Down goes the Dow

totally normal

, early estimates from prominent technology analyst Dan Ives sees the investment by the electric-vehicle maker, headed by outspoken Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk, already minting a digital paper profit of at least $1 billion, as the price of the asset soars to records.

“Based on our calculations, we estimate that Tesla so far has made roughly $1 billion of profit over the last month…To put this in perspective, Tesla is on a trajectory to make more from its Bitcoin investments than profits from selling its [electric vehicle] cars in all of 2020,” wrote Wedbush’s prolific analyst Dan Ives, in a note published on Saturday afternoon.

agip wrote:

totally normal

, early estimates from prominent technology analyst Dan Ives sees the investment by the electric-vehicle maker, headed by outspoken Chief Executive Officer Elon Musk, already minting a digital paper profit of at least $1 billion, as the price of the asset soars to records.

“Based on our calculations, we estimate that Tesla so far has made roughly $1 billion of profit over the last month…To put this in perspective, Tesla is on a trajectory to make more from its Bitcoin investments than profits from selling its [electric vehicle] cars in all of 2020,” wrote Wedbush’s prolific analyst Dan Ives, in a note published on Saturday afternoon.

That's definitely weird, but keep in mind that VW and Toyota are some of the largest financial institutions in the world. Making money on cars is meh - making money on loans and other things is where it's at

This is definitely nice but cost of raw materials is still meteoric

Dr. Racket wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

OK. My Porsche was purely a discretionary purchase. The last car I will buy for myself in my life. The bigger question is why does my car or house purchase give you such a hard-on, while others throw money at Bitcoin while calling it an jnvestment?

Coulda had a slightly used 996 Turbo for the same price

I really prefer the Cayman styling and mid-engine handling to the 911. Besides, I avoided inheriting someone else's poor maintenance and abuse.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Dr. Racket wrote:

Coulda had a slightly used 996 Turbo for the same price

I really prefer the Cayman styling and mid-engine handling to the 911. Besides, I avoided inheriting someone else's poor maintenance and abuse.

I haven't been in a 911 since the 1980s but from what I read they're just speed appliances now - boring but very fast. Maybe the Cayman is more fun to drive, even if a bit slower.

Plus, the old saying: It's more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow.

agip wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I really prefer the Cayman styling and mid-engine handling to the 911. Besides, I avoided inheriting someone else's poor maintenance and abuse.

I haven't been in a 911 since the 1980s but from what I read they're just speed appliances now - boring but very fast. Maybe the Cayman is more fun to drive, even if a bit slower.

Plus, the old saying: It's more fun to drive a slow car fast than a fast car slow.

As I mentioned in an earlier post the 2016 Cayman was the last year of an inline 6 cylinder engine. Some Porsche afficinadoes said the move was done to dumb down the Cayman to increase 911 sales. Have no idea if that is true. The Cayman is remarkable on winding Idaho mountain roads, and I have never been one to drive fast. I have no desire to participate in rallies. Mostly, just prefer the styling. Just yesterday I went to breakfast with friends after a morning track session. A gentleman remarked “nice car.” Happens all the time.

For those worried about the effect of rising rates on stocks . Not an automatic problem.

From 1954-1960, the 10 year treasury yield went from 2.3% to 4.7%. In that time, the S&P 500 was up 207% in total (17.4% annualized).

Then from 1971-1981, rates went vertical, rising from 6.2% to 13.7%. This period included sky-high inflation and the brutal 1973-1974 crash, but nominal returns were still pretty decent, at 113% in total (7.1% annual).

From 1993-1994, rates shot up from 6.6% to 8.0%. The S&P 500 was still up nearly 12% in total despite some carnage in the bond market.

At the tail-end of the dot-com bubble, rates rose from 5.5% in 1998 to 6.5% in 1999. Didn’t matter. Stocks were up more than 55% (although that was followed by a 50% crash beginning in early-2000).

From 2003 through 2007, rates went from 3.3% to 5.1%. The S&P rose nearly 83% (12.8% annualized) before the onset of the 2008 crash.

And the latest rising rate environment saw the 10 year go from 1.5% in 2012 to 3% by 2018. Even with the mini-bear market at the end of 2018, stocks were still up 131% in total.

https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2021/02/how-does-the-stock-market-perform-when-interest-rates-rise/

What's Hussman's claim to fame?

