Maserati, I know you ignored my earlier advice, but I feel compelled to offer you some more. You really shouldn't tout your prediction prowess then in the same post admit you've sat out much of the bull market. That is, unless you're trolling.
Maserati, I know you ignored my earlier advice, but I feel compelled to offer you some more. You really shouldn't tout your prediction prowess then in the same post admit you've sat out much of the bull market. That is, unless you're trolling.
I didn't "sit out much of this bull market".
For the vast majority of it, I was in, and during that part for which I have been out (most of 2014), I have handily outperformed the market.
This is not a boast, it is a fact--a fact that could change, should the market rise a great deal before the end of the year, or should I get back into the market at an unfortunate time before it subsequently drops meaningfully.
If you want to talk data windowing, I have been ahead the entire time I have been out, right up to the present, and I realized the vast majority of the present bull market gains.
But enough about me, the facts are all in this thread.
What I want to know is if Flagpole meaningfully availed himself of what some saw as a good buying opportunity, and which in fact appears to have been just that, according to Flagpole's logic--if I may be so bold.
What was the recent drop...3%? I wouldn't call that a "good buying opportunity" and I don't think Flagpole would either. I've got some cash waiting for a legit correction.
Maserati wrote:
What I want to know is if Flagpole meaningfully availed himself of what some saw as a good buying opportunity, and which in fact appears to have been just that, according to Flagpole's logic--if I may be so bold.
I am currently just holding steady with my normal level of regular contributions. I'm pretty happy with the total these days, so unless I come into a lump sum, I'm not likely to dump a big chunk into the market...I give enough regularly as it is. So, did I take advantage? Of course. I've been in since 1989.
Maserati, if you can do better than a bull market, why are you so anxious to get back in? (I assume you are rooting for a downturn because you are looking to buy.)
I am not "anxious" to get back in, but I do intend to get back in (probably not completely) at the right point.
When you talk about "doing better than a bull market", you must consider only the time period over which you have differently-performing investments. For me, it was until about the end of August this year. Thus, I only claim to have outperformed the markets from Jan-Sept 2014, not the entire "bull market", as it is often called.
I am always looking to buy, because money is no good unless it moves. Unlike post-08 crash, I'm not seeing any significant buying opportunities at the moment in the markets--however, there are some more interesting possibilities in the private placement world. Due to illiquidity, those have to be quite good to pursue in favor of something that is publicly-traded, however--therefore I am still looking at the markets, because they have their advantages.
Again, I'm not anxious to get back in--if I was, I would already be back in. Life's short, however, and I would like to see something definitive happen sooner rather than later.
You'll notice I referred to getting back in, so I obviously knew you had not missed the entire bull market. As for the "anxious" comment, you have been actively rooting here for the market to drop. Would "eager" be a better word?
Thanks for your answer. The liquidity component makes sense.
As a recent example of "metric fiddling", I present to you the so-called "LCMI", which is a bunch of other stuff re-packaged into a new form, with the clear intent of providing an alternative to a metric that might not look so favorable at any given time.
M* reports: "The Fed's labor-market conditions index is the first regularly scheduled release of the indicator. The LCMI condenses several pieces of labor data into one reading, in order to give a better view of the market than offered solely by the unemployment rate, which dropped to 5.9% in September. A healthy number for the new index would be seven, according to Bank of America."
The meaning of the launch of this newest "indicator" is clear, and obvious--but somebody's hand was tipped when it was reported that BoA had an opinion on the matter.
BTW, M* got the acronym wrong, it's LMCI
Busy today, good luck to all!
More information, in case anybody cares:
Maserati wrote:
As a recent example of "metric fiddling", I present to you the so-called "LCMI", which is a bunch of other stuff re-packaged into a new form, with the clear intent of providing an alternative to a metric that might not look so favorable at any given time.
M* reports: "The Fed's labor-market conditions index is the first regularly scheduled release of the indicator. The LCMI condenses several pieces of labor data into one reading, in order to give a better view of the market than offered solely by the unemployment rate, which dropped to 5.9% in September. A healthy number for the new index would be seven, according to Bank of America."
The meaning of the launch of this newest "indicator" is clear, and obvious--but somebody's hand was tipped when it was reported that BoA had an opinion on the matter.
except Yellen said that the LMCI now makes the data look materially WORSE than before. So you should be arguing the opposite here that the Fed is actively and falsely and maliciously talking down the economy for some nefarious reason. I'm sure k5 would have a few explanations for the Fed's deliberately making the economy appear worse than it actually is.
“This broadly based metric supports the conclusion that the labor market has improved significantly over the past year, but it also suggests that the decline in the unemployment rate over this period somewhat overstates the improvement in overall labor market conditions,” Yellen said.
