*Past performance is not indicative of future returns.
*Past performance is not indicative of future returns.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
*Past performance is not indicative of future returns.
No, but it sure can lock down one's reputation as the world's biggest loser of other people's money.
seattle prattle wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
*Past performance is not indicative of future returns.
No, but it sure can lock down one's reputation as the world's biggest loser of other people's money.
Just wait until all your long leveraged ETFs do the same..
https://mobile.twitter.com/hussmanjp/status/1162332243949445121seattle prattle wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
*Past performance is not indicative of future returns.
No, but it sure can lock down one's reputation as the world's biggest loser of other people's money.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
No, but it sure can lock down one's reputation as the world's biggest loser of other people's money.
Just wait until all your long leveraged ETFs do the same..
The difference being, with my leveraged ETFs, i have some unrealized gains that would buffer some possible downturns. Could the same be said of Hussman's funds?
But since you asked, I just checked and I will acknowledge one good call i had in this regard - rotating out of the small cap ETFs at the height of the December downturn in favor of the Nasdaq and Technology ETFs. What a difference in their relative performances.
It was of interest to me that during the sell off of the last week or so, one of the analysts i heard, when asked what should an investor do at this time, suggested keeping an eye out for opportunities that they feel had passed them up up to now, and look for a more favorable entry point. And he suggested technology and companies like Apple in particular. What does that tell you? To me, it just reinforces the idea that those high climbers might be volatile, but will probably quickly rebound should a correction occur.
Enjoy your weekend, Igy.
Seattle,
The highly valued most over owned stocks are the FAMNG stocks. If the market is to move higher or stabilize these stocks have to do well. It is all in their market capitalizations. They cannot be replaced.
My wife and I have our 45th anniversary, so an early morning run, mow the lawn, and nice dinner out are on the agenda.
You have a good weekend as well.
Best wishes on your investments.
Igy
Happy Anniversary! Sounds like a lot to like there.
Funny, but there was a cold wind that blew through the tech sector when govt. regulations and investigations were announced, maybe a month ago. It seems like that has quieted down and its effect short-lived. Add that to the already crowded list of things one could worry about.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Seattle,
The highly valued most over owned stocks are the FAMNG stocks. If the market is to move higher or stabilize these stocks have to do well. It is all in their market capitalizations. They cannot be replaced.
Igy
Again you move the goal posts. First you brought up FANG. Then you shifted to FAANG. Now you’ve moved on to FAMNG. I guess you subscribe to the theory that a moving target is harder to hit.
Go Pats!
Bought UBER yesterday. Fully invested at the moment. Don’t hate me.
An ill wind is coming.
Stanley Morgan wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Seattle,
The highly valued most over owned stocks are the FAMNG stocks. If the market is to move higher or stabilize these stocks have to do well. It is all in their market capitalizations. They cannot be replaced.
Igy
Again you move the goal posts. First you brought up FANG. Then you shifted to FAANG. Now you’ve moved on to FAMNG. I guess you subscribe to the theory that a moving target is harder to hit.
Go Pats!
Yes typical SCIIG comment. But in a serious response the highly valued growth stocks mask the index destruction when you look under the surface. Even at that Apple for example is well off its high, and the same can be said for many of the others.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Stanley Morgan wrote:
Again you move the goal posts. First you brought up FANG. Then you shifted to FAANG. Now you’ve moved on to FAMNG. I guess you subscribe to the theory that a moving target is harder to hit.
Go Pats!
Yes typical SCIIG comment. But in a serious response the highly valued growth stocks mask the index destruction when you look under the surface. Even at that Apple for example is well off its high, and the same can be said for many of the others.
That wasn’t me, but it should be noted that most stocks are off there highs most of the time.
Happy anniversary to you and Sally. Enjoy your special day.
Funny. I’ll leave Sally for you. More your type. The two of you can cuddle late at night and discuss the benefits of long term investing in ETFs.
?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
https://mobile.twitter.com/lisaabramowicz1/status/1161599808794177536
Another Amazon?
Big Dog Investments wrote:
Bought UBER yesterday. Fully invested at the moment. Don’t hate me.
Hopefully this is just a troll post, otherwise : yikes.
Buy the dip in full force today. If people were actually concerned about the trade war then selling would be more consistent. Market just doesn't seem to care that much really. Is it a huge looming problem? Yes, but the stock market has always sort of been a "call me when it's an utterly irreversible catastrophe" kind of gig.
Interesting read on something I've been thinking about for a while - how will capitalism work with population shrinkage or lack of growth? This guy thinks demographics are the reason why european markets havent' risen for a decade and why generally economic growth is slowing even in the face of massive wealth creation and technology.
Usually macro cases are not great for investing puposes - especially demographic arguments since population changes occur at glacial speeds.
but still.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/17/opinion/sunday/global-recession.html
Sure, absolutely think it is a factor. Also a reason for polarized politics and re-evaluation of globalism.