Maybe this helps?
https://mobile.twitter.com/crescatkevin/status/1181284988441919488
Maybe this helps?
https://mobile.twitter.com/crescatkevin/status/1181284988441919488
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Maybe this helps?
https://mobile.twitter.com/crescatkevin/status/1181284988441919488
just a reminder that most valuation measures are almost exactly in line with their 25 year averages.
Another bearish signal (in my opinion) is that nothing can keep oil alive. Despite the Saudi oil strike thing, crude futures are almost back under $40 a barrel. Also, the whole market is repeating what it did last year
Racket wrote:
Another bearish signal (in my opinion) is that nothing can keep oil alive. Despite the Saudi oil strike thing, crude futures are almost back under $40 a barrel. Also, the whole market is repeating what it did last year
Oil isn't what it used to be, is it? With the US being the largest producer and all kinds of new supply coming on line...I'm not sure the price of oil tells us as much as it used to.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Maybe this helps?
It does not.
It is too soon to include 2019 in a historical look at recessions. So why is Hussman including it? Is he really that clueless?
agip wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Maybe this helps?
https://mobile.twitter.com/crescatkevin/status/1181284988441919488just a reminder that most valuation measures are almost exactly in line with their 25 year averages.
...which coincidentally includes three out of the four highest valuations ever going back 130 years....not something to take casually....go ahead if you like though
You are a one trick pony. Valuations have been high for years. They’ve actually come down. They don’t mean as much as you think they do. Take off the blinders and look at the big picture.
Go Pats!
Stanley Morgan wrote:
You are a one trick pony. Valuations have been high for years. They’ve actually come down. They don’t mean as much as you think they do. Take off the blinders and look at the big picture.
Go Pats!
Sure. Go spend your time sucking up to your football heroes; you’re out of your element here. It takes a brain in other words.
Typical. Insults instead of facts. I accept your surrender.
Go Pats!
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
agip wrote:
just a reminder that most valuation measures are almost exactly in line with their 25 year averages.
...which coincidentally includes three out of the four highest valuations ever going back 130 years....not something to take casually....go ahead if you like though
....and yet the annual return for the sp500 has been pretty much exaclty in line with historical averages.
25 year average annual return for SP500 incl dividends is 9.8%. Despite all the chaos and bouts of high valuation. Which is pretty typical, really.
So if I can get stocks at today's average valuations...ok. That' s not great but it's fine.
agip wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
...which coincidentally includes three out of the four highest valuations ever going back 130 years....not something to take casually....go ahead if you like though
....and yet the annual return for the sp500 has been pretty much exaclty in line with historical averages.
25 year average annual return for SP500 incl dividends is 9.8%. Despite all the chaos and bouts of high valuation. Which is pretty typical, really.
So if I can get stocks at today's average valuations...ok. That' s not great but it's fine.
25 year point was 7.726% index and 9.754% with reinvested dividends. Instead of starting at much lower levels try near the Tech Bubble peak of 1,553.11. Using the March 2000 close of 1,498.58 and the September 11, 2019 close of 3,000.93 those numbers shrink to 3.829% and 5.792%. My view, as well as other more sober analysts, is for very poor portfolio returns over the next ten years from this level. The fact that global bond yields near record lows and stocks mired for 20 months does not bode well for risk assets.
Stocks have actually done quite well this year.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
agip wrote:
....and yet the annual return for the sp500 has been pretty much exaclty in line with historical averages.
25 year average annual return for SP500 incl dividends is 9.8%. Despite all the chaos and bouts of high valuation. Which is pretty typical, really.
So if I can get stocks at today's average valuations...ok. That' s not great but it's fine.
25 year point was 7.726% index and 9.754% with reinvested dividends. Instead of starting at much lower levels try near the Tech Bubble peak of 1,553.11. Using the March 2000 close of 1,498.58 and the September 11, 2019 close of 3,000.93 those numbers shrink to 3.829% and 5.792%. My view, as well as other more sober analysts, is for very poor portfolio returns over the next ten years from this level. The fact that global bond yields near record lows and stocks mired for 20 months does not bode well for risk assets.
but...but...the whole point of my post is that we are at average valuations so using the peak of the tech bubble like you do makes no sense whatsoever.
But we've been having this argument for years. Cheers, Igy. Hope you have been well.
Keep up wrote:
Stocks have actually done quite well this year.
but they have been garbage for a year and a half.
agip wrote:
Keep up wrote:
Stocks have actually done quite well this year.
but they have been garbage for a year and a half.
and ex the USA stocks have been awful for 5-10 years. Check out VEU - it's the whole world without the US. It has only made money by dividends for 10 years, more or less.
agip wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
25 year point was 7.726% index and 9.754% with reinvested dividends. Instead of starting at much lower levels try near the Tech Bubble peak of 1,553.11. Using the March 2000 close of 1,498.58 and the September 11, 2019 close of 3,000.93 those numbers shrink to 3.829% and 5.792%. My view, as well as other more sober analysts, is for very poor portfolio returns over the next ten years from this level. The fact that global bond yields near record lows and stocks mired for 20 months does not bode well for risk assets.
but...but...the whole point of my post is that we are at average valuations so using the peak of the tech bubble like you do makes no sense whatsoever.
But we've been having this argument for years. Cheers, Igy. Hope you have been well.
agip,
Maybe I’ll be right on the market this time. LOL.
Doing well, increasing my volume (Run, swim and spin bike). Ran a 5k at 8:14/mile pace a couple of weeks ago. Ran a 9.4 mile foothill run last Saturday with 800 foot elevation climb. A year ago a slow 1200m left me out of breath. This Saturday I will race my first cross country race in 11 years. Although it was my first love, not expecting much with the softer and heavier grass surface. I do see you have been running well. Keep it up.
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Dow 26,616 1/26/2018, and Dow 9/26/2019 26,890. Same level last 20 months; no better than a CD as I have said.
And here is how CDs have performed the last 3 decades (real rates of return) versus the S&P 500 - 1.04% for CDs versus the 7.29% for the S&P 500. In the last 10 years, CDs have had negative real rates of return in 9 of the 10 years with last year returning a whopping 0.85%.
https://www.putnam.com/literature/pdf/II514.pdfKeep up wrote:
Stocks have actually done quite well this year.
The first 4 months of the year were good.
Not so much since then.
agip wrote:
agip wrote:
but they have been garbage for a year and a half.
and ex the USA stocks have been awful for 5-10 years. Check out VEU - it's the whole world without the US. It has only made money by dividends for 10 years, more or less.
Europe keeps running into debt crises and having to bail out bum nations like Greece, Italy, and Spain that coasted on massive pensions for decades and then balked at even the slightest suggestion of financial belt-tightening. Now they're facing the prospect of Brexit (which probably isn't going to happen anyways but still) and negative interest rates. All that fuels incredible flight of money into the US because you might as well invest in the good ol' US of A since everything else sucks. It's interesting to see that for the first time in a while, the US is getting weighed down by China's b.s. and Europe's stagnation. Usually, we're the ones bringing everyone down with us