OT: Stock and Investment Talk

[RUAldo]

Do you realize how many people it would take to make all the cheap consumer goods that we import from China and Southeast Asia? Do we really want those jobs back here? iPhones maybe….cheap Walmart crap why???

I certainly hope that’s not part of the plan. So much cheap garbage produced in China that ends up in our landfills. Not to mention the environmental impact manufacturing would have in the U.S.

 

[BossNJ]

https://www.axios.com/2025/04/02/trump-tariffs-australia-uninhabited-heard-mcdonald-islands

“Only the best!!”😂😂🤡

 

[RU-05]

That’s all he seems to know how to do along with a few others sadly.

Anyway, anyone buying the dips today? Sales everywhere. I may add some Apple and Amazon

I bought a little last night, RIVN and META.

Will probably buy a little more today, but definitely not jumping in with both feet.

 

[Postman_1]

View embedded media

The typical idiotic post by you. Take your garbage to the CE board

 

[jtung230]

Then super buy my scared bearish friend.

Bearish = selling. Me = not buying. Glad I invested in those municipals last week. I am still buying monthly via 401k. But that’s like .001% add.

 

[RU205]

Can we stop with this.

Do you disagree that his actions have a direct impact on the market?

 

[DHajekRC84]

I just wish there was a more comprehensive plan that included/integrated a comprehensive plan to create the workforce to support all this new construction and future jobs (which could have included a pathway to citizenship down the road with worker permits for now ), a more transitional graduated hike in the tariffs giving other countries time to transition them down and not blow them up too which would fit into the "we're not ready to make this stuff overnight" issue. All of which would have gone a long way into smoothing the markets (my opinion) vs. throwing such a big grenade into the room. Too far and too fast seems to be the norm and it is scaring the crap out of many. If today's losses hold I'm getting to my magic safety out number on the 401ks and that's not what I want to do.

 

[DHajekRC84]

VIX is not all that spooked by this, will be interesting to see where tomorrow’s session ends up.

Still believe the end goal of tariffs is to onshore as much production and production inputs as possible before China makes a move on Taiwan in the 2027-2030 timeframe. The high tariffs on Taiwan would lend some credence to this as semiconductor production would be wiped out in the opening days of any strike campaign. Of course the administration can’t really come out and say this point-blank at the moment, but some really solid white papers have dropped recently from leading geopolitical think tanks and policy houses that pretty much say some type of action is a given before the end of the decade. The question becomes does China opt for a blockade and air strike campaign to force capitulation or escalate to an outright invasion.

Regardless, this will be a watershed moment in history when it happens. Pacific-based trade will grind to a halt, completely disrupting all aspects of the global supply chain that would make the height of COVID lockdowns look like an evening of bad gas. The global economic system will devolve into an every man for himself environment, hence tariffing everyone to get as much production/production inputs back domestically as possible before then. The more production/production inputs of critical infrastructure and goods that get on-shored before then, the better the outcome for the US economy.

Just my theory, the whole tariff strategy doesn’t make too much sense otherwise. There’s just no real point in blowing up the global economy for no reason unless it was to stave off something worse.

I heard this strategy from somebody I work with (on my accounts) just the other day.

 

[BossNJ]

I just wish there was a more comprehensive plan that included/integrated a comprehensive plan to create the workforce to support all this new construction and future jobs (which could have included a pathway to citizenship down the road with worker permits for now ), a more transitional graduated hike in the tariffs giving other countries time to transition them down and not blow them up too which would fit into the "we're not ready to make this stuff overnight" issue. All of which would have gone a long way into smoothing the markets (my opinion) vs. throwing such a big grenade into the room. Too far and too fast seems to be the norm and it is scaring the crap out of many. If today's losses hold I'm getting to my magic safety out number on the 401ks and that's not what I want to do.

Good luck with that.

