schwab has a trunkload of long dated treasuries unfortunately. and the 10th largest bank in america. the worry is a bank run could start.
schwab says it has the rare ability to cover an entire bank run from all customers.
If that is true, then probably not a lot of reason to worry about Chuck Schwab. They got stuck with a lot of bonds that they have to wait on, is all.
Seems to me that big money is saying 'when there is smoke sell the stock and buy T-bills. No reason to lose 15% in a stock when we can get a perfectly acceptable and nearly risk-free 4% from the US government.
So a real stock picker will probably be able to get some good bargains here...stocks dumped over the side but that are fundamentally healthy. Schwab sounds like it might be in that category. I might buy some.
I would think the bank risk within reason, I wouldn’t buy with my macro view. Like MS still considerable downside from here.
for the first time in a long time some bonds are showing a near-profit over a year. After losing 13% in 2022, short term bonds of most stripes are virtually break-even over the past year. While stonks are down 12%.
What a comeback. Nice. Great to see asset allocation starting to work again.
I never would have suspected that at all. Must be because of my tech bias, but I'm showing new monthly highs.
So much so, that i've been hoping for one more sell-off just so I could grab back a some shares I sold near the bottom.
Here’s what’s working for you:
7 companies - $AAPL $MSFT $AMZN $GOOGL $TSLA $NVDA $META - make up 24.22% of $SPX and 51.13% of $NDX. That's concentration risk that's off the charts.
You would be pretty well off if you put any significant amount of money into any three of those 15 years ago. MSFT went public in 1986 and $1,000 invested in that at that time would be like $1.6 million today (from memory - please don't quote me).
I never would have suspected that at all. Must be because of my tech bias, but I'm showing new monthly highs.
So much so, that i've been hoping for one more sell-off just so I could grab back a some shares I sold near the bottom.
Here’s what’s working for you:
7 companies - $AAPL $MSFT $AMZN $GOOGL $TSLA $NVDA $META - make up 24.22% of $SPX and 51.13% of $NDX. That's concentration risk that's off the charts.
As the second greatest stock picker on DGTD would say: "CORRECT."
but no Tesla, and very little META.
Been adding to Nvidia quite a bit over last few weeks since it got beat up so bad on the way down. It reminds me of leverage tech etf in how much it moves.
7 companies - $AAPL $MSFT $AMZN $GOOGL $TSLA $NVDA $META - make up 24.22% of $SPX and 51.13% of $NDX. That's concentration risk that's off the charts.
You would be pretty well off if you put any significant amount of money into any three of those 15 years ago. MSFT went public in 1986 and $1,000 invested in that at that time would be like $1.6 million today (from memory - please don't quote me).
Don't get me started .... okay, too late for that.
It's been quite a story, but maybe just in the right place at the right time.
Biggest move was, for me, loading up on Apple around 2000 as it brought out iTunes, and their own MP3 players, Ipods, among other things. I was into using early palmpilot devices and when Apple started interfacing a catalogue of devices and products, and had so much nicer interfaces than Microsoft, I thought, this could be it....
Google, when it was like the first search that allowed users to type what they were searching for in the address line, I thought, this was new and this was slick, and loaded up.
NVDA, bought moderate amount way back then, but no idea why, but let the winners ride.
Did really well on Tesla early on, but I knew that getting admitted into the S&P 500 would be the kiss of death (apt analogy, btw) for them, and after the initial boost from admittance, I bailed, dabbled once or twice, but moved on, esp. with Musk handling of Twitter purchase (for several reasons).
Amzn, bought early but that nasty remark by MSFT's Ballmer about how he liked his investments to actually be profitable, shook me out and didn't get back in until mid-teens, unfortunately.
Netflix did well for me, but I sold a lot a few months ago and regret it every day since.
I have more internet investing stories than I can keep track of, and some are very endearing, and funny.
