Originally posted by GoBabyGo:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by GoBabyGo:
[/QUOTE]I think we agree on something however Schiff is right on about the USD. With us being about 100 Trillion (Its like Monopoly money) in debt I do not see how this will resolve itself without
1) Scraping the USD or
2) Telling the FED f you the Govt is not paying you back come take it we still have the military to enforce it and the govt can always seize the FED to wipe out it debt. imho [/QUOTE]I think you are totally off the mark with the two options you list. However, if you are right, you better have two things. Gold and a gun.
Stock Market
-
Navel Lint
- Posts: 1723
- Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2007 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Stock Market
Russel -Navel Lint
"Fans don't boo nobodies"
-Reggie Jackson
"Fans don't boo nobodies"
-Reggie Jackson
Stock Market
The dollar is likely to get whacked at some point once the massive dollar injections start going into the economy rather than just sitting in bank reserves. However, he's been preaching a weak dollar forever and he gets in trouble because he relies on simple principles while ignoring many other relevant factors.
Debt de-leveraging actually caused the dollar to strengthen last year, and dollar dilution doesn't take until those dollars get into the economy.
Debt de-leveraging actually caused the dollar to strengthen last year, and dollar dilution doesn't take until those dollars get into the economy.
-
sportsbettingman
- Posts: 3038
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Stock Market
I'm just some dumb guy who started to read up on economics, history and such a year ago.
One thing that seems to spark my interest is how everything I've read, from many different views...points to tough times just starting, and possible 2 to 3 years of tough times. Who knows what purchasing power the dollar will have in 12 months?
I see ever increasing commercials for Cash for Gold...even during the Superbowl (and you know how much that costs). The target audience (judging by the way they approach the making of their commercials) is toward poor and uneducated people.
I think to myself...why is the rush to purchase gold and precious jewelry back from the poor masses at an all time high in advertisement, right before the dollar takes a **** ? Do they want that gold in their hands, and pieces of worthless paper in the hands of the masses?
Hmmmm.
~Lance
One thing that seems to spark my interest is how everything I've read, from many different views...points to tough times just starting, and possible 2 to 3 years of tough times. Who knows what purchasing power the dollar will have in 12 months?
I see ever increasing commercials for Cash for Gold...even during the Superbowl (and you know how much that costs). The target audience (judging by the way they approach the making of their commercials) is toward poor and uneducated people.
I think to myself...why is the rush to purchase gold and precious jewelry back from the poor masses at an all time high in advertisement, right before the dollar takes a **** ? Do they want that gold in their hands, and pieces of worthless paper in the hands of the masses?
Hmmmm.
~Lance
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once."
~Albert Einstein
~Albert Einstein
-
sportsbettingman
- Posts: 3038
- Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Stock Market
Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
A growing trend that people think they're finding "answers" on the internet.
Sad.
More opinions, yes, and most of them short sighted and designed to arouse emotion.
Answers? No. I do not agree.
One thing I will say is you get fed what the big business owned media wants to feed you when you watch the major networks.
Watching some different european news on the internet gives you better news imo. Having any topic you wish to read or watch on demand via the internet is way more efficient that Tivo or hoping something worth watching makes it on in a given month.
Public TV sometimes has value.
~Lance
A growing trend that people think they're finding "answers" on the internet.
Sad.
More opinions, yes, and most of them short sighted and designed to arouse emotion.
Answers? No. I do not agree.
One thing I will say is you get fed what the big business owned media wants to feed you when you watch the major networks.
Watching some different european news on the internet gives you better news imo. Having any topic you wish to read or watch on demand via the internet is way more efficient that Tivo or hoping something worth watching makes it on in a given month.
Public TV sometimes has value.
~Lance
"The only reason for time is so that everything doesn't happen at once."
~Albert Einstein
~Albert Einstein
Stock Market
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by GoBabyGo:
I gather you are not a fan of Peter Schiff, gerald Celente, Bob Chapman but a fan of Kudlow and Cramer yes? Schiff is an ideological speculator. Ridiculous to invest with someone like that. He's good at spinning his ideolody because it never changes, eventually guys like that hit it right. But its about as prescient as me saying the stock market will have a good year at some point in the next decade. He flat out stinks as a money manager as his clients can attest.
I don't know the other two guys after him. Kudlow is another ideologue - sometimes interesting, sometimes annoying, but I don't take him seriously.
Kramer is a freakin joke. He doesnt know how to manage money - the fact that people actually take his advice is just sad ... see my earlier comment about self-directed IRAs, he is not helping the cause. [/QUOTE]Thank god sombody else realizes Cramer for what he is. A self serving ego driven front running detriment to the investing public. Oops, you may not have said all that, but I did.
[ February 06, 2009, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Vander ]
quote:Originally posted by GoBabyGo:
I gather you are not a fan of Peter Schiff, gerald Celente, Bob Chapman but a fan of Kudlow and Cramer yes? Schiff is an ideological speculator. Ridiculous to invest with someone like that. He's good at spinning his ideolody because it never changes, eventually guys like that hit it right. But its about as prescient as me saying the stock market will have a good year at some point in the next decade. He flat out stinks as a money manager as his clients can attest.
