Down goes the Dow

agip,

Cheer autos when they're up, forget them when they're down...

Igy

Maserati wrote:

agip is a good guy, with obvious weaknesses that he more-or-less owns.

.

grazie

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

Maserati wrote:

You can't hold a candle to either agip or Igy.

You and me both (and I'd add coach d to that list). The difference between us is I know when to shut up instead of trying to sound smarter than I am. You could use a dose of humility.

And you could use a dose of reality.

*****************************************************

Hey agip, you still haven't answered a question I've now asked 2 or 3 times: why is it that you feel you should or must own equities?

Here is a good one from David Stockman, "The Frogs Are Boiling Again-Why Wall Street Stays in the Pot."

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/the-frogs-are-boiling-again-why-wall-street-stays-in-the-pot/

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

MarketWatch,

Reason 3 that earnings are OK is just baloney.

Igy

What's wrong with 75% beating expectations?

Maserati wrote:

Pointing Out the Obvious wrote:

You and me both (and I'd add coach d to that list). The difference between us is I know when to shut up instead of trying to sound smarter than I am. You could use a dose of humility.

And you could use a dose of reality.

*****************************************************

Hey agip, you still haven't answered a question I've now asked 2 or 3 times: why is it that you feel you should or must own equities?

I've answered it both times. I'll see if I can fish it back for you.

He's trolling you, agip....again.

Wait,

First, the numbers quoted in the article were non-GAAP on already lowered expectations. Second, stock buybacks have added a 4% tailwind to earnings. Third, only 36% of the companies have beat on GAAP earnings which CEOs sign as accurate under penalty of imprisonment. Fourth, only 53% have beat on sales. Fifth, the non-GAAP quartetly numbers are the lowest since 3/31/2012.

So, number 3 of the MarketWatch post is not only baloney, but crap on your shoe.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

It is interesting how weak Apple has traded, still only slightly above a multi-year low. A significant break of last week's low would be another nail in the market's coffin.

Apple is still rated a BUY.

John,

I actually like Apple as an investment, but it is not trading well. There is risk to their earnings from Wawei and Samsung as their technology lead narrows. It is such a large component of the S&P and thus ETFs and mutual funds, any significant break below the recent low would be bad for the market.

Igy

How would it be bad for the market?

John,

Apple is the second largest component of the S&P 500. The stock has been an overweight to the benchmark in many mutual funds. Watch the action of Apple in relation to the market generally and you will see my point.

Igy

I know that, but how is the S&P going down because of one stock "bad". Sure it's bad for Apple, but what negative effect is there on other stocks?

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

John,

Apple is the second largest component of the S&P 500. The stock has been an overweight to the benchmark in many mutual funds. Watch the action of Apple in relation to the market generally and you will see my point.

Igy

meh. Apple is not a market leader anymore. It used to be, but not anymore. It's all by itself in apple world.

but it is a large piece of mutual funds...if they all decide to sell the stock, look out below.

John,

Apple is 2.845% weight in S&P 500, and 5.61% weight in S&P 500 growth index. In numerous mutual funds Apple is held at market weight or over. So any performance, be it positive or negative by Apple is magnified in the index performance.

Igy

Remember what I said on here two weeks ago:

And in fact I sold or shorted a lot of things, including the S&P and commodities on the benchmark level overbought condition (you just don't see 77.6% of the SP 500 above the 200 day moving average often and it doesn't stay there long). These are stocks I bought on 2/11 that I sold on 4/29 (% increase shown):

M (13.18%)

URBN (26.86%)

AEO (7.59%)

NPTN(29.2%)

VDSI(23.6%)

I still have these that I bought or shorted at the same time:

NVDA (42.53%)

SNCR(56.47%)

VRX-short(68.42%)

So let's say that my family isn't exactly complaining about the returns, but I've been doing exactly what the big money has been doing--buying on weakness and selling into strength. The selling in retail may be more about expectations than actual eps, but retail sales have been going bad for the whole last quarter, with the exception of AMZN, which I also sold but before 4/29 for a profit of 26%. What's wrong is the whole sector, not just Macy's.

Agip may wonder whether he wants stocks now, but my problem is what to do with the profits I'm making in commodities--the most I can get in a commodity clearing broker account is .25% (tbills) unless I do something with the profits--so I increased the allocation to stocks....and then reduced it again.

agip,

As noted above, one reason I would be more inclined to own an active manager rather than an index at this stage of the market cycle. For example in the Growth Fund of America it is the fifth largest holding. In the benchmarked index second behind Google.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Wait,

First, the numbers quoted in the article were non-GAAP on already lowered expectations. Second, stock buybacks have added a 4% tailwind to earnings. Third, only 36% of the companies have beat on GAAP earnings which CEOs sign as accurate under penalty of imprisonment. Fourth, only 53% have beat on sales. Fifth, the non-GAAP quartetly numbers are the lowest since 3/31/2012.

So, number 3 of the MarketWatch post is not only baloney, but crap on your shoe.

Igy

That's a misrepresentation of what was in that article. Either you didn't read it, or you're being dishonest.

So by "market" you mean the index number and not the companies that comprise it. That's what confused me.