Thanks, Igy. Posting more of ZeroHedge complete f'g garbage. At least let us know when you post ZeroHedge garbo, will you, so I will know not to waste my time on it, like I did with your last post above.
This DOJ case against Google/Alphabet - I just don't know if it's something to be concerned about in regards to their stock price.
Closing arguments in progress and from what I've been hearing, it a lot more likely than not that there be judgements against them, and it could even be as drastic as a forced break-up. The markets just don't seem to care, though. Hard to know what to make of this...
EDIT: In case you haven't been following it, the suit is about whether Google has been monopolizing things like search functions on the web through strategic (arranged) partnerships and deals with providers like Apple, for example.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Google - How fascinating would it be to see a documentary on the early days of the search engine and how the 2 co-founders worked together to bring it to its fruition
Google - How fascinating would it be to see a documentary on the early days of the search engine and how the 2 co-founders worked together to bring it to its fruition
Yeah, that would be good.
I remember when it went public as a listed stock in 2004. I had heard of it, but wasn't sure if it was all it was being cracked up to be. I kept an eye on it and within a couple of years, I asked a friend who was tech savy if it was any good. He said it was. I would consider that good advice.
Igy - have you been wrong about the stock market? For years you have been saying they would implode - but year after year after year after year they keep going up and up and up ...were you and Hussman wrong?
Igy - have you been wrong about the stock market? For years you have been saying they would implode - but year after year after year after year they keep going up and up and up ...were you and Hussman wrong?
None of your judging Sally, this is a safe space. All opinions are welcome here.
Igy - have you been wrong about the stock market? For years you have been saying they would implode - but year after year after year after year they keep going up and up and up ...were you and Hussman wrong?
“Today is in the top percent on the Shiller P/E of all time, and when you start from this level, you have a very hard time going up materially. You’ve done it once or twice, but you’ve only done it for a while: in the last gasp of 1929; in the last gasp of 1999; and notably and most impressively in Japan, where maybe for two and a half years you kept going. And in each case, they ended incredibly badly. So, the price you paid for bucking that kind of law was a very high price.
In general, if you want to make a lot of money, and you want to have a long bull market, you need high unemployment, depressed profit margins, and depressed P/Es. It’s beautiful double-counting. Multiplying depressed earnings by a low P/E is really double counting. Multiplying peak earnings by a high P/E, which is what we’re doing today, is also double jeopardy the other way. And the gap between peak P/E times peak profits all the way to trough P/E times trough profits, that’s a big run. That’s the kind of thing we saw ending up in 1974 and 1982, and to some extent in 2009. Yes, it was somewhat higher in 2009 than 1982, but the discount rate, interest rate, everything else had shifted, and it was down an awful lot from its peak.
But it feels good at the top of the spike, always feels terrific. And people always torture the logic to think, like in 1929, that it’s a “new high plateau.” 1929 – in the most predictive model that I have come across, which is run by Hussman, the only one that is about the same is 2021, and a little bit higher, both of them, than today. These are not good times to start a 10-year bull market, and yet, one or two bulls are saying whoopee, this is the beginning of a great bull market.
We have totally full employment, totally wonderful profit margins. All the things you would not want to start a bull market from. This is where you start bear markets from. Great bull markets start with exactly the opposite. But it always feels wonderful. Peak profit margins, getting there takes years, and it feels nice. And so you’ve got a great track record. You can’t get to peak margins without leaving a terrific track record. You’ve got the peak P/E, so you feel wonderful, the stock market has gone up and up and up and up. So everyone feels great, and that’s how you get to a market peak. You feel great about everything. Of course, almost by definition.
When do you start going down? You still feel great. You just don’t feel quite as great as you felt the day before. That’s why it’s so damn hard, at both ends.”
Jeremy Grantham, GMO, The Insightful Investor, March 19, 2024
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Igy - have you been wrong about the stock market? For years you have been saying they would implode - but year after year after year after year they keep going up and up and up ...were you and Hussman wrong?
None of your judging Sally, this is a safe space. All opinions are welcome here.
“During the latter stage of the bull market culminating in 1929, the public acquired a completely different attitude towards the investment merits of common stocks… Why did the investing public turn its attention from dividends, from asset values, and from average earnings to transfer it almost exclusively to the earnings trend, i.e. to the changes in earnings expected in the future? The answer was, first, that the records of the past were proving an undependable guide to investment; and, second, that the rewards offered by the future had become irresistibly alluring.
Along with this idea as to what constituted the basis for common-stock selection emerged a companion theory that common stocks represented the most profitable and therefore the most desirable media for long-term investment. This gospel was based on a certain amount of research, showing that diversified lists of common stocks had regularly increased in value over stated intervals of time for many years past.
