Earnings Scorecard: For Q2 2019 (with 44% of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results), 77% of S&P 500 companies have reported a positive EPS surprise and 61% of companies have reported a positive revenue surprise.
Earnings Scorecard: For Q2 2019 (with 44% of the companies in the S&P 500 reporting actual results), 77% of S&P 500 companies have reported a positive EPS surprise and 61% of companies have reported a positive revenue surprise.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Wonderful.
It’s just basic personal finance. Some would say common sense, but apparently it’s not all that common.
^Off lowered numbers, stock buy backs, non-GAAP accounting, corporate tax cuts and increasing corporate debt
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
^Off lowered numbers, stock buy backs, non-GAAP accounting, corporate tax cuts and increasing corporate debt
How is any of that bad for current investors?
Earnie wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
^Off lowered numbers, stock buy backs, non-GAAP accounting, corporate tax cuts and increasing corporate debt
How is any of that bad for current investors?
It’s not.
Earnie wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
^Off lowered numbers, stock buy backs, non-GAAP accounting, corporate tax cuts and increasing corporate debt
How is any of that bad for current investors?
“ from JPMorgan, US after-tax profit margins have plunged to the lowest level since the financial crisis, despite - as JPM chief economist Bruce Kasman observes - the benefits from last year’s tax cuts”
J. Hardy wrote:
Earnie wrote:
How is any of that bad for current investors?
It’s not.
“This is notable for two reasons: non-GAAP profit margins are just off all time highs, yet profit margins as calculated by national accounts which is far more indicative of the underlying profit reality, are near the financial crisis lows, begging the question - just how fake is the non-GAAP, stock repurchasing EPS-boosting world used by analysts and economists to justify the all time high in the S&P 500?
The second reason this is important is that while margins remain at high levels, such sustained compression has been a sign of vulnerability preceding recession, according to JPMMorgan, and as a result of this, JPM's 12-month-ahead US recession probability model rose another 2pts this week, largely because of this news.”
Financial Advisor wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Wonderful.
It’s just basic personal finance. Some would say common sense, but apparently it’s not all that common.
You’re a wonderful fake financial advisor.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Earnie wrote:
How is any of that bad for current investors?
“ from JPMorgan, US after-tax profit margins have plunged to the lowest level since the financial crisis, despite - as JPM chief economist Bruce Kasman observes - the benefits from last year’s tax cuts”
You avoided the question. Let’s just agree that you can’t give a rational answer because there isn’t one.
Earnie wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
“ from JPMorgan, US after-tax profit margins have plunged to the lowest level since the financial crisis, despite - as JPM chief economist Bruce Kasman observes - the benefits from last year’s tax cuts”
You avoided the question. Let’s just agree that you can’t give a rational answer because there isn’t one.
Their investments lose 65%.
That was easy.
Earnie wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
“ from JPMorgan, US after-tax profit margins have plunged to the lowest level since the financial crisis, despite - as JPM chief economist Bruce Kasman observes - the benefits from last year’s tax cuts”
You avoided the question. Let’s just agree that you can’t give a rational answer because there isn’t one.
All of those things he mentioned are good for investors holding stocks. His cryptic answers to your question are nonsensical.
this is an amazing stat:
People who invest in variable annuities, on average, apparently get better returns than those who invest in funds. It should be the reverse since annuity fees are so high compared to fund fees. But no.
The reason annuity investors do better? Probably the surrender charges. Having to fork over 7% of your money as a penalty for selling keeps people invested so they reap the rewards of time in the market. And don't panic sell low.
Love counter-intuitive stats like this.
"Yet despite the extra fees and penalties — perversely, it seems, because of them — investors in variable annuities outperformed those in mutual funds over 12 months, as well as over three, five, 10, 15 and 19 years, Dalbar found.
The secret to the annuities’ success appears to be the surrender charges, Mr. Harvey said. Unless you really need the money urgently, a charge of, say, 7 percent, is likely to deter you from going ahead with a sale during a market downturn, he said. Assuming your investment is diversified, sticking with it over a long period may be a better strategy."
I inherited a variable annuity client that was invested 100% in technology (1999) while in her 80s. It took her until age 96 to get back to even and died a couple of years later. So of course it all depends on a variety of factors. But of course if you were 100% in stocks over the last 30 years you did very well, you change that to twenty and not so much.
Punter wrote:
Earnie wrote:
You avoided the question. Let’s just agree that you can’t give a rational answer because there isn’t one.
All of those things he mentioned are good for investors holding stocks. His cryptic answers to your question are nonsensical.
Nothing cryptic about it. At current valuations the S&P 500 is likely to have negative returns over the next 10 years.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Punter wrote:
All of those things he mentioned are good for investors holding stocks. His cryptic answers to your question are nonsensical.
Nothing cryptic about it. At current valuations the S&P 500 is likely to have negative returns over the next 10 years.
You’ve been saying that for years, yet the S&P continues to set record highs. And now valuations are lower than they were for much of the bull market. So much for that theory.
Go Pats!
Stanley Morgan wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Nothing cryptic about it. At current valuations the S&P 500 is likely to have negative returns over the next 10 years.
You’ve been saying that for years, yet the S&P continues to set record highs. And now valuations are lower than they were for much of the bull market. So much for that theory.
Go Pats!
should be said that Igy choses one of the only valuation metrics that give a pessimistic read on the future. Look at 80% of valuation metrics and they show a slightly overvalued market but nothing that suggests a terrible decade ahead.
“The world is sitting on over $13 trillion in negative yielding debt, corporate debt ballooned to all time highs is keeping zombie companies afloat, the desperate search for yield is forcing pension funds into riskier assets, 100 year bonds, BBB rated credit is the largest component of debt markets, everything is distorted and the desperate search for yield has produced another market bubble.
How to define a market bubble? Simple, take the valuation of stock markets over the underlying size of the economy and the size of this bubble is self apparent.”
—Sven Heinrich, Northman Trader 7/28/2019
Stanley Morgan wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Nothing cryptic about it. At current valuations the S&P 500 is likely to have negative returns over the next 10 years.
You’ve been saying that for years, yet the S&P continues to set record highs. And now valuations are lower than they were for much of the bull market. So much for that theory.
Go Pats!
^SCIIG
https://realinvestmentadvice.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/companies-with-the-highest-long-term-debt-41dd.jpgI have no idea what that means. But at least you didn’t disagree with my assessment.
Go Pats!