How about this: for every topic sentence Gente includes in a post... each of us venmos him $1.
I take it you didn't read it. I would find it interesting to see a list of history and finance books you, and all the other usual suspects that post here, have read in the past year.
Certainly true in my case the last 2022: The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.
Agip - at the gym right now so can't access that chart I have shown a few times (I think NASDAQ) but in the last 50 years (outside of 2000-2002) there has not been consecutive down years AND a bad year (haven't been too many) has almost always been followed by an an even better good or great year.
If one wants to see how often in the past the NASDAQ was down from the year before and was down a year later, the correct method is take every trading day that is down from the year before ( 252 trading days ), not just the last trading day of the year.
First, a disclaimer;
stationarity is one of the most important concepts in probability and statistics the essence of its meaning is that the specific pattern you are trying to understand is constant in a probabilistic sense technically, its unconditional joint probability distribution does not shift over time. in blackjack, the rules of the game are known and constant, and based on the cards seen so far we can know the probabilities of the outcomes of the next hand. in finance, the underlying structure of the world is complex, unknown, and changes over time. there is little in the way of objective, certain truth. any historical data analysis assuming otherwise under-states the uncertainty around forward looking forecasts. ( Benn Eifert )
Looking at the past, up to 1/25/2024, the NASDAQ will be lower 24.59% from a year ( 252 trading days ) earlier. The following year it is lower 28.6% of the time. If the Index is higher from a year earlier, the following year is down 23.92% of the time. A down year has been followed by a down year more often than an up year is followed by a down year.
If one wants to see how often in the past the NASDAQ was down from the year before and was down a year later, the correct method is take every trading day that is down from the year before ( 252 trading days ), not just the last trading day of the year.
First, a disclaimer;
stationarity is one of the most important concepts in probability and statistics the essence of its meaning is that the specific pattern you are trying to understand is constant in a probabilistic sense technically, its unconditional joint probability distribution does not shift over time. in blackjack, the rules of the game are known and constant, and based on the cards seen so far we can know the probabilities of the outcomes of the next hand. in finance, the underlying structure of the world is complex, unknown, and changes over time. there is little in the way of objective, certain truth. any historical data analysis assuming otherwise under-states the uncertainty around forward looking forecasts. ( Benn Eifert )
Looking at the past, up to 1/25/2024, the NASDAQ will be lower 24.59% from a year ( 252 trading days ) earlier. The following year it is lower 28.6% of the time. If the Index is higher from a year earlier, the following year is down 23.92% of the time. A down year has been followed by a down year more often than an up year is followed by a down year.
La gente - your last sentence is total crap.
Look at this - there are NEVER consecutive bad years. NEVER. Never say that again.
Agip - at the gym right now so can't access that chart I have shown a few times (I think NASDAQ) but in the last 50 years (outside of 2000-2002) there has not been consecutive down years AND a bad year (haven't been too many) has almost always been followed by an an even better good or great year.
If one wants to see how often in the past the NASDAQ was down from the year before and was down a year later, the correct method is take every trading day that is down from the year before ( 252 trading days ), not just the last trading day of the year.
First, a disclaimer;
stationarity is one of the most important concepts in probability and statistics the essence of its meaning is that the specific pattern you are trying to understand is constant in a probabilistic sense technically, its unconditional joint probability distribution does not shift over time. in blackjack, the rules of the game are known and constant, and based on the cards seen so far we can know the probabilities of the outcomes of the next hand. in finance, the underlying structure of the world is complex, unknown, and changes over time. there is little in the way of objective, certain truth. any historical data analysis assuming otherwise under-states the uncertainty around forward looking forecasts. ( Benn Eifert )
Looking at the past, up to 1/25/2024, the NASDAQ will be lower 24.59% from a year ( 252 trading days ) earlier. The following year it is lower 28.6% of the time. If the Index is higher from a year earlier, the following year is down 23.92% of the time. A down year has been followed by a down year more often than an up year is followed by a down year.
That is very interesting.
Am I generally correct in deducing that the chances for the NASDAQ being down in any given year are little impacted by what happened the year before? A difference of 4% is not much, and if that is the range of frequency that exists, it's hardly worth paying attention to it.
That is what it appears to be showing, but let me know please if I am misinterpreting the general differences.
Thanks, and this is good to know, so I appreciate your insights.
If one wants to see how often in the past the NASDAQ was down from the year before and was down a year later, the correct method is take every trading day that is down from the year before ( 252 trading days ), not just the last trading day of the year.
First, a disclaimer;
stationarity is one of the most important concepts in probability and statistics the essence of its meaning is that the specific pattern you are trying to understand is constant in a probabilistic sense technically, its unconditional joint probability distribution does not shift over time. in blackjack, the rules of the game are known and constant, and based on the cards seen so far we can know the probabilities of the outcomes of the next hand. in finance, the underlying structure of the world is complex, unknown, and changes over time. there is little in the way of objective, certain truth. any historical data analysis assuming otherwise under-states the uncertainty around forward looking forecasts. ( Benn Eifert )
Looking at the past, up to 1/25/2024, the NASDAQ will be lower 24.59% from a year ( 252 trading days ) earlier. The following year it is lower 28.6% of the time. If the Index is higher from a year earlier, the following year is down 23.92% of the time. A down year has been followed by a down year more often than an up year is followed by a down year.