I don't know the other two guys after him. Kudlow is another ideologue - sometimes interesting, sometimes annoying, but I don't take him seriously.
Kramer is a freakin joke. He doesnt know how to manage money - the fact that people actually take his advice is just sad ... see my earlier comment about self-directed IRAs, he is not helping the cause. [/QUOTE]Thank god sombody else realizes Cramer for what he is. A self serving ego driven front running detriment to the investing public. Oops, you may not have said all that, but I did.
[ February 06, 2009, 04:30 PM: Message edited by: Vander ]
Stock Market
Originally posted by sportsbettingman:
quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
A growing trend that people think they're finding "answers" on the internet.
Sad.
More opinions, yes, and most of them short sighted and designed to arouse emotion.
Answers? No. I do not agree.
One thing I will say is you get fed what the big business owned media wants to feed you when you watch the major networks.
Watching some different european news on the internet gives you better news imo. Having any topic you wish to read or watch on demand via the internet is way more efficient that Tivo or hoping something worth watching makes it on in a given month.
Public TV sometimes has value.
~Lance [/QUOTE]2 good points SBM. Public television is pretty good. The news wirh jim Leher is probably the best news show out there. CNN or the NY Times are not exactly unbiased news. CNBC is good for business news. Ignore anything Cramer says as self serving propaganda. As for gold, I think they do pander to the uninformed. I don't think they care whether the price goes up or down though. The usual way they go about business is if gold is $900/ounce they'll pay $850 to whoever sends them gold and turn around and sell it for $950. Why would people pay $950 when it's going for $900? As Sydney Greenstreet once said Carrying changes my boy, carrying charges. They can get it and try to buy gold at the current going price. Good luck.
[ February 06, 2009, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Vander ]
quote:Originally posted by DOUGHBOYS:
A growing trend that people think they're finding "answers" on the internet.
Sad.
More opinions, yes, and most of them short sighted and designed to arouse emotion.
Answers? No. I do not agree.
One thing I will say is you get fed what the big business owned media wants to feed you when you watch the major networks.
Watching some different european news on the internet gives you better news imo. Having any topic you wish to read or watch on demand via the internet is way more efficient that Tivo or hoping something worth watching makes it on in a given month.
Public TV sometimes has value.
~Lance [/QUOTE]2 good points SBM. Public television is pretty good. The news wirh jim Leher is probably the best news show out there. CNN or the NY Times are not exactly unbiased news. CNBC is good for business news. Ignore anything Cramer says as self serving propaganda. As for gold, I think they do pander to the uninformed. I don't think they care whether the price goes up or down though. The usual way they go about business is if gold is $900/ounce they'll pay $850 to whoever sends them gold and turn around and sell it for $950. Why would people pay $950 when it's going for $900? As Sydney Greenstreet once said Carrying changes my boy, carrying charges. They can get it and try to buy gold at the current going price. Good luck.
[ February 06, 2009, 04:40 PM: Message edited by: Vander ]
Stock Market
1 more piece of advice. Wherever you get your news or information from think it through yourself. Does this make sense? What will be the consiquences. How has this done in the past. As somebody smarter than me once said history doesn't repeat itself, but it sure does rhyme. Samual Clemens I believe.
Stock Market
Originally posted by Vander:
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by GoBabyGo:
I gather you are not a fan of Peter Schiff, gerald Celente, Bob Chapman but a fan of Kudlow and Cramer yes? Schiff is an ideological speculator. Ridiculous to invest with someone like that. He's good at spinning his ideolody because it never changes, eventually guys like that hit it right. But its about as prescient as me saying the stock market will have a good year at some point in the next decade. He flat out stinks as a money manager as his clients can attest.
I don't know the other two guys after him. Kudlow is another ideologue - sometimes interesting, sometimes annoying, but I don't take him seriously.
Kramer is a freakin joke. He doesnt know how to manage money - the fact that people actually take his advice is just sad ... see my earlier comment about self-directed IRAs, he is not helping the cause. [/QUOTE]Thank god sombody else realizes Cramer for what he is. A self serving ego driven front running detriment to the investing public. Oops, you may not have said all that, but I did. [/QUOTE]Nothing beats the Wall Street Journal...
And on the point around Cramer, I have met him in person for a deal I did him TD Ameritrade, and www.cool-trade.com. He was actually quite nice in person, and had fantastic knowledge of stocks. I literally sat for 30-45 minutes talking stocks and he knew the details on company after company. That isn't to say he is a money manager - he really is trying to entertain and educate
Frankly the fact that people watch the show and learn alittle about investing is exciting, this country needs to spend more time learning about things, and less time watching "The Bachelor" imho...
quote:Originally posted by KJ Duke:
quote:Originally posted by GoBabyGo:
I gather you are not a fan of Peter Schiff, gerald Celente, Bob Chapman but a fan of Kudlow and Cramer yes? Schiff is an ideological speculator. Ridiculous to invest with someone like that. He's good at spinning his ideolody because it never changes, eventually guys like that hit it right. But its about as prescient as me saying the stock market will have a good year at some point in the next decade. He flat out stinks as a money manager as his clients can attest.
