Down goes the Dow

And you seem to not understand how exponential models are derived.

Infinity has no end wrote:

And you seem to not understand how exponential models are derived.

Oh, I do, but the correlation to future returns based at a market top seems dubious to me.

Igy

Log,Give me an example of QE in past market history.Igy

Logician wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

QE also didn't operate in a vacuum.

QE, market stalls, earnings declines, etc. have all occurred repeatedly through history. I don't think you would suggest that earnings declines caused the recent market highs. Likewise one cannot arbitrarily state that market stalls and earnings declines are necessarily caused by QE.

Silence.....

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Log,

Give me an example of QE in past market history.

Igy

Logician wrote:

QE, market stalls, earnings declines, etc. have all occurred repeatedly through history. I don't think you would suggest that earnings declines caused the recent market highs. Likewise one cannot arbitrarily state that market stalls and earnings declines are necessarily caused by QE.

"The Fed has insisted on slamming its foot on the gas pedal, refusing to recognize that the transmission is shot. So instead, the fuel is instead just spilling around us all, waiting for the inevitable match to strike. We can clearly establish that activist monetary policy - deviations from measured and statistically-defined responses to output, employment and inflation - have had no economically meaningful effect, other than producing a repeated spectacle of Fed-induced, speculative yield-seeking bubbles. The American public has repeatedly paid the consequences of the Federal Reserve’s insular dogma when those bubbles have inevitably collapsed, but those consequences are typically spread over a longer horizon than the Fed appears to consider."

John Hussman, "Failed Transmission-Evidence of the Futility of Activist Fed Policy," 9/5/2016

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Infinity has no end wrote:

And you seem to not understand how exponential models are derived.

Oh, I do, but the correlation to future returns based at a market top seems dubious to me.

Igy

Uh, no you don't. If his model is based on decades of history, then it's not based at a market top. That is unless you believe we've been at a market top for decades.

Math,OK, since you are the Math Mann, how accurate was the prediction model in the decade following 1930-1950 using that 20 year period? How accurate would the model perform using the last 20 years and comparing it to the decade performance of 1950-1960?Igy

Math Mann wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Oh, I do, but the correlation to future returns based at a market top seems dubious to me.

Igy

Uh, no you don't. If his model is based on decades of history, then it's not based at a market top. That is unless you believe we've been at a market top for decades.

Math,

One of my colleagues in the Health and Kinesiology Department at a university where I once worked was writing scholarly paper. He was using a mathematical model to extrapolate from a 100 meter dash test other longer running distance performances. As I am sure you can understand that data tells you very little about performance in other events. Likewise, I assume the same of Marty B.'s formula, and I have given you a method to prove me wrong.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Math,

One of my colleagues in the Health and Kinesiology Department at a university where I once worked was writing scholarly paper. He was using a mathematical model to extrapolate from a 100 meter dash test other longer running distance performances. As I am sure you can understand that data tells you very little about performance in other events. Likewise, I assume the same of Marty B.'s formula, and I have given you a method to prove me wrong.

Igy

I'm guessing that even you understand how stupid that analogy is. Do you seriously not see the difference between projecting an ldr performance from a sprint and projecting future market performances from past market performances?

Hellooo,

No, the point was applying a mathematical formula to an incomplete data set. What you and your Bullish brothers are afraid to admit to, is similar to the disclaimer included in every equity fund prospectus "past performance is not indicative of future return."

Igy

Of course that's true which is why any prediction should be taken with a grain of salt. I never said otherwise despite your apparent need to put words into my mouth.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Math,

OK, since you are the Math Mann, how accurate was the prediction model in the decade following 1930-1950 using that 20 year period? How accurate would the model perform using the last 20 years and comparing it to the decade performance of 1950-1960?

Igy

Math Mann wrote:

Uh, no you don't. If his model is based on decades of history, then it's not based at a market top. That is unless you believe we've been at a market top for decades.

It's an exponential model. As such, to be meaningful it would necessitate the use of time frames considerably longer than those you have proposed. It's accuracy at your intervals would not be very good compared to longer time periods.

Math,

OK, two twenty year periods of stock market performance Dow Jones Industrial Average:

1930-1950: 1.510% average annualized return

9/1996-9/2016: 5.973 average annualized performance

Explain why one data set is superior or inferior to the other?

Igy

Math,

Interestingly, the decade following the 20 years (1930-1950) of Dow underperformance was an annualized at a return of 13%. That is the point, it takes market underperformance and depressed stock valuations to create opportunity and exceptional returns. Currently you have the highest stock valuations since 9/2009. Of course market multiples and thus valuations can become more extended.

Igy

And how does any of this relate to the exponential model you were downplaying?

Infinity has no end wrote:

And how does any of this relate to the exponential model you were downplaying?

Really?

You honestly cannot follow the thread?

Infinite one,

If you can't figure it out, I am afraid I can't help you.

Sorry.

Igy

1 minute AGAIN!!!!

and seven minutes for you...