But yeah, when i got into investing, that story you mention, Sally, about a few thou, invested in MSFT in '87 would be worth something approx, a mil today (then late '90's) was the byline in every other story you would read everywhere. This was the mindset, exactly, and the way things have played out has been interesting, Add to that, I know people who had the chance to be angel investors in MSFT and Starbucks as each was going public (and their stories), I have friends who developed blue tooth technologies years ago and sold companies to the big boys at huge profit. And much more -it's been fun..
I never would have suspected that at all. Must be because of my tech bias, but I'm showing new monthly highs.
So much so, that i've been hoping for one more sell-off just so I could grab back a some shares I sold near the bottom.
Here’s what’s working for you:
7 companies - $AAPL $MSFT $AMZN $GOOGL $TSLA $NVDA $META - make up 24.22% of $SPX and 51.13% of $NDX. That's concentration risk that's off the charts.
“Another problem here is that these 7 companies - all of them except MAYBE $TSLA post-growth - have a TTM weighted PE of 51.4 versus 17.6 for $SPX. So you're paying 3X per dollar of earnings for them versus the broader market...and 6 of them are already seeing declining revenue.”
Its just foolish speculation. Not gonna work for much longer.
Strangely, no significant questions were asked specifically about the impact of the Fed’s actions on banks and markets. Not a single challenge was made of Powell as to whether he felt responsible for the failure of three large banks in a week. @rcwhalenhttps://t.co/9fGbmvyeMT
7 companies - $AAPL $MSFT $AMZN $GOOGL $TSLA $NVDA $META - make up 24.22% of $SPX and 51.13% of $NDX. That's concentration risk that's off the charts.
“Another problem here is that these 7 companies - all of them except MAYBE $TSLA post-growth - have a TTM weighted PE of 51.4 versus 17.6 for $SPX. So you're paying 3X per dollar of earnings for them versus the broader market...and 6 of them are already seeing declining revenue.”
Its just foolish speculation. Not gonna work for much longer.
We’re not “paying”. We bought years ago and have been “holding”.
“Another problem here is that these 7 companies - all of them except MAYBE $TSLA post-growth - have a TTM weighted PE of 51.4 versus 17.6 for $SPX. So you're paying 3X per dollar of earnings for them versus the broader market...and 6 of them are already seeing declining revenue.”
Its just foolish speculation. Not gonna work for much longer.
We’re not “paying”. We bought years ago and have been “holding”.
True enough, But let's be clear. Igy, as recently as the last few years, you were saying the same thing about buying shares of Apple and Microsoft and Amazon, on this very thread. What innovation does Apple come up with anymore, their iPhones are just stale re-issues, etc. And so far, those buys have proven to be good ones, even with the 2022 downturn.
That's in addition to the shares bought years ago.
We’re not “paying”. We bought years ago and have been “holding”.
True enough, But let's be clear. Igy, as recently as the last few years, you were saying the same thing about buying shares of Apple and Microsoft and Amazon, on this very thread. What innovation does Apple come up with anymore, their iPhones are just stale re-issues, etc. And so far, those buys have proven to be good ones, even with the 2022 downturn.
That's in addition to the shares bought years ago.
OK, I am betting the other direction. The Fed is juicing the system again, so maybe you are right. Then again:
San Francisco & NY will be dueling nucleuses of the CRE Office fallout. https://t.co/UFyXP14tyZ
— Danielle DiMartino Booth (@DiMartinoBooth) March 24, 2023
True enough, But let's be clear. Igy, as recently as the last few years, you were saying the same thing about buying shares of Apple and Microsoft and Amazon, on this very thread. What innovation does Apple come up with anymore, their iPhones are just stale re-issues, etc. And so far, those buys have proven to be good ones, even with the 2022 downturn.
That's in addition to the shares bought years ago.
That is precisely his problem. You’ve got a company with the greatest revenues in history and he puts them down because they’re not growing by 20%/yr. The company is a legit goldmine and you have to be chronically myopic not to see it.
True enough, But let's be clear. Igy, as recently as the last few years, you were saying the same thing about buying shares of Apple and Microsoft and Amazon, on this very thread. What innovation does Apple come up with anymore, their iPhones are just stale re-issues, etc. And so far, those buys have proven to be good ones, even with the 2022 downturn.