I don't know the other two guys after him. Kudlow is another ideologue - sometimes interesting, sometimes annoying, but I don't take him seriously.
Kramer is a freakin joke. He doesnt know how to manage money - the fact that people actually take his advice is just sad ... see my earlier comment about self-directed IRAs, he is not helping the cause. [/QUOTE]Thank god sombody else realizes Cramer for what he is. A self serving ego driven front running detriment to the investing public. Oops, you may not have said all that, but I did. [/QUOTE]Nothing beats the Wall Street Journal...
And on the point around Cramer, I have met him in person for a deal I did him TD Ameritrade, and www.cool-trade.com. He was actually quite nice in person, and had fantastic knowledge of stocks. I literally sat for 30-45 minutes talking stocks and he knew the details on company after company. That isn't to say he is a money manager - he really is trying to entertain and educate
Frankly the fact that people watch the show and learn alittle about investing is exciting, this country needs to spend more time learning about things, and less time watching "The Bachelor" imho...
-
Gordon Gekko II
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:00 pm
Stock Market
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – More than 200,000 state government employees were expected to stay home without pay Friday as California began its first-ever furlough, a move intended to save money during an ongoing fiscal crisis.
Some people said the state gave little notice to the public about the furloughs, which will continue on the first and third Fridays of each month through June 2010 .
Some people said the state gave little notice to the public about the furloughs, which will continue on the first and third Fridays of each month through June 2010 .
Stock Market
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko II:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – More than 200,000 state government employees were expected to stay home without pay Friday as California began its first-ever furlough, a move intended to save money during an ongoing fiscal crisis.
Some people said the state gave little notice to the public about the furloughs, which will continue on the first and third Fridays of each month through June 2010 . They posted signs where they were hard for any customers to see/notice. Ya can't beat the effectiveness of a motivated government worker.
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – More than 200,000 state government employees were expected to stay home without pay Friday as California began its first-ever furlough, a move intended to save money during an ongoing fiscal crisis.
Some people said the state gave little notice to the public about the furloughs, which will continue on the first and third Fridays of each month through June 2010 . They posted signs where they were hard for any customers to see/notice. Ya can't beat the effectiveness of a motivated government worker.
Stock Market
Originally posted by Gordon Gekko II:
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – More than 200,000 state government employees were expected to stay home without pay Friday as California began its first-ever furlough, a move intended to save money during an ongoing fiscal crisis.
Some people said the state gave little notice to the public about the furloughs, which will continue on the first and third Fridays of each month through June 2010 . Interesting. Last summer we froze wages for a year. Then we stopped matching 401K contributions. Then we had a couple of rounds of layoffs. More recently we implemented 10 days off without pay for each employee to take between Jan 1st and April 30th. I personally heard from a dozen or more employees that they were happy to take the time off without pay because they feared more layoffs. As part of the decision making team, we comitted to keeping the remaining employees because we will need them when business picks up again.
On a more positive note, a few days after we decided to cease with the layoffs and implement the "no pay" plan instead, we booked two major projects. We are also starting to see proposal activity pick up nicely. Maybe, just maybe, the light in the tunnel is not a train heading directly at us.
Pete
SACRAMENTO, Calif. – More than 200,000 state government employees were expected to stay home without pay Friday as California began its first-ever furlough, a move intended to save money during an ongoing fiscal crisis.
Some people said the state gave little notice to the public about the furloughs, which will continue on the first and third Fridays of each month through June 2010 . Interesting. Last summer we froze wages for a year. Then we stopped matching 401K contributions. Then we had a couple of rounds of layoffs. More recently we implemented 10 days off without pay for each employee to take between Jan 1st and April 30th. I personally heard from a dozen or more employees that they were happy to take the time off without pay because they feared more layoffs. As part of the decision making team, we comitted to keeping the remaining employees because we will need them when business picks up again.
On a more positive note, a few days after we decided to cease with the layoffs and implement the "no pay" plan instead, we booked two major projects. We are also starting to see proposal activity pick up nicely. Maybe, just maybe, the light in the tunnel is not a train heading directly at us.
Pete
OK - So I'm not as good as I thought I was; but at least I am consistent.
-
Gordon Gekko II
- Posts: 1941
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 6:00 pm
Stock Market
Definition of Socialism
NOUN:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
NOUN:
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
Stock Market
KJ DUKE and all the rest what are your thoughts on Gerald Celente on Alex Jones?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NsjK4E7q1A
This is part 1 of 5 watch all 5. This guy called the crash of 1987. I do understand the Stock Market is your Business however try to give me a fair analysis other an a pollyannna one. Thanks.
