Down goes the Dow

Overall, 63% of the companies in the S&P 500 have reported earnings to date for the second quarter. Of these companies, 71% have reported actual EPS above the mean EPS estimate, 13% have reported actual EPS equal to the mean EPS estimate, and 16% have reported actual EPS below the mean EPS estimate. The percentage of companies reporting EPS above the mean EPS estimate is above the 1-year (70%) average and above the 5-year (67%) average.

- FactSet

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

To DGTD Historian,

July 28, 2016

Year-to- performance

NFLX. -19.872%

AMZN +11.351%

SPY (SPDR S&P 500 Trust) +6.328% and 2.014% dividend yield

TLT (iShares 20+ Year Treasury ETF) +16.42% and 2.199 dividend yield

A historian should understand the context of time as well as place. Of course that is too much to ask. Or study up.

Igy

This reply to a post regarding FANG stocks illustrates only half the picture and even that data is wrong. Here's the y/y data using intraday highs on Juky 29:

FB +29%

AMZN +44%

NFLX -15%

GOOGL +21%

If you had bought an equal number of shares of each at their high on 7/29/15, today your investment would be worth approximately 28% more.

You need a bond bucket for your investments, TLT up 20% year over year. Or alternatives, how about GLD?

Igy

I believe the point of the original post was that you have been wrong about FANG stocks, not that there are some investments that have done better. Not surprisingly, you posted incorrect and incomplete data in a weak attempt to divert attention from your poor investment vision.

You are correct FANG is the best investment clearly cheap. Add TLT and GLD and you are good as gold, but don't be surprised when you get deFANGED.

Igy

Earnie,

How come "FactSet" fails to mention that only 38.5% of S&P 500 beat GAAP EPS? Perhaps they be pulling wholly over ya eyes!

-IgySet

Mr. Fact Checker you have great investment vision, unfortunately it is the rear view mirror kind. Jeff Gundlach has poor investment vision, just like Igy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-doubleline-gundlach-idUSKCN1092BO

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Mr. Fact Checker you have great investment vision, unfortunately it is the rear view mirror kind. Jeff Gundlach has poor investment vision, just like Igy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-funds-doubleline-gundlach-idUSKCN1092BO

Igy

Selling at market top is not a new idea.

Yes, profound, and buying at a market top has never been a new idea.

Just a reminder that the real Igy left the thread weeks ago. Don't feed the troll.

Yes, I am a fake, and most of you have zero clue what is going on in the market. Your entire investment strategy is based on the day to day direction of the market. Actually pretty funny and unfortunately all to common. Good luck though, you'll need it. Too bad luck is a poor investment strategy.

Igy

It seems to me that most here are "buy and hold" fans and you're the one with the short term view. This is not intended as a criticism, just an observation.

Mr. Econ 101, "buy and hold" is merely a theory, and a rather poor one if measured against the last 16 years. I have no particular quarrel with "buy and hold" investors, but the Treasury bonds over the same period have delivered similar performance with less volatility and risk. Of course you will argue over a longer time horizon that is not the case. Perhaps, but that may be an evaluation in an extremely distorted market. There is another theory that is based on asset valuation and cash flow. That theory has over 90% predictability on future market performance. That is not a criticism, just a fact.

Igy

16 years? Why did you pick such a random number? Never mind, I know.

Anyway, your response had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Maybe that other guy is right about you.

Please don't feed the troll.

Econ 101, yes you are right I am wrong. Of course you neglected in your Econ 101 class to note the the market peaked at 2001, one of the most extreme valuations 16 years ago. Have you ever questioned, or even considered how your "buy and hold" strategy fared when back-tested on 10/2002 or 3/2009? Of course not, because your knowledge base is very narrow. You can learn a lot if you read a bit more. This is not a criticism, just an observation.

Igy

What is wrong with you? First you belittled being a "day to day" investor, now you're putting down buy and hold.

Have another drink.

Econ 101, perhaps you need to drink less or more. Seriously, how would you evaluate your "buy and hold" strategy if the next ten year return was 2% including dividends? Do you realize that in March 2009 equity returns were whipped out all the way to 1996? Or, that the March 2000 peak was not regained to spring 2013. Today's market valuation rivals or excceds the peaks of 3/2000 or 10/2007. That is not an opinion. Again, if one understands they may ride an investment down for a decade, well there's your problem.

Igy

Too funny.