That's in addition to the shares bought years ago.
OK, I am betting the other direction. The Fed is juicing the system again, so maybe you are right. Then again:
The thing is, things would look bullish for that reason, at least in the near term. If you are going to be right, though, I think it will either take some broad based systemic issues of the banking system or it will take a while for the really bad consequences of ssstained inflation to play out in the economy.
In the middle ground is that damned debt ceiling thing which is not to be easily avoided, though has been upstaged lately by more pressing issues.
The thing is, things would look bullish for that reason, at least in the near term. If you are going to be right, though, I think it will either take some broad based systemic issues of the banking system or it will take a while for the really bad consequences of ssstained inflation to play out in the economy.
In the middle ground is that damned debt ceiling thing which is not to be easily avoided, though has been upstaged lately by more pressing issues.
I'm starting to lose track of the bull case....probably something like 'sp500 earnings estimates have come down too far and will soon start working they way up again, given resilient economic activity, lower oil price, and lower interest rates. Meanwhile inflation continues its slow but steady decline which will keep interest rates in check. Meanwhile China is surging and will carry emerging markets on its back. '
I think the bear case is more compelling right now...earnings dropping, a slow rolling banking crisis, the debt ceiling, sticky inflation, not cheap stocks, very narrow market leadership, falling oil price, federal reserve *wants* to break stuff apparently,
So hard. Honestly am considering a two-ETF portfolio. VT and SHY. Own SHY unless things get really ugly with inflation, but go in and out of VT. In if above 200 day, out if below. Will result in whipsawing, but I don't feel like watching this thing go back down to SPX 3500 again.
Today's prediction review is another good one. A month ago this analyst took a look at oil stores and said we are looking at a glut. He was right. Brent Oil has fallen from around $83 to $73.
Part of the reason is that the US says it cannot fill the petroleum reserve in 2023 - it will be a multi-year project. Which reduces demand, obvi.
I do wonder if analysts away from the glamorous stock and bond markets can get an edge because of less competition.
2/25/23
Alexander Stahel @BurggrabenH I cannot stress enough - the oil market is fundamentally weak. The world has 1 billion bbl (!) more crude & petroleum products vs its 2019 5Y-average (excl. Covid glut) and building weekly! Brent is at $83 only because some oil is at the wrong places.
It's late March, which means it's time for me to dust off the crude (naive) forecasts I shared 5 years ago in March, 2018.
First, a reminder that I was posting as "the idiot" in this thread back then, and had been for some time. The reason I chose that name wasn't because I love the book by Dostoevsky (although I do), but rather reflects my belief that we are all "idiots" when it comes to predicting what the markets will do, and in particular assign cause and effect relationships between external factors and market behaviour. My view is that virtually all the prognostication we read about financial markets, whether here, or among "professionals" elsewhere, amounts to a lot of noise. This belief rests on the observation that financial markets behave chaotically, and as such are beyond deterministic prediction or causative association, except in a broad statistical sense. To me, the best we can say is that markets usually (not always like Racket likes to say, but most of the time, for most markets, surely) go up, and often they tend to fluctuate about "the mean" (more on this later) along the way.
Igy likes to observe that stocks will revert to the mean, and in his view the pertinent "mean" relates to value of stocks as represented by earnings, via P/E ratios, or somebody's more fancy mathematical manipulation of such (Shiller's CAPE for example).
Where I diverge from Igy is in anchoring against P/E or CAPE, which are second or third order derived parameters, correlated to market behaviour not not necessarily directly linked.
So, five years ago I spent 3 or 4 hours producing a crude estimate of a simpler "mean" as represented by a simple best fit of market value since 1950, and then looked at variation from that best fit over time to project likely range of variation inn the future. This is a grossly simple, naive way of looking at the data, but in my own experience can be a relatively powerful way of forecasting (not predicting) future behaviour. Here you can see the simple best fit from 1950 to five years ago that I shared then, along with a forward-looking forecast:
