https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/w...ger-warns-emerging-tech-stocks-extreme-bubble Dalio calling tech stocks a bubble. On the other hand, he doesnt understand technology so there is that. But I certaintly would side with him on being super skeptical of being an SPY or QQQs buyer. I think Emerging Markets are a much better bet
So, about this commodity rally It looks like its a repeat of the Spanish Flu pandemic supply disruption. But now deficits are worse than ever before, so are debt levels. This can affect inflation expectations in a big way. Meanwhile QE is still going strong, M2 is up 25%, vaccines are being rolled out and the US gov wants to spend more than a trillion in fiscal stimulus lmao is the only comment possible
Good call @Specterx that was from early 2020. How will you manage your QQQs trade going forward? Any updates on this?
I sold 3/4ths of the position to buy BTC last fall, thought it would be a better use of the portfolio space (I don't use leverage in that account). I'm still long the remainder - don't see any reason not to be. If we get a really big selloff (like back towards 12k NQ) I'll wait for the counter-rally then look to implement some sort of trailing stop. As far as the overall thesis, there's a lot of chatter about rising yields, but these should soon stabilize and the Fed (to say nothing of central banks elsewhere) is already committed to stay at ZIRP even if inflation runs hot. If the inflation story is going to be relevant this decade, IMO we won't see any major impact on the market for at least 18 months. And then, once the Covid shock wears off we could be right back at stable 2% inflation.
I see, it was a good call these QQQs. My call also (KWEB, China tech, instead of QQQs) was also pretty good. Its up almost 100% y-o-y. I'm rebalancing and taking some profits as it goes higher but still keeping a good exposure level. I still think KWEB makes more sense than QQQs because growth there is much greater, overall debt levels much smaller, they have been handling Covid pretty well and probably have gained global influence due the pandemic But I really hope we have a global stock crash soon so I can buy more China stocks (both tech and non-tech)
https://t.co/rgLDHeJS5o?amp=1 Biden says there will be enough vaccines for every adult in the US by may. Velocity of money should pick up on the 2nd half
S&P says world governments will borrow $12.6 trillion dollars this year, down from $16.3T last year but still 50% higher than pre-pandemic levels. Global debt to GDP will reach a record 75.1% https://www.archyde.com/135-countries-rated-by-sp-global-ratings-could-borrow-12-6-trillion-in-2021/
So I found a website that did a lot of meta-analysis of studies (studies of studies) regarding Vitamin D, Ivermectin, HCQ, Zinc and other treatments when dealing with Covid https://vdmeta.com/ It found: Vit D: "Vitamin D is effective for COVID-19. Random effects meta-analysis of the 18 treatment studies to date shows an estimated reduction of 63% in the effect measured, RR 0.37 [0.26-0.53]. •Sufficiency studies show a strong association between vitamin D sufficiency and outcomes. Meta-analysis of the 39 sufficiency studies shows an estimated reduction of 57%, RR 0.43 [0.36-0.52]." Ivermectin "100% of the 45 studies to date report positive effects. Random effects meta-analysis for early treatment and pooled effects shows an 82% reduction, RR 0.18 [0.12-0.27], and prophylactic use shows 89% improvement, RR 0.11 [0.05-0.23]. Mortality results show 75% lower mortality, RR 0.25 [0.15-0.44] for all treatment delays, and 84% lower, RR 0.16 [0.04-0.63] for early treatment. •100% of the 24 Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) report positive effects, with an estimated 70% improvement, RR 0.30 [0.19-0.47]. •The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 45 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 35 trillion (p = 0.000000000000028)." HCQ "HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 218 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 208 quadrillion (p = 0.0000000000000000048). Early treatment is most successful, with 100% of studies reporting a positive effect and an estimated reduction of 65% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.35 [0.27-0.44]. •92% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.0032. •There is evidence of bias towards publishing negative results. 90% of prospective studies report positive effects, and only 75% of retrospective studies do. •Studies from North America are 3.4 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined, p = 0.00000053. " Maybe they missed a few studies, but they have so many with so many samples its hard to believe that the results would change much. What is interesting to me is that if you google things around, you would be lead to believe the exact opposite. Most media pieces are extremely skeptical about these treatments, the whole thing was politicized, and the analyses has shown that NA research was also infected by bias. Big tech (run by people who think they know what society needs) have decide to chime in and censor people that dont agree with them. Truth now no longer matters, what matters are certain individual agendas and their distorted views of reality or their needs for profits. The net result is the society is lead to believe things that aren't true but sometimes they find out and become super skeptical of the system, income inequality just makes these issues even worse. In the documentary Social Dilemma a former employee of a social media firm talks about how these issues might lead to a civil war one day. I agree, I think society is boiling little by little and at some point this whole thing will explode. Not just in the US but in Brazil and some countries in Europe as well
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-...en-ray-dalio?trk=portfolio_article-card_title Dalio wrote a good piece about bonds and the currency devaluation being undertaken by governments
He talks about the possibility of capital controls to prevent people from parking money in safe havens like gold and bitcoin. But it seems to me that this should impact gold a lot more than bitcoin, but even though, the effect wont be all that large. Whats to prevent a US fund or institution from having a Cayman subsidiary and the subsidiary then would own Bitcoin or a EU or Asian gold ETF? With global capital flows being way higher than in previous inflationary episodes, its super difficult to stop capital from moving around. World governments cant agree on climage change, covid response, FX markets, taxation policy, tax havens, regulatory policy for big tech, bank regulation, but somehow they are all going to get together and perfectly agree to ban bitcoin and/or gold, yeah right