And wait until DC dumps more stimulus on the masses. Hang on! šThat's because they are,
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
And wait until DC dumps more stimulus on the masses. Hang on! šThat's because they are,
You talk a big game on shorting, but I see that you are just a dabbler. Like me with cryptos (75% of my posts, but 0.4% of my portfolio)! HA! HA!My long portfolio was down 2% but short portfolio was up 25%. Too bad I was 97% long and 3% short. LOL
This site may have more info that you want.Iāve done plenty of research on Coinbureau so your link isnāt particularly helpful. āGuy the crypto guyā pushes a pro-crypto agenda. He portrays himself as an expert so all Iām asking for are his credentials. I want to be proven wrong. Otherwise, itās just as likely heās a shill (decent looking British actor is a perfect choice) that works for someone like the Winklevoss twins or an operation in China.
Would it be safe to say that we just experienced a period of great stock performance in the backdrop of weak economic fundamentals in 2020?
Not as fun talking about longs. I donāt trade longs, I only invest on the long side. Plus on the short side, I get to actually realize P/L.You talk a big game on shorting, but I see that you are just a dabbler. Like me with cryptos (75% of my posts, but 0.4% of my portfolio)! HA! HA!
So we align 97% of time! Why do we argue so much on your 3% and my 0.4%? šNot as fun talking about longs. I donāt trade longs, I only invest on the long side. Plus on the short side, I get to actually realize P/L.
The second most active options are 800 calls expiring next Friday. People either don't know how options work or just don't like money.That's because selling GME calls at 800 48 hours before expiration is shooting fish in a barrel, not gambling. But hey, they stuck it to the man.
We really only disagree on TSLA.So we align 97% of time! Why do we argue so much on your 3% and my 0.4%? š
Government engineered share price performance? Yes.
But the bigger picture issue pertains to rates. The fact is not one person on this board has invested during a Treasury bond near market. And such bear markets do occur. When they do, they wreak havoc on equity valuations and can completely negate otherwise strong economic fundamentals.
Look a the last Treasury hear market, which began in roughly 1965 and ended 17 years later in 1981. The Dow started that period at 874. It ended that period at...875. That despite very strong GDP growth; in fact, much stronger growth than which occurred in the subsequent Treasury bull market. Of course, rates collapsed, so share prices turned in their best multi decade performance on record over the subsequent 17 year period.
And where are we today? Very, very low rates. Even after the spike in the 10 year yield over the last few trading sessions. Economic growth has no chance of matching what occurred in the 1965-1981 period. Does that mean that we are looking at 17 years of no share price appreciation? Not likely, as I hope we arenāt looking at Treasury yields in the double digits. But a sustained increase i yields, even back to historic norms, would not be good for any of these high flying growth stocks. And it would relate the multiple on businesses that actually earn money today, too.
Bull markets have averaged 2.7yrs with a 111% return
Bear markets have averaged 9.5mths for avg return of -35%
All since 1929 so the point is you need to be patient for the long run
The second most active options are 800 calls expiring next Friday. People either don't know how options work or just don't like money.
+1Bull markets have averaged 2.7yrs with a 111% return
Bear markets have averaged 9.5mths for avg return of -35%
All since 1929 so the point is you need to be patient for the long run
+1
Be patient and stay the course!
3x the average correction like in '29? 28.5 years? I'll be able to be REAL patient in 2149.
3x the average correction like in '29? 28.5 years? I'll be able to be REAL patient in 2149.
This is me with penny stocks... itās maybe 1-2% of my money but 75% of what I talk about when talking stocksYou talk a big game on shorting, but I see that you are just a dabbler. Like me with cryptos (75% of my posts, but 0.4% of my portfolio)! HA! HA!
Wasn't the 10 year rate in '65 around 5%? I rates reached that level a lot of insurance companies and pension plans would surely reduce their allocation to equities.
