seattle prattle wrote:
I would say that your prediction, though close, was wrong, and that Igy's prediction, unlike yours, still has a chance of being realized.
You are correct.
seattle prattle wrote:
I would say that your prediction, though close, was wrong, and that Igy's prediction, unlike yours, still has a chance of being realized.
You are correct.
From March 21, 2020:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
No recommendation on allocation. One needs to fit to risk tolerance and time horizon. S&P 500 targets: 2,000-weeks, 1,500-summer, and 1,100-fall.
Sally Vix wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
I would say that your prediction, though close, was wrong, and that Igy's prediction, unlike yours, still has a chance of being realized.
You are correct.
Think about it like this. I predict that Jose Altuve will bat .375 for the rest of the year (the year ending in 2020). Igy predicts he will bat 0.30 for the entire 2020/2021 season. Altuve is batting 0.368 at the end of the year. So, while my prediction is not entirely correct, it is pretty dang close. And Igy's prediction was way off the mark (to be kind) but still has a chance if Altuve just about dies for the rest of the year.
Fact checker wrote:
From March 21, 2020:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
No recommendation on allocation. One needs to fit to risk tolerance and time horizon. S&P 500 targets: 2,000-weeks, 1,500-summer, and 1,100-fall.
So Igy predicted 1500 summer and 1,100 for the S & P for the fall. We are entering the fall and the S & P is at 3,400. Nice call Igy! You were only off by a gazillion!
Sally Vix wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
It's not year's end yet. We are barely into September. I think the guy who should be admitting they were egregiously wrong is the guy who made a prediction about August that didn't materialize.
Actually, on like March 18 I said the Dow (at the time around 18,500) would be up to 30,000 by the end of August. It was up around 29,000. I would say that was a pretty damn good prediction.
this was a great call
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
purple martin wrote:
Obviously, you haven't tracked the accuracy of his comments over the past 5 years.
So you came out of the bunker on an up day.
That's been your down fall. You put way to much emphasis on DAY movement.
Fact checker wrote:
From March 21, 2020:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
No recommendation on allocation. One needs to fit to risk tolerance and time horizon. S&P 500 targets: 2,000-weeks, 1,500-summer, and 1,100-fall.
Delayed by $6 Trillion! But worse in the end.
2,000 by Christmas, 1,500 by spring, 850 by summer.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Fact checker wrote:
From March 21, 2020:
Delayed by $6 Trillion! But worse in the end.
2,000 by Christmas, 1,500 by spring, 850 by summer.
You earlier said 1,100 by fall. It is up to 3,400 now. Now you changed your 1,100 by fall to 2,000 by Christmas. What is going on? Are you just throwing darts at the wall? Do you not understand that it is currently at 3,400 when you said it would be 1,100? Your predictions and the actual numbers are about as far apart as can be. When you said it would be 1,100 and now you are saying 2,000 by Christmas - do you have any rhyme or reason or are you just willy-nilly throwing out numbers?? Again, you said 1,100 by now when it is 3 times that. Please offer why you were wrong earlier and your reasoning for 2,000 by Christmas.
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
You are correct.
Think about it like this. I predict that Jose Altuve will bat .375 for the rest of the year (the year ending in 2020). Igy predicts he will bat 0.30 for the entire 2020/2021 season. Altuve is batting 0.368 at the end of the year. So, while my prediction is not entirely correct, it is pretty dang close. And Igy's prediction was way off the mark (to be kind) but still has a chance if Altuve just about dies for the rest of the year.
This is a really bad analogy. A batting average depends on all the previous at bats. But an index value is not figured that way at all. If Alluve suddenly can't hit anymore, his average goes down slowly, one at bat at a time. If bad news hits and everyone heads for the exits, an index could lose half it's value or more in a very short time.
Overall, you have a point, it looks highly unlikely igy's prediction would come to fruition. But your analogy is problematic.
