Because he has a fairly extensive history on this very thread of spouting the same thing and being proven terribly wrong, time and time again.
Well, you, Sally and agip also have extensive histories of spouting the same thing over the life of the thread. The advantage you have is that the bull case is always the more likely outcome. Until it’s not.
It fascinates me to see evidently seasoned investors ignore the possibility of a very significant correction or crash. But I can’t see getting myself worked up about that; your opinions and estimation of the odds of various investing outcomes don’t offend me. I just find them interesting, and something to chew on.
I was looking at a chart on Morningstar for VADAX, Invesco's equal weighted S&P 500 index mutual fund's total return since the end of 1987. I compared it to VFINX, Vanguard's S&P 500 Index fund's total return. In August 2000, VFINX was 53.65% higher than VADAX. Currently, VFINX is 23.15% higher. They usually track each other closely with VADAX sometimes running higher ( GFC to Covid ).
Well, you, Sally and agip also have extensive histories of spouting the same thing over the life of the thread. The advantage you have is that the bull case is always the more likely outcome. Until it’s not.
It fascinates me to see evidently seasoned investors ignore the possibility of a very significant correction or crash. But I can’t see getting myself worked up about that; your opinions and estimation of the odds of various investing outcomes don’t offend me. I just find them interesting, and something to chew on.
I was looking at a chart on Morningstar for VADAX, Invesco's equal weighted S&P 500 index mutual fund's total return since the end of 1987. I compared it to VFINX, Vanguard's S&P 500 Index fund's total return. In August 2000, VFINX was 53.65% higher than VADAX. Currently, VFINX is 23.15% higher. They usually track each other closely with VADAX sometimes running higher ( GFC to Covid ).
When you talk about a "very significant correction or crash" - are you meaning 30% or more? I think if it falls 30%, it falls 30%. Won't get too worked up about that. I also think the market will bounce back fairly quickly from that. More than 30% ... that might a bit more troublesome. I had friends who worked at Enron and lost everything. NVDA fell quite a bit during Covid and look where it is now.
"Big Tech firms’ increasing investments in artificial intelligence show that even if the stock market is in a bubble, equities still have room to run higher before it bursts. Last week, Amazon (AMZN), Alphabet (GOOG, GOOGL), and Meta (META) hiked their capital expenditure forecasts for their 2025 fiscal years, while Microsoft (MSFT) reported higher-than-expected spending for the first quarter of its 2026 fiscal year. “We're still in such a massive growth phase that the bubble still has a good ways to go before we're at risk of the massive correction,” said Futurum Group analyst David Nicholson. Amazon said it expects to see its full-year capex hit $125 billion, up from its previous outlook of $118.5 billion. Alphabet lifted its guidance for expenditures for the third straight quarter to $92 billion at the midpoint from $85 billion. Meta also upped its capex forecast range for the third time this year to $71 billion at the midpoint from $69 billion. Meanwhile, Microsoft reported capital expenditures of roughly $35 billion for its fiscal first quarter, ahead of the $30 billion expected by analysts tracked by Bloomberg. The company said its spending will rise at a faster pace in the 2026 fiscal year, which ends in June, than it did in 2025."
The DGTD thread started August 27, 2013 my first post on this thread was March 2015. I doubt you will find anything that reads do not buy stocks. My very first post was about the value of cash in a portfolio, basic portfolio construction. Interesting now measured with Buffett’s record cash holdings. You mostly talk about the NASDAQ stocks.
The OP thought the market would go down. His nemesis hated him for his Israel/Palestine views. One or the other thought I was he, stole my handle at one point, harassed me here and on other threads.
There is no missed opportunity. You buy things you like. My slant to the thread is to present my valuation view of markets. Clearly I am not moved by many of the opinions here, and you of mine.
Igy
Igy, I will grant you that you do not advocate for being fully out of the market, and when asked specifically, you generally advise for at least a small percentage invested. Frankly, I wouldn't care if you advised for being fully out, but that is neither here nor there.