But while there are black swans in the pond today, I don't see any with the inflationary inflation spike of the oil embargo. That is unless they ban fracking on existing leases.
I'll throw another one out there.
If you bought the Nasdaq in 1996, and held through the tech bubble, the financial crisis, and Covid, you are up 13x.
Is this a bubble? To some extent, sure. Where are we in the bubble? No one can say for sure. Should you stay in or get out of the market? Everyone has to make that decision for themselves.
Well yeah, if you missed the 5x run in the 4 years leading into the tech bubble, and then bought at the very tippy top, then you didn't do so well.well, if bought in 2000, at one of the previous peaks, youāre up less than 3x, 21 years later, and it would have taken you fifteen years to get back to even. And, current NASDAQ stock valuations are closer to the valuations in 2000, versus 1996. And yes, I agree 100% that everyone make their investment decision themselves, based on their age and financial position. I also agree that we donāt know where we are in the bubble. Greenspan gave his irrational exuberance speech in late 1996, 3+ years before the bubble burst. Now we might be a few years into high valuations, so I donāt think the market craziness will go for too much longer, but what the heck do I know?
Nope. The bears in the thread need to calm down! :)1929? Do we really think that is where we are right now?
+1I'll throw another one out there.
If you bought the Nasdaq in 1996, and held through the tech bubble, the financial crisis, and Covid, you are up 13x.
Is this a bubble? To some extent, sure. Where are we in the bubble? No one can say for sure. Should you stay in or get out of the market? Everyone has to make that decision for themselves.
But nobody ever just buys at X or Y. Not a post about dollar cost averaging, just that people accumulate their money over time (i.e., regular paychecks).well, if bought in 2000, at one of the previous peaks, youāre up less than 3x, 21 years later, and it would have taken you fifteen years to get back to even. And, current NASDAQ stock valuations are closer to the valuations in 2000, versus 1996. And yes, I agree 100% that everyone make their investment decision themselves, based on their age and financial position. I also agree that we donāt know where we are in the bubble. Greenspan gave his irrational exuberance speech in late 1996, 3+ years before the bubble burst. Now we might be a few years into high valuations, so I donāt think the market craziness will go for too much longer, but what the heck do I know?
He and the CB team are definitely experts. Their educational videos are amazing (and over my head on the blockchain tech stuff). Great resource for those into cryptos!
I'm talking about the programming and blockchain details (those videos are just a small subet). Very interesting, but beyond me unless I really dedicate myself to learning it all.How can you say that the educational videos are amazing, if the information is way beyond your capacity to understand it?
But nobody ever just buys at X or Y. Not a post about dollar cost averaging, just that people accumulate their money over time (i.e., regular paychecks).
Nope. The bears in the thread need to calm down! :)
Mixed day, but good day. Most of my big funds were up. Cryptos today were meh.
I havenāt read anyone predict we are headed for a 1929 market crash and prelude to a 1930s style depression. What Iāve pointed out, however, is current prices donāt reflect or discount much in the way of risks. To illustrate that point, I compared the current time period to the mid 1960s to show that strong economic performance, while certainly a very important variable, is not the sole determinative driver of equity prices. Ignoring opportunity costs, and how they are likely to evolve, was the message. Then, like now, rates were very low. Then, rates began a multi-decade climb and stocks went exactly nowhere. Had you placed a large amount of money into the market at that time, you would have enjoyed dividends that perhaps were reinvested, but the absolute level of the overall market went exactly nowhere. Did I select that time period deliberately? Absolutely, but more to illustrate how strong economic fundamentals married with a long term Treasury bear market can lead to very underwhelming results. Itās not an environment anyone today has experienced.
Others have selected decade long time period surrounding various advances and subsequent declines to show that, longer term, investors who stayed the course came out with a good result. All true for the periods selected, but Iād point out that none of those periods involve a sustained movement higher in yields. And we donāt need a return to late 1970s or early 1980s levels of inflations or rates for a re-rating of multiples to occur.
