Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Just or whomever you are. I will check in with you when I can put it in your face.
Igy
Guess you won't be checking in . . . like, forever.
Well, anyway, hope you folks keep up the good work and hit 20,000 posts soon. That's a pretty good milestone.
Just stopping by wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:Just or whomever you are. I will check in with you when I can put it in your face.
Igy
Guess you won't be checking in . . . like, forever.
Well, anyway, hope you folks keep up the good work and hit 20,000 posts soon. That's a pretty good milestone.
I can't believe they are keeping this thread open?
The title has never has never made since, and lately it has just turned in to a bromance of about three posters stroking each others ego.
The Voice of Reason wrote:
The market goes up. The market goes down. Repeat.
Who are you, Forrest Effin Gump? Sling Blade?
Why Not wrote:
Just stopping by wrote:Guess you won't be checking in . . . like, forever.
Well, anyway, hope you folks keep up the good work and hit 20,000 posts soon. That's a pretty good milestone.
I can't believe they are keeping this thread open?
The title has never has never made since, and lately it has just turned in to a bromance of about three posters stroking each others ego.
xoxo...
Big Dog Investments wrote:
I propose another DGTD prediction contest: PREDICT THE CORRECTION.
Here are the rules:
1) Give the exact date that the Dow will reach 10% below its high.
2) Your prediction must be made before the Dow has fallen 3% from its high.
Closest to the actual date wins with the winner receiving one genuine "attaboy" as prize.
Will it happen before the end of 2016? After the inauguration? Groundhog Day?
Let's hear what you think.
With less than 90 minutes left before the market closes today, it looks like I'll be joining Igy in the "Losers Club." The clock is now on Econ who needs a 10% correction by Feb 20 to avoid joining the club.
The prediction pool:
Igy: January 9, 2017 - ELIMINATED
Big: January 13, 2017 - ELIMINATED
Econ: Feb 8, 2017
agip: March 4, 2017
Maser: June 17, 2017
Mellon: December 31, 2018
Current data (as of 1/25/17):
Dow high...20,125.58
Prediction goal...18,113.02
Cut off number...19,521.81 (make your prediction before Dow reaches this)
well obviously the GDP number was underwhelming, but consumer sentiment is at cycle highs
weird how virtually every economic number is so positive and strong...yet GDP growth is anemic. Seems to be a disconnect there. I wonder if there is a measuring problem.
Or maybe the lack of population growth in the US affects total GDP more than other measurements.
Does no one else think that there is enormous market risk when the president of the USA seems to want to tear up the postwar status quo? Free trade, NATO, the concept of alliances, the idea that spreading prosperity around the globe is best for the US, that the UN is a useful body, holding China at bay, pushing back against Russian expansionism...
yet the VIX is at near all time lows, gold falling and bonds falling.
It's a little crazy
I don't think I'm letting my anti-Trump views color my forecasting, but maybe I am.
Still...a rockbottom VIX? Now?
The disconnect between your metrics is due to the fact that they are false.
I won't go into it, we have been there before. Suffice it to say that the "economic numbers" that I look at are nowhere near "so positive and strong", and that anemic as it is, GDP growth has been inflated via changes in how it is calculated.
From my perspective on national activity, economic numbers are meager, and consistently-measured YOY GDP growth is non-existent to negative, which are logically consistent when one considers the contribution of asset price inflation to the GDP number.
What's funny to me is that I'm the 2nd most bullish guy on the correction prediction list! And probably the most bullish, because the only prediction beyond mine seems to have been made somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
I have confidence in the manipulability of the markets. I have already given my guesses as to what could bring them down and how, and have described how, in many ways, I believe this era to be different than others, at least insofar as capital markets, banking manipulation, capital flow, and demographics are concerned.
Everybody getting the jitters now. I said I wouldn't buy in until such time as there was some sustained activity above 20k, although that is only rough, because even I don't use the dow as a measure anymore.
Maserati wrote:
The disconnect between your metrics is due to the fact that they are false.
I won't go into it, we have been there before. Suffice it to say that the "economic numbers" that I look at are nowhere near "so positive and strong", and that anemic as it is, GDP growth has been inflated via changes in how it is calculated.
