Down goes the Dow

Fire in ur undies,I wasn't talking about that. I am confident I know quite a bit more about the subject than you.Igy

Your pants r on fire wrote:

And your answer ignored the fact that there are different retirement vehicles with different withdrawal requirements.

agip wrote:

la gente está muy loca wrote:

Here's a blog post from NY Fed on The Puzzling Pre-FOMC Announcement “Drift”.

Since 1994, there has been a large and statistically significant excess return on equities on days of scheduled FOMC announcements.

This return is earned ahead of the announcement, so it is not related to the immediate realization of monetary policy actions.

http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2012/07/the-puzzling-pre-fomc-announcement-drift.html#.V-1sOMmwWTC

We show that since 1994, more than 80 percent of the equity premium on U.S. stocks has been earned over the twenty-four hours preceding scheduled Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) announcements (which occur only eight times a year)—a phenomenon we call the pre-FOMC announcement “drift.”

http://libertystreeteconomics.typepad.com/.a/6a01348793456c970c017742f4c013970d-450wi

gente what should we conclude from that?

agip,

My conclusion is the Fed has created an environment that is predictable yet increasingly dangerous. Institutional traders through trend following, risk parity, algorithmic trading have a clear path to profits. The next phase may be the exact opposite of the current environment. It could be highlighted by a Fed that has lost control, asset correlations break down, stocks and bonds go down at the same time, and safe assets are cash and short term high quality debt, with few other places to hide.

Igy

Thanks. I'm 62 and retired but not on SS. Have 50% Traditional and 50% Roth. Haven't touched either yet. Have some extra savings and no debt and wife is still working so waiting for awhile. Also sold a large house and downsized. Life is pretty good except wife sometimes get lonely for her friends because we moved to the boonies. But, that isn't monetary.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Fire in ur undies,

I wasn't talking about that.

I am confident I know quite a bit more about the subject than you.

Igy

Your pants r on fire wrote:

And your answer ignored the fact that there are different retirement vehicles with different withdrawal requirements.

Based on what I've read here, I am confident that you are clueless. The fact that you thought someone had to take RMDS without ascertain what type of retirement vehicle(s) they had says it all. Add to that your disposition towards demeaning and insulting other posters which points to your lack of confidence.

Your pants r on fire wrote:

Igy

Your pants r on fire wrote:

And your answer ignored the fact that there are different retirement vehicles with different withdrawal requirements.

Based on what I've read here, I am confident that you are clueless. The fact that you thought someone had to take RMDS without ascertain what type of retirement vehicle(s) they had says it all. Add to that your disposition towards demeaning and insulting other posters which points to your lack of confidence.[/quote]

You are completely ignorant. The RMDs apply no matter what type of tax qualified retirement plan you are in (a different determination for defined benefit plans but the plan sponsor does that calculation; all Defined contrib Plans (401(k), ESOP, PS Plans, etc. have exactly the same RMDs calc depending on your age -- and acct balance).

I love the way ignorant people attack those who actually might know something about the topic.

Roths don't require RMDs.

becuz wrote:

Your pants r on fire wrote:

Igy

Based on what I've read here, I am confident that you are clueless. The fact that you thought someone had to take RMDS without ascertain what type of retirement vehicle(s) they had says it all. Add to that your disposition towards demeaning and insulting other posters which points to your lack of confidence.

You are completely ignorant. The RMDs apply no matter what type of tax qualified retirement plan you are in (a different determination for defined benefit plans but the plan sponsor does that calculation; all Defined contrib Plans (401(k), ESOP, PS Plans, etc. have exactly the same RMDs calc depending on your age -- and acct balance).

I love the way ignorant people attack those who actually might know something about the topic.[/quote]

rats! I haven't been taking RMDs for my Roth IRA...and I should have, because RMD rules apply no matter what type of tax qualified plan I have!

I'm in big trouble!

Hutre wrote:

Roths don't require RMDs.

No sh^t. That is post tax dollars so the govt has no interest in forcing distribs as no taxes get paid.

I am also in the business and I am a Certified Financial Planner. I believe this answer is simplistic and MAY BE advised for people in lower income brackets. I did a calculation for a couple with $100,000 in pre-retirement income and a potential $1,000,000 in retirement accounts subject to RMD, $60,000 in Social Security benefits in retirement. Any distribution out of a taxable retirement account prior to retirement will result in 25% in Federal taxes on the distribution. State income taxes would drive this number higher. While in retirement, using the same scenario and using current Federal tax rates, retirement distributions would be a little over 15%. Keep in mind a maximum of 85% of Social Security benefits are taxable.