That said, you have in general made the case on numerous occassions to reconsider investing in certain stocks/ETFs/cryptocurrencies and you go so far as to say, in some of these instances, that you will even lose money.
I started this line of discussion by bringing a few of those to light, and I simply asked how your projections worked out. I don't think you specifically addressed any of these. And I brought this up because your projections that you continue to make were the same ones you made 7 and 8 years ago, and ever since. So I thought a little track record insights might be helpful and enlightening.
From what I see, with the advantage of hindsight, the subsequent performance of the investments is very enlightening.
The DGTD thread started August 27, 2013 my first post on this thread was March 2015. I doubt you will find anything that reads do not buy stocks. My very first post was about the value of cash in a portfolio, basic portfolio construction. Interesting now measured with Buffett’s record cash holdings. You mostly talk about the NASDAQ stocks.
The OP thought the market would go down. His nemesis hated him for his Israel/Palestine views. One or the other thought I was he, stole my handle at one point, harassed me here and on other threads.
There is no missed opportunity. You buy things you like. My slant to the thread is to present my valuation view of markets. Clearly I am not moved by many of the opinions here, and you of mine.
Igy
Igy, I will grant you that you do not advocate for being fully out of the market, and when asked specifically, you generally advise for at least a small percentage invested. Frankly, I wouldn't care if you advised for being fully out, but that is neither here nor there.
That said, you have in general made the case on numerous occassions to reconsider investing in certain stocks/ETFs/cryptocurrencies and you go so far as to say, in some of these instances, that you will even lose money.
I started this line of discussion by bringing a few of those to light, and I simply asked how your projections worked out. I don't think you specifically addressed any of these. And I brought this up because your projections that you continue to make were the same ones you made 7 and 8 years ago, and ever since. So I thought a little track record insights might be helpful and enlightening.
From what I see, with the advantage of hindsight, the subsequent performance of the investments is very enlightening.
“The Nasdaq has only hit a new all-time high with declining issues outnumbering advances by more than 2 to 1 twice in its 54-year history. The only other time this occurred was on November 18, 2021 – one day before the Index peaked. The bear market that followed saw the Nasdaq… pic.twitter.com/ui3Dyl6ElN
@michaeljburry here is what he’s showing 🚨 OpenAI, xAI, Mistral, etc., don’t need 6–10 gigawatts of GPU to serve consumers. They’re not building user platforms. They’re building infinite training sinks where they can burn investor dollars in real-time on Nvidia clusters, while… pic.twitter.com/DEUrsfcQ5f
“Ether fell as much as 9% on Monday, slipping below its critical $3,600 support level, shortly after a multimillion dollar hack affected a protocol on the token’s native network. The cryptocurrency, which is issued on Ethereum, was last down 6.6% at around $3,600, CoinMetrics data shows. That’s roughly 25% off its high of $4,885 hit on August 22.”
Many are trying to ridicule him, but Igy is not wrong. He is pointing out some important truths: 1) Many stocks have been disconnected from fundamentals for a while now. 2) Yes, the growth rate is declining. 3) Yes, the AI CAPEX is in a bubble. 4) Yes, $NVDA is scheming to show higher revenue. Let me add some more: 5) No, we are not early cycle, not by any stretch of the imagination. 6) No, the economy is not "strong", "resilient", "healthy", "solid", "stable", or whatever nonsense the #Fed likes to use. 7) Yes, the #recession risk is way underpriced. 8) Yes, bubbles can expand further, but no, they don't last forever. 9) No, you don't have any "superior" knowledge or skill, it's all a bubble activity. 10) No, double-digit mkt (or triple-digit AI related) performance yr after yr is not normal. 11) Yes, this means that the mkt will need to have a number of negative yrs to get to its 8%-ish LT mean. 12) No, the Fed, the government, or whoever will not be able to prevent that.
I was looking at a chart on Morningstar for VADAX, Invesco's equal weighted S&P 500 index mutual fund's total return since the end of 1987. I compared it to VFINX, Vanguard's S&P 500 Index fund's total return. In August 2000, VFINX was 53.65% higher than VADAX. Currently, VFINX is 23.15% higher. They usually track each other closely with VADAX sometimes running higher ( GFC to Covid ).