[ February 07, 2009, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: GoBabyGo ]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NsjK4E7q1A
This is part 1 of 5 watch all 5. This guy called the crash of 1987. I do understand the Stock Market is your Business however try to give me a fair analysis other an a pollyannna one. Thanks.
[ February 07, 2009, 08:43 PM: Message edited by: GoBabyGo ]
GoBabyGo
Stock Market
Polyanna ... you think I'm a freakin idiot? You don't prosper in this business by being unrealistic in either direction, unless your game is to raise money by preying on investors' fear or greed (ala Peter Schiff). Which is why guys like that drive me crazy. They grandstand by making outrageous calls which are sometimes correct, then find every media outlet they can to proclaim how "right" they were.
We market based on our performance record. (FYI, Nelson's ranked our primary equity strategy in the top 10 among appx 1,500 US managers for 1 and 5 year return thru Q308. And we outperformed in Q4, and so far in Q1 too). Show me this guy's record above ... then decide which of us is blowing smoke.
[ February 07, 2009, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
We market based on our performance record. (FYI, Nelson's ranked our primary equity strategy in the top 10 among appx 1,500 US managers for 1 and 5 year return thru Q308. And we outperformed in Q4, and so far in Q1 too). Show me this guy's record above ... then decide which of us is blowing smoke.
[ February 07, 2009, 09:52 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
-
King of Queens
- Posts: 3602
- Joined: Wed Feb 04, 2004 6:00 pm
- Contact:
Stock Market
Good article on Cramer in today's Barron's -- "still underperforming" 
Stock Market
Gerald Celente from today !! WOW
Here is part 1 then listen to part 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TdkcDkoVHY
Here is part 1 then listen to part 2.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TdkcDkoVHY
GoBabyGo
Stock Market
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
Polyanna ... you think I'm a freakin idiot? You don't prosper in this business by being unrealistic in either direction, unless your game is to raise money by preying on investors' fear or greed (ala Peter Schiff). Which is why guys like that drive me crazy. They grandstand by making outrageous calls which are sometimes correct, then find every media outlet they can to proclaim how "right" they were.
We market based on our performance record. (FYI, Nelson's ranked our primary equity strategy in the top 10 among appx 1,500 US managers for 1 and 5 year return thru Q308. And we outperformed in Q4, and so far in Q1 too). Show me this guy's record above ... then decide which of us is blowing smoke. Easy buddy. I just wanted a fair assessment. I get a sense that you believe WALL ST is not the problem. There is a total dis-connect with Wall ST and Main ST. Before you response listen to Celente (that I just posted) and after you listen to it tell me the guy is 100% wrong and why.
Polyanna ... you think I'm a freakin idiot? You don't prosper in this business by being unrealistic in either direction, unless your game is to raise money by preying on investors' fear or greed (ala Peter Schiff). Which is why guys like that drive me crazy. They grandstand by making outrageous calls which are sometimes correct, then find every media outlet they can to proclaim how "right" they were.
We market based on our performance record. (FYI, Nelson's ranked our primary equity strategy in the top 10 among appx 1,500 US managers for 1 and 5 year return thru Q308. And we outperformed in Q4, and so far in Q1 too). Show me this guy's record above ... then decide which of us is blowing smoke. Easy buddy. I just wanted a fair assessment. I get a sense that you believe WALL ST is not the problem. There is a total dis-connect with Wall ST and Main ST. Before you response listen to Celente (that I just posted) and after you listen to it tell me the guy is 100% wrong and why.
GoBabyGo
Stock Market
OK, I spent 10 minutes with this guy. He says some things that are obvious and correct, then mixes in drama and speculation. I can't tell you he is 100% wrong, because much of what he says is speculation about the future than cannot be confirmed nor denied, and other is just a matter of degree and opinion.
For example, he says Wall Street is controlling Washington. Really? I thought Congress was, or lobbyists, or the CIA/FBI, or the mafai, or big business, or the liberal elite, or the religious right, or foreign interests. That kind of statement is just hyberbole to get people riled up. Do I like the Goldman connection running through Paulson, Geithner, Rubin, etc? No, I don't. And I said that to people before there was a peep about it from anyone in the media. I think Paulson was intent on doing what was in the best interest of Goldman ahead of anything else, but he could care less about Lehman and every other investment banker until the risk became systemic thus threatening the GS regime.
My prediction: the economy will stink in the first half, it will stink less in the second half - and smallcap stocks will lead the market higher this year. There will not be mass rioting, and we will not become a police state.