From my perspective on national activity, economic numbers are meager, and consistently-measured YOY GDP growth is non-existent to negative, which are logically consistent when one considers the contribution of asset price inflation to the GDP number.
What's funny to me is that I'm the 2nd most bullish guy on the correction prediction list! And probably the most bullish, because the only prediction beyond mine seems to have been made somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
I have confidence in the manipulability of the markets. I have already given my guesses as to what could bring them down and how, and have described how, in many ways, I believe this era to be different than others, at least insofar as capital markets, banking manipulation, capital flow, and demographics are concerned.
Everybody getting the jitters now. I said I wouldn't buy in until such time as there was some sustained activity above 20k, although that is only rough, because even I don't use the dow as a measure anymore.
...so they manipulate every number except the GDP number? That one is sacred?
agip,
No, I don't think your views are wrong. For one, to think one can go from a globalist regime that has supported markets for the past 20 years, to something different, and not expect bumps along the way, seems rather foolish. Furthermore, the GDP report today, shows there is no magic bullet. We have been mired in slow growth for sometime now. Demographics that you alluded to in an earlier post plays a large role in the developed world. Unfortunately, we are financing our lifestyle through debt rather than growth. We are reaching an end point.
The issues related to VIX are probably more tied to algorithmic trading and fund flows to ETFs. In my view it is blind money, chasing momentum, without thought to anything fundamental. Of, course when that trend changes, the likely outcome will be a mirror image.
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
agip,
No, I don't think your views are wrong. For one, to think one can go from a globalist regime that has supported markets for the past 20 years, to something different, and not expect bumps along the way, seems rather foolish. Furthermore, the GDP report today, shows there is no magic bullet. We have been mired in slow growth for sometime now. Demographics that you alluded to in an earlier post plays a large role in the developed world. Unfortunately, we are financing our lifestyle through debt rather than growth. We are reaching an end point.
The issues related to VIX are probably more tied to algorithmic trading and fund flows to ETFs. In my view it is blind money, chasing momentum, without thought to anything fundamental. Of, course when that trend changes, the likely outcome will be a mirror image.
Igy
I think there probably has been a change in the usefulness of the VIX..it used to measure fear better than it does now. Because in the past if you wanted to hedge long equity exposure you had to use options pretty much.
Now...in half a second you can short a billion dollars of SPY or the like. You just don't have to use options as much as you used to, so measuring volatility by option prices makes less sense now.
So I think we are agreeing.
agip wrote:
Maserati wrote:The disconnect between your metrics is due to the fact that they are false.
I won't go into it, we have been there before. Suffice it to say that the "economic numbers" that I look at are nowhere near "so positive and strong", and that anemic as it is, GDP growth has been inflated via changes in how it is calculated.
From my perspective on national activity, economic numbers are meager, and consistently-measured YOY GDP growth is non-existent to negative, which are logically consistent when one considers the contribution of asset price inflation to the GDP number.
What's funny to me is that I'm the 2nd most bullish guy on the correction prediction list! And probably the most bullish, because the only prediction beyond mine seems to have been made somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
I have confidence in the manipulability of the markets. I have already given my guesses as to what could bring them down and how, and have described how, in many ways, I believe this era to be different than others, at least insofar as capital markets, banking manipulation, capital flow, and demographics are concerned.
Everybody getting the jitters now. I said I wouldn't buy in until such time as there was some sustained activity above 20k, although that is only rough, because even I don't use the dow as a measure anymore.
...so they manipulate every number except the GDP number? That one is sacred?
How did you get THAT? I thought I had clearly stated that the number has been manipulated upward by changing criteria and weighting!
I have yet to see any evidence that REAL GDP, measured longitudinally consistently, has actually grown. Yes the population has grown, but so much of the number is housing price inflation due to low interest rates, non-market de facto tax increases driving up the cost of "healthcare", and equity price inflation due to low rates and reporting environment manipulation such as non-GAAP, that it's hard to see any actual growth in actual wealth generation.
