I do not make small bets. These are all substantial enough to easily cover any and all brokers commissions and taxes (assuming a gain). The money is not mine, but that of my clients. They are happy right now because I am winning.
I do not make small bets. These are all substantial enough to easily cover any and all brokers commissions and taxes (assuming a gain). The money is not mine, but that of my clients. They are happy right now because I am winning.
So, you are a Registered Investment Advisor correct?
Chemical Reagent wrote:
I do not make small bets. These are all substantial enough to easily cover any and all brokers commissions and taxes (assuming a gain). The money is not mine, but that of my clients. They are happy right now because I am winning.
So, a trade that is large enough to cover broker commissions and taxes is substantial? WTF?
Maybe you were just joking. Sorry if I didn't pick up on that.
the heck is wrong with you people? Can you put down for a second your cynicism and need to crank down on people?
or at least hold it til someone deserves it? CR has declared exactly what his trades are and disclosed the biz relationship he has.
the hostility is absurd in this case. Plenty of other people deserve it - not this guy.
agip wrote:
the heck is wrong with you people? Can you put down for a second your cynicism and need to crank down on people?
or at least hold it til someone deserves it? CR has declared exactly what his trades are and disclosed the biz relationship he has.
the hostility is absurd in this case. Plenty of other people deserve it - not this guy.
Your own hostility is what is absurd here. I am asking an honest question. I truly do not understand how someone can be claiming that a trade is substantial because it is large enough to cover brokerage commissions.
Now, please tone down your hostility.
CR said he is executing trades on a discretionary basis for clients. I would like CR to answer my question: Are you a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA)?
Strange Seams wrote:
agip wrote:the heck is wrong with you people? Can you put down for a second your cynicism and need to crank down on people?
or at least hold it til someone deserves it? CR has declared exactly what his trades are and disclosed the biz relationship he has.
the hostility is absurd in this case. Plenty of other people deserve it - not this guy.
Your own hostility is what is absurd here. I am asking an honest question. I truly do not understand how someone can be claiming that a trade is substantial because it is large enough to cover brokerage commissions.
Now, please tone down your hostility.
well maybe I misread tone - apologies
Huah!
that's a rally. Everything is up and just about every kind of stock is near 52 week highs.
Bonds even bounced a little.
Although as I write this...why is everything going up together? That probably isn't the healthiest.
But I'll take it - huge rally.
....and all time highs for the US and global stocks
Market action reminds me of the period before 50% drops beginning in 2000 and 2007. We are headed for tough markets. Fools rush in where wise men never go.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Market action reminds me of the period before 50% drops beginning in 2000 and 2007. .
go on....I'm listening
The last post in this thread was not me.
I trade with my own money. Yes, it's enough to earn a very good living. No, it's not all I do. No, in this last cycle I haven't traded any discrete stocks. No I'm not a registered advisor.
Interesting what poster igloi said, I had 2 consecutive losing sequences, friday and today, the first time that has happened in 2015, actually since dec 2014. The first one shook a bit, today's wasn't so bad, mostly just nerves from the first one.
We'll see what happens in the next while, but funny that it should time out with igloi's comment. I have heard the same thing elsewhere, from guys who consider things out 3 quarters, and who have been pretty good--however, I have also heard rumblings about a sustained climb towards 19k.
For this recent cycle the truth doesn't really matter to me, I would be nowhere with either a sustained climb or fall. I hope it's not a climb, I stand to gain more from either a continuation of the status quo or from a well-defined fall.
I'm not calling my streak at an end just yet, though--although as agip poster probably knows, it's important to know when to stop.
Chemical Reagent wrote:
The last post in this thread was not me.
I trade with my own money. Yes, it's enough to earn a very good living. No, it's not all I do. No, in this last cycle I haven't traded any discrete stocks. No I'm not a registered advisor.
OK, that explains it. That previous post was truly puzzling.
For some reason this thread has become the favorite hangout of one fellow who gets his kicks by stealing other people's handles. It should have been obvious that he stole yours earlier but somehow I didn't pick up on that. Now he will steal mine and consider himself to be oh so clever.
we've talked about buybacks in the past - GS is saying that divvies and buybacks will make up all the return of the SP500 this year.
I still don't see how buybacks are voodoo economics but this is interesting to me. Certainly it would be better if the economy were growing faster.
GS doesn't see the SP500 index rising from now til 12/31/15, but dividends will provide some small positive return.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/buybacks-dividends-thats-left-p-040001258.html
The $1 trillion that U.S. companies are on track to return to shareholders this year will constitute the market’s entire return in 2015, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
Dividends and buybacks will be responsible for supporting a market where the median stock in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index is trading at 18.2 times earnings, putting it in the 99th percentile of historical valuation, the firm said in a note to clients. Goldman Sachs forecasts that the S&P 500 will rise to 2,150 by mid-year before fading to 2,100 by the end of 2015.
GS are crooks. I don't trust them for a second. I'm not saying they're wrong, but there are often ulterior motives behind what they say.
Big Dog Investments wrote:
GS are crooks. I don't trust them for a second. I'm not saying they're wrong, but there are often ulterior motives behind what they say.
That's funny. I don't trust them for a second, but not because I think they are crooks - I just don't think they know anything.
I'm not interested in their prediction per se - only in its relevance to the discussion on this thread about buybacks. I'm not sure what the problem people have with buybacks is - I'll take the extra return and be happy, thanks.
agip wrote:
...
Dividends and buybacks will be responsible for supporting a market where the median stock in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index is trading at 18.2 times earnings, putting it in the 99th percentile of historical valuation, the firm said in a note to clients. Goldman Sachs forecasts that the S&P 500 will rise to 2,150 by mid-year before fading to 2,100 by the end of 2015.
Folks who think that they can predict a rise by mid-year followed by a fall by year end are pretty much by definition delusional. When a large investment house does this it does not say good things about them.
For example, the Dow Jones Transportation Index and the Dow Jones Utility Index are both negative for the year while the Dow Jones Industrial Average has hit record highs. According to the Dow Theory a non-confirmation of the DJIA high (the DJTI not also at a new high) is negative signal. Also, the trends on intra-day new high and lows have been trending down.
Still on the low, none of those nice predictable 100-300 points jumps or dips have happened recently, even with the fed announcement, and nothing on the immediate horizon that I can see would be worth trading on. This would have been a good time to have taken time off, the market is just chippy, which means there are too many internal losses to low-spread trade.
"Thread is dead",
said Ted to Ned.
Said Ned to Ted,
"We need someone not quite right in the head."