La gente - your last sentence is total crap.
I have 13358 data points, you have 52. Even with 52 data points, it happened 21.4% ( 3/14 ).
If one wants to see how often in the past the NASDAQ was down from the year before and was down a year later, the correct method is take every trading day that is down from the year before ( 252 trading days ), not just the last trading day of the year.
First, a disclaimer;
stationarity is one of the most important concepts in probability and statistics the essence of its meaning is that the specific pattern you are trying to understand is constant in a probabilistic sense technically, its unconditional joint probability distribution does not shift over time. in blackjack, the rules of the game are known and constant, and based on the cards seen so far we can know the probabilities of the outcomes of the next hand. in finance, the underlying structure of the world is complex, unknown, and changes over time. there is little in the way of objective, certain truth. any historical data analysis assuming otherwise under-states the uncertainty around forward looking forecasts. ( Benn Eifert )
Looking at the past, up to 1/25/2024, the NASDAQ will be lower 24.59% from a year ( 252 trading days ) earlier. The following year it is lower 28.6% of the time. If the Index is higher from a year earlier, the following year is down 23.92% of the time. A down year has been followed by a down year more often than an up year is followed by a down year.
That is very interesting.
Am I generally correct in deducing that the chances for the NASDAQ being down in any given year are little impacted by what happened the year before? A difference of 4% is not much, and if that is the range of frequency that exists, it's hardly worth paying attention to it.
That is what it appears to be showing, but let me know please if I am misinterpreting the general differences.
Thanks, and this is good to know, so I appreciate your insights.
As the disclaimer says in plain English, past performance is not indicative of future results. I'm pushing back against the idea that in the past, a bad year for the NASDAQ will always be followed by a gain. Another comparison between a good year and a bad year is the historical average loss and it's standard deviation. A down year after a good year had an average loss of -16.65% and a SD of 14.04; so 1 SD -2.61 to -30.69%. A down year after a down year had an average loss of -25.3% and a SD of 10.4; so 1 SD -14.9% to -35.7%. There was more risk after a down year than an up year.
I take it you didn't read it. I would find it interesting to see a list of history and finance books you, and all the other usual suspects that post here, have read in the past year.
Certainly true in my case the last 2022: The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.
Great book, read that years ago, started reading his The Deluge a few years back, plan to get back to it this year.
How about this: for every topic sentence Gente includes in a post... each of us venmos him $1.
I take it you didn't read it. I would find it interesting to see a list of history and finance books you, and all the other usual suspects that post here, have read in the past year.
Gente look. You know a lot more about investing and history than anyone else here. You bring the thread up at least three levels. The thing is this...I'm working here. I finish a project and check in, paste a paragraph screed and go back to work.
Realistically I'm not going to do a deep dive on something during the workday. But if you put in a 'here's why I am posting this' then maybe I would..if it seems interesting.
But I'm not going to spend 15 minutes reading and trying to understand something that I may not be interested in.
Just a teeny sentence..."I, Gente, am posting this to show that....' and it would make the thread so much better.
Certainly true in my case the last 2022: The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy.
Great book, read that years ago, started reading his The Deluge a few years back, plan to get back to it this year.
I enjoyed it. Loaned it to a friend and he gave up.
I am headed your way the weekend of May 4th. One of my former teams is celebrating a 40th reunion of a cross country conference win, a little early, but doing it in conjunction with the Texas State 3200 meter races. In Buda where one of my, actually two of my former athletes, husband and wife have a home.
first look at 1Q GDP is out and the fed sees solid growth continuing.
Remember when 2% growth was thought to be all the economy could get?
Latest estimate: 3.0 percent -- January 26, 2024
I heard some commentary to the effect that what we have isn't even a soft landing (which admittedly had been the optimistic target up to now), it's more of a solid upsurge.
Am I generally correct in deducing that the chances for the NASDAQ being down in any given year are little impacted by what happened the year before? A difference of 4% is not much, and if that is the range of frequency that exists, it's hardly worth paying attention to it.
That is what it appears to be showing, but let me know please if I am misinterpreting the general differences.
Thanks, and this is good to know, so I appreciate your insights.
As the disclaimer says in plain English, past performance is not indicative of future results. I'm pushing back against the idea that in the past, a bad year for the NASDAQ will always be followed by a gain. Another comparison between a good year and a bad year is the historical average loss and it's standard deviation. A down year after a good year had an average loss of -16.65% and a SD of 14.04; so 1 SD -2.61 to -30.69%. A down year after a down year had an average loss of -25.3% and a SD of 10.4; so 1 SD -14.9% to -35.7%. There was more risk after a down year than an up year.