But the bigger point is that I just can't buy the conspiracy theories and cynicism you see all over the world, Maserati. I am sensitive the charge of naivete, which can be true at times, but I think you have gone too far the other way and it is blinding you to seeing things as they are. You view the world in a way that makes you look for the cracks and the rumbles, when the foundation is actually strong.
Well that represent a huge upswing in private payroll employment if I'm reading it right.
agip wrote:
Maserati wrote:As a recent example of "metric fiddling", I present to you the so-called "LCMI", which is a bunch of other stuff re-packaged into a new form, with the clear intent of providing an alternative to a metric that might not look so favorable at any given time.
M* reports: "The Fed's labor-market conditions index is the first regularly scheduled release of the indicator. The LCMI condenses several pieces of labor data into one reading, in order to give a better view of the market than offered solely by the unemployment rate, which dropped to 5.9% in September. A healthy number for the new index would be seven, according to Bank of America."
The meaning of the launch of this newest "indicator" is clear, and obvious--but somebody's hand was tipped when it was reported that BoA had an opinion on the matter.
except Yellen said that the LMCI now makes the data look materially WORSE than before. So you should be arguing the opposite here that the Fed is actively and falsely and maliciously talking down the economy for some nefarious reason. I'm sure k5 would have a few explanations for the Fed's deliberately making the economy appear worse than it actually is.
“This broadly based metric supports the conclusion that the labor market has improved significantly over the past year, but it also suggests that the decline in the unemployment rate over this period somewhat overstates the improvement in overall labor market conditions,” Yellen said.
But the bigger point is that I just can't buy the conspiracy theories and cynicism you see all over the world, Maserati. I am sensitive the charge of naivete, which can be true at times, but I think you have gone too far the other way and it is blinding you to seeing things as they are. You view the world in a way that makes you look for the cracks and the rumbles, when the foundation is actually strong.
I think the reason here is far more practical. For sure, the Fed Governors and staff know well about their role in triggering the collapse of the house of cards in 2008 as I pointed out a few weeks ago. We would have had a collapse eventually anyway, but I'm sure they want to proceed less abruptly this time than a .5% hike at the begging of the year and a 1% hike at the end of the year. And the way to gain "political cover" for (not) doing this is to argue that the economy is not actually as strong as it appears to be.
Nothing sinister. There is NO inflation beast about to rear its ugly head.
agip, I don't know from where you got that impression. I have just tried to state the facts, yet you invest them with negativity.
To me they are neither positive nor negative. I think you're being overly sensitive.
Neither am I criticizing you, even if you use these metrics and indicators to inform your investment strategy--however, the greater the extent to which you do so, the greater the extent that you are just along for the ride, rather than being an active participant.
Finally, yes, there is corruption, self-dealing, conspiracy, obfuscation, collusion, and fraud. And there always has been, and yes it bothers me, but no, I don't let it dominate my thinking about investment.
DJIA down about 45 to under 17k again, around mid-day.
well if I have time and motivation I'll poke back a few pages and show you what I mean about your posts.
just heard an incredibly depressing factor in the decline of labor force participation:
the millions of people with criminal records are being not hired. New technology has made it easier for employers to identify candidates with criminal records.
oy what a country.
Maserati wrote:
The meaning of the launch of this newest "indicator" is clear, and obvious--but somebody's hand was tipped when it was reported that BoA had an opinion on the matter.
"Tipped" What does that mean?
Maserati wrote:
agip, I don't know from where you got that impression. I have just tried to state the facts, yet you invest them with negativity.
To me they are neither positive nor negative. I think you're being overly sensitive.
...
Finally, yes, there is corruption, self-dealing, conspiracy, obfuscation, collusion, and fraud. And there always has been...
Yeah, agip, stop being so negative. Why can't you be more like Maserati?
What's considered a high and low dividend? Like for a quarterly or yearly dividend payment?
Question I want to ask wrote:
What's considered a high and low dividend? Like for a quarterly or yearly dividend payment?
it's all relative to the prevaling interest rate and corporate fashion. 100 years ago, the average dividend was proabably 6%. It then went up and down, and the average now is around 2%. Which is low historically, but close to what you get from a 10 year bond, and there isn't much inflation, so 2% isn't that bad really.
The US is currently a low dividend country - you can get stock dividends of 4%+ in europe and the emerging markets without trying too hard.
so in the US, high would be 3%, low would be zero. Average for a big company stock is 2%.
___
unrelatedly, if you asked most people, would they think unemployment right now is higher or lower than average?
Truth is that unemployment is lower than the 50 year average.
We got used to 4% unemployment rates, but historically 6.1% is the average since 1965.