We obviously have a different economic perspective. Mine is pure free-market Austrian economics, esp works by Ludwig von Mises. The Feds interest rate is of minor importance, compared the decline in balance sheet. The relatively minor drop the past two quarters is IMO, and others, is the cause of the stock market drop & volatility since January. All that occurred prior to Trump tariff tweets, prior to Fed meetings, etc. When looking at Central Bank balance sheets, you need to multiply number of times due to fractional reserve banking. Sorry, I won't continue this discussion; resolved decades ago, IMO. Probably not meaningful to you, but study the period in late 1920s, & esp Fed actions in 28-29, and then the next few years. Not to mention the idiot Greenspans actions starting in 1987.
We can agree to disagree. There is no problem with that. But I want to point out the dichotomy of your perspective... Austrian economics or opinion? Good trading to you. Have a nice weekend. Weren't the 20's a period of Transactional Banking? With very little un-collaterilzed lending by banks? With few, if any government funded "welfare" programs? I also seem to remember the demise of the gold standard in the US and elsewhere as playing a big part in fractional banking. Could be wrong though. Anyway...
Familiar with Austrian economics? Not opinion, which I could back-up both by the epistemological works, and specific economic theories. But I do agree that taking real time data, etc., is very difficult to fully & accurately identify/explain. In 5-10years, probably so, although many still disagree with cause of 1930s depression, not to mention the 1987 crash; the 2000 tech wreck; the 2005-08 stk & real estate boom/crash -- except the Austrian school. Their monetary explanation is fully consistent, IMO. But there are Austrian economists today who do disagree with current situation. BTW, although that is my eco perspective, I'm a technical trader, so if the mkt is declining, I'm short, as recently, although nice to have economic theory to support that.
What changed? Very simple. The edge is gone. The edge sums up to this : illegal or gray zone market manipulation, insider trading, front running... Since some traders and hf mangers got sued ended in prison or were barred from the industry for many years black sheep have learned to avoid taking the risk of detection. Later we found out that was actually most of their edge if they ever had one. Look at Cohen. I am willing to bet this guy will never ever reach his past performance record. Too much scrutiny on his life and new fund and he can't afford to again get into trouble with the law. What else should be the reason for the performance declines we see across the entire board of finance?