Down goes the Dow

The hipster that purchase BYND at $170 earlier in the day was not forward looking. He was speculating, and is currently getting spanked.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

The hipster that purchase BYND at $170 earlier in the day was not forward looking. He was speculating, and is currently getting spanked.

Maybe s/he is not a day trader like you?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Big Dog Investments wrote:

To be honest, I bought this based on Igy’s “recommendation”. I’ve done pretty well doing that kind of thing.

Me too, by doing the opposite of you. Up 25% in three weeks.

?

j-wo wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

The hipster that purchase BYND at $170 earlier in the day was not forward looking. He was speculating, and is currently getting spanked.

Maybe s/he is not a day trader like you?

OK, or a short term investment that within hours turned into long term investment, kind of locked into now. ?

agip wrote:

Das Unkle wrote:

R U kidding?

WE will be pushed back into more restrictive and longer lockdowns this winter than we faced last spring. Probably on a national level this time. The economy is already in tatters...wait till next year.

I am staying in gold for sure.

fascinating to see so clearly people who don't - and may never - understand that markets are forward looking.

Markets don't meter what is going on this week. They meter what will happen 6 months or more down the road.

Clearly a vaccine and the strong econ numbers we are saying suggest that things will be much better in 6+ months. So people buy stocks and sell gold in anticipation of that.

Your reply had nothing to do with the comment that next year the economy will be even worse due to looming lockdowns.

Things will be much better in six months?

At the tail end of 4 month lockdown that destroys so many businesses and puts so many folks out of work?

Or do you think there will be no lockdown?

Das Unkle wrote:

Racket wrote:

Bad idea imo but we'll see. Uncertainty is lowering quite a bit and stability is expected over the next few years.

R U kidding?

WE will be pushed back into more restrictive and longer lockdowns this winter than we faced last spring. Probably on a national level this time. The economy is already in tatters...wait till next year.

I am staying in gold for sure.

I am the first to admit that we don't know what we don't know, but i cannot fathom that we are in for more restrictive lockdowns. The public is not going to stand for it and the administrators, whether they be federal or more significantly (frankly), state wide, they know that and will do what they can but know that they are barely able to maintain the status quo and slow the opening process. Push more than that and they lose the public backing altogether, which they know, they cannot risk doing.

In my estimation, the biggest unknown is how much damage has gotten pushed about 18 months to 2 years and beyond from now. Stimulus can't go on forever, and eventually we will have to start paying the price. But that is further out than the markets are looking presently, so that's for another day....

agip wrote:

Das Unkle wrote:

R U kidding?

WE will be pushed back into more restrictive and longer lockdowns this winter than we faced last spring. Probably on a national level this time. The economy is already in tatters...wait till next year.

I am staying in gold for sure.

fascinating to see so clearly people who don't - and may never - understand that markets are forward looking.

Markets don't meter what is going on this week. They meter what will happen 6 months or more down the road.

Clearly a vaccine and the strong econ numbers we are saying suggest that things will be much better in 6+ months. So people buy stocks and sell gold in anticipation of that.

Markets meter what they believe will happen. There is currently essentially no rational basis for anyone to believe what the election outcome will be, or how it will play out. There are many disparate and equally plausible future scenarios, even in the next 6 months.

And at that, the gold funds I hold are held with a view to the future, but farther out than 6 months. The Barrick is a flyer.

Maserati wrote:

agip wrote:

fascinating to see so clearly people who don't - and may never - understand that markets are forward looking.

Markets don't meter what is going on this week. They meter what will happen 6 months or more down the road.

Clearly a vaccine and the strong econ numbers we are saying suggest that things will be much better in 6+ months. So people buy stocks and sell gold in anticipation of that.

Markets meter what they believe will happen. There is currently essentially no rational basis for anyone to believe what the election outcome will be, or how it will play out. There are many disparate and equally plausible future scenarios, even in the next 6 months.

And at that, the gold funds I hold are held with a view to the future, but farther out than 6 months. The Barrick is a flyer.

i'm not commenting on the gold strategy.

But we don't already know the outcome of the election? What?!

Everyone knows. Believe me, everyone knows.

seattle prattle wrote:

Das Unkle wrote:

Bad idea imo but we'll see. Uncertainty is lowering quite a bit and stability is expected over the next few years.

R U kidding?

WE will be pushed back into more restrictive and longer lockdowns this winter than we faced last spring. Probably on a national level this time. The economy is already in tatters...wait till next year.

I am staying in gold for sure.

I am the first to admit that we don't know what we don't know, but i cannot fathom that we are in for more restrictive lockdowns.

I hope you are right but I don't think so.

The media is filled with talk of surges and spikes and record numbers of cases. They are prepping us for the big lockdown coming.

Other guy wrote:

agip wrote:

fascinating to see so clearly people who don't - and may never - understand that markets are forward looking.

Markets don't meter what is going on this week. They meter what will happen 6 months or more down the road.

Clearly a vaccine and the strong econ numbers we are saying suggest that things will be much better in 6+ months. So people buy stocks and sell gold in anticipation of that.

Your reply had nothing to do with the comment that next year the economy will be even worse due to looming lockdowns.

Things will be much better in six months?

At the tail end of 4 month lockdown that destroys so many businesses and puts so many folks out of work?

Or do you think there will be no lockdown?

If there is a lockdown then there will be another bailout of several trillion dollars.