About 10 years ago, on this thread, I linked to an article from Credit Suisse by Michael Mauboussin and Dan Callahan, titled 'What Does a Price-Earnings Multiple Mean? An Analytical Bridge between P/Es and Solid Economics". I'd bump the thread, but the link doesn't work anymore. I'm using a VPM, so my IP keeps changing and LR.C doesn't let new accounts link to prevent spam. I'll paste some of their main points and then show how it relates to today's market.
The steady-state value of a firm is the worth of the business assuming that it maintains its normalized level of NOPAT into perpetuity. A company arrives at its steady-state value when its incremental investments earn the cost of capital. With the second term of the equation collapsed to zero, all of the firm’s value falls on the steady state.8 Note that this discussion is independent of growth. A company can continue to grow earnings as it invests at the cost of capital. It will just fail to create value, and hence should trade at its steady-state worth. We can readily translate from the steady-state value to a steady-state price-earnings multiple, which is the reciprocal of the cost of equity: As of the beginning of 2014, Aswath Damodaran, a professor of finance at New York University’s Stern School of Business, estimated the cost of equity in the United States to be 8 percent.9 This translates into a steady-state price-earnings multiple of 12.5 times. Appendix B discusses the derivation of the cost of equity. Simplistically, we can say that the market expects a company to create shareholder value if its stock trades at above 12.5 times current earnings. If the stock trades below that multiple, the market is assuming either no value creation or that future value creation will be insufficient to offset a decline in the current base business. In other words, current earnings are unsustainable. Exhibit 1 shows the appropriate steady-state price-earnings multiple from 1961 through the end of 2013. The multiple started in the high teens in the early 1960s, a period when the cost of equity was low. It then had a steady march downward as both interest rates and the equity risk premium rose, bottoming at just over 5 times in 1981. Consistent with bull markets in both bonds and stocks, the steady-state price-earnings multiple ascended, with a recent peak in the late 1990s. Over the full period, the average multiple was 10.4 times with a standard deviation of 2.7.Steady-state price-earnings multiple = 1 Cost of equity
Since 1961, the steady-state value has explained about two-thirds of the market’s value, on average, and anticipated value creation has explained the other third (see Exhibit 2). We calculate this by taking the sum of the operating net income for the S&P 500 over the last four quarters, capitalizing it by the cost of equity, and subtracting the result from the S&P 500 price level. For example, the four quarters of earnings ended September 30, 2013 were $102.20 and the cost of equity was 8 percent, generating a steady-state value of 1,277.50 for the S&P 500. The index closed at 1,681.55. This means that the steady state was 74 percent of the value and that anticipated value creation was the other 24 percent.
As the exhibit shows clearly, the ratio of anticipated value creation to total value has swung substantially over the years. In the bear market of 1973 and in the recovery market in 2011, the anticipated value creation was negative. The ratio spiked around the time of the 1987 crash, the dot.com bubble in 2000, and during the Great Recession in 2008-2009. Based on the consensus of estimates for 2014 earnings, the ratio is now in the range of 15-20 percent.
So what about today. Using Howard Silverblatt's latest SPGlobals Earnings and Estimates Report ( 10/31/2025 ), I have the trailing twelve month operating earnings at 255.86 ( est ) for the end of Oct. S&P 500 ended Oct at 6840.20 and Damodaran has the cost of equity for Oct at 8.94%.. Divide 255.86 by .0894; 2861.93; divide by 6840.20, gives you 41.84% ( the end of 1999 was 41.43%). So anticipated value creation is 58.16, 33 is the average, almost 2 std above average.
Hi everyone I am Aaron Wilke. I am a senior in high school at Brownsburg in a Capstone Engineering Class and as a problem to tackle, my group chose injuries that occur for Cross Country athletes in the lower extremities. We would really appreciate if you take time to fill out this short survey attached below, and share if you can. Thank you! https://forms.gle/v4QSTApJN5o8YFoP9