These statements sound innocent and plausible. Yet they concealed two theoretical weaknesses that could and did result in untold mischief. The first of these defects was that they abolished the fundamental distinctions between investment and speculation. The second was that they ignored the price of a stock in determining whether or not it was a desirable purchase.
The notion that the desirability of a common stock was entirely independent of its price seems incredibly absurd. Yet the new-era theory led directly to this thesis… An alluring corollary of this principle was that making money in the stock market was now the easiest thing in the world. It was only necessary to buy ‘good’ stocks, regardless of price, and then to let nature take her upward course. The results of such a doctrine could not fail to be tragic.”
– Benjamin Graham & David L. Dodd, Security Analysis, 1934
None of your judging Sally, this is a safe space. All opinions are welcome here.
“During the latter stage of the bull market culminating in 1929, the public acquired a completely different attitude towards the investment merits of common stocks… Why did the investing public turn its attention from dividends, from asset values, and from average earnings to transfer it almost exclusively to the earnings trend, i.e. to the changes in earnings expected in the future? The answer was, first, that the records of the past were proving an undependable guide to investment; and, second, that the rewards offered by the future had become irresistibly alluring.
Along with this idea as to what constituted the basis for common-stock selection emerged a companion theory that common stocks represented the most profitable and therefore the most desirable media for long-term investment. This gospel was based on a certain amount of research, showing that diversified lists of common stocks had regularly increased in value over stated intervals of time for many years past.
These statements sound innocent and plausible. Yet they concealed two theoretical weaknesses that could and did result in untold mischief. The first of these defects was that they abolished the fundamental distinctions between investment and speculation. The second was that they ignored the price of a stock in determining whether or not it was a desirable purchase.
The notion that the desirability of a common stock was entirely independent of its price seems incredibly absurd. Yet the new-era theory led directly to this thesis… An alluring corollary of this principle was that making money in the stock market was now the easiest thing in the world. It was only necessary to buy ‘good’ stocks, regardless of price, and then to let nature take her upward course. The results of such a doctrine could not fail to be tragic.”
– Benjamin Graham & David L. Dodd, Security Analysis, 1934
Way over my head Igy, I just stick to index funds and buy new running shoes when they go on sale.
Stan Druckenmiller a year ago: biggest bubble ever.
A year later, stocks up another 27%.
Geiger Capital @Geiger_Capital Stan Druckenmiller at Sohn 2023: “I’m sitting here staring in the face of the biggest and probably the broadest asset bubble, forget that I’ve ever seen, but that I’ve ever studied.”
And this one said we were in a recession in November 2023.
Again, yeah nah
Post See new posts Conversation Genevieve Roch-Decter, CFA @GRDecter 🚨JUST IN: U.S Manufacturing had largest monthly DECLINE in over a year. Declining orders and slower production. Approaching weakest level since 2020. We are contracting.
Dallas Fed manufacturing -14.5 April (-11.3 expected)
Consumer confidence down from 103.1 in March (revised down from 104.7) to 97 (104 expected)
Chicago PMI down from 41.4 in March to 37.9 (43.2-47 expected)
ISM Services Index down from 51.4 in March to 49.4 (contractionary) (52 expected)
JOLTS down from 8.813M to 8.488M (8.7M expected)
Non-farm payrolls down from 315k to 175k (190-303k expected)
Challenger Job Cuts...etc...
These are just the official numbers, not even looking behind them to BS concepts like the birth-death model.
agip, please try to temper your enthusiasm, because it comes off as strident.
Not everything is rosy.
if everything were rosy we'd have a lot of problems
but you are right - not everything is rosy, and that's the sweet spot. Because it curbs exuberance and allows the fed to lower rates.
I don't know why they are slowing QT...I suspect it's to relieve some stress in the arcane treasury system.
PS since COVID, all these soft data points like ISM and PMI have consistently underestimated the health of the economy. Not clear why, but it's been better to look at hard data rather than the fewer and fewer who respond to opinion surveys.
This post was edited 2 minutes after it was posted.
Stan Druckenmiller a year ago: biggest bubble ever.
A year later, stocks up another 27%.
Geiger Capital @Geiger_Capital Stan Druckenmiller at Sohn 2023: “I’m sitting here staring in the face of the biggest and probably the broadest asset bubble, forget that I’ve ever seen, but that I’ve ever studied.”
5:51 PM · May 10, 2023 · 1.3M Views
Was he the old guy on Petticoat Junction? No one will remember his prediction from a year ago - and he will probably make the same prediction for this year soon. Have to give it to Permabears - they are consistent - consistently wrong.