And for the record, i do stand corrected, igy;s prediction was for the fall, not year end. My bad.
Sally Vix wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Delayed by $6 Trillion! But worse in the end.
2,000 by Christmas, 1,500 by spring, 850 by summer.
You earlier said 1,100 by fall. It is up to 3,400 now. Now you changed your 1,100 by fall to 2,000 by Christmas. What is going on? Are you just throwing darts at the wall? Do you not understand that it is currently at 3,400 when you said it would be 1,100? Your predictions and the actual numbers are about as far apart as can be. When you said it would be 1,100 and now you are saying 2,000 by Christmas - do you have any rhyme or reason or are you just willy-nilly throwing out numbers?? Again, you said 1,100 by now when it is 3 times that. Please offer why you were wrong earlier and your reasoning for 2,000 by Christmas.
Unlike you I base my view on actual data. For the first six months of 2020 with Q2 nearly complete GAAP EPS annualized on a per share basis at $59.26. Last time we had EPS this low was Q1 2010 when the S&P 500 closed at 1,169.43. Some feel EPS will improve dramatically into year end, and to that matter the consensus estimate for 2020 GAAP is $86.74 (according to Dow Jones S&P). Based on today’s close and that year end EPS total would give you a current PE of 39, or where the market was trading fall 2009 during the GFC or Tech Bubble; both times the S&P 500 was trading around 1,000. Keep in mind both of these periods did not have tens of millions unemployed, or businesses collapsing at today’s rate. It is clear there is no V-shaped recovery, and your analysis of Covid 19 was foolish as well as off target. Virus treatments and vaccines may be accelerated, but even so, we are likely to be dealing with this serious health issue well into 2022.
Why are investors optimistic? Mistaken belief that trading highly appreciate, over valued stocks, bonds, and real estate will always be supported by cheap and plentiful liquidity. Or, that even so, that fact has any support for assets from a cash flow basis. Now the Fed can buy Delta Airlines bonds, which allows the company to float a $5 Billion debt offering secured by the Delta SkyMiles Frequent Flyer Program. However, that does nothing to change the fast that Delta is hemorrhaging $Billions while the balance sheet is increasingly compromised. Or, the Fed buying Apple bonds, which allows the company to buyback more stock, even though Apple revenue is flat the last five years, while the stock is five times higher.
What does all this mean then? Investors are increasingly paying higher prices, for smaller amounts of cash flow. On a variety of metrics, including the Buffett Indicator, the market has never been higher.
Sally Vix wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
You are correct.
Think about it like this. I predict that Jose Altuve will bat .375 for the rest of the year (the year ending in 2020). Igy predicts he will bat 0.30 for the entire 2020/2021 season. Altuve is batting 0.368 at the end of the year. So, while my prediction is not entirely correct, it is pretty dang close. And Igy's prediction was way off the mark (to be kind) but still has a chance if Altuve just about dies for the rest of the year.
You basically promised Jose Altuve would bat .375 because he's such a great hitter. What actually happened is that the MLB commissioner came in and forced the bullpen of every team to serve him up only underhand pee-wee league pitches.
But since the end result is the same, you somehow feel vindicated. It's probably because you aren't very smart
Should read last sentence: “On a variety of metrics, including the Buffett Indicator, the market has never traded at a higher valuation.”
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Should read last sentence: “On a variety of metrics, including the Buffett Indicator, the market has never traded at a higher valuation.”
Igy - I have to back off a bit on my criticisms of CDs. As Agip pointed out, some investors like some "calmness" with their investments. I am no advisor so I am out to maximizing my portfolio with equities which provide the best returns. That is why I shy away from anything but equities. I still have 20 years to go before retiring. But as agip and Igy are financial advisors - they have clients who want more steady investments.
