Down goes the Dow

There's nothing naive about pointing out that Siegel was right about Dow 19K. The fact that you try to pretend that didn't happen supports my contention that this thread is dominated by the Bears.

What does an underfunded pension fund have to do with bullish, or bearish, sentiment?

Huh, I would say I am the only Bear that consistently posts. I support my view with data. Just look at the previous page.

But whatever, I am going to watch UW football. Go Coach Pete. My Fav.

Igy

Your posts certainly do dominate the discussion, so that naturally contributes to the strong bearish flavor here. Data is fine as long as it's accurate and pertinent.

Maybe. But you have to look at it in context of inflation. If inflation goes up and the Fed raise rates but not at the same pace as inflation, then they are actually loosening monetary policy even more. And what historical are you comparing the present to? I suppose you can point to the early 90s when the fed went on a series of rate hikes and the stock market did fine, AND it didn't end in a major correction (At least not until 2001). But I'm not sure if this era is comparable to that. It feels a lot like the early 80s when Reagan embarked on his policies. Tax cuts, defense spending increases, and not really caring about budget deficits. Except, that happened when the Fed was easing rates after inflation was brought under control. This time I think it likely that the Fed will raise rates as Trump's policies are implemented.

agip wrote:

ryan foreman wrote:

But there are some people who have long felt that the Fed should have raised rates about 12 times since the financial crises. Trump's policies might cause Yellen to finally agree with them and go on a long, steady tightening cycle. If that happens then I remain in GOI's camp of being on the bearish side.

not sure this follows...I believe the stock market has done well in past times when the fed has gradually raised rates off a very low base.

but low number of instances, so who knows.

certainly we just saw longer term rates rise sharply and stocks had no adverse impact.

Am I to understand that you deny authoring posts such as the following. If so, then I have a problem with that.

Oh, snap, Igy gets caught in another lie. LOL!

Big,I could care less what problem you may have. For the record, the first a Troll stolen handle post, the next two are my posts.Igy

test

You could care less?

Anyway, you can keep your caring at its current level since you've taken responsibility for your posts voicing your sentiments not just against purchasing CHK, but for apparently buying any stock.

Big,See my post to you months ago the same comment as today and yesterday. I find it interesting how many here can't debate the factual issues, turn and twist what was not there. Of course those that make the most outragerous claims were in fact those complicit in falsehoods, slander, defamation and other petty if not illegal activities. Fortunately the Moderators understand the what has taken place and have acted appropriately.Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Big,

You can go back to the date of your post 3/1/2016 and see the acknowledgement of the Troll's mischief from me and others. In fact I made a statement that I was withdrawing from posting which was cheered by many. The back stiffened up a bit and I emailed the moderators and sent them several of the poststhat were from the Troll. Most of them were later deleted. In fact it appears one of them was the one you initially responded to. Bottom line that post was not mine.

Igy

Big,

Actually not true, I purchased AAPL lower than you. In December 2015 thru February 2016 I purchased significant amounts of cyclical stocks, commodities and Emerging Markets.

Igy

AAPL valuations are reasonable. I do recall you saying you thought it was a reasonable investment at the time I bought in.

You did not say that when I purchased CHK. In fact you were quite negative. That's my point.

Big,

Fair enough.

Have a good weekend.

Igy

U.S. stock futures indicated the Dow industrials were ready to open at a fresh all-time high on Monday, with momentum driven as equity investors shook off the defeat of Italy's constitution-reform referendum and amid signs of steady U.S. economic growth.

Futures for the Dow Jones Industrial Average rose 73 points, or 0.4%, to 19,230, while those for the S&P 500 gained 7.4 points, or 0.3%, to 2,199.25. Nasdaq-100 futures jumped 19.75 points, or 0.4%, to 4,758.25.

The Dow industrials closed at a record high last Thursday of 19,191.93, and touched an intraday high of 19,214.30. Futures offer a gauge of where the index could open, and Monday's move indicate a new high is in store for investors.

