Economics

  • Thread starter Rallywagon
  • 506 comments
  • 25,833 views
Are you sure the numbers you are seeing for your portfolio today aren't based on yesterday's close?

It should be in realtime and I watch it throughout the day. I know Fidelity does some weird calculations, but still overall compared to yesterday's number I'm up something like 9.8% with nearly all my stocks and mutual funds in the green for today. It doesn't make sense to me, but I suppose I'll take what I can get at this point. I'm just glad I have 35+ years before retirement. I can't imagine being in your mid 60's right now and watching your entire retirement go poof.
 
So what has been happening over the past few years, is that Trump has been abusing Keynesian economics and has over puffed the economy during the "boom" and now there is no way to soften the "bust", so this bust is going to be significant. This is why you don't elect someone like Trump folks...

Keynes never advocated running continual deficits & he certainly didn't advocate stimulating the economy in times of economic expansion. It's reminiscent of what happened in housing prices in the run-up to 2008. In Canada the major stock indexxx is down below where it was in 2008 before the crash. 12 years of gains wiped out in a week. :ouch:
 
Keynes never advocated running continual deficits & he certainly didn't advocate stimulating the economy in times of economic expansion. It's reminiscent of what happened in housing prices in the run-up to 2008. In Canada the major stock indexxx is down below where it was in 2008 before the crash. 12 years of gains wiped out in a week. :ouch:

Yea, this is what I'm saying about having someone like Trump at the helm of a federal government-driven market. It ends up being run for personal gain (re-election) rather than the way that Keynes would have advocated. Keynes never said that we should stimulate through a boom so that we lack the ability to ease a bust. But of course that's going to happen because you get an opportunist who wants to get re-elected and doesn't care what happens 10 years down the road.
 
Last edited:
Yea, this is what I'm saying about having someone like Trump at the helm of a federal government-driven market. It ends up being run for personal gain (re-election) rather than the way that Keynes would have advocated. Keynes never said that we should stimulate through a boom so that we have ability to ease a bust. But of course that's going to happen because you get an opportunist who wants to get re-elected and doesn't care what happens 10 years down the road.

Preaching to the choir. :indiff:
 
Well, it looks like we are headed into a recession with no monetary tools to juice us out of it. Thanks Donnie. Trump Casino, Trump Airlines, Trump Steaks, Trump America.
 
Sorry, I should have specified that I was referring to making telecomutting the standard working practice, and how that is just an awful idea.
So, here is the right thread, care to elaborate?
 
So, here is the right thread, care to elaborate?

No? I don't believe my original post (the one I made before the one you quoted) could possibly give the impression that I was against telecomutting on grounds of economics. In addition, I lack the understanding of large scale economics to provide any insight on the matter.
 
On the subject - some industries are very well suited to telecommuting, and others are not. I'd go further to say that some of them could be well suited to a mixture of the two. My profession, architecture, is probably in the latter camp. While there is a considerable amount of work that could probably be done from home, effectively, there is probably at least as much work that really couldn't be. When the ultimate aim is to produce a tangible product (in my case, a building) then you have to physically be there sometimes - it's a highly collaborative field. That being said, the prevailing "be there all the time" in my industry doesn't seem necessary. But we are legions of small businesses (with some bigass businesses in the mix too) and subject to the tendencies/wants of a single managing principal, usually. Good news is that chatter is trending towards telecommuting lately...especially in light of the virus.
 
On the subject - some industries are very well suited to telecommuting, and others are not. I'd go further to say that some of them could be well suited to a mixture of the two. My profession, architecture, is probably in the latter camp. While there is a considerable amount of work that could probably be done from home, effectively, there is probably at least as much work that really couldn't be. When the ultimate aim is to produce a tangible product (in my case, a building) then you have to physically be there sometimes - it's a highly collaborative field. That being said, the prevailing "be there all the time" in my industry doesn't seem necessary. But we are legions of small businesses (with some bigass businesses in the mix too) and subject to the tendencies/wants of a single managing principal, usually. Good news is that chatter is trending towards telecommuting lately...especially in light of the virus.

Yea I think this is part of what has kept back telecommuting - the times when you need people in person. But I think a lot of companies are starting to get more realistic about the fact that it's not really all the time, or even most of the time. Temporary offices for visiting teleworkers are starting to become a thing too, which reduces the office size, and overhead, as well. What happens as a result of that though, is that if the company ever wanted to call everyone in to work, they couldn't. Probably not much of a downside to that though.
 
No? I don't believe my original post (the one I made before the one you quoted) could possibly give the impression that I was against telecomutting on grounds of economics. In addition, I lack the understanding of large scale economics to provide any insight on the matter.
Ahh, well, there is definitely some economic impact, though, I suppose we could use the depression/anxiety thread. Wanna try answering there or are you determined not to answer the question?
 
I've got to say it's a fascinatingly unpredictable situation right now. Just what is the longer term economic impact of the novel coronavirus? The markets have collapsed faster than in 2008. In 2008 there was a sense that the entire financial system might collapse, that there was no precedent for what was happening, no bottom to the crisis ... & then very gradually things stabilized & started marching back up.

Where is the bottom for the markets now? What are the indicators? How significant will the be medium term effects on the global economy?
 
I've got to say it's a fascinatingly unpredictable situation right now. Just what is the longer term economic impact of the novel coronavirus