You too, Flaggy and the rest of the DGTD crew. As for me, going for some Mexican food at my fav with the fam. Then watching football playoffs, hoping BSU doesn’t get killed by PSU. Then some champagne to bring in the New Year.
And the buy and holders have had a spectacular recent time also. I haven't fact checked the below but could all be true. Amazing stuff to see the US leap ahead of the planet. Econ historians will have their hands full explaining why this has happened.
But does sound to me like everyone has run to one side of the boat and we might rock back the other way soon. I'm down to 55% stocks in my portfolio, a lifetime low. And a full 26% in money market, which is a new thing for me too. A new year often signals a new investing paradigm. Esp with such a big change in the White House.
Kobeissi:
The US stock market is now worth a whopping $63.8 TRILLION, near an all-time high. The US stock market's market cap has DOUBLED in just 4.5 years. This year the market has added over $10 TRILLION in value. To put this into perspective, China, Hong Kong, and Europe markets combined are worth ~50% less than the US. The Magnificent 7 stocks' market cap alone is larger than the European market. Truly historic.
This post was edited 34 seconds after it was posted.
Will the AI trade unwind in 2025? That is the investment question to start the year.
Or will the whole tech stock dominance end. It's been many many years of tech stocks being the best place to be. Will that just keep going? And in reality are the non-mag 493 stocks just boring euro-style equities, with little reason to own them?
The S&P 500 closed 2024 with its best two-year gain since the dot-com bubble years of 1997 and 1998. Yet it ended the year with four consecutive daily losses, a year-end losing streak that hasn't happened since 1966, the year stocks peaked before entering a 16-year bear market.
People going public with short term market predictions should be let out to pasture. We ended at 5881.
See new posts Conversation Barchart @Barchart S&P 500 will finish the year at 5,200 warns Wells Fargo which says that investors shouldn't buy this rally because the fundamentals don't support it 4:08 PM · Sep 19, 2024 · 83.1K Views
Unless your short term prediction is a good one. Then fire away by all means.
Post See new posts Conversation Carl Quintanilla @carlquintanilla GOLDMAN: “.. our $SPX index target for year-end 2024 remains 5600 (+8%). Our forecast assumes the US economy continues to expand, earnings rise by 8% in 2024 and 6% in 2025, and the index trades at a P/E multiple of 20x .. while the drawdown has been sharp, it has barely reached the magnitude of the market decline in a typical year ..” [Kostin] 🇺🇸
I really hate to make market predictions but it feels to me that this tech spike up has run its path. We've all seen many stats like this and it feels unsustainable. Everyone on the planet has decided that the SP500 and NAZ are the ways to invest. That can't stay true for long. A crack would develop into a landslide pretty quickly.
You are not including dividends into the Dow's numbers. Why do you do this? Your numbers are bogus. Do better, Flagpole.
I can and will put my results up against anything I like. I beat the Dow in 2024 using your preferred method too.
FP, you can do whatever you would like, as you are well aware. Nothing we say can change that.
Given that, you should understand that when someone compares their performance (or the performance of their portfolio), unless they state otherwise, anyone interpreting your claims would naturally assume "all things being equal", meaning all parameters being equal.
That is generally assumed, and people don't find it necessary for the most part to qualify comparisons with the phrase "all things being equal". It's pedantic, frankly, and unnecessary - because it is naturally assumed.
The comparison that you are making, on the other hand, is not with "all things being equal", and we say that because you are comparing your portfolio with dividends included against the Dow Jone Ind. Average with dividends not included. That is the crux of the matter, plain and simple.
So, everyone who hears your declaration is misled. And they are misled because they assume all parameters being equal, but they are not.
So, you could simply qualify your statement with the disclosure that your portfolio includes dividends against the DJIA less dividends or you could simply look up what the DJIA with dividends is (and it is readily available as has been pointed out to you several times).
Lacking either of those strategies, you are frankly being very misleading, and needlessly so.
Extending all of the 2017 tax law could add close to $5 trillion to the national debt. To offset the cost, Trump and Republicans are considering these policies.
2. Repeal clean energy spending (not because I'm opposed to it, but because I don't want the government to fund it - $700 billion)
5. Cut Department of Education ($200 billion)
6. Add work requirements to / reduce food stamps ($180 billion)
7. Medicaid work requirements ($109 billion)
8. Stop subsidizing Ozempic and co with Medicaid / Medicare ($40 billion)
9. End child tax credit for noncitizens ($20 billion)
I'd like to see further but I don't know how much it'd save. For example, I don't want tax dollars (either Medicaid or Medicare) going to cosmetic surgery just for one, mentally-ill group. And make citizenship a requirement for welfare.
2. Repeal clean energy spending (not because I'm opposed to it, but because I don't want the government to fund it - $700 billion)
5. Cut Department of Education ($200 billion)
6. Add work requirements to / reduce food stamps ($180 billion)
7. Medicaid work requirements ($109 billion)
8. Stop subsidizing Ozempic and co with Medicaid / Medicare ($40 billion)
9. End child tax credit for noncitizens ($20 billion)
I'd like to see further but I don't know how much it'd save. For example, I don't want tax dollars (either Medicaid or Medicare) going to cosmetic surgery just for one, mentally-ill group. And make citizenship a requirement for welfare.
narrator: a tariff is not a spending cut. It is a tax increase.
This post was edited 13 seconds after it was posted.
2. Repeal clean energy spending (not because I'm opposed to it, but because I don't want the government to fund it - $700 billion)
5. Cut Department of Education ($200 billion)
6. Add work requirements to / reduce food stamps ($180 billion)
7. Medicaid work requirements ($109 billion)
8. Stop subsidizing Ozempic and co with Medicaid / Medicare ($40 billion)
9. End child tax credit for noncitizens ($20 billion)
I'd like to see further but I don't know how much it'd save. For example, I don't want tax dollars (either Medicaid or Medicare) going to cosmetic surgery just for one, mentally-ill group. And make citizenship a requirement for welfare.
narrator: a tariff is not a spending cut. It is a tax increase.
There's a small deadweight loss but it increases government revenue. Tariffs increase taxes by zero though.
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.