 

[RU205]

I just wish there was a more comprehensive plan that included/integrated a comprehensive plan to create the workforce to support all this new construction and future jobs (which could have included a pathway to citizenship down the road with worker permits for now ), a more transitional graduated hike in the tariffs giving other countries time to transition them down and not blow them up too which would fit into the "we're not ready to make this stuff overnight" issue. All of which would have gone a long way into smoothing the markets (my opinion) vs. throwing such a big grenade into the room. Too far and too fast seems to be the norm and it is scaring the crap out of many. If today's losses hold I'm getting to my magic safety out number on the 401ks and that's not what I want to do.

I would settle for a concept of a plan...

 

[BossNJ]

The typical idiotic post by you. Take your garbage to the CE board

With all the other garbage, nice admission. Thanks!

 

[DHajekRC84]

Good luck with that.

well it is what it is now and the markets now know. So that is a good thing. There is certainly a plan here. Seatbelts mandatory until we get through the turbulence.

 

[rutgersdave]

Earning season starting and in full swing next two weeks. We’ll get a better idea of the situation with companies providing their forecast.

 

[vkj91]

Putin revenge on the Western world. Half the boomers won’t be able to retire now and retirement will disappear from our vocabulary.

You say a lot of dumb sh$t

 

[RU-05]

Do you disagree that his actions have a direct impact on the market?

We all know tariffs are having a negative impact on the market.

And I won't complain if anyone says it.

 

[vkj91]

I certainly hope that’s not part of the plan. So much cheap garbage produced in China that ends up in our landfills. Not to mention the environmental impact manufacturing would have in the U.S.

You think manufacturing remain the US would be worse for global climate than places like China and India? You can’t be serious.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Thankfully I haven't bought DECK or LULU yet, but I'm watching closely.

I think NKE would have a better shot of dealing with these issues than the smaller companies like DECK, ONON etc.. It'll still be a long road back though because they have other issues on top the tariffs.

On another note in the sea of red, just noticed tried and true staple ad Buffett favorite like KO is just around ATHs.

 

[RU-05]

well it is what it is now and the markets now know. So that is a good thing. There is certainly a plan here. Seatbelts mandatory until we get through the turbulence.

I don't think these are truly locked in. Now starts the negotiations with individual nations.

 

[T2Kplus20]

I doubt much will get approved by the current FDA.

I was hoping/assuming they decision was already baked. But yes, losing Peter Marks is a major blow to biotech (including my own company).

 

[T2Kplus20]

I bought a little last night, RIVN and META.

Will probably buy a little more today, but definitely not jumping in with both feet.

My big issue with RIVN is its production capacity. Aren't they capped? What is the plan to scape to 250,000 vehicles and beyond? Have you been tracking this? I believe its second plant was delayed. Regardless, love the product!

 

[RU-05]

I certainly hope that’s not part of the plan. So much cheap garbage produced in China that ends up in our landfills. Not to mention the environmental impact manufacturing would have in the U.S.

You think manufacturing remain the US would be worse for global climate than places like China and India? You can’t be serious.

Definitely not relevant to this thread.

 

[RU-05]

My big issue with RIVN is its production capacity. Aren't they capped? What is the plan to scape to 250,000 vehicles and beyond? Have you been tracking this? I believe its second plant was delayed. Regardless, love the product!

Pretty sure the building of that plant is ongoing, checked on it last week. Though I don't think it comes on line for at least a year.

Edit: 2026

Rivian (RIVN) is preparing to launch R2: Here's the latest update on its progress

Rivian is still on track to launch the midsize R2 next year. The expansion at its Normal, Illinois, plant is...

electrek.co

 

[vkj91]

Definitely not relevant to this thread.

Moving manufacturing back to the US isn’t good for the economy? A country with regulations isn’t good for the environment? A healthy environment isn’t good for the economy? This thread is far passed I like stock x or y

 

[T2Kplus20]

From Tom Lee last night (just posting the text):

The unveiling of new U.S. tariff terms has jolted markets, but the extreme nature of the proposed measures points to a high likelihood that these will ultimately prove short-lived.