Seems like a scrub to me. How do you make so little in a market like this? Everybody made money. I know people with IQs of like 90 that made more than he did.

Cue the cherry picking.

Swaglord_the_real_one_1_one_1 wrote:

What's Hussman's claim to fame?

Seems like a scrub to me. How do you make so little in a market like this? Everybody made money. I know people with IQs of like 90 that made more than he did.

there's a real need for bear market funds. Some people will allocate some percent of their portfolio to a fund that will break even normally but make money in a bear market.

agip wrote:

Swaglord_the_real_one_1_one_1 wrote:

What's Hussman's claim to fame?

Seems like a scrub to me. How do you make so little in a market like this? Everybody made money. I know people with IQs of like 90 that made more than he did.

there's a real need for bear market funds. Some people will allocate some percent of their portfolio to a fund that will break even normally but make money in a bear market.

Yet, you would not say that of bull market funds. Don’t you find that intellectually dishonest, if not, at least twisted logic?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

agip wrote:

there's a real need for bear market funds. Some people will allocate some percent of their portfolio to a fund that will break even normally but make money in a bear market.

Yet, you would not say that of bull market funds. Don’t you find that intellectually dishonest, if not, at least twisted logic?

https://www.morningstar.com/etfs/arcx/arkk/performance

Maybe I don't understand your question, but yes, I would say that of bull market funds.

Many will allocate some amount of their portfolio to high beta funds that should do better than the market during bull runs.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

agip wrote:

there's a real need for bear market funds. Some people will allocate some percent of their portfolio to a fund that will break even normally but make money in a bear market.

Yet, you would not say that of bull market funds. Don’t you find that intellectually dishonest, if not, at least twisted logic?

Oh, the irony!

The point being, it is just the flip side of the intellectual argument. A few posters ago we see the usual “cherry picking” charge, which would certainly be more appropriate looking backward at a market top (as being representative of anything near future performance). But very few who post here ever consider that fact.

Irony Mann wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Yet, you would not say that of bull market funds. Don’t you find that intellectually dishonest, if not, at least twisted logic?

Oh, the irony!

Oh, the Troll!?

Swaglord_the_real_one_1_one_1 wrote:

What's Hussman's claim to fame?

Seems like a scrub to me. How do you make so little in a market like this? Everybody made money. I know people with IQs of like 90 that made more than he did.

A history lesson:

“Here’s an unpleasant full-cycle calculation. Within the 80-year period from 1929 to 2009, the S&P 500 took three long, interesting trips to nowhere, accounting for 53 of those years (1929-1945, 1959-1982, and 1995-2009), underperforming risk-free Treasury bills after all was said and done.”

—John Hussman

Swaglord_the_real_one_1_one_1 wrote:

What's Hussman's claim to fame?

Seems like a scrub to me. How do you make so little in a market like this? Everybody made money. I know people with IQs of like 90 that made more than he did.

I don't know if I 'd call him a scrub. He runs a bespoke bear fund. There's a lot of bear funds out there run by big players like Invesco which means he has to make a case for his bear fund in light of heavy competition - hence why he shills for it continuously all over Twitter.

Dr. Racket wrote:

Swaglord_the_real_one_1_one_1 wrote:

What's Hussman's claim to fame?

Seems like a scrub to me. How do you make so little in a market like this? Everybody made money. I know people with IQs of like 90 that made more than he did.

I don't know if I 'd call him a scrub. He runs a bespoke bear fund. There's a lot of bear funds out there run by big players like Invesco which means he has to make a case for his bear fund in light of heavy competition - hence why he shills for it continuously all over Twitter.

Don't buy that. It is more intellectual arguments, which by the way are more grounded in fact than anything coming from Wall Street. Posters here consume it daily. Full Deal Deal, which will be regurgitated with dire consequences for the trader as well as passive investor.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Swaglord_the_real_one_1_one_1 wrote:

What's Hussman's claim to fame?

Seems like a scrub to me. How do you make so little in a market like this? Everybody made money. I know people with IQs of like 90 that made more than he did.

A history lesson:

“Here’s an unpleasant full-cycle calculation. Within the 80-year period from 1929 to 2009, the S&P 500 took three long, interesting trips to nowhere, accounting for 53 of those years (1929-1945, 1959-1982, and 1995-2009), underperforming risk-free Treasury bills after all was said and done.”

—John Hussman

What happened in the other years?