Ghost of Igloi wrote:
muy loca,
OK, you mean micro brewery, right?
Igy
No, I meant porterhouse as served in a steakhouse.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
muy loca,
OK, you mean micro brewery, right?
Igy
No, I meant porterhouse as served in a steakhouse.
agip,
Problem with the EU banks are the ECB programs where they were buying their own country's sovereign debt. The program was designed to lower rates and prop up in country funding cost. Once the market questions the ability to pay, what comes of the bank balance sheet? That is the current price discovery, which goes beyond the derivatives book at DB and CS.
Reid/Igy
I'm throwing my lot in with Reid.
muy loca,
I am not really a steak at a restaurant guy so not the best resource. I would assume Chandlers in the downtown would come up on most aficionadoes list.
Reid
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Dufus,
Out west we have porter house steaks and porter house brew pubs. But since you are from the backwoods of delirium I understand your confusion.
Igy
Porter house brew pubs? Never heard of that. Can you provide a link?
You are welcome.
how about we all just talk about markets and money and whatnot? It's interesting enough to me.
I took a token position yesterday in EUFN - (euro banks) - I'm up 3.68%. I'll sell if I can make 10%.
econ!
some mixed data:
int'l trade; exports -0.2%. poor. but imports solid +1.6%. That will hurt 2Q GDP, but shows 'murricans are buying stuff.
PMI services: slight expansion, inline with recent trends
dallas fed mfgring: in carper. b/c oil.
1Q GDP +2.0% y/y. Inline with recent trends
corp profits; -2.3% y/y - very low
cash shiller: +5.4%, inline with recent trends.
consumer confidence: again, in middle of recent trends
richmond fed mfgring: awful, new lows.
investor confidence: at low end of recent trends
Just like I said back in this thread, there is very little, if any, true overall economic growth; it is all government-driven price increases and taxation, much of which is in the form of medical insurance and service delivery (so-called "health care"):
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-06-28/obamacare-accounted-58-us-growth-first-quarter
Exactly as I said.
Also, the measurement of the economic benefit of "Financial Services and Insurance" is being exposed this year as the huge bunch of b.s. that it is.
er, citing zerohedge as evidence is an automatic fail. No credit.
The site was described by CNNMoney as offering a "deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world."[8] Financial journalists Felix Salmon and Justin Fox have characterized the site as conspiratorial.[9][10] Fox... termed most of the writing on the website as "half-baked hooey," albeit with some "truth to be gleaned from it."[10] Tim Worstall described the site as a source of hysteria and occasionally misleading information.[11] Bloomberg Markets noted...distrustful of the 'establishment' and almost always bearish, it's known for a pessimistic world view. Posts entitled 'Stocks Are In a Far More Precarious State Than Was Ever Truly Believed Possible' and “America's Entitled (And Doomed) Upper Middle Class' are not uncommon."[1]
Economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman describes Zero Hedge as a scaremongering outlet that promotes fears of hyperinflation and an "obviously ridiculous" form of "monetary permahawkery."[12] Krugman notes that Bill McBride of Calculated Risk, an economics blog, has treated Zero Hedge with "appropriate contempt."[13]
Lokey, a former paid Zero Hedge writer who left the website in 2016 over disagreements in editorial direction, characterizes the site's political content as "disingenuous," summarizing its political stances as "Russia=good. Obama=idiot. Bashar al-Assad=benevolent leader. John Kerry=dunce. Vladimir Putin=greatest leader in the history of statecraft."[1]
In September 2009, Zero Hedge had begun drawing more traffic than certain financial websites[6] with 333,000 unique visitors a month.[5] According to Quantcast, in 2012 Zero Hedge had a monthly global traffic of 1.8 million people. In 2016 3.3m.[14] Under the name Tyler Durden, Ivandjiiski was interviewed on Bloomberg Radio[4][15] and Zero Hedge has been quoted in the Columbia Journalism Review.[16]
Dr. Craig Pirrong, Professor at the Bauer College of Business points "I have frequently written that Zero Hedge has the MO of a Soviet agitprop operation, that it reliably peddles Russian propaganda: my first post on this, almost exactly three years ago, noted the parallels between Zero Hedge and Russia Today."[18][19]
I think John Hussman gives the best explanation of the current environment:
As I noted a month ago in Latent Risks and Critical Points:
“My impression is that the best way to understand the next stage of the current market cycle is to recognize the difference between observed conditions and latent risks. This distinction will be most helpful before, not after, the S&P 500 drops hundreds of points in a handful of sessions. That essentially describes how a coordinated attempt by trend-followers to exit this steeply overvalued market could unfold, since value-conscious investors may have little interest in absorbing those shares at nearby prices, and in equilibrium, every seller requires a buyer.
“Imagine the error of skating on thin ice and plunging through. While we might examine the hole in the ice in hindsight, and find some particular fracture that contributed to the collapse, this is much like looking for the particular pebble of sand that triggers an avalanche, or the specific vibration that triggers an earthquake. In each case, the collapse actually reflects the expression of sub-surface conditions that were already in place long before the collapse - the realization of previously latent risks.