[ February 07, 2009, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
For example, he says Wall Street is controlling Washington. Really? I thought Congress was, or lobbyists, or the CIA/FBI, or the mafai, or big business, or the liberal elite, or the religious right, or foreign interests. That kind of statement is just hyberbole to get people riled up. Do I like the Goldman connection running through Paulson, Geithner, Rubin, etc? No, I don't. And I said that to people before there was a peep about it from anyone in the media. I think Paulson was intent on doing what was in the best interest of Goldman ahead of anything else, but he could care less about Lehman and every other investment banker until the risk became systemic thus threatening the GS regime.
My prediction: the economy will stink in the first half, it will stink less in the second half - and smallcap stocks will lead the market higher this year. There will not be mass rioting, and we will not become a police state.
[ February 07, 2009, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Stock Market
I am not a Wall Street defender. Having a realistic view of the economy and the markets does not mean one is supportive of corruption and incompetence.
Stock Market
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
OK, I spent 10 minutes with this guy. He says some things that are obvious and correct, then mixes in drama and speculation. I can't tell you he is 100% wrong, because much of what he says is speculation about the future than cannot be confirmed nor denied, and other is just a matter of degree and opinion.
For example, he says Wall Street is controlling Washington. Really? I thought Congress was, or lobbyists, or the CIA/FBI, or the mafai, or big business, or the liberal elite, or the religious right, or foreign interests. That kind of statement is just hyberbole to get people riled up. Do I like the Goldman connection running through Paulson, Geithner, Rubin, etc? No, I don't. And I said that to people before there was a peep about it from anyone in the media. I think Paulson was intent on doing what was in the best interest of Goldman ahead of anything else, but he could care less about Lehman and every other investment banker until the risk became systemic thus threatening the GS regime.
My prediction: the economy will stink in the first half, it will stink less in the second half - and smallcap stocks will lead the market higher this year. There will not be mass rioting, and we will not become a police state. You forgot to mention the World Bank head is a GS guy also. SO the FED running this country still makes no sense to you yet?
Furthermore I see you are predicting of all things small caps to lead the markets higher. Based on your prediction what will be the CATALYST? Especially if so many people are out of work, State Govts are broke to pay unemployments benefits and people cashing in their 401K, stocks etc just to survive. (Because those that were making lets say 80-120K especially on Wall ST are now if they are working making 35-50K yet their expenses are still based on making 80-120K and they are in the red monthly) Am I missing something? The way I see your scenario happening is the PPT (Plunge Protection Team) using the new TARP money (Our Tax money) even more so in the markets ala imho Friday up over 200 pts on the worst data yet AMAZING. (P.S. I do enjoy our chats)
[ February 07, 2009, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: GoBabyGo ]
OK, I spent 10 minutes with this guy. He says some things that are obvious and correct, then mixes in drama and speculation. I can't tell you he is 100% wrong, because much of what he says is speculation about the future than cannot be confirmed nor denied, and other is just a matter of degree and opinion.
For example, he says Wall Street is controlling Washington. Really? I thought Congress was, or lobbyists, or the CIA/FBI, or the mafai, or big business, or the liberal elite, or the religious right, or foreign interests. That kind of statement is just hyberbole to get people riled up. Do I like the Goldman connection running through Paulson, Geithner, Rubin, etc? No, I don't. And I said that to people before there was a peep about it from anyone in the media. I think Paulson was intent on doing what was in the best interest of Goldman ahead of anything else, but he could care less about Lehman and every other investment banker until the risk became systemic thus threatening the GS regime.
My prediction: the economy will stink in the first half, it will stink less in the second half - and smallcap stocks will lead the market higher this year. There will not be mass rioting, and we will not become a police state. You forgot to mention the World Bank head is a GS guy also. SO the FED running this country still makes no sense to you yet?
Furthermore I see you are predicting of all things small caps to lead the markets higher. Based on your prediction what will be the CATALYST? Especially if so many people are out of work, State Govts are broke to pay unemployments benefits and people cashing in their 401K, stocks etc just to survive. (Because those that were making lets say 80-120K especially on Wall ST are now if they are working making 35-50K yet their expenses are still based on making 80-120K and they are in the red monthly) Am I missing something? The way I see your scenario happening is the PPT (Plunge Protection Team) using the new TARP money (Our Tax money) even more so in the markets ala imho Friday up over 200 pts on the worst data yet AMAZING. (P.S. I do enjoy our chats)
[ February 07, 2009, 10:40 PM: Message edited by: GoBabyGo ]
GoBabyGo
Stock Market
The equity market tends to stay ahead of what is happening, it is not coincident with what is happening ... because portfolio managers are anticipating what will happen next, not what is happening now. Valuations and fund flows also are far more critical variable than you are giving them credit for.
My thesis right now is as follows:
In early 2002 the market had been trading down relentlessly. The outlook was bleak. Terrorist attack will change our way of life forever. More are sure to come. Nothing will ever be the same.
We are incompetent at defending ourselves in so many ways - biological, nuclear plant infiltration, electronic communications, unsecure borders, mass transit, etc. We are about to get into a war that we can't win which will cost billions. Then, I think it was March, we invade Iraq. I turn wildly bullish. Many reasons, but to sum up - valuations were too cheap, stocks were washed out, fiscal and monetary stimulus on the way, consumer mood had likely bottomed. George Bush had decided that he would do WHATEVER IT TAKES to win this "unprecedented" war on terrorism.