A house is still a house. If that house doesn't change but its price doubles, there has been no additional wealth created, but the GDP number rises. Price growth only reflect wealth growth when dollar denomination is consistent, which it isn't.
I'm a believer in real fundamentals, and I just don't see it. What I see is widespread decay, coupled with urban renewal in select areas like mine, and the addition of new, cheap housing stock and cheap strip-mall-type development.
We need to really produce to get a rise in real wealth, in real GDP. We need coal, oil, shipping, concrete, steel, plastics, etc., and the services that support wealth increase, not just those that support wealth management and price increase.
We are reaching an end point.
When will that be?
Maserati,
I don't doubt your view, but I question the sustainability. However, everyone is cheering Microsoft's earnings growth. Reality is ignored, for example spending $ Billions to buy LinkedIn's money losing business. No revenue growth last six months versus prior year $9.920 Billion (2015) versus $9.890 Billion (2016). Since June liabilities have gone from $121 Billion to $155 Billion. So your statement "I have confidence in the manipulability of the markets" appears to be correct.
Igy
Simple really wrote:
We are reaching an end point.When will that be?
4/1/2017
Maserati wrote:
agip wrote:...so they manipulate every number except the GDP number? That one is sacred?
How did you get THAT? I thought I had clearly stated that the number has been manipulated upward by changing criteria and weighting!
I have yet to see any evidence that REAL GDP, measured longitudinally consistently, has actually grown. Yes the population has grown, but so much of the number is housing price inflation due to low interest rates, non-market de facto tax increases driving up the cost of "healthcare", and equity price inflation due to low rates and reporting environment manipulation such as non-GAAP, that it's hard to see any actual growth in actual wealth generation.
A house is still a house. If that house doesn't change but its price doubles, there has been no additional wealth created, but the GDP number rises. Price growth only reflect wealth growth when dollar denomination is consistent, which it isn't.
I'm a believer in real fundamentals, and I just don't see it. What I see is widespread decay, coupled with urban renewal in select areas like mine, and the addition of new, cheap housing stock and cheap strip-mall-type development.
We need to really produce to get a rise in real wealth, in real GDP. We need coal, oil, shipping, concrete, steel, plastics, etc., and the services that support wealth increase, not just those that support wealth management and price increase.
my point:
Agip: Most economic numbers show fairly strong and accelerating numbers. But GDP doesn't. Why?
Mazer: because the numbers are manipulated.
Agip: Well if they are manipulating economic numbers to make them look good, why don't they also manipulate GDP to make GDP growth as strong as the other numbers? Why the disconnect?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Maserati,
I don't doubt your view, but I question the sustainability. However, everyone is cheering Microsoft's earnings growth. Reality is ignored, for example spending $ Billions to buy LinkedIn's money losing business. No revenue growth last six months versus prior year $9.920 Billion (2015) versus $9.890 Billion (2016). Since June liabilities have gone from $121 Billion to $155 Billion. So your statement "I have confidence in the manipulability of the markets" appears to be correct.
Igy
ðŸ’
Now that's a good question, my bad that I misunderstood what you meant.
My first inclination is to suggest that you can only work with what you have, and that changes to the calculation are always at least a cycle behind. They tried, but they have fallen behind.
My second inclination is that the desired range was determined as a means to justify rates going forward.
I'm sure there are other reasons, but I think that those--especially the 2nd--are the major ones.
As you suggest, measurement might be a problem, but that cuts both ways, without any good means of divining which particular way was dominant this cycle, or any cycle for that matter.
https://www.thestreet.com/story/13969612/1/microsoft-s-sterling-second-quarter-earnings-what-wall-street-s-saying.html?puc=CNBC&cm_ven=CNBCC.P. wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:Maserati,
I don't doubt your view, but I question the sustainability. However, everyone is cheering Microsoft's earnings growth. Reality is ignored, for example spending $ Billions to buy LinkedIn's money losing business. No revenue growth last six months versus prior year $9.920 Billion (2015) versus $9.890 Billion (2016). Since June liabilities have gone from $121 Billion to $155 Billion. So your statement "I have confidence in the manipulability of the markets" appears to be correct.
Igy
ðŸ’
ðŸ’ðŸ’