• The White House announced sweeping new tariffs that sparked a sharp market reaction, but deeper analysis reveals their foundation is shaky.
  – The baseline 10% tariff on all imports was initially perceived as a relief, given higher expectations.
  – However, an additional country-specific surcharge based on a dubious “reciprocal tariff” formula radically changes the narrative.
  – These reciprocal rates are based on a strange calculation derived from the U.S. trade deficit divided by import value.
  – For instance, this approach attributes a 67% rate to China, 39% to the EU, and 46% to Japan. These figures reflect an effort to impose leverage rather than economic realism.
• The proposed tariff methodology indicates the White House is posturing for negotiation rather than enforcement.
  – Key exemptions for semiconductors, critical minerals, energy, and pharmaceuticals suggest recognition of strategic supply chain priorities—particularly around AI infrastructure.
  – Moreover, the staggered implementation dates—April 5 for the baseline tariff and April 9 for the country-specific duties—give trading partners a narrow window to respond.
  – The executive order even leaves room to scale back penalties if “significant steps” are taken by counterparties.
• The potential for negotiation is further reinforced by public statements from President Trump, who framed the tariffs as a retaliatory measure meant to encourage reciprocal trade rather than escalate tensions.
  – Trump’s direct invitation to foreign leaders to “terminate your own tariffs” and pursue fairer trade signals an openness to deal-making.
  – That’s supported by early responses: India and Israel have pledged to drop tariffs by April 9, Canada has issued conciliatory remarks, and South Korea plans to negotiate.
  – These developments suggest that a majority of affected nations will pursue diplomacy over retaliation.
• Supporting this interpretation, analysis shows the burden of these tariffs is highly concentrated.
  – Just six countries account for 70% of the implied duties, highlighting how a few key deals could defuse much of the pressure.
  – Countries in Latin America, by contrast, are mostly seeing a flat 10% rate—raising the possibility that supply chains may be intentionally steered toward friendlier regions.
• Further backing the argument for a short lifespan of these tariffs is the result of a recent NYT-cited trade war simulation.
  – Trade experts role-played a global trade confrontation and found that negotiations led to de-escalation. In the simulation, most countries ultimately dropped tariffs against the U.S., implying that aggressive posturing followed by bilateral agreements is a viable—and even likely—outcome.
  – The key insight was that the U.S. maintains the upper hand as the world’s largest consumer market, and reciprocal tariffs are more persuasive than punitive when used as leverage in bilateral talks.
• From a market perspective, the initial reaction to these tariff announcements was sharply negative, with equity futures plunging after-hours.
  – However, investors appear to be reassessing. The VIX term structure surged post-close, but this steep curve often precedes mean reversion and a return to risk appetite.
  – Additionally, inflation expectations remain anchored—1-year forward inflation breakevens have declined even as tariff rhetoric intensified—undermining the argument that tariffs will be structurally inflationary.
• Stocks may also be mispricing the political strategy behind these tariffs.
  – President Trump has clear incentives to boost markets and attract investment into U.S. manufacturing ahead of a potential re-election.
  – Tariffs could be used as a cudgel to force concessions and generate domestic economic activity, including new factory builds.
  – These market-positive motives clash with fears of prolonged trade disruption.
• Upcoming key events this week include the March nonfarm payrolls report and remarks from Fed Chair Powell—both of which could re-anchor investor focus on domestic fundamentals.

Bottom Line: negative surprise today but stay on target as tariff announcement suggests deal-making over trade war

 

[DHajekRC84]

I don't think these are truly locked in. Now starts the negotiations with individual nations.

Yes, this is true. I was more referring to seeing the exact numbers and starting point. There is certainly lots more movement to take place. Hopefully more better and less worse.

 

[RU-05]

Moving manufacturing back to the US isn’t good for the economy? A country with regulations isn’t good for the environment? A healthy environment isn’t good for the economy? This thread is far passed I like stock x or y

So you are intent on taking it down the path you were on?

Please, take it to the CE.

 

[RU-05]

Yes, this is true. I was more referring to seeing the exact numbers and starting point. There is certainly lots more movement to take place. Hopefully more better and less worse.

I think these are the high water mark. From here, we will see deals where the concessions are more favorable to the markets.

