Down goes the Dow

Heard someone say that if we started our reported recovery in 2009/10 than we are now due for a recession. That is if you believe a "recovery" actually occurred beyond illusion.

In other news, insiders have been selling like mad. That may be concerning.

---

not this again wrote:

---

dumb wrote:

---

K5 wrote:

Agip.

Where is your update on how much money I have "lost" be not being in equities since I bailed with the Dow at 15,000 @ 7 months ago?

How much money have you lost in the past two weeks. You know, real money and real losses. Not potential gains missed out on.

---

Well, unless he sold something that he bought at a higher price than today's closing and booked a loss then he doesn't have any real losses of real money.

---

Surely you forgot the "ized" at the end of the first "real"?

---

---

HoJoHo wrote:

Would love for the chartists to chime in here but my recollection is that we have had major sell offs in the second term of every presidency going back to at least Clinton . History about to repeat here or is there no pattern or correlation

---

---

Do Not Log Off wrote:

You may be correct that it is "typically" folly, but this time I sense that the situation is "atypical".

There is too much crap piling up. The world is too interconnected, there is insufficient regional/national independence. There is a balance to be struck, and the pendulum has swung too far.

So, everybody has been taken along for the ride on the train that the USA has been pulling, a phenomenon that has caused them to follow essentially the same path as the USA.

There is a time lag. What we are seeing now is the ROW passing the same point in the track that the USA passed in 2008--the only problem is that the ROW dwarfs the USA. This is a systemically deeper situation than 2008.

I'm talking on a governmental level, of course.

I get the sense that this market activity isn't entirely accounted-for by the normal profit-taking, and that I will be able to identify a time at which it will be appropriate to buy, in general. I don't think that time has yet arrived.

Just my 2 cents.

---

---

fisky wrote:

---

HoJoHo wrote:

Would love for the chartists to chime in here but my recollection is that we have had major sell offs in the second term of every presidency going back to at least Clinton . History about to repeat here or is there no pattern or correlation

---

I enjoy charting, so here is my take... too bad I can't upload a chart with line on it. Anyway...

The DOW broke a short term trend line connecting the Oct and Dec lows at roughly 16100. Next, it broke a short term support at 15739. The next support is 14803 or so. That would be a significant break, forecasting a move down to 13500-ish, the peaks in Sep-Oct 2012.

This is more of a hobby than investing. I wouldn't invest based on any of these signals alone.

---

---

K5 wrote:

---

not this again wrote:

---

dumb wrote:

---

K5 wrote:

Agip.

Where is your update on how much money I have "lost" be not being in equities since I bailed with the Dow at 15,000 @ 7 months ago?

How much money have you lost in the past two weeks. You know, real money and real losses. Not potential gains missed out on.

---

Well, unless he sold something that he bought at a higher price than today's closing and booked a loss then he doesn't have any real losses of real money.

---

Surely you forgot the "ized" at the end of the first "real"?

---

Another fool who does not understand what money is. Who thinks that if the value of your portfolio goes from $500k to $250k you have not lost any money until you sell your holdings. The Flagpole school of economics

---

---

the horror wrote:

---

dumb wrote:

---

the horror wrote:
On a related topic - Do you have a prediction on when/if the Fed will reverse course on this taper? I expect it to happen at some point.

---

You think the fed will reverse course on the QE taper? As in, you think they will stop decreasing bond purchases, or you think they will increase bond purchases? Why?

---

Yes. Stop. Then eventually I expect it to increase... likely under a different name to obfuscate their failure to taper as promised.

Why? Because I think their options are: a) suffer a lot of pain via higher interest rates, lower stock market, bank/derivative failures, and worse economy due to fully tapering, or b) use their QE'ish power to try to hold things together a little longer.

I expect "a" to happen, and then "b" as they are pressured to do something about it.

What are your expectations? A full taper to $0? And no need to start another program? Any guess on when they'll accomplish that? (the full taper to $0)

---

Dumb is insufficient to describe you.

If the value of your holdings drops $50k, you have lost money. Period. Not when you "realize" the loss by selling your investment.

Effin third graders understand this.

Why can't you?

You devotees of the Flagpole school of "thinking" -- you know, where you don't take a 1 in 4 chance to get a 200 to 1 pay-off -- believe.

1. If someone is not in the equities market and begins a period with $500k and 6 months later has $502k, he has lost money if the equities market went up during that period. $2k more than when he began the period, but he has lost money.

2. ON the other hand, if someone begins with $500k and the market goes down so he has $450k at the end of the period, he hasn't lost anything until he sells his investments.