"The combination of steady U.S .economic growth, which won't need too hawkish a stance from the FOMC to manage, along with the prospect of further QE from the ECB seems to be generating perfect conditions to extend the bull market rally," said Jamieson Blake, retail sales manager at ADS Securities London, in a note to clients.

On Thursday, the European Central Bank will hold its regular monetary policy meeting to decide on the scope of its quantitative easing and other measures.

Recovering from weak premarket action, the Stoxx Europe 600 rose 1%, fighting losses after Italian voters rejected constitutional changes backed by their government. The broader Italian stock market searched for firm direction but Italian bank shares struggled.

The government had argued the changes would have made it easier to pass laws, notably those aimed at helping its embattled bank sector. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi announced he would resign on the heels of the result.

The move creates some uncertainty for Europe's fourth-largest economy, and was viewed as a win for Italian euroskeptics, specifically the 5 Star Movement, which has campaigned for the country to leave the euro.

Shaking it off: But U.S. investors appeared ready to take the news in stride.

"Perhaps the backing of the central bank to contain any negative fallout is helping to keep investor spirits up, even though the result itself may have just presented an opportunity to another antiestablishment movement that favors a referendum on eurozone membership," said Craig Erlam, senior market analyst at Oanda, in emailed comments.

The bulk of the reaction fell on the euro , which hit a 21-month low against the dollar before paring the decline.

U.S. stocks ended last week largely lower, with weaker-than-expected payrolls data weighing on equities Friday. The S&P 500 index fell 1% for the week, while the Nasdaq Composite Index dropped 2.7%, its worst weekly loss since before the Nov. 8 presidential election.

Some worry that Wall Street is due for a breather after a run-up in stocks since the surprise election win for Donald Trump, though Monday's action indicated that may not happen right away.

And the records just keep on coming!

I don't see this similar to the early 80s...as you pointed out then we had high but falling inflation and high but falling interest rates. now we have the opposite - low but rising inflation, low but rising (maybe) interest rates. Different situations. I'd have to do some research to find a similar situation to today but I imagine it woud be in the 1940s and 1950s when interest rates were also low. the key is that rising interest rates don't hurt stocks...as long as the rise is gradual and - this is key - off a low base. I mean who cares if the 10 year yields 3% instead of 2%? that's still cheap money and should help companies.

agip and ryan,

I was thirty in 1980. The wife and I purchased our first house the year before at 11.9% interest rates. In 1981 we purchased a new VW Rabbit Pick-up Truck at 17.9% interest rate. Credit cards were issued by a few retailers like Sears. If you wanted a washer or dryer you might arrange a 90 days same as cash, or the local bank might lend you the money.

In contrast today people carry little about what they pay for an item, only the monthly payment. Debt on a personal level, not measured against their net worth, is higher than it has ever been. The era of the 1970s and 1980s was period of transition, perhaps similar to today in some ways. However, I see a headwind rather than a tailwind to future expectations. Demographically so much different today, more takers and less producers today.

Igy

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

agip and ryan,

I was thirty in 1980. The wife and I purchased our first house the year before at 11.9% interest rates. In 1981 we purchased a new VW Rabbit Pick-up Truck at 17.9% interest rate. Credit cards were issued by a few retailers like Sears. If you wanted a washer or dryer you might arrange a 90 days same as cash, or the local bank might lend you the money.

In contrast today people carry little about what they pay for an item, only the monthly payment. Debt on a personal level, not measured against their net worth, is higher than it has ever been. The era of the 1970s and 1980s was period of transition, perhaps similar to today in some ways. However, I see a headwind rather than a tailwind to future expectations. Demographically so much different today, more takers and less producers today.

Igy

lots of way to calculate household debt. Do you have a link to the data you cited?

I can say that debt service charges compared to disposable income is very low. In other words, the cost of servicing household debt is at historical lows. So that's a green flag, not a red one.

But many ways to look at the data, I'm sure.

in econ today, all very strong.

ISM non mfgring had the highest # since mid 2015

consumer spending also high - the highest ever measured in a November, since the data started in 2008.