Down goes the Dow

One good prediction and two awful ones in this one. The head Schwab strategist decided in the correction of January 2016 that the bull market was not over. Full credit to her.

zero kudos to Marc Faber and Denis Gartman, who said that stocks and oil would not rally"in their lifetimes"

Madonna Mia. They're still alive, I presume.

How do they stay in the business?

"Others at the ETF conference this week had difficulty stirring up optimism. "Dr. Doom" Marc Faber predicted that stocks would fall even more as markets adjust to the reality of a looming recession. Mark Yusko of Morgan Creek Capital Management said that either the U.S. or Europe could fall into a recession this year . Vanguard Group CEO Bill McNabb said investors should expect no better than 5 percent to 7 percent returns over the next decade for a diversified portfolio of stocks and bonds.

How bold were the bear calls at the ETF conference? Both Faber and Dennis Gartman used the term "Not in my lifetime" to lay out their belief as to when stocks and oil, respectively, would really rally."

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/panicky-stock-sellers-sorry-schwab-173357920.html

Maserati 12/28/15: "Yeah, sure, that's why everyone's investing in Nigeria, right?

In all seriousness, stability is maybe the single most important dimension for business investment; or if not stability, then PREDICTABILITY. From one perspective, this absolutely disastrous administration has been great for business: they have been eminently predictable, and will likely continue to be so, which is one reason I have expressed faith in the continuity of the markets through the next while.

If the Republicans win the WH and the House, then all bets are off. There will be wild swings, who knows what the directions and durations will be; traders will prosper, investors have a 50% chance of suffering."

Market continuity up until the election: check.

Wild swing after Republicans won the WH: check.

12/28/15: "There are fundamentals, and there are fundamentals. Value is what it's about. Value is a perception, and leads to a willingness to pay. The advertising industry is airy-fairy, with performance measurement having absolutely nothing in common with scientific validation. All it takes is a split-second decision for the value in FB to disappear. Gone!

NFLX and AMZN, OTOH, actually do something, for a vast number of individuals and businesses. The value is widespread, and is not the result of irrational fantasy."

NFLX and AMZN: check.

12/29/15: "And those things are your friends if you are trying to make money in the markets. If you are just trying to preserve wealth or go with the flow, the markets can be useful (although there may be better vehicles). Consider coach and his NFLX. Have the assets of NFLX appreciated as much as the stock price while he has been holding it? No. Projecting future performance, of both the business and the stock, is where the emotions come into play. Coach has profited handsomely from both his analysis and emotions, and from the analysis and emotions of others, same as he does with his short positions. He is in the market to MAKE money, and apparently, he does. I know other people who do the same.

The only answer you can have to the fact that he makes money on NFLX is an argument based on time-frame, or data windowing. He could realize gains today. For him, NFLX is NEVER "over-valued" while he is holding it, and lots of people hold NFLX, AMZN, AAPL, etc. As long as there is widespread holding of these stocks, value perceptions of people like you, who do not hold them, are at best only half the story--and probably less than half the story, because those who DO NOT own the stocks lack the control held by those who DO own the stocks."

NFLX, AMZN, AAPL: check.

Maser! He's the single poster on here who is not only mostly right, but who has the nads to admit when he's wrong. Maybe also bigfoot investments.

nice post

agip wrote:

Hey all - continuing the year in review

Year to date on the FANG stocks

Not including divs:

Facebook +46%

Apple +2%

Netflix +275%

Google +48%

Those were safe bets given Igy's bearish positions on most of those. Not surprisingly, he did recommend Apple. He never disappoints.

I will certainly be back to remind all the valuation doubters that it matters what you pay for an investment. Your return is inversely correlated to the price you pay. It is so simple, but you miss the point. No different than buying a piece of rental propery, you pay too much, the return is never there.

Many of you invest as if it is a given. You buy a stock and that is all you have to do. Well you will see it is much more difficult than that. But like most things you will learn thru experience.

A hard lesson.

Wish you the best though.

Igy

agip wrote:

Hey all - continuing the year in review

Year to date on the FANG stocks

Not including divs:

Facebook +46%

Apple +2%

Netflix +275%

Google +48%

Agip, lay off the spiked eggnog ! The A in FANG is for AMZN, not AAPL; and where did you get your #s ?

FB__12.05%

AMZN__12.53%

NFLX__9.8%

GOOGL__3.83%

GOOG__4.09%

AAPL__13.16%

Meet FANG 2016

FCX___103.99%

AMAT__79.13%

NVDA__236.27%

GRMN__42.18%

A Jolly Yuletide to all.

Inversely correlated? Seems to me it's a direct correlation. What am I missing.

Everything else you wrote makes sense, but it's really common knowledge.

agip,

New 66 year old record, six days in a row of running, 30 miles, Most running in seven years. I have a bet going with a friend, giving me added motivation. Today, treadmill, 2 miles easy, 5 x .60 @ 7:19 / .40 easy; mile easy. May go for seven days in the row of running. We received another heavy snowfall today, so maybe strap on the Yax Trax for an easy run.

Wife cooking some steaks this Christmas Eve. Family over Sunday for a meal. Hope you are enjoying time with your son back from school.

Best,

Igy

X,

In this market you are right. Of course when it becomes wrong, well it is very, very wrong.

Igy

Not just this market. It's always a direct correlation.

X,

Wrong wise one, 10/2002 and 3/2009. Of course you didn't know that.

Igy

You have no idea what you're talking about, do you.

Learn yourself up Troll....

I'm no troll, but you might be. I teach the difference between direct and inverse correlations to high school freshmen. You must have slept through that class since you obviously got them mixed up.

Pretty simple, whatever you say, I say you pay too much you never get the return. If you disagree with that, well good luck. Otherwise we are in agreement. Good luck either way.

Igy

That's true for some investments, but not for all. For every loser, there is a winner. I assume you understand the basics of the market. Either way, it's a direct correlation.

That runs counter to thousands of years of experience.

But good luck.

I'll invest the opposite of your view.

Igy

Actually it is exactly how it's always worked. For every buyer, there's a seller. Pretty simple. Not sure how you can invest opposite of that view.

OK. About as simplistic as for every plus there is a minus. If that is your World live in it.

Igy