Sorry, but the 60s seemed pretty good for the S&P:I havenāt read anyone predict we are headed for a 1929 market crash and prelude to a 1930s style depression. What Iāve pointed out, however, is current prices donāt reflect or discount much in the way of risks. To illustrate that point, I compared the current time period to the mid 1960s to show that strong economic performance, while certainly a very important variable, is not the sole determinative driver of equity prices. Ignoring opportunity costs, and how they are likely to evolve, was the message. Then, like now, rates were very low. Then, rates began a multi-decade climb and stocks went exactly nowhere. Had you placed a large amount of money into the market at that time, you would have enjoyed dividends that perhaps were reinvested, but the absolute level of the overall market went exactly nowhere. Did I select that time period deliberately? Absolutely, but more to illustrate how strong economic fundamentals married with a long term Treasury bear market can lead to very underwhelming results. Itās not an environment anyone today has experienced.
Others have selected decade long time period surrounding various advances and subsequent declines to show that, longer term, investors who stayed the course came out with a good result. All true for the periods selected, but Iād point out that none of those periods involve a sustained movement higher in yields. And we donāt need a return to late 1970s or early 1980s levels of inflations or rates for a re-rating of multiples to occur.
Sorry, but the 60s seemed pretty good for the S&P:
1969 -8.50
1968 11.06
1967 23.98
1966 -10.06
1965 12.45
1964 16.48
1963 22.80
1962 -8.73
1961 26.89
1960 0.47
And actually, from 1970 to 1972 returns were strong up until the energy crisis and crash of 1973-1974.
S&P 500 Total Returns by Year Since 1926
www.slickcharts.com
This sounds how strong the S&P has been over the years. It was up in 1987 (didn't expect that). Obviously, 2000-2002 was the biggest bear in recent history due to the dot.com bubble and 9/11.
Re: tech, I would be comfortable sticking with names like Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, FB. Itās the speculative tech that is in trouble. Alphabet should thrive in a reopening environment especially as travel and leisure search and ads skyrocket.Cramer said that next job report is very important. If itās good, āexpect the tsunami of selling.ā
I think Iām going to go back to 25-30% equity before next Friday since there will be basically no gain or loss from my Thursday-Friday purchases. If Cramer is right, those techs will be down another 3-5% for overall down 20%. Iāll have the opportunity to buy more later since the pain will be for a few weeks. I knew I probably brought too much too early. Those stocks will take time to recover.
- If we get any strength here at all, any strength, please brace yourself for another tsunami of selling as interest rates go higher and stocks go lower,ā CNBCās Jim Cramer said about the Labor Departmentās looming non-farm payroll report to release Friday.
- āWithout an ugly set of numbers, the growth stocks are in trouble,ā the āMad Moneyā host said.
All tech will thrive in a reopening/normal environment.Re: tech, I would be comfortable sticking with names like Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, FB. Itās the speculative tech that is in trouble. Alphabet should thrive in a reopening environment especially as travel and leisure search and ads skyrocket.
I disagree - and it depends on what you mean by āreopening/normal environmentā. Reopening is already priced into a lot of stocks, and rates will dictate the market. If inflation or rates spike because we are all having a great time and money is flowing too rapidly it will result in a dangerously volatile market. And spec tech + SPACs = plunge. Keep in mind that packed restaurants and increased travel doesnāt necessarily move the market. On the other hand, if inflation and rates remain in-check and stimulus money makes its way through the economy it could be a good year for stocks.All tech will thrive in a reopening/normal environment.
I agree. I typically buy the techs with PE and not the ones base on sales. They will all get hit,as well as the entire market, but the ones base on sales will be hit the hardest.Re: tech, I would be comfortable sticking with names like Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, FB. Itās the speculative tech that is in trouble. Alphabet should thrive in a reopening environment especially as travel and leisure search and ads skyrocket.