Yes, you need to buy at the high, 100% equity. Do it because you are smarter.
Yes, you need to buy at the high, 100% equity. Do it because you are smarter.
You're not completely wrong.
We've seen this movie before: Economy set for spring surge after first-quarter slumber
Exhaustion Gaps and the Fear of Missing Out
After all that's been said about that guy, you continue to cite his stories? That's known as doubling down on stupid.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Fear of Missing Out
That's not a problem for you! You've already missed out for years because of your stupidity.
Your advice continues to be laughable! Except for those who have followed it for these past many years.
Certainly not Hussman wrote:
Quite simply because he's been right ever since. He's the exact opposite of Hussman.
Yes the market has done well the past 8 years and so Siegel has been right.
No, Siegel was wrong at the last market top, and Hussman was right.
Draw your own conclusion who is right today.
The obvious conclusion is that Siegel has been right for the past eight years and Hussman has been wrong.
No, it is investors like you that never look behind the numbers. Mr. Seigel appears to be right for all the wrong reasons. Just last week Amazon only beat the quarter on lower provisioning for taxes. The traditional business had a loss, AWS was positive. The 10Q came with about a dozen pages of disclaimers. I wonder why?
There is one number that matters more than any other. Too bad that you choose to ignore it.
Knot sew smart wrote:
After all that's been said about that guy, you continue to cite his stories? That's known as doubling down on stupid.
When the market goes south it will be fast and steep and Hussman will look like a genius.
You think because the market has done very nicely for 8 years that the problems that caused the large dip in 2000-2002 and the crash of 2008-09 have gone away?
They haven't. If anything, bailing out Wall Street at our expense emboldened them to engage in more hinky behavior. When they win, they win, and when they lose, we lose.
Your number will be cut in half as this cycle closes.
Perhaps. It will certainly be lower, but that's the definition of "cycle" so you're not really telling us anything we don't already know. Thanks for trying.
but I checked,
MCD is up around 15% on the year. But here is the "optimism" that investors are buying:
Q1
Revenues (down 4%)
2016 $6.7 Billion
2017 $5.9 Billion
Total Operating Expenses (down 12%)
2016 $4.1 Billion
2017 $3.6 Billion
Share Count (down 8%)
896.3 million shares
825.2 million shares
Where's the beef? Cost cutting and stock buy backs. I wonder how much MCD has added to their debt?
Igy
ðŸ’
I can give you more if you like.
Oh by the way, MCD debt has gone from $12.5 Billion in 2011 to $25.9 Billion by year end 2016.
And their price has gone up nearly 30% in 6 months while paying a dividend of nearly 3%.
You and your Muppet clients missed out again.