I Believe in the economy or not, the Fed is on the long’s side…
The Fed is ALWAYS on the “Longs’ Side” {The Leper Sisters}
Why do you think we are IN this mess we are trying to get out of? Successive asset bubbles crashing then being “reinflated out of trouble” over and over again.
I’m 95% long myself, and HAVE BEEN since Jan 30th. HOWEVER, I am older than most here, and I actually was a gold investor BEFORE it was even legal in the USA, so I’ve seen it all, and For the RECORD, I"m only 1% into AU now.
But the truth is, I’m tempted to tighten up all the trailing stops to a VERY tight, not trusting this one one iota.
I guess what I’m saying here is, there is a LOT of HUFFY PUFFY going on here, and what WE the investor classes are experiencing { good times } is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being reflective of the “REAL WORLD” out there in Mainstreetville. There, things are REALLY REALLY BAD, and getting worse daily.
What you have is the ASSET BUBBLE really is there, only it is not being recognized as such, the BUBBLE ASSET is whatever the Gub’ment has its sordid hands on, or being a recipient of FedFunds.
As a student of history, we really HAVE A FASCIST GOVERNMENT and ECONOMIC structure now, it is almost historically so.
Can we leave this a trading thread and not a Fed / political thread? I posted about the Fed because a trader you need to know what they said yesterday. It gives you some insight whether or not to buy ahead of any Fed speak.
Can we leave this a trading thread and not a Fed / political thread? I posted about the Fed because a trader you need to know what they said yesterday. It gives you some insight whether or not to buy ahead of any Fed speak.
Son, POLITICS and the FED *** ARE *** the economy today.
They dominate so effectively now, that actual COMPANY performances are almost a sideshow.
The sponge decided to bailout from my position. The market looked red and I figured I can always buy back.
Sold 50% of my position for a nice profit at 106.48. We could go down further and I hope to buy in the high 190’s or if I am luck in the 195 on Friday.
As you can see my strategy of buy and hold has changed slightly. In the old days I would buy it all and sell it all. Now I just simply add and add and then dump and dump. This way my core is always protected along with my margin. So far I have been luck enough to do this several times and actually make some profits.
The key for me is to own as much aapl when we start to take off. I have been able to do so and then suddenly we stall. So I have quickly sold positions that I bought a few days earlier and cash in profits.
I Believe in the economy or not, the Fed is on the long’s side…
The Fed is ALWAYS on the “Longs’ Side” {The Leper Sisters}
Why do you think we are IN this mess we are trying to get out of? Successive asset bubbles crashing then being “reinflated out of trouble” over and over again.
I’m 95% long myself, and HAVE BEEN since Jan 30th. HOWEVER, I am older than most here, and I actually was a gold investor BEFORE it was even legal in the USA, so I’ve seen it all, and For the RECORD, I"m only 1% into AU now.
But the truth is, I’m tempted to tighten up all the trailing stops to a VERY tight, not trusting this one one iota.
I guess what I’m saying here is, there is a LOT of HUFFY PUFFY going on here, and what WE the investor classes are experiencing { good times } is NOT EVEN CLOSE to being reflective of the “REAL WORLD” out there in Mainstreetville. There, things are REALLY REALLY BAD, and getting worse daily.
What you have is the ASSET BUBBLE really is there, only it is not being recognized as such, the BUBBLE ASSET is whatever the Gub’ment has its sordid hands on, or being a recipient of FedFunds.
As a student of history, we really HAVE A FASCIST GOVERNMENT and ECONOMIC structure now, it is almost historically so.
What is over-valued, Tan? I mean besides Amazon, Bidu, and Google?
The more I parse Whitney the more I become disenfranchised with her view that financials will trade to their tangible book value. Tangible book value is the value of a company if t was to cash out its assets and vanish. Whitney assigns no value to the financials operational assets which is insane since it is the operational assets that make a financial company a financial company. Consider something like an exchange: over-simplified an exchange is a building, a data center, and the equipment in the data center. These assets sum to a value. Whitney however says that the ability to know how to run the equipment and make markets has zero value. That’s nuts!
But Whitney says that the operation value of the financials are worthless. What color is the sky on her planet, I wonder? Typically financials which are not treated as high flyers trade around 1 to 1.5 times their book values (which is the sum of tangible value and operational assets) which is why other analysts have assigned higher price targets in the financial sector.
What Whitney is doing is oversimplification. Near as I can tell she believes that the financials will break below their provisional losses. Provisional losses are not real losses but are a provisional write-down taken in anticipation of future losses if the world goes pear-shaped. Provisional losses can be used to dampen the effects of real losses because they build up a pool of losses which real losses may be drawn from. If we look at provisional losses some companies are reasonably optimistic like BAC (which has been taking a provisional loss of around 13B a Q while real losses lag short of the provision buy anywhere from 25 to 50%) while others are incredible pessimistic like FRE (which took a provisional loss that was nearly ten times the real loss).
In order to blow past the provisional losses, the market needs to sour worse than the worst-case scenario that any given company expects. Whitney expects just that: the second dip is going to be far worse than everybody expects.
