No doubt. The Trumpster giveth and the Trumpster take the away.
Latest forecast: 0.6 percent — April 7, 2017
The GDPNow model forecast for real GDP growth (seasonally adjusted annual rate) in the first quarter of 2017 is 0.6 percent on April 7, down from 1.2 percent on April 4. The forecast for first-quarter real GDP growth fell 0.4 percentage points after the light vehicle sales release from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis and the ISM Non-Manufacturing Report On Business from the Institute for Supply Management on Wednesday and 0.2 percentage points after the employment release from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the wholesale trade release from the U.S. Census Bureau this morning. Since April 4, the forecasts for first-quarter real consumer spending growth and real nonresidential equipment investment growth have fallen from 1.2 percent and 9.7 percent to 0.6 percent and 5.6 percent, respectively.
The next GDPNow update is Friday, April 14. Please see the "Release Dates" tab below for a full list of upcoming releases.
The Fed Model has been used through out this cycle to justify equity valuations as cheap.Interest Ted wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21582513-low-bond-yields-have-past-been-bad-not-good-equity-returnsThanks, but earnings yield is not the same as valuations. One is a function of the other, but that doesn't make them equivalent.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Interest Ted wrote:The Fed Model has been used through out this cycle to justify equity valuations as cheap.Thanks, but earnings yield is not the same as valuations. One is a function of the other, but that doesn't make them equivalent.
I've seen nothing to suggest that.
That's only because you don't know what you are talking about.
Me? That doesn't make sense. I'm not the one who made a nonsensical unsubstantiated statement. That was you.
Interest Ted wrote:
Me? That doesn't make sense. I'm not the one who made a nonsensical unsubstantiated statement. That was you.
Try a simple Google search "Fed Model justifies stock valuation" or better yet "Fed Model does not justify stock valuations."
But you can even do that. Here is just one article:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-the-stock-market-overpriced-2017-01-03Thank you for supporting your statement.
Ya right. Beautiful. Ya know. Awesome post.
Earnings Scorecard: As of today (with 5% of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results for Q1 2017), 74% of S&P 500 companies have beat the mean EPS estimate and 57% of S&P 500 companies have beat the mean sales estimate.
Earnie wrote:
Earnings Scorecard: As of today (with 5% of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results for Q1 2017), 74% of S&P 500 companies have beat the mean EPS estimate and 57% of S&P 500 companies have beat the mean sales estimate.
What Earnie calls "actual results" is a non-GAAP number, which is not acceptable for SEC reporting requirements.
Any investment professional worth their salt looks carefully at both GAAP and non-GAAP numbers.
Investment Advisor wrote:
Any investment professional worth their salt looks carefully at both GAAP and non-GAAP numbers.
On the contrary, in this cycle the numbers have been clearly manipulated and should be discounted. Why is the the GAAP number more closely aligned with the sales number?
Any investment professional worth their salt is capable of separating the wheat from the chaff.
So profound.
Investment Advisor wrote:
Any investment professional worth their salt is capable of separating the wheat from the chaff.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Investment Advisor wrote:Any investment professional worth their salt looks carefully at both GAAP and non-GAAP numbers.
On the contrary, in this cycle the numbers have been clearly manipulated and should be discounted. Why is the the GAAP number more closely aligned with the sales number?
Huh? What you wrote is not at all a contradiction of the previous post, as you suggest. Your understanding of the English language seems to be lacking.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Here is just one article:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-the-stock-market-overpriced-2017-01-03
One thing we do know, however, is that the current level of PE ratios, whether TTM, forward or Shiller, has been shown to be a poor guide to market timing. This knowledge brings us back to the "old time religion" — buying and holding a diversified portfolio commensurate with your personal risk tolerance is the best defense against uncertain markets.
Portia wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:If you prefer a fake narrative about an improving economy and stock market don't read this fact based, reality check article:
That is a good fact-based reality check. The author is correct that we just recently celebrated the 8 year anniversary of the bull market. The S&P was up 12% last year while small- and mid-caps saw nearly double that. It's been a good time to be invested.
But leveraging oneself to get in the market now is certainly stupid, as the author points out. Valuations are high and we are overdue for a negative event. Much of the recent gains were built upon optimism about what a Republican president could do with control of Congress, but the shine is off that pig as the Repiblicans continue to be dysfunctional.
I've been gradually culling profits in recent weeks in anticipation of the inevitable.
I remember in the not too distant past, when another wise investor raised a similar warning at a time when many pundits (and throw me in the mix too) thought the market was overvalued. Glad I didn't listen to the ego fueled fear though else is have missed out on a nice run up, and would be one of those bitter investors constantly posting about how smart they were for selling. Those famous words of warning...
Down to 14,850 from a peak of 15,700 I believe.
Maybe 5%
What's the bottom?
I am betting sub 13,000
Question: A website makes a strong case for a looming stock market crisis, saying there are three key indicators screaming SELL. It says that a 50 percent market collapse is already at the door. It uses 20 charts to make the case and has a track record of calling every major economic shift over the past 30 years. What do you think of the person behind this website and his prediction?
Ric: First of all, how do you know this site has correctly called every major economic shift over the past 30 years? Because it said so?
It’s easy to make claims, but much harder to prove them. There’s an old joke in the brokerage industry about the broker who called 100 people and said he recommended that they sell IBM stock, and then called 100 people and told them to buy IBM stock. Later, after IBM rose or fell, he called the 100 to whom he gave the “right†prediction and told 50 of them to buy GM; the other 50 were told
to sell GM. After GM did its thing, he called the 50 who had gotten the right prediction and told 25 of them to buy American Airlines, and told the other 25 to sell AA. Afterward, he called the 25 and said, “I’ve given you three perfect stock picks. If you don’t invest your money with me now, I’m never giving you another tip!†Of the 200 people he started with, 25 of them thought he was a genius — at least for a while — until they became clients and discovered that he couldn’t repeat his “proven success.â€
You can imagine that he might build a website listing all those great calls he made in the past as evidence of his brilliance. He could simply create materials and backdate them to give the appearance that he’s never been wrong.
Have you bothered to verify any of his claims? This strikes me as worth doing if you’re planning to invest your money based on his latest prediction. (Frankly, I know of no one who has gotten every major economic shift right over the past 30 years — and anyone who did manage to do that would be so wealthy that they wouldn’t need to try to hawk their wares to you.)
For every guy telling you that the market will crash, I can find 10 others saying that values will skyrocket. We ignore them all — and you should too.