"More evidence that nobody with any real brains goes into investing or finance."
Maserati,
Seeing that I was a track coach for 19 years prior to this profession, does that reinforce or change your opinion?
Anyway have a good weekend.
Igy
"More evidence that nobody with any real brains goes into investing or finance."
Maserati,
Seeing that I was a track coach for 19 years prior to this profession, does that reinforce or change your opinion?
Anyway have a good weekend.
Igy
I make no hypothesis.
But as you know, as people age, gain more wealth, and convert from left to right, they are forced to consider investing and finance to a progressively greater extent.
They don't "go into it", they "end up in it", which in my mind are two very different things.
"Going into it" would be like choosing to enter old age while in your prime. It is uninteresting to most, with some notable exceptions: the greedy, the wealthy, and the gullible.
Greedy = obvious motivations
Wealthy = obvious interest
Gullible = the suckers who are taken on to take the blame
The Greedy and Gullible have no real brains. The only ones who might, are the Wealthy, and the confluence of those 2 qualities is rare.
So essentially "nobody with any real brains goes into investing or finance".
Various thinkers, philosophers, and psychologists have at various times equated the human attitude to money, to the monkey attitude to feces--people like Freud, and Saussure, I think, or some other French thinker/writer. Great theme, IMO.
Have a good weekend, I will be swimming to rehab the knee, which is coming along very well. Hope to be jogging slowly by the end of next week, but will take it slowly.
Actually, one of the most interesting guys involved in these matters, along with governance and social policy, was Goethe.
Maserati wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:Maserati,
In regards to BTFD, in the last two Bear markets, the market traded sideways for several months near the highs, then went to a 8-10% decline, later to bottom above 50% decline. The question in my mind is whether the decline is slow like 2000-2002 or more frightening like 2007-2009. Waterboarding or root canal without meds?
BTFD will backfire you know.
Igy
In my last post I was referring to the article you linked from guru.
It has been long established that Igy doesn't read the articles that he posts. He just makes assumptions about the content based on the title and/or author. This isn't the first time he's been burned, but he still hasn't learned. Draw your own conclusions regarding that.
Maserati,
I am not sure where that leaves me. I ended up in this business purely by chance.
Perhaps your point about over thinking the markets is the correct view, because most advisors, the financial media, pay little attention to fundamental or historical financial data. On the other hand that may provide support for a contrarian view. Most investors are on the same side of the airplane, I wonder how long it can fly that way?
Best with the knee. I was swimming quite a bit a year and a half ago and just got bored with it. Technique is such a big deal in swimming, I know I will suffer if or when I start back up again.
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Perhaps your point about over thinking the markets is the correct view, because most advisors, the financial media, pay little attention to fundamental or historical financial data.
Where did you come up with that hair-brained idea? I'd ask for proof, but there's no way you can back up that statement.
OK, you prove how is not correct.
Say wha? wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:Perhaps your point about over thinking the markets is the correct view, because most advisors, the financial media, pay little attention to fundamental or historical financial data.
Where did you come up with that hair-brained idea? I'd ask for proof, but there's no way you can back up that statement.
You made the statement which means the burden of proof is yours. The fact that you cannot prove what you posted is proof of its lack of veracity.
As I have documented many times fundamentals do not support this market. You as well as the financial media promote the cult of equity. You have never provided any support for your view other than direction of the market.
There are literally thousands of articles in the financial media referencing fundamentals.
Show me one today discussing fundamental stock market valuation. I assume that should be a topic since the market has never been higher.
PE Ratio 101
If you buy a business for $100,000 and it is returning $3,500 per near, then you are earning 3.5% on your investment. This would give us a price/earning ratio of 100,000/3,500 = 28.6. That is slightly lower than the current situation with the S&P, as the Shiller PE ratio is a little over 30.
What will drive this stock price higher is people's perceptions. One good perception that is valid would be if this particular company had a new drug on the horizon, or is expanding into a new foreign market, and so on. One bad perception is that the stock will go higher, simply because everyone thinks it will go higher. That is a lot of what is going on today in the stock market.
Good Klarman is a legitimate market commentator. Now compare that article to what is mostly "stock hawking" on the CNBC website.
I agree with Hussman's comment of Cramer being akin to a "carnival barker" for financial markets. Unfortunately, there is much more of that in the financial media than the other side. Why, being cautious is bad for business. In the end that causes people to overweight equities at points of extreme valuation.
That is my point.
If you disagree, that is fine, we can all have opinions.
Have a good weekend.
Igy
I appreciate you admitting that don't have the facts to back up your statement.
Ya, awesome....
Say wha? wrote:
I appreciate you admitting that don't have the facts to back up your statement.
Say,
"10 STOCKS TO BUY RIGHT NOW
FROM THE TEAM THAT'S TRIPLED THE MARKET
Join Stock Advisor now and be among the first to learn their identities.
Don't miss out!
Get the Stocks! "
Courtesy of Say Wha? and the Motley Fool. Of course once again proving my point "stock hawking" is the business and you are a willing consumer.
Igy
Like the guy that bought amazon stock for $3.64/share and now knows of a new, exciting share that you should jump on board with???
Or more likely looking at the current future your guy could buy AMZN today at $845. Using historical PE and earnings Ben could be holding a stock worth $81.50 over the completion of this market cycle, and never get back to $845 again. If you think that is unlikely, look at the charts of INTC and CSCO, stocks at cheaper valuations at the peak of the Tech Bubble.
So says the guy who said not to buy AMZN nearly a year ago when it was under $500/share. Are you ever right?