There is juts no reasoning with these people

---

K5 wrote:

Dumb is insufficient to describe you.

If the value of your holdings drops $50k, you have lost money. Period. Not when you "realize" the loss by selling your investment.

Effin third graders understand this.

Why can't you?

---

---

K5 wrote:

Dumb is insufficient to describe you.

If the value of your holdings drops $50k, you have lost money. Period. Not when you "realize" the loss by selling your investment.

Effin third graders understand this.

Why can't you?

---

[quote]K5 wrote:


1. If someone is not in the equities market and begins a period with $500k and 6 months later has $502k, he has lost money if the equities market went up during that period. $2k more than when he began the period, but he has lost money.

Kind of like concluding those who did not bet on the Super Bowl yesterday lost money because they could have bet on Seattle and won money

---

K5 wrote:

Dumb is insufficient to describe you.

If the value of your holdings drops $50k, you have lost money. Period. Not when you "realize" the loss by selling your investment.

Effin third graders understand this.

Why can't you?

---

---

agip wrote:

---

K5 wrote:

Dumb is insufficient to describe you.

If the value of your holdings drops $50k, you have lost money. Period. Not when you "realize" the loss by selling your investment.

Effin third graders understand this.

Why can't you?

---

right, and as someone pointed out, when you are out of the market and it goes up, you have lost real money.

---

---

Well there is always this wrote:

---

K5 wrote:

Dumb is insufficient to describe you.

If the value of your holdings drops $50k, you have lost money. Period. Not when you "realize" the loss by selling your investment.

Effin third graders understand this.

Why can't you?

---

Joe and Frank each start with $100,000.

Joe is convinced that the market is going to tank so he stays out of the market.

Frank thinks that you should just ride out the ups and downs and stays in.

Market gains 25%. Joe is at $100,00 but is fine and thinks that he has not lost anything, just imaginary 'opportunity costs'.

Frank is at $125,000 and feels pretty good.

The market then tanks 20%. Joe is at $100,000 and is patting himself on the back for avoiding 'real' losses.

Frank is at $100,000 and has indeed experienced real losses.

Joe thinks that he is very smart for never having lost anything and that Frank is pretty dumb for having experienced 'real' losses.

Funny how those real losses and those imaginary losses have gotten Joe and Frank to exactly the same place from exactly the same place.

---

---

Well there is always this wrote:

---

K5 wrote:

Dumb is insufficient to describe you.

If the value of your holdings drops $50k, you have lost money. Period. Not when you "realize" the loss by selling your investment.

Effin third graders understand this.

Why can't you?

---

Joe and Frank each start with $100,000.

Joe is convinced that the market is going to tank so he stays out of the market.

Frank thinks that you should just ride out the ups and downs and stays in.

Market gains 25%. Joe is at $100,00 but is fine and thinks that he has not lost anything, just imaginary 'opportunity costs'.

Frank is at $125,000 and feels pretty good.

The market then tanks 20%. Joe is at $100,000 and is patting himself on the back for avoiding 'real' losses.

Frank is at $100,000 and has indeed experienced real losses.

Joe thinks that he is very smart for never having lost anything and that Frank is pretty dumb for having experienced 'real' losses.

Funny how those real losses and those imaginary losses have gotten Joe and Frank to exactly the same place from exactly the same place.

---

K5 out for the night.

Can't teach the ineducable

---

K5 wrote:

---

Well there is always this wrote:

---

K5 wrote:

Dumb is insufficient to describe you.

If the value of your holdings drops $50k, you have lost money. Period. Not when you "realize" the loss by selling your investment.

Effin third graders understand this.

Why can't you?

---

Joe and Frank each start with $100,000.

Joe is convinced that the market is going to tank so he stays out of the market.

Frank thinks that you should just ride out the ups and downs and stays in.

Market gains 25%. Joe is at $100,00 but is fine and thinks that he has not lost anything, just imaginary 'opportunity costs'.

Frank is at $125,000 and feels pretty good.

The market then tanks 20%. Joe is at $100,000 and is patting himself on the back for avoiding 'real' losses.

Frank is at $100,000 and has indeed experienced real losses.

Joe thinks that he is very smart for never having lost anything and that Frank is pretty dumb for having experienced 'real' losses.

Funny how those real losses and those imaginary losses have gotten Joe and Frank to exactly the same place from exactly the same place.

---

Both guys gained or lost nothing. And Joe and Frank, not being as dumb as you, know this. It's really quite simple

---