Again, at the lower tax brackets the strategy outlined by the previous poster MAY BE beneficial, but as always it is never that simple.

CONSULT YOUR TAX PROFESSIONAL.

Igy

Fire in ur undies,I wouldn't be demeaning or insulting if you weren't taking my comments out of context. It is pretty obvious you are trying to be a jerk.Igy

Your pants r on fire wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Fire in ur undies,

I wasn't talking about that.

I am confident I know quite a bit more about the subject than you.

Igy

Based on what I've read here, I am confident that you are clueless. The fact that you thought someone had to take RMDS without ascertain what type of retirement vehicle(s) they had says it all. Add to that your disposition towards demeaning and insulting other posters which points to your lack of confidence.

CFP my ass. You didn't even know about Roth IRA s.

0/10

Fire in ur undies,

I wouldn't be demeaning or insulting if you weren't taking my comments out of context. It is pretty obvious you are trying to be a jerk.

Igy, CFP# 88783

Read more:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=5369837&page=721#ixzz4LktN8ofn

What is your continued fascination with his undies?

quarter end...here are some predictions.

Coach D got his all wrong - he predicted a steep fall, but the market was up 7.8% instead.

But seriously he probbaly still made money.

agip wrote:

well halfway thru the year - Dow is at 17,738

some predictions for end 2016

Igy: 10,900

And Now: 11,800

Agip: 17,900

Big Dog: 17,425

So it looks like I am the big winner so far. Yee hah. US stocks up 2.2% year to date. snooze. (with a few major nightmares. )

if i missed your prediction, go back and quote it.

right now we're at Dow 18,331

So I continue to be the winner, although even I, Mr optimism, have underestimated what a good year for investing this has been.

VTI is up around 8.3% this year.

El coacho, May 16

agip,

Congratulations on leading the pack, hopefully anaerobic shock will not set-in during your home stretch drive.

As Benjamin Graham said "in the short term the market is a voting machine, but in the long term a weighing machine."

The cycle high in S&P 500 EPS was exactly two years ago today. At that time the index closed 1972.29, Last Twelve Month (LTM) non-GAAP EPS was $114.51 with a PE of 17.22, and LTM GAAP EPS was $105.96 with a PE of 18.61. The most recently completed quarter 2Q 2016 the index closed at 2098.86, non-GAAP LTM EPS was $98.17 with a PE of 21.80 and GAAP LTM EPS was $86.92 with a PE of 24.62.

The last time earnings were this low was first quarter 2013 which coincidently was the early innings of the QE programs. The index was closed at 1569.19, non-GAAP LTM EPS was $98.35 with a PE of 17.89 and GAAP LTM EPS was $87.70 with a PE of 17.89. The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed that month at 14,578.

So the question becomes whether investors will continue to pay up for incremental earnings or will the predictions of a revival in earnings growth prove correct. Interestingly Wall Street forward earnings estimate for year end 2016 is now $110.16, having fallen from $125.56 at the start of the year. Wall Street forward estimate for 2017 is $132.19.

One should be reminded that the highest earnings ever were the Last Twelve Month (LTM) figure recorded two years ago at $114.51. That was a non-GAAP number, the GAAP LTM EPS number was $105.96. It seems more than a stretch to reach Wall Street forward earnings estimates. Any future interest rate rise further complicates the Bullish story.

Igy

agip wrote:

agip wrote:

well halfway thru the year - Dow is at 17,738

some predictions for end 2016

Igy: 10,900

And Now: 11,800

Agip: 17,900

Big Dog: 17,425

So it looks like I am the big winner so far. Yee hah. US stocks up 2.2% year to date. snooze. (with a few major nightmares. )

if i missed your prediction, go back and quote it.

right now we're at Dow 18,331

So I continue to be the winner, although even I, Mr optimism, have underestimated what a good year for investing this has been.

VTI is up around 8.3% this year.

My thoughts: Hedge funds closing, pension funds reducing exposure to hedge funds, flows from active managers to passive index strategies. I remember back during the Technology Bubble how value managers were closing shop or value funds style drifted to growth. What happened next? The exact opposite, true value managers had tremendous outperformance and growth strategies sank horribly, in some cases down over 80%.The S&P 500 index fund really got hit with the heavy weighting toward growth, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average considerably less.

I would much rather be in active managers and hedge funds than in any equity index.

Igy

[quote]Your pants r on fire wrote:

CFP my ass. You didn't even know about Roth IRA s.

What a complete moron you are. Iggy of course knows about Roths. You just make sh&t up and then attack that sh^t in the worst strawman attempt I have ever seen.

You guys are damn fools. Accept it. Live with it. You will always be taken by the insiders.