“Finding the specific trigger that causes the skaters to plunge through the ice isn’t particularly informative. The fact is that catastrophe is inevitable the moment the skaters ignore the latent risk, or rely on faulty evidence to conclude that the ice is stable. The fracture in some particular span of ice is just one of numerous other spots that might have otherwise given way if the skaters had chosen a different course. Hitting that spot creates the specific occasion for the underlying risk to be expressed, but an unfortunate outcome was already inevitable much earlier.â€
-John Hussman, Weekly Commentary, 6/27/2016
Come on agip, you KNOW I do that only for purposes of economy.
http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2016/06%20June/0616_gdp_and_the_economy.pdf
I can, and have, cited primary sources on a great many occasions. I'm disappointed in you because you know that to be the case, and yet still chose to play the card you did. You're better than that.
Maserati wrote:
Come on agip, you KNOW I do that only for purposes of economy.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/http://www.bea.gov/scb/pdf/2016/06%20June/0616_gdp_and_the_economy.pdfI can, and have, cited primary sources on a great many occasions. I'm disappointed in you because you know that to be the case, and yet still chose to play the card you did. You're better than that.
I'm not going to go through those docs looking for your evidence that the only growth in the economy is from obamacare - if you want to prove a point from those, cut and paste or at least show page numbers.
we all know 1Q GDP was light...1Q GDP has been light for something like 5 straight years. Your point is something about healthcare but it is as yet unproven.
The often quoted resilience of the US market misses the deterioration seen in the one year return of several indices:
NASDAQ -9.57%
NYSE composite -9.66%
Russell 2000 -13.61%
Many international markets are in or approaching one year bear markets:
Hang Seng (HKD) -24.69%
MSCI Europe (USD) -21.19%
Japan (LCL) -27.97%
MSCI EM (USD) -18.97%
While bonds and cash outperform the past year:
US Core Bond +6.90%
US Short Core Bond +2.24%
Igy
well fine but these are stocks we are talking about - they flit and flip around, always have.
The average decline in a calendar year is 14%, yet 3/4 of years have positive returns. One 52 week decline means little in predicting the next 52 weeks.
"the only growth in the economy is from obamacare"
I didn't say that.
Furthermore, what you've done is worse than the pot calling the kettle black, because at least I have still cited the primary sources, even though I haven't dissected them as I have done for you previously. OTOH, I don't recall you ever having broken down the numbers using primary data.
Come on agip, I know you're having a bad year, but be a man about it. Don't sink to the troll level.
Maserati wrote:
"the only growth in the economy is from obamacare"
I didn't say that.
Furthermore, what you've done is worse than the pot calling the kettle black, because at least I have still cited the primary sources, even though I haven't dissected them as I have done for you previously. OTOH, I don't recall you ever having broken down the numbers using primary data.
Come on agip, I know you're having a bad year, but be a man about it. Don't sink to the troll level.
whatever dude. you can't post a couple of docs and say 'see! i was right!'
that's asking a bit much of us
I cite reputable sources so I don't have to go to primary data. You cite zerohedge to 'prove' some point. See the difference?
And every freaking day I cite primary data in my econ data dump.
I'm not having a bad year - I'm beating the benchmarks...not a lot of absolute peformance in aggressive accounts, but conservative accoutns are flying - up 4-5%.
S&P 500 Q1 2016 Earnings Scorecard
Of 497 issues reported, 180 of 490 beat GAAP earnings, 265 of 496 beat on sales. 140 issues, or 28.11% are buying enough stock to have at least 4% positive impact on EPS.
Last Twelve Months S&P 500 EPS is $98.61 non-GAAP EPS and $86.44 GAAP EPS. The non-GAAP PE of 20.86 and GAAP PE of 23.83, is the highest level since 9/30/2009. Forward Operating Earnings Estimate is $125.59, a level of more than $10 above the one year record of $114.51 (09/30/2014).
Of course the 3/31/2015 S&P 500 earnings estimate for 2016 was $135.03, reflecting a drop of close to ten dollars over the past year. Record setting quarters would be required to reach this lowered number.
Those that are banking on the "second half earnings recovery" may need to pass the plate at the "True Believers Revival."
Igy
Unbelievably disappointing from you. I really did expect more. I don't recall you EVER having broken down the numbers using primary data, as I said. And regardless, you're too lazy to look behind ZH to the sources I linked, but not too lazy to look behind CNBC or Marketwatch? Amazing. I didn't take you for a political hack, but maybe you are.
"Reputable sources so you don't *have to* go to primary data"??!! Apparently you don't understand the difference between citing a number and investigating how it was created or derived.
Regarding the 4-5%, that's terrific, btw, but that then makes me wonder what the reason is for your behavior? I would shudder to think that it is not extraordinary, but normal for you.