Down goes the Dow

Racket wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

believe, foolishly I might add, that there is some new reality to 4,000 years of financial history.

Honestly what does this even mean?

It means that Igy is off his meds?

I can’t wait for him to discourse on mercantilism in Ur.

In the linked article Jim Grant (Grant’s Interest Rate Observer) mentions negative interest rates as a first in 4,000 years of financial history. Conceptually, the lender is paying interest for the privilege of holding the note. The only way the lender makes money is to sell the note at a higher price. I sell my house to another party, in return I get the note as a promise to pay, but owe interest to the buyer. Of course that distorts prices; a total central bank kookie theory done to create end demand inflation. Well it creates asset inflation and distorts allocation of capital. And we are suppose to believe this is something magical? Now that takes meds Maserati.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

In regards to my post, I first posted here 2/2015.

I've never said it was 2011 when you posted comments about stock investments since 2011 are not going to turn out well.

Igy,

I’m near the end of Sornette’s “Why Stock Markets Crash” and the final chapter is about a prediction the the world is accelerating to a social critical point around 2050, an off the wall idea he’s about to explain, but I’ve just stumbled across the following remarkable paragraph, published in 2003:

“As a bonus, we also offer the prediction that the US market is in for a period of consolidation, or stagnation, which may last up to a full decade. This period will be followed by renewed accelerated growth.”

Wow. Words fail me.

purple martin wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

In regards to my post, I first posted here 2/2015.

I've never said it was 2011 when you posted comments about stock investments since 2011 are not going to turn out well.

The market low that year was around 1,100 following U.S. debt downgrade; 1,100 is a fair value estimate for S&P 500. In October 2007 few could imagine the index going back to 1995 levels. You like to twist.

the idiot wrote:

Igy,

I’m near the end of Sornette’s “Why Stock Markets Crash” and the final chapter is about a prediction the the world is accelerating to a social critical point around 2050, an off the wall idea he’s about to explain, but I’ve just stumbled across the following remarkable paragraph, published in 2003:

“As a bonus, we also offer the prediction that the US market is in for a period of consolidation, or stagnation, which may last up to a full decade. This period will be followed by renewed accelerated growth.”

Wow. Words fail me.

Market low was October 2002 at about 975 down from March 2000 high of 1,550. NASDAQ dropped 83% and did not hit a new sustainable high until spring 2016. In between both indices revisited the lower end of that range in March 2009. Seeing the S&P 500 has run from 666 to 3,350 I think you have witnessed that accelerated growth—thanks to the Fed and not organic growth.

purple martin wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

In regards to my post, I first posted here 2/2015.

I've never said it was 2011 when you posted comments about stock investments since 2011 are not going to turn out well.

quote]Purple Martin wrote:

" the market is going to go up," said Cuban/quote]

Not the opinion of Igy for the last 9 years

You need to re-read what you posted Detector Dude.

Bought AAPL for 309 before the close. Close didn’t look good, not looking for any gain tomorrow, but hopefully rebound before I leave town end of week. Earnings tomorrow

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Of course that is why posters on this thread freak when their “belief system” is challenged.

Can you please provide some concrete examples of this? TIA

?

Futures show the DOW and NASDAQ poised to rise a third of a point at the open at the moment. Deceased feline about to bounce off the ground, or a reversal and steady onward and upward again?

More on that book "Why Stock Markets Fail" by Sornette... The last chapter that I mentioned recently, in which he's talking about a world-changing critical point for society at around 2050, and in which he predicted a decade of stagnation from the early aughts followed by the steep rise we've seen the last several years, is really very interesting. Part of me (a big part) wants to dismiss it all as hogwash, but another part knows he's way smarter than me.

Anyhow, what I'm taking (so far) from his discussion is that the next period following this last long bull run ought to be a relatively less volatile stagnation, rather than a period with violent swings / crashes like around 1929 and then the period that included 2000 and 2008. And thereafter even faster movement onward and upward. There's an interesting connection in his discussion to explosive population growth over the past century or so. And I also note that the log-periodic pattern he's drawn through US market data from the early 1800s (and which projects our end of days at ~ 2050) eerily resembles the broad trends in global temperature anomaly in the overlapping period (since 1850).

Super geeky, math-y stuff, likely of interest to almost nobody, but I'm finding it a fascinating read that's tickling the funny brain. :-)

the idiot wrote:

“As a bonus, we also offer the prediction that the US market is in for a period of consolidation, or stagnation, which may last up to a full decade. This period will be followed by renewed accelerated growth.”

Wow. Words fail me.

Sounds like he was abysmally wrong unless you consider expansion from 2003-2007 and subsequent crash " consolidation or stagnation."

The problem with most of that sh!t is that it reads like horoscopes. It's vague enough to draw in suckers who'll apply ambiguous language to any scenario presently at hand.

Make no mistake : economics is not a hard science, no matter how much they want to be.

Racket wrote:... It's vague enough to draw in suckers who'll apply ambiguous language to any scenario presently at hand. ...

You dissing horoscopes?!? Next you'll tell me reiki works only in your head... :-)

I don't think I've explained very well. And so it goes...

the idiot wrote:

Racket wrote:... It's vague enough to draw in suckers who'll apply ambiguous language to any scenario presently at hand. ...

You dissing horoscopes?!? Next you'll tell me reiki works only in your head... :-)

I don't think I've explained very well. And so it goes...

It's all about tarot cards my friend. That's legit stuff

I’ll stick with Hussman’s models, which are not rosy at all:

https://twitter.com/hussmanjp/status/1220728033235128326

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I’ll stick with Hussman’s models, which are not rosy at all:

His actual results have been even less rosy. Based on his track record, I’d avoid him like the plague.

Yesterday panned out ok, and thingsvare back on tracm today.

Coronavirus: who knows how many infections and deaths. Even if it is 300,000 infections now. Call me when 300,000 have died.

I just heard on the radio that MN, a place with an excellent health care system and a relatively dispersed population of only 5.6 million with most living in detached single-family homes, they just said that there have been 1 pediatric and 31 adult deaths from the flu this year so far—and this is in a mild flu season, where many have been vaccinated.

We will see how coronavirus develops. At this point it should not rationally affect markets much. Yes it is new, but it is not a new type of challenge. Last flu season apparently 57,300 died in the US alone, with 41.3 million having gotten sick—and that is just the reported number, the actual number is higher. Every year the race is on for an effective vaccine, and behavioral warnings are all over the airwaves—just like right now for coronavirus.

Yes I understand the challenges. They should not seriously affect US markets at this point IMO.

Dow up about 200 so far today, AAPL already doing well..