Racket wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Think about it like this. I predict that Jose Altuve will bat .375 for the rest of the year (the year ending in 2020). Igy predicts he will bat 0.30 for the entire 2020/2021 season. Altuve is batting 0.368 at the end of the year. So, while my prediction is not entirely correct, it is pretty dang close. And Igy's prediction was way off the mark (to be kind) but still has a chance if Altuve just about dies for the rest of the year.
You basically promised Jose Altuve would bat .375 because he's such a great hitter. What actually happened is that the MLB commissioner came in and forced the bullpen of every team to serve him up only underhand pee-wee league pitches.
But since the end result is the same, you somehow feel vindicated. It's probably because you aren't very smart
Actually, it IS because I am very smart. I anticipated what the commissioner would do and acted in accordance with that. I knew what the commissioner would do and acted to maximize my profits. Just like with the stock market - I anticipated what the Fed would do and acted on it. I am the one who made my profits.
Sally Vix wrote:
Racket wrote:
You basically promised Jose Altuve would bat .375 because he's such a great hitter. What actually happened is that the MLB commissioner came in and forced the bullpen of every team to serve him up only underhand pee-wee league pitches.
But since the end result is the same, you somehow feel vindicated. It's probably because you aren't very smart
Actually, it IS because I am very smart. I anticipated what the commissioner would do and acted in accordance with that. I knew what the commissioner would do and acted to maximize my profits. Just like with the stock market - I anticipated what the Fed would do and acted on it. I am the one who made my profits.
You are assuming that what the Fed does saves investors, or keeps their investments whole. Sure it stabilizes markets and as illustrated, give struggling businesses some months of liquidity. But it does not change the fact that millions of Americans don’t have jobs, and unemployment insurance is a temporary stop gap. Many of these jobs will never come back. That will take years of retraining and require a rebalancing the economy. If anything you have been sucked into the confidence game. That is what the Fed intended, but does that really change the end point? No.
Igy we used to have recessions every 5 years or so, and inflation raged.
Now we have a recession every 10 years, and the one we're in is because of a pandemic, not the business cycle.
We have had very low inflation for many years.
The dollar has been fine.
Living standards have risen to unprecedented levels.
I think we have to consider all this to be a success of the Fed. Or at least that they did not hurt us.
Of course, the ginormous Fed balance sheet is a question. Might all go bad.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
You are assuming that what the Fed does saves investors, or keeps their investments whole. Sure it stabilizes markets and as illustrated, give struggling businesses some months of liquidity. But it does not change the fact that millions of Americans don’t have jobs, and unemployment insurance is a temporary stop gap. Many of these jobs will never come back. That will take years of retraining and require a rebalancing the economy. If anything you have been sucked into the confidence game. That is what the Fed intended, but does that really change the end point? No.
You continue to confuse the stock market with the economy. Please educate yourself so that you don’t continue to sound so stupid.
agip,
I don’t see the Fed as some evil entity, just misguided. Clearly their policy have created economic disparity, and along with the Republican tax cuts a source of social instability. The recent actions of the Fed to support the economy has violated their charter. They get around it, they say, by creating an entity that buys the unsecured debt. They did this first with Maiden Lane during the GFC. Politicians won’t challenge that, since they have been unwilling to face voters with unappealing options. Sure the can will likely be kicked down the road as often as possible. That does mean the likely end game is far worse, at least for the average American, never the investor class.
I don’t agree on the business cycle. In 2018 the Fed could not normalize the balance sheet and interest rates. Then a year ago had to institute repo operations while the economy slowed. All we have done is pushing demand forward with stimulus to ever slowing economic growth. Each time the Fed comes in it is at a higher level with GDP growth requiring more expenditures. As economists, the Fed should know that growth is a function of savings and capital expenditures. Instead the Fed has promoted spending based on foreigners willing to finance it. Tge financialization of corporate America thru stock buybacks. I suppose one can believe there is no terminal point, I just don’t happen to be one. I am in the camp that the downturns become more severe each time, and that has certainly been the case since 2000. I find it hard to believe this won’t be a doozie.
Igy