I'm not sure how you can say it wasn't the point since I was the one making it. I think I have a better idea of what my point was than you do.
I'm not sure how you can say it wasn't the point since I was the one making it. I think I have a better idea of what my point was than you do.
topcat wrote:
Huh. Never new. I learn more all the time on this thread. Guess I better just go to cash and with inflation have negative returns.
It's all a gamble and we ain't the house. You have not figured that out yet?
What I've figured out is that investing in low-risk (lower than TIPS) bonds and CDs means you're losing purchasing power. Stocks are indeed a gamble, but I'll take some of them along with a very good chance of increasing my purchasing power.
Econ 101 wrote:
What I've figured out is that investing in low-risk (lower than TIPS) bonds and CDs means you're losing purchasing power. Stocks are indeed a gamble, but I'll take some of them along with a very good chance of increasing my purchasing power.
Of course that is assuming your stock position isn't cut in half and ends up at the same point ten years from now.
Of course. That was implied.
"The consensus forecast is for US earnings growth to rebound next year, and measures of stock-market volatility are low."
Nice, same forecast was made in 2000 and 2008. Reality is declining not advancing.
The recession forecast has been made repeatedly too. None of these forecasts mean shit.
OK, no different than the quality of your opinion. Other than, S&P 500 earnings have declined 18.5% over the past 24 months. Corporate debt and government at the highest level ever.
Go find the growth Mr. Oh 4 2.
Igy
Well then I suggest you read your own posts. You said inflation was "nonexistent". That was your point. Then you changed your point.
Kiplio wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say it wasn't the point since I was the one making it. I think I have a better idea of what my point was than you do.
I didn't say there was growth. The article that YOU linked predicted it. Argue with yourself.
Listen Mr.Oh 42, you extrapolate a sentence counter argument as if it was the thesis of article. The consensus as I said was wrong in 2000 and wrong in 2008.
Igy
It was the ENTIRE point of the article. Did you even read it?
Ya awesome, like-a change ya handal too "Oh 4 nutin."
Igy
I'm not surprised that you don't have a rational counter argument given your earlier statements. I am surprised that it took this long before you started incoherent babbling.
Oh 4 2,
Actually it is the other way around. You are the typical troll that twist and turns but can't argue a point because your knowledge base is narrow and based on little than common misconceptions. Even a Wall Street propaganda organ like FactSet can't hide the obvious, so here you go from 9/23/2016:
"Earnings Growth: For Q3 2016, the estimated earnings decline for the S&P 500 is -2.3%. If the index reports a decline in earnings for Q3, it will mark the first time the index has recorded six consecutive quarters of year-over year declines in earnings since FactSet began tracking the data in Q3 2008."
Good night and think about changing your handle to something more appropriate.
Igy
Straw man argument.
You posted an article and I quoted a sentence which captured the essence of the article. Then you start arguing the opposite of what the article said.
Next time read the article before you post it.
But therein lies the problem with the stock market. You are saying there is inflation if you are losing purchasing power in CDs that are low but do pay a positive yield. The substance of what the Federal Reserve has done is to extort people to spend or invest in riskier assets by setting interest rates lower than inflation. Obviously they put it in nicer terms, but the Fed has actually been very frank and honest that that is what they have been doing for the better part of five years. I don't know about you. But when somebody is extorting me to stay out of cash or low yielding CDs, that tells me I should keep at least some of my money in cash or low yielding CDs.
Econ 101 wrote:
What I've figured out is that investing in low-risk (lower than TIPS) bonds and CDs means you're losing purchasing power. Stocks are indeed a gamble, but I'll take some of them along with a very good chance of increasing my purchasing power.
I would argue cash and CDs are one of the best asset classes in the current environment. In a Bear Market all stocks and low quality bonds move in the same direction, down.
Igy