And now 7 years later ...
The market has been trading down relentlessly. The outlook is bleak. Economic mess will change our way of life forever. More are sure to come. Nothing will ever be the same. We are incompetent at managing the economy and financial system - bailouts, corruption, unemployment. We are about to get into a never-ending loop of bailouts that won't help and will cost billions, check that, trillions. Now, Obama gets elected and has signalled that he will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to turn this "unprecedented" economy around. What do I think about the stock market? Well, valuations are too cheap for many companies, stocks are washed out, even bigger fiscal and monetary stimulus is on the way, and the consumer mood is likely to bottoming.
Now, add to that, liquidity has disappeared from the market, hedge funds are leaning short, no one wants to own cyclical or consumer stocks and portfolio cash levels are probably at record highs. My conclusion: we have the makings of a combustible rally, which in turn will start to lift consumer confidence, business confidence and spending. I could get into a lot other factors, but this is the simplified, big picture thesis.
[ February 07, 2009, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
My thesis right now is as follows:
In early 2002 the market had been trading down relentlessly. The outlook was bleak. Terrorist attack will change our way of life forever. More are sure to come. Nothing will ever be the same.
We are incompetent at defending ourselves in so many ways - biological, nuclear plant infiltration, electronic communications, unsecure borders, mass transit, etc. We are about to get into a war that we can't win which will cost billions. Then, I think it was March, we invade Iraq. I turn wildly bullish. Many reasons, but to sum up - valuations were too cheap, stocks were washed out, fiscal and monetary stimulus on the way, consumer mood had likely bottomed. George Bush had decided that he would do WHATEVER IT TAKES to win this "unprecedented" war on terrorism.
And now 7 years later ...
The market has been trading down relentlessly. The outlook is bleak. Economic mess will change our way of life forever. More are sure to come. Nothing will ever be the same. We are incompetent at managing the economy and financial system - bailouts, corruption, unemployment. We are about to get into a never-ending loop of bailouts that won't help and will cost billions, check that, trillions. Now, Obama gets elected and has signalled that he will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to turn this "unprecedented" economy around. What do I think about the stock market? Well, valuations are too cheap for many companies, stocks are washed out, even bigger fiscal and monetary stimulus is on the way, and the consumer mood is likely to bottoming.
Now, add to that, liquidity has disappeared from the market, hedge funds are leaning short, no one wants to own cyclical or consumer stocks and portfolio cash levels are probably at record highs. My conclusion: we have the makings of a combustible rally, which in turn will start to lift consumer confidence, business confidence and spending. I could get into a lot other factors, but this is the simplified, big picture thesis.
[ February 07, 2009, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Stock Market
And one more thing ... why smallcaps?
a) Smallcaps almost always lead the market coming out of a recession because they get hammered the worst going into it based on business risk and market liquidity.
b) Most of today's large caps became so over the debt decade - and that era is over, yet "they" remain built for yesterday's economy. Smallcaps are more growth-oriented, and also more nimble/flexible to adjust to a new economic reality.
I've been arguing this for years, yet individual investors never want to hear it. The big, successful names you know, Citi, BofA, Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Starbucks ... yesterday's news, not tomorrow's news. Big caps need large funds flows (into equities) and/or major economic growth to thrive. That isn't now and won't be happening soon. In the aggregate, they've been dead money for 9 years, and they'll continue to be dead money going forward. More proof ... Warren Buffett, great investor. Large cap investor. Warren's return ala Berkshire Hathaway, barely above breakeven over the last 11 years.
[ February 07, 2009, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
a) Smallcaps almost always lead the market coming out of a recession because they get hammered the worst going into it based on business risk and market liquidity.
b) Most of today's large caps became so over the debt decade - and that era is over, yet "they" remain built for yesterday's economy. Smallcaps are more growth-oriented, and also more nimble/flexible to adjust to a new economic reality.
I've been arguing this for years, yet individual investors never want to hear it. The big, successful names you know, Citi, BofA, Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Starbucks ... yesterday's news, not tomorrow's news. Big caps need large funds flows (into equities) and/or major economic growth to thrive. That isn't now and won't be happening soon. In the aggregate, they've been dead money for 9 years, and they'll continue to be dead money going forward. More proof ... Warren Buffett, great investor. Large cap investor. Warren's return ala Berkshire Hathaway, barely above breakeven over the last 11 years.
[ February 07, 2009, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: KJ Duke ]
Stock Market
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
The equity market tends to stay ahead of what is happening, it is not coincident with what is happening ... because portfolio managers are anticipating what will happen next, not what is happening now. Valuations and fund flows also are far more critical variable than you are giving them credit for.