 

[DHajekRC84]

From Tom Lee last night (just posting the text):

The unveiling of new U.S. tariff terms has jolted markets, but the extreme nature of the proposed measures points to a high likelihood that these will ultimately prove short-lived.

• The White House announced sweeping new tariffs that sparked a sharp market reaction, but deeper analysis reveals their foundation is shaky.
  – The baseline 10% tariff on all imports was initially perceived as a relief, given higher expectations.
  – However, an additional country-specific surcharge based on a dubious “reciprocal tariff” formula radically changes the narrative.
  – These reciprocal rates are based on a strange calculation derived from the U.S. trade deficit divided by import value.
  – For instance, this approach attributes a 67% rate to China, 39% to the EU, and 46% to Japan. These figures reflect an effort to impose leverage rather than economic realism.
• The proposed tariff methodology indicates the White House is posturing for negotiation rather than enforcement.
  – Key exemptions for semiconductors, critical minerals, energy, and pharmaceuticals suggest recognition of strategic supply chain priorities—particularly around AI infrastructure.
  – Moreover, the staggered implementation dates—April 5 for the baseline tariff and April 9 for the country-specific duties—give trading partners a narrow window to respond.
  – The executive order even leaves room to scale back penalties if “significant steps” are taken by counterparties.
• The potential for negotiation is further reinforced by public statements from President Trump, who framed the tariffs as a retaliatory measure meant to encourage reciprocal trade rather than escalate tensions.
  – Trump’s direct invitation to foreign leaders to “terminate your own tariffs” and pursue fairer trade signals an openness to deal-making.
  – That’s supported by early responses: India and Israel have pledged to drop tariffs by April 9, Canada has issued conciliatory remarks, and South Korea plans to negotiate.
  – These developments suggest that a majority of affected nations will pursue diplomacy over retaliation.
• Supporting this interpretation, analysis shows the burden of these tariffs is highly concentrated.
  – Just six countries account for 70% of the implied duties, highlighting how a few key deals could defuse much of the pressure.
  – Countries in Latin America, by contrast, are mostly seeing a flat 10% rate—raising the possibility that supply chains may be intentionally steered toward friendlier regions.
• Further backing the argument for a short lifespan of these tariffs is the result of a recent NYT-cited trade war simulation.
  – Trade experts role-played a global trade confrontation and found that negotiations led to de-escalation. In the simulation, most countries ultimately dropped tariffs against the U.S., implying that aggressive posturing followed by bilateral agreements is a viable—and even likely—outcome.
  – The key insight was that the U.S. maintains the upper hand as the world’s largest consumer market, and reciprocal tariffs are more persuasive than punitive when used as leverage in bilateral talks.
• From a market perspective, the initial reaction to these tariff announcements was sharply negative, with equity futures plunging after-hours.
  – However, investors appear to be reassessing. The VIX term structure surged post-close, but this steep curve often precedes mean reversion and a return to risk appetite.
  – Additionally, inflation expectations remain anchored—1-year forward inflation breakevens have declined even as tariff rhetoric intensified—undermining the argument that tariffs will be structurally inflationary.
• Stocks may also be mispricing the political strategy behind these tariffs.
  – President Trump has clear incentives to boost markets and attract investment into U.S. manufacturing ahead of a potential re-election.
  – Tariffs could be used as a cudgel to force concessions and generate domestic economic activity, including new factory builds.
  – These market-positive motives clash with fears of prolonged trade disruption.
• Upcoming key events this week include the March nonfarm payrolls report and remarks from Fed Chair Powell—both of which could re-anchor investor focus on domestic fundamentals.

Bottom Line: negative surprise today but stay on target as tariff announcement suggests deal-making over trade war

Like and get it. The question is (IMHO) do enough of the folks who are impacting the markets get it. And if not how long will it take them to get it. I honestly thought (and had posted) that I thought the worst had come and after listening yesterday we have a positive feeling. Boy was I wrong .

 

[DHajekRC84]

I think these are the high water mark. From here, we will see deals where the concessions are more favorable to the markets.

They even said that prior ("caps"). But I don't know if the market will react with a positive moves in increments after each deal is made. Gonna take something big. I mean even the exemption of Canada and Mexico seemed to get overlooked.
OK, I'll stop so I don't cross whatever lines there are here for Stock picks only vs. economic banter.

 

[vkj91]

So you are intent on taking it down the path you were on?

Please, take it to the CE.

I’m not sure how asking how manufacturing returning to the US is bad thing is a CE topic.

 

[jtung230]

From Tom Lee last night (just posting the text):

The unveiling of new U.S. tariff terms has jolted markets, but the extreme nature of the proposed measures points to a high likelihood that these will ultimately prove short-lived.

• The White House announced sweeping new tariffs that sparked a sharp market reaction, but deeper analysis reveals their foundation is shaky.
  – The baseline 10% tariff on all imports was initially perceived as a relief, given higher expectations.
  – However, an additional country-specific surcharge based on a dubious “reciprocal tariff” formula radically changes the narrative.
  – These reciprocal rates are based on a strange calculation derived from the U.S. trade deficit divided by import value.
  – For instance, this approach attributes a 67% rate to China, 39% to the EU, and 46% to Japan. These figures reflect an effort to impose leverage rather than economic realism.
• The proposed tariff methodology indicates the White House is posturing for negotiation rather than enforcement.
  – Key exemptions for semiconductors, critical minerals, energy, and pharmaceuticals suggest recognition of strategic supply chain priorities—particularly around AI infrastructure.
  – Moreover, the staggered implementation dates—April 5 for the baseline tariff and April 9 for the country-specific duties—give trading partners a narrow window to respond.
  – The executive order even leaves room to scale back penalties if “significant steps” are taken by counterparties.
• The potential for negotiation is further reinforced by public statements from President Trump, who framed the tariffs as a retaliatory measure meant to encourage reciprocal trade rather than escalate tensions.
  – Trump’s direct invitation to foreign leaders to “terminate your own tariffs” and pursue fairer trade signals an openness to deal-making.
  – That’s supported by early responses: India and Israel have pledged to drop tariffs by April 9, Canada has issued conciliatory remarks, and South Korea plans to negotiate.
  – These developments suggest that a majority of affected nations will pursue diplomacy over retaliation.
• Supporting this interpretation, analysis shows the burden of these tariffs is highly concentrated.
  – Just six countries account for 70% of the implied duties, highlighting how a few key deals could defuse much of the pressure.
  – Countries in Latin America, by contrast, are mostly seeing a flat 10% rate—raising the possibility that supply chains may be intentionally steered toward friendlier regions.
• Further backing the argument for a short lifespan of these tariffs is the result of a recent NYT-cited trade war simulation.
  – Trade experts role-played a global trade confrontation and found that negotiations led to de-escalation. In the simulation, most countries ultimately dropped tariffs against the U.S., implying that aggressive posturing followed by bilateral agreements is a viable—and even likely—outcome.
  – The key insight was that the U.S. maintains the upper hand as the world’s largest consumer market, and reciprocal tariffs are more persuasive than punitive when used as leverage in bilateral talks.
• From a market perspective, the initial reaction to these tariff announcements was sharply negative, with equity futures plunging after-hours.
  – However, investors appear to be reassessing. The VIX term structure surged post-close, but this steep curve often precedes mean reversion and a return to risk appetite.
  – Additionally, inflation expectations remain anchored—1-year forward inflation breakevens have declined even as tariff rhetoric intensified—undermining the argument that tariffs will be structurally inflationary.
• Stocks may also be mispricing the political strategy behind these tariffs.
  – President Trump has clear incentives to boost markets and attract investment into U.S. manufacturing ahead of a potential re-election.
  – Tariffs could be used as a cudgel to force concessions and generate domestic economic activity, including new factory builds.
  – These market-positive motives clash with fears of prolonged trade disruption.
• Upcoming key events this week include the March nonfarm payrolls report and remarks from Fed Chair Powell—both of which could re-anchor investor focus on domestic fundamentals.

Bottom Line: negative surprise today but stay on target as tariff announcement suggests deal-making over trade war

He is always right when the market goes up.

 

[RU205]

I don't think these are truly locked in. Now starts the negotiations with individual nations.

Nothing is locked in and it can change daily from here.

 

[RU848789]

Tariffs aren't all "bad" but indiscriminate, poorly calculated/planned tariffs quite possibly will tip the world economy into a recession, as many economists/financial analysts are saying is more likely now (CNBC link below). Paul Krugman, economics nobel laureate, does a superb job of explaining how ridiculously high the tariffs are, historically (highest in over 100 years as per the graphic below; JP Morgan called it the highest US tax increase in over 50 years), how poorly reasoned these tariffs are, being based more on balancing trade deficits than actual reciprocal tariffs and completely ignoring services in the calculations (only physical goods were included, not services, like software, computer licensing, financial services, travel etc., where we run huge surpluses with most countries; see the graphic below), and how unnecessary they are, given that our economy has been the strongest in the world for some time. Even 4 Republican Senators broke with Trump last night in passing a resolution to at least block the tariffs on Canada. This is not going to end well.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/03/abs...ement-analysts-react-to-latest-us-levies.html

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/will-careless-stupidity-kill-the

 

[RU-05]

They even said that prior ("caps"). But I don't know if the market will react with a positive moves in increments after each deal is made. Gonna take something big. I mean even the exemption of Canada and Mexico seemed to get overlooked.
OK, I'll stop so I don't cross whatever lines there are here for Stock picks only vs. economic banter.

I think incremental steps upward are certainly possible. It's how the market typically moves anyways.

But the economic banter is fine.

I think everyone knows when the line has been crossed into CE board garbage. Some people are just all too willing to cross the line.

 

[ScarletNut]

In case anyone was wondering if the numbers in the blue column are real tariffs, they aren't. Big surprise.

View embedded media

You realize that trade deficits cause those countries to buy US treasuries, thereby lowering interest rates in this country? Now those investments will be severely curtailed.

 

[vkj91]

Tariffs aren't all "bad" but indiscriminate, poorly calculated/planned tariffs quite possibly will tip the world economy into a recession, as many economists/financial analysts are saying is more likely now (CNBC link below). Paul Krugman, economics nobel laureate, does a superb job of explaining how ridiculously high the tariffs are, historically (highest in over 100 years as per the graphic below; JP Morgan called it the highest US tax increase in over 50 years), how poorly reasoned these tariffs are, being based more on balancing trade deficits than actual reciprocal tariffs and completely ignoring services in the calculations (only physical goods were included, not services, like software, computer licensing, financial services, travel etc., where we run huge surpluses with most countries; see the graphic below), and how unnecessary they are, given that our economy has been the strongest in the world for some time. Even 4 Republican Senators broke with Trump last night in passing a resolution to at least block the tariffs on Canada. This is not going to end well.

https://www.cnbc.com/2025/04/03/abs...ement-analysts-react-to-latest-us-levies.html

https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/will-careless-stupidity-kill-the

Paul Krugman been saying Trump
Was gonna ruin the economy since 2016. You could have just bumped your posts from then instead of being wrong twice.
@RU-05 see now that’s a CE level post by both of us. I look forward to you reprimanding him.

 

[BossNJ]

I think incremental steps upward are certainly possible. It's how the market typically moves anyways.

But the economic banter is fine.

I think everyone knows when the line has been crossed into CE board garbage. Some people are just all too willing to cross the line.

Ironic that many people referring to “CE board garbage” are active posters there

 

[RU-05]

Paul Krugman been saying Trump
Was gonna ruin the economy since 2016. You could have just bumped your posts from then instead of being wrong twice.
@RU-05 see now that’s a CE level post by both of us. I look forward to you reprimanding him.

I actually thought his post and your reply were within the bounds.

Though I imagine it was likely to devolve.

 

[RU-05]

Ironic that many people referring to “CE board garbage” are active posters there

Whatever.

Just try to keep it stocks/the markets/investing.

 

[rutgersguy1]

Staples, utilities, telcos in the green, much of pharma too at the open.