a waste of time.

Do me a favor then and do so. I mean, it's so obvious and you claim you can do do it.

Do me a solid wrote:

Nutella fan wrote:

I could, but since the meaning is obvious it would be a waste of time.

Do me a favor then and do so. I mean, it's so obvious and you claim you can do do it.

If it’s so obvious, why do you need him to explain it to you?

Hellooooooo? wrote:

Do me a solid wrote:

Do me a favor then and do so. I mean, it's so obvious and you claim you can do do it.

If it’s so obvious, why do you need him to explain it to you?

He is the one who says it is obvious, not me.

R U really that stupid? Scary

El Stupid wrote:

Hellooooooo? wrote:

If it’s so obvious, why do you need him to explain it to you?

He is the one who says it is obvious, not me.

R U really that stupid? Scary

You wrote, “it’s so obvious”. Now who’s stupid?

Hellooooooo? wrote:

El Stupid wrote:

He is the one who says it is obvious, not me.

R U really that stupid? Scary

You wrote, “it’s so obvious”. Now who’s stupid?

Yikes. Yes, you really are that stupid.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

https://i1.wp.com/northmantrader.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/2000-1.png?ssl=1

These 5 companies account for 15.7% of S&P 500 GAAP TTM earnings and combined their GAAP net margin was 19.98%. The Index's net margin was 9.54%.

In 1999; MSFT, GE, CSCO, WMT and XOM only accounted for 7.07% of the S&P 500 GAAP earnings and their combined net margin was 7.7%. The Index's net margin was around 6%.

How many of the 1999 companies were buying back stock and incurring debt at today’s rate?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

How many of the 1999 companies were buying back stock and incurring debt at today’s rate?

I'm talking about GAAP Net Earnings not EPS, buybacks have no effect.