I don’t believe it but maybe I see a fog because of where I live. What do you think?
What is over-valued, Tan? I mean besides Amazon, Bidu, and Google?
Everything with a TTM PE of 25 or higher, given KNOWN growth, not ANTICIPATED growth.
I was a AMZN investor for the past 4 years, KNOWING what it would be since I’m one of their most loyal customers. But I sold out, NOTHING is worth 78X earnings, nothing, in this economy. Investing on the basis of “it could be worse” or “less bad” or even “maybe a turnaround” is nothing but whistling past graveyards, hoping that the Trumpet will sound as you get near.
And I’ve been in CHINA for almost as long, and frankly, they too are now making me question the wisdom of staying {OTHER THAN, market irrationality}.
TIGHT trailing stops are the order of the day, with “Swiss Family TanToday”
The more I parse Whitney the more I become disenfranchised with her view that financials will trade to their tangible book value. Tangible book value is the value of a company if t was to cash out its assets and vanish. Whitney assigns no value to the financials operational assets which is insane since it is the operational assets that make a financial company a financial company. Consider something like an exchange: over-simplified an exchange is a building, a data center, and the equipment in the data center. These assets sum to a value. Whitney however says that the ability to know how to run the equipment and make markets has zero value. That’s nuts!
But Whitney says that the operation value of the financials are worthless. What color is the sky on her planet, I wonder? Typically financials which are not treated as high flyers trade around 1 to 1.5 times their book values (which is the sum of tangible value and operational assets) which is why other analysts have assigned higher price targets in the financial sector.
What Whitney is doing is oversimplification. Near as I can tell she believes that the financials will break below their provisional losses. Provisional losses are not real losses but are a provisional write-down taken in anticipation of future losses if the world goes pear-shaped. Provisional losses can be used to dampen the effects of real losses because they build up a pool of losses which real losses may be drawn from. If we look at provisional losses some companies are reasonably optimistic like BAC (which has been taking a provisional loss of around 13B a Q while real losses lag short of the provision buy anywhere from 25 to 50%) while others are incredible pessimistic like FRE (which took a provisional loss that was nearly ten times the real loss).
In order to blow past the provisional losses, the market needs to sour worse than the worst-case scenario that any given company expects. Whitney expects just that: the second dip is going to be far worse than everybody expects.
I don’t believe it but maybe I see a fog because of where I live. What do you think?
Thanks for the long analysis - I find fault with her overly pessimistic view as well as do a few “talking heads” who have questioned the accuracy of her call yesterday.
The more I parse Whitney the more I become disenfranchised with her view that financials will trade to their tangible book value. Tangible book value is the value of a company if t was to cash out its assets and vanish. Whitney assigns no value to the financials operational assets which is insane since it is the operational assets that make a financial company a financial company. Consider something like an exchange: over-simplified an exchange is a building, a data center, and the equipment in the data center. These assets sum to a value. Whitney however says that the ability to know how to run the equipment and make markets has zero value. That’s nuts!
But Whitney says that the operation value of the financials are worthless. What color is the sky on her planet, I wonder? Typically financials which are not treated as high flyers trade around 1 to 1.5 times their book values (which is the sum of tangible value and operational assets) which is why other analysts have assigned higher price targets in the financial sector.
What Whitney is doing is oversimplification. Near as I can tell she believes that the financials will break below their provisional losses. Provisional losses are not real losses but are a provisional write-down taken in anticipation of future losses if the world goes pear-shaped. Provisional losses can be used to dampen the effects of real losses because they build up a pool of losses which real losses may be drawn from. If we look at provisional losses some companies are reasonably optimistic like BAC (which has been taking a provisional loss of around 13B a Q while real losses lag short of the provision buy anywhere from 25 to 50%) while others are incredible pessimistic like FRE (which took a provisional loss that was nearly ten times the real loss).
In order to blow past the provisional losses, the market needs to sour worse than the worst-case scenario that any given company expects. Whitney expects just that: the second dip is going to be far worse than everybody expects.
I don’t believe it but maybe I see a fog because of where I live. What do you think?
Thanks for the long analysis - I find fault with her overly pessimistic view as well as do a few “talking heads” who have questioned the accuracy of her call yesterday.
As for myself I see the recovery from this recession following the same kind of pattern as seventies recovery from recession. Something along the lines of
We noticed you may be running AdBlock on your computer. It takes real money to run this site and to deliver the news, tips, and opinions you love to read.
If you wish to block the ads that pay for the creation of our content, we ask that you instead support TMO Directly, either with a $5 monthly recurring contribution, or a one-time donation of any amount of your choice. Thanks!
luxuries to the wealthy e.g. Eric and his Minnesota’s neighbors.
Loading...
NewEgg: $8 off on ZyXEL ES105S 5-Port 10/100 Desktop Fast Ethernet Switch for $11.99 plus Free Shipp
Back in stock: Mac mini 2.3GHz dual-core Intel Core i5: $519.00 Delivered