Some Saturday morning fun, when I was young that meant Andy's Gang, but this AM I going to get a little wonky. Let's pretend the NASDAQ Index is like playing Blackjack (I've taught my grandchildren how to play ) and the probabilities are constant. Overall probability of Index being higher is 75.41% and when higher it's +22.74%; when lower it's -19.05%. After 252 plays, if the Index is higher, the probability it will be higher 252 plays later is 76.08% and when higher it's 20.55% ; when lower it's -16.65%. If after 252 plays the Index is lower, the probability it will be higher 252 plays later is 71.4% and if higher it will be 30.9% ; lower it's -25.3%. I'll make it simpler. Imagine a large spinning wheel, on the 1st spin there are 75.41% higher slots and 24.59% lower slots. If it lands on a higher slot, you win $22.74 for every $100 you bet. If it lands on a lower slot you lose $19.05 for every $100. Now, if the first spin lands on higher, the slots change to 76.08% higher and 23.92% lower. The payout-loss is $20.55; -$16.65. If the next spin is lower, the slots change to 71.4% higher and 28.6% lower. The payout-loss is $30.90; -$25.30
How much of your bankroll would you wager to start the game? After a higher result? After a lower result? The goal is to maximize your return. I'll come back to this Sunday.
As the disclaimer says in plain English, past performance is not indicative of future results. I'm pushing back against the idea that in the past, a bad year for the NASDAQ will always be followed by a gain. Another comparison between a good year and a bad year is the historical average loss and it's standard deviation. A down year after a good year had an average loss of -16.65% and a SD of 14.04; so 1 SD -2.61 to -30.69%. A down year after a down year had an average loss of -25.3% and a SD of 10.4; so 1 SD -14.9% to -35.7%. There was more risk after a down year than an up year.
Some Saturday morning fun, when I was young that meant Andy's Gang, but this AM I going to get a little wonky. Let's pretend the NASDAQ Index is like playing Blackjack (I've taught my grandchildren how to play ) and the probabilities are constant. Overall probability of Index being higher is 75.41% and when higher it's +22.74%; when lower it's -19.05%. After 252 plays, if the Index is higher, the probability it will be higher 252 plays later is 76.08% and when higher it's 20.55% ; when lower it's -16.65%. If after 252 plays the Index is lower, the probability it will be higher 252 plays later is 71.4% and if higher it will be 30.9% ; lower it's -25.3%. I'll make it simpler. Imagine a large spinning wheel, on the 1st spin there are 75.41% higher slots and 24.59% lower slots. If it lands on a higher slot, you win $22.74 for every $100 you bet. If it lands on a lower slot you lose $19.05 for every $100. Now, if the first spin lands on higher, the slots change to 76.08% higher and 23.92% lower. The payout-loss is $20.55; -$16.65. If the next spin is lower, the slots change to 71.4% higher and 28.6% lower. The payout-loss is $30.90; -$25.30
How much of your bankroll would you wager to start the game? After a higher result? After a lower result? The goal is to maximize your return. I'll come back to this Sunday.
Right up my alley!
My employer used to have contests like this one where the winner got Bakery Bucks (gift certificate to onsite Bakery), and I was the most prolific winner. I tend to be obsessive and love this stuff.
Of course, the answer lies in the relative values, but there is a very common and understood law of probability underlying the determination of whether or not the parameters you have established above are good bets or bad. My answer will depend on how your parameters deviate from that common law probability.
first look at 1Q GDP is out and the fed sees solid growth continuing.
Remember when 2% growth was thought to be all the economy could get?
Latest estimate: 3.0 percent -- January 26, 2024
I heard some commentary to the effect that what we have isn't even a soft landing (which admittedly had been the optimistic target up to now), it's more of a solid upsurge.
Amazing.
The rest of the story:
“For anyone who's still counting:
The US government borrowed $47 billion of debt yesterday alone.
Since the debt ceiling crisis "ended" in June 2023, total US debt is up ~$3 trillion.
Since October 1st, the US government has borrowed ~$10 billion PER DAY.
The worst part?
For the next 340 days, the US debt ceiling is effectively uncapped.
If we keep borrowing at current rates, we could see over $37 trillion of federal debt this year.
Look at this - there are NEVER consecutive bad years. NEVER. Never say that again.
Let me attempt to translate from gente to ‘murican English.
Data taken from calendar years gives too small a dataset to draw meaningful statistical relationships. Vix is wrong and gente is right, there is always a chance (small but not zero) of a down year following a down year.
Look at this - there are NEVER consecutive bad years. NEVER. Never say that again.
Let me attempt to translate from gente to ‘murican English.
Data taken from calendar years gives too small a dataset to draw meaningful statistical relationships. Vix is wrong and gente is right, there is always a chance (small but not zero) of a down year following a down year.
Hey comfortably retired, are you going to take part in my experiment?
Sorry, I'm busy with a deep dive into relative performance of the different market sectors as part of my effort to write out a clear "investment policy statement" we will use to guide our investing decisions in retirement, no time to play with someting else, even though I find the challenge intriguing.
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.