How ironic that you fail to see how terribly void of value your posts really are, and how many times you have posted completely bogus iniformation, be it on the housing sectors weight in the economy, or the oil sectors weight in the SPX. There is no hate on this site. Just a total disdain and lack of patience for posers who post rubbish 99% of the time. It's one of the reasons why this site has completely gone down the tubes in the past year. Did you forget that this Forum is entitled, "Trading"??? Stand up and put some actual insight and methodology on display here instead of your typical cheerleading comments. People are obviously tired of it.
perfect example. I wish you luck sorting out your issues. (Remember when you asked for my opinion to substantiate my claims i gave it without a problem). I really mean it, good luck.
Yes, I remember how you told us that there is a negative correlation between the energy markets and the equity markets which Pabst pointed out ( and documented )was completely false. You also stated that "people are waiting for the bull market" and that the "market has not budged" - - - yet the SPX has rallied from 1180 back in January up to as high as 1245 this year. That's a 5.5% move. You then admitted that the market is only up 5.5% even though "they have been pumping like mad." This might come as a shock to you, but you must be the only person in the world that does not believe that the FED has been in a tightening cycle. I provided a chart of Fed Funds that showed the Fed Funds rate go from 1% to our current level of 3.75% to substantiate my claim, yet you conveniently disappeared. You also stated that the housing sector was 1/3 - 2/3 rds of the Economy . . . which many of us know is completely false since Consumer Spending makes up 70% of GDP and Private Business makes up half of the balance. You also stated that the energy sector makes up 20-25% of the indexes. Yet, the energy sector current only makes up 10.4% of the S&P 500, and this is up from 7.4% of a year ago. Now I am not proclaiming to have all of the answers. But the effort that you have made on ET in substantiating your claims with utterly FALSE information on topics that are quite basic and fundamentally mainstream is quite telling. Good Luck to you too, Sir!
Apex, You keep harping on the SPX rally. Net net, it's flat YTD and basically in the apex of a three year triangle. A good two day swing trade in many liquid equities, timed "right", from near the low of day 1 to near the high of day 2 should fetch rougly that. As for the Fed Funds rate as indicative of tightening, 1. Banks do not borrow from the discount window. They either tap their correspondents or overnight repo's Granted, Money Center prime is pegged to FF, but Money Supply (both growth and velocity) until recently has been pumped. In fact, the very day of the 10th of 11 hikes, they opened the spickets on M1 via open market operations. Not exactly tightening. I also want to point out the cliche/adage/quip of "quality not quantity" regarding veteran posting.
Yes, net-net the SPX is roughly flat for the year. I was simply pointing out that there has been an upward bias to the SPX for most of the year, until recently. Meanwhile, many sectors have had stellar moves. Oils, drillers, natural gas, homebuilders, defense issues, etc. As many of us are well aware, it is a market of stocks and not necessarily a stockmarket. The Gloom and Doomers frequently miss out on this very significant fact. As for M1, I think the following chart tells a pretty good story. Latest Observations: Date: 2005-08-29 2005-09-05 2005-09-12 2005-09-19 2005-09-26 Value: 1386.4 1361.9 1336.8 1354.9 1369.3 http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M1/25
real blood on the streets randgold (gold) http://www.miningweekly.co.za/min/news/thisweek/?show=75012
I don't consider myself necessarily a gloom and doomer. I generally have both long and short positions, and not for the sake of being hedged. I wrote "until recently" concerning M1 The market, over the long term, has an upward bias. Stems from economic growth, demographic growth, technogical innovation (resulting in economies of scale), the preference of Joe Sixpack to buy but never short, institutions consistent inflow of cash (and gennerally against their charter to short) and a host of other proponents. That most definitely doesn't mean everything is peachy. It's beyond my desire to type to list all the detriments. The longer they persist, the worse the reckoning will be. The majority running money have never seen a bear market. In fact, most haven't seen a true recession. You might be surprised how much impact the bankruptcy reform will have on consumer spending. Particulary the lightly mentioned stair-stepped increase in minimum payments from 2% of outstanding to 4%.
I never said that you were a Doom and Gloomer. But I will say that you would be surprised how many portfolio managers have in fact seen and experienced a bear market. I believe that the percentage is much higher than you give credit for. For example, the last Bear Market that began in early 2000 iin the NAZ and at the beginning of Q4 for the SPX was the longest in 60 years, covering more than 28 months. Logic would dictate that most money managers have been in the investment business since q4 of 2001. For those that are counting . . . that's only 4 YEARS AGO. Thus, I would tend to believe that a majority of portfolio managers have infact seen and experienced a Bear Market.
I was referring to 1973-74. You know that. I know you know that. I'm not suggesting that 2000 to October 2002 wasn't pretty, but there was no capitulation. Minimal impact to volume (albeit numerous buy and hold investors were decimated). A bear market hnges upon how you define it. Magnitude, duration, etc. After the week hiatus stemming from 9/11, some would consider THAT a bear market. Would it be silly to suggest it was a buying opportunity of a generation? The sharp drop was synthetic. Merely to allow the specialists and market makers to acquire inventory. The only time I've seen a reliable "V" bottom. I had one clown suggest October 1987 was a buying opportunity. In retrospect yes, but at the time it didn't quite seem that way. My view is Chinese water torture. Conistent erosion, slow but sure. Most sectors. Reduced liquidity. Reduced inflows. Media attention to the gloom. And..............eventually capitualtion. True capitualtion would be single digit PE's. We haven't even had a reversion to the mean regarding that measure.
I believe that there is a pretty good reason why we have not seen the kind of recession/bear market that you speak of since 1973-1974 ( although time does not permit me to digress ), yet that does not mean that bear markets have not happened since. As I recall, 1981 - '82 had some pretty sizeable large cap capitulation going on in the late summer of '82 as did the Asian currency crisis and LTC debacle in 1998. The fact that the actual duration of the "capitulation" phase only lasted a little more than 2 full months doesn't mean that there wasn't some big time capitulation going on. In any event, by all definitions, be it magnitude or duration, the Bear Market of 2000 to 2002 met all of the above criteria. Just because you did not have capitulation in the Eastman Kodak's and MMM's of the world ala '73-'74 doesn't mean that there wasnt' capitulation in other sectors.