If there is no lockdown, profits will continue to climb.

Other guy wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

R U kidding?

WE will be pushed back into more restrictive and longer lockdowns this winter than we faced last spring. Probably on a national level this time. The economy is already in tatters...wait till next year.

I am staying in gold for sure.

I am the first to admit that we don't know what we don't know, but i cannot fathom that we are in for more restrictive lockdowns.

I hope you are right but I don't think so.

The media is filled with talk of surges and spikes and record numbers of cases. They are prepping us for the big lockdown coming.

Bro, working on your quoting, will ya? Geez!

seattle prattle wrote:

Other guy wrote:

I am the first to admit that we don't know what we don't know, but i cannot fathom that we are in for more restrictive lockdowns.

I hope you are right but I don't think so.

The media is filled with talk of surges and spikes and record numbers of cases. They are prepping us for the big lockdown coming.

Bro, working on your quoting, will ya? Geez!

Okay, further lock downs would have to happen on a state level. Feds can't do that, though admittedly they might try....

Again, this news about surging numbers has been going on for almost three weeks now. It's yesterday's news cycle. While it could conceivably mean more lock downs, the fact that it hasn;t already tells me it won't.

We need better leadership. A lot of faith will be given to a change of guard, as it should be.

That's my bet.

[quote]agip wrote:

[quote]Other guy wrote:

If there is a lockdown then there will be another bailout of several trillion dollars.

You think the Fed can just conjure up trillions of dollars endlessly without problems arising?

Other guy wrote:

[quote]agip wrote:

[quote]Other guy wrote:

If there is a lockdown then there will be another bailout of several trillion dollars.

You think the Fed can just conjure up trillions of dollars endlessly without problems arising?

the sides have weighed in and wall street took notice already.

Senate will probably stay in R. control. Dem in WH. Gridlock. Puts pressure on the Fed to act and a Dem. WH won't try to stop them, and we know the Fed has already said loud in clear: THE ECONOMY DESPERATELY NEEDS A LARGE STIMULUS.

so, wall street expects one is coming, plus Mitch made overtures to this effect over the weekend (though not the 3 trillion the Dems want). I think all that is factored in.

* Fed will provide stimulus by keeping interest rates low, which is in their power.

[quote]seattle prattle wrote:

[quote]seattle prattle wrote:

Okay, further lock downs would have to happen on a state level. Feds can't do that, though admittedly they might try....

Again, this news about surging numbers has been going on for almost three weeks now. It's yesterday's news cycle. While it could conceivably mean more lock downs, the fact that it hasn;t already tells me it won't.

Okay.

I am calling it right now.

1. There will be very restrictive lockdowns. The talk of surges, etc. has already been used to institute curfews, shut some businesses, more stringent mask rules. After only a month of the new scary claims.

2. The lockdowns will now come from the federal government. It was never explained why the governors had the power to do this before, and the switch to the federal government will not be truly explained -- some BS will be thrown out there.

Let's come back and revisit this prediction in three months. And see who could see what was coming.

seattle prattle wrote:

Other guy wrote:

[quote]agip wrote:

[quote]Other guy wrote:

You think the Fed can just conjure up trillions of dollars endlessly without problems arising?

the sides have weighed in and wall street took notice already.

Senate will probably stay in R. control. Dem in WH. Gridlock. Puts pressure on the Fed to act and a Dem. WH won't try to stop them, and we know the Fed has already said loud in clear: THE ECONOMY DESPERATELY NEEDS A LARGE STIMULUS.

so, wall street expects one is coming, plus Mitch made overtures to this effect over the weekend (though not the 3 trillion the Dems want). I think all that is factored in.

Let me try again.

You think the Fed can just conjure up trillions of dollars endlessly without problems arising?

Other guy wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

the sides have weighed in and wall street took notice already.

Senate will probably stay in R. control. Dem in WH. Gridlock. Puts pressure on the Fed to act and a Dem. WH won't try to stop them, and we know the Fed has already said loud in clear: THE ECONOMY DESPERATELY NEEDS A LARGE STIMULUS.

so, wall street expects one is coming, plus Mitch made overtures to this effect over the weekend (though not the 3 trillion the Dems want). I think all that is factored in.

Let me try again.

You think the Fed can just conjure up trillions of dollars endlessly without problems arising?

The problems will arise later, like a couple of years from now. The idea was that stimulus is supposed to be a bridge to more stable times, and when we reach those more stable times, we can slowly start digging out of the hole we dug without the fear of the economy collapsing. In the short term, the market loves the stimulus so that is what you are seeing. Whether the long term strategy works, we have yet to see....

Other guy wrote:

seattle prattle wrote:

the sides have weighed in and wall street took notice already.

Senate will probably stay in R. control. Dem in WH. Gridlock. Puts pressure on the Fed to act and a Dem. WH won't try to stop them, and we know the Fed has already said loud in clear: THE ECONOMY DESPERATELY NEEDS A LARGE STIMULUS.

so, wall street expects one is coming, plus Mitch made overtures to this effect over the weekend (though not the 3 trillion the Dems want). I think all that is factored in.

Let me try again.

You think the Fed can just conjure up trillions of dollars endlessly without problems arising?

10 Year Treasury was at 0.73% a week ago, and 0.935% today. At real market rates the debt would be unsustainable for governments, corporations, and individuals. The problem is already there. The Fed is in a horrible box, while investors whistle past the graveyard.