Cray statistics for truly crazy never seen before times. The s@P won't bottom until at least 1500-1800. This is far far from over. I really believe the era of greed and mass consumption is coming to an end and there will be a revaluation of stocks into much lower p/e's.
That would be my hope, too, however, I do not see this happening anytime soon. I believe that it requires foreigners to consider American credit to have become too unworthy of the risk it is priced at. That is when the final reckoning for the American debt binge will take hold. Not before that. How this may look like we may all witness in a similar scenario that may play out very soon: If the US opens businesses again and Americans get mass infected, Canada and Mexico might in fact completely shut down their borders with the aid of their military to keep any Americans out. It would be a very interesting scenario, politically, when the China bashing by the American right turned into a global lockdown of Americans by everyone on the outside. Like a nice, little pet project in the zoo to see how the chimps behind glass behave ;-)
I agree 1500-1800 is a ways off . We have to factor in money printing . Look at Greece and even Venezuela . Actually the Venezuela mkt skied. But that will only happen if the $ collapses which looks unlikely at the moment.
Hi, Please define your interpretation of "mass consumption" or give an example. As for greed...it will never end regardless to the VIX levels nor global economics. Thanks wrbtrader
I think we've been in a 30 yr age of greed and overconsumption . A ton of debt will be destroyed in the coming yrs .I've already talked to 2 people who had $5 mil plus portfolios who are down 30% . One is retired and scared her money will run out. She's pulling back big as are millions of other's. The vicious loopback is starting now like domino's. The virus was the excuse to get this rolling
I get it people don't think things this drastic will happen and I don't know her situation, but is there a reason she's so aggressively invested when she's already retired? Like some money manager just wanting to get more fees? I understand its easy to say now since it's hindsight, but was there a reasoning behind it or she needed to still be invested to support her lifestyle? Seems a little odd to me.
You sound a lot like a CCP shill. I think you've forgotten how central banking works. It doesn't matter who holds our debt. We'll just print more of it. The debt you should worry about is the debt to the fed from which we cannot escape without borderline restructuring of the country. Debt to China? Resolvable with a war in theory at least.