My thesis right now is as follows:
In early 2002 the market had been trading down relentlessly. The outlook was bleak. Terrorist attack will change our way of life forever. More are sure to come. Nothing will ever be the same.
We are incompetent at defending ourselves in so many ways - biological, nuclear plant infiltration, electronic communications, unsecure borders, mass transit, etc. We are about to get into a war that we can't win which will cost billions. Then, I think it was March, we invade Iraq. I turn wildly bullish. Many reasons, but to sum up - valuations were too cheap, stocks were washed out, fiscal and monetary stimulus on the way, consumer mood had likely bottomed. George Bush had decided that he would do WHATEVER IT TAKES to win this "unprecedented" war on terrorism.
And now 7 years later ...
The market has been trading down relentlessly. The outlook is bleak. Economic mess will change our way of life forever. More are sure to come. Nothing will ever be the same. We are incompetent at managing the economy and financial system - bailouts, corruption, unemployment. We are about to get into a never-ending loop of bailouts that won't help and will cost billions, check that, trillions. Now, Obama gets elected and has signalled that he will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to turn this "unprecedented" economy around. What do I think about the stock market? Well, valuations are too cheap for many companies, stocks are washed out, even bigger fiscal and monetary stimulus is on the way, and the consumer mood is likely to bottoming.
Now, add to that, liquidity has disappeared from the market, hedge funds are leaning short, no one wants to own cyclical or consumer stocks and portfolio cash levels are probably at record highs. My conclusion: we have the makings of a combustible rally, which in turn will start to lift consumer confidence, business confidence and spending. I could get into a lot other factors, but this is the simplified, big picture thesis. So Bacially if I get you right your thesis is based soley on HOPE (Obama ? New Boss same as the old Boss)? No Catalyst? And hoping for a Huge SHORT SQUEEZE if I understand you right because everyone is short.
Fact of the matter is in 2002 The FED lowered rates to lowest point in awhile creating the REAL ESTATE BUBBLE, Credit expansion with Home Equity lines/loans. Causing people to party on by going more into debt. Now FED trying to do the same however they just cut to zero and people cannot get loans because Banks are not giving loans to properties under water and NINJA loans are gone. Credit card companies cutting balances and people are getting squeezed. Banks with all the trillions they have recieved they are still seeking more to SURVIVE??? (Banks are imho insolvent otherwise why keep throwing money into a black hole?) They need the CASH Because imho the ticking time bomb 500+ Trillions outstanding in DERVIATIVES ! Pure leveraged bets and since the underpinning are all tied to some type of asset as the asset keeps depreciating the more these companies blow up. That is what they pumping the Markets daily to maintain ASSET values, to slow down the blow ups. What will happen when China starts dumping its large USD reserves? And stop buying treasuires? And like Celente said who will be occupying all those vacant retail stores and office spaces that will cause Banks more problems are commercial loans start to blowout. And how about Credit Card companies that are having massive defaults? ANd Residential Foreclosures that Banks have stopped starting foreclosures on? And Mark to MYTH accounting? And all those level 3 Assets? (I thought we were suppose to frown on ENRON type accounting, now we embrace it? Not to mention how do we ever re-pay almost 100 Trillion in debt we have (When you add in Social Security and Medicare)
Too many landmines and No revenues coming in, all smoke screens and fancy accounting BS, NO TRANSPARENCY. All we have like you infer is HOPE!
So again what will that catalyst be?
P.S. The Bond Market is a better indicator of the economy than Equities will ever be.
P.S. WHat are your thoughts on the following:
1) Madoff ADMITS to guilty yet he is home why is he NOT in jail!
2) Bank of AMerica pays huge premiuim for Merrill Lynch and Merrill was on the edge and could have gotten them for pennies. Was CEO that dumb or was the FED at play here the create the preception nothing to see here please move along?
[ February 07, 2009, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: GoBabyGo ]
The equity market tends to stay ahead of what is happening, it is not coincident with what is happening ... because portfolio managers are anticipating what will happen next, not what is happening now. Valuations and fund flows also are far more critical variable than you are giving them credit for.
My thesis right now is as follows:
In early 2002 the market had been trading down relentlessly. The outlook was bleak. Terrorist attack will change our way of life forever. More are sure to come. Nothing will ever be the same.
We are incompetent at defending ourselves in so many ways - biological, nuclear plant infiltration, electronic communications, unsecure borders, mass transit, etc. We are about to get into a war that we can't win which will cost billions. Then, I think it was March, we invade Iraq. I turn wildly bullish. Many reasons, but to sum up - valuations were too cheap, stocks were washed out, fiscal and monetary stimulus on the way, consumer mood had likely bottomed. George Bush had decided that he would do WHATEVER IT TAKES to win this "unprecedented" war on terrorism.
And now 7 years later ...
