Ghost of Igloi wrote:
🍒⛏️
-
20
-
retiree wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I don’t believe AI is immune from the economic cycle.
You’ve already established that. You may be right, I just don’t think so, at least not right away. AI is, IMHO, society changing, not a fad. We can look back over time and see whether you are right.
I hope I live that long.
00 -
I never thought I would live to see another bigger than the Tech Bubble.
00 -
00
-
Today we listened to a really interesting Freakonomics podcast about ESG investing. The gist of the episode was that the typical approach of investing in green companies and avoiding brown companies, which makes the cost of capital higher for polluters as an incentive to be greener, has counterproductive unintended consequences. In most cases, green companies can’t be made greener, whereas brown companies, being massive polluters by contrast, represent the best targets for greening. Of course the answer isn’t simply to keep funding the status quo for big polluters. But I’ll say no more for now, those interested can check out the podcast.
00 -
00
-
00
-
Underneath the surface Yellow:
00 -
More on Yellow:
00 -
More from the bloodbath a year ago.
BofA found general capitulation. Which is usually a good time to buy and it certainly was a year ago. Although stocks hit lower lows in October 2022.
1 year:
Stocks +21%
Bonds -1%
Investors slashed their exposure to risk assets to levels not seen even during the global financial crisis in a sign of full capitulation amid a “dire” economic outlook, according to Bank of America Corp.’s monthly fund manager survey.
Global growth and profit expectations sank to an all-time low, while recession expectations were at their highest since the pandemic-fueled slowdown in May 2020, strategists led by Michael Hartnett wrote in the note. Investor allocation to stocks plunged to levels last seen in October 2008 while exposure to cash surged to the highest since 2001, according to the survey. A net 58 per cent of fund managers said they’re taking lower than normal risks, a record that surpassed the survey’s global financial crisis levels.
20 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Am I the only one who finds this math a little suspect?
00 -
wondering wrote:
Am I the only one who finds this math a little suspect?
Never mind. I figured it out.
10 -
another 52-week high for the SP500
20 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Kind of misleading. 2022 was a terrible year. Most of those stocks are in the NASDAQ 100 index. Here is how that index has done in the last 10 years (before 2022):
2009 - Up 54%
2010 - Up 19%
2011 - Up 3%
2012 - Up 17%
2013 - Up 35%
2014 - Up 18%
2015 - Up 8%
2016 - Up 6%
2017 - Up 31%
2018 - Down 1%
2019 - Up 38%
2020 - Up 48%
2021 - Up 26%
So have that guy add in the returns for those stocks for those 10 years to his 2022/2023 numbers. The picture is going to be drastically different. Yes, Igy?
30 -
Sally Vix wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Kind of misleading. 2022 was a terrible year. Most of those stocks are in the NASDAQ 100 index. Here is how that index has done in the last 10 years (before 2022):
2009 - Up 54%
2010 - Up 19%
2011 - Up 3%
2012 - Up 17%
2013 - Up 35%
2014 - Up 18%
2015 - Up 8%
2016 - Up 6%
2017 - Up 31%
2018 - Down 1%
2019 - Up 38%
2020 - Up 48%
2021 - Up 26%
So have that guy add in the returns for those stocks for those 10 years to his 2022/2023 numbers. The picture is going to be drastically different. Yes, Igy?
Just looked at AAPL. The stock was trading about $7 in 2009. Now at $193. You think that might change the 2022/2023 just a tad?
20 -
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Kind of misleading. 2022 was a terrible year. Most of those stocks are in the NASDAQ 100 index. Here is how that index has done in the last 10 years (before 2022):
2009 - Up 54%
2010 - Up 19%
2011 - Up 3%
2012 - Up 17%
2013 - Up 35%
2014 - Up 18%
2015 - Up 8%
2016 - Up 6%
2017 - Up 31%
2018 - Down 1%
2019 - Up 38%
2020 - Up 48%
2021 - Up 26%
So have that guy add in the returns for those stocks for those 10 years to his 2022/2023 numbers. The picture is going to be drastically different. Yes, Igy?
Just looked at AAPL. The stock was trading about $7 in 2009. Now at $193. You think that might change the 2022/2023 just a tad?
TSLA was at $1 in 2010. Now close to $300. That sure is going to change its average.
30 -
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Just looked at AAPL. The stock was trading about $7 in 2009. Now at $193. You think that might change the 2022/2023 just a tad?
TSLA was at $1 in 2010. Now close to $300. That sure is going to change its average.
Careful with your math. I think we've established that mathematics is not a strong suit among most participants in this discussion. There are many different ways to calculate something you might call an "average" and you can get very different results depending on what, exactly, you've actually calculated. Also, any time average you calculate will be sensitive to the precise time period. The Twitter post refers, I think (not 100% sure), to averages over calendar years (early Jan to end-Dec). You will get different numbers, possibly very different, if instead you do from, say, early July to end June.
The list of numbers in the tweet are not super useful, and really only underscore that those particular stocks have been pretty volatile over the years examined. The tweeter doesn't draw any conclusions, just throws the bait out there to see who or what will bit. You bit. :-)
10 -
retiree from another device wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
TSLA was at $1 in 2010. Now close to $300. That sure is going to change its average.
Careful with your math. I think we've established that mathematics is not a strong suit among most participants in this discussion. There are many different ways to calculate something you might call an "average" and you can get very different results depending on what, exactly, you've actually calculated. Also, any time average you calculate will be sensitive to the precise time period. The Twitter post refers, I think (not 100% sure), to averages over calendar years (early Jan to end-Dec). You will get different numbers, possibly very different, if instead you do from, say, early July to end June.
The list of numbers in the tweet are not super useful, and really only underscore that those particular stocks have been pretty volatile over the years examined. The tweeter doesn't draw any conclusions, just throws the bait out there to see who or what will bit. You bit. :-)
Sure, they are volatile. But looking at Tesla - 10 year total return from July 2013 to current is 3,576%. Think about that. So, when that guy said TSLA had a combined total return of negative 17% for the two years = that is incredibly misleading about how TSLA has performed in the last decade.
00 -
Sally Vix wrote:
So, when that guy said TSLA had a combined total return of negative 17% for the two years = that is incredibly misleading about how TSLA has performed in the last decade.
And when you say TSLA had a total return of > 3000% over the last decade, it's irrelevant and incredibly misleading to somebody who bought TSLA two years ago.
So what? I'm not sure the value of your point.
00 -
You don't get investment earnings from past performance. Which should go without saying, and is usually unsaid, but maybe not fully understood by all.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.