The market has been trading down relentlessly. The outlook is bleak. Economic mess will change our way of life forever. More are sure to come. Nothing will ever be the same. We are incompetent at managing the economy and financial system - bailouts, corruption, unemployment. We are about to get into a never-ending loop of bailouts that won't help and will cost billions, check that, trillions. Now, Obama gets elected and has signalled that he will do WHATEVER IT TAKES to turn this "unprecedented" economy around. What do I think about the stock market? Well, valuations are too cheap for many companies, stocks are washed out, even bigger fiscal and monetary stimulus is on the way, and the consumer mood is likely to bottoming.
Now, add to that, liquidity has disappeared from the market, hedge funds are leaning short, no one wants to own cyclical or consumer stocks and portfolio cash levels are probably at record highs. My conclusion: we have the makings of a combustible rally, which in turn will start to lift consumer confidence, business confidence and spending. I could get into a lot other factors, but this is the simplified, big picture thesis. So Bacially if I get you right your thesis is based soley on HOPE (Obama ? New Boss same as the old Boss)? No Catalyst? And hoping for a Huge SHORT SQUEEZE if I understand you right because everyone is short.
Fact of the matter is in 2002 The FED lowered rates to lowest point in awhile creating the REAL ESTATE BUBBLE, Credit expansion with Home Equity lines/loans. Causing people to party on by going more into debt. Now FED trying to do the same however they just cut to zero and people cannot get loans because Banks are not giving loans to properties under water and NINJA loans are gone. Credit card companies cutting balances and people are getting squeezed. Banks with all the trillions they have recieved they are still seeking more to SURVIVE??? (Banks are imho insolvent otherwise why keep throwing money into a black hole?) They need the CASH Because imho the ticking time bomb 500+ Trillions outstanding in DERVIATIVES ! Pure leveraged bets and since the underpinning are all tied to some type of asset as the asset keeps depreciating the more these companies blow up. That is what they pumping the Markets daily to maintain ASSET values, to slow down the blow ups. What will happen when China starts dumping its large USD reserves? And stop buying treasuires? And like Celente said who will be occupying all those vacant retail stores and office spaces that will cause Banks more problems are commercial loans start to blowout. And how about Credit Card companies that are having massive defaults? ANd Residential Foreclosures that Banks have stopped starting foreclosures on? And Mark to MYTH accounting? And all those level 3 Assets? (I thought we were suppose to frown on ENRON type accounting, now we embrace it? Not to mention how do we ever re-pay almost 100 Trillion in debt we have (When you add in Social Security and Medicare)
Too many landmines and No revenues coming in, all smoke screens and fancy accounting BS, NO TRANSPARENCY. All we have like you infer is HOPE!
So again what will that catalyst be?
P.S. The Bond Market is a better indicator of the economy than Equities will ever be.
P.S. WHat are your thoughts on the following:
1) Madoff ADMITS to guilty yet he is home why is he NOT in jail!
2) Bank of AMerica pays huge premiuim for Merrill Lynch and Merrill was on the edge and could have gotten them for pennies. Was CEO that dumb or was the FED at play here the create the preception nothing to see here please move along?
[ February 07, 2009, 11:48 PM: Message edited by: GoBabyGo ]
GoBabyGo
Stock Market
Originally posted by KJ Duke:
And one more thing ... why smallcaps?
a) Smallcaps almost always lead the market coming out of a recession because they get hammered the worst going into it based on business risk and market liquidity.
b) Most of today's large caps became so over the debt decade - and that era is over, yet "they" remain built for yesterday's economy. Smallcaps are more growth-oriented, and also more nimble/flexible to adjust to a new economic reality.
I've been arguing this for years, yet individual investors never want to hear it. The big, successful names you know, Citi, BofA, Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Starbucks ... yesterday's news, not tomorrow's news. Big caps need large funds flows (into equities) and/or major economic growth to thrive. That isn't now and won't be happening soon. In the aggregate, they've been dead money for 9 years, and they'll continue to be dead money going forward. More proof ... Warren Buffett, great investor. Large cap investor. Warren's return ala Berkshire Hathaway, barely above breakeven over the last 11 years. Warren has been on a roll lately with GE, GS investments
And one more thing ... why smallcaps?
a) Smallcaps almost always lead the market coming out of a recession because they get hammered the worst going into it based on business risk and market liquidity.
b) Most of today's large caps became so over the debt decade - and that era is over, yet "they" remain built for yesterday's economy. Smallcaps are more growth-oriented, and also more nimble/flexible to adjust to a new economic reality.
I've been arguing this for years, yet individual investors never want to hear it. The big, successful names you know, Citi, BofA, Microsoft, Intel, Apple, Starbucks ... yesterday's news, not tomorrow's news. Big caps need large funds flows (into equities) and/or major economic growth to thrive. That isn't now and won't be happening soon. In the aggregate, they've been dead money for 9 years, and they'll continue to be dead money going forward. More proof ... Warren Buffett, great investor. Large cap investor. Warren's return ala Berkshire Hathaway, barely above breakeven over the last 11 years. Warren has been on a roll lately with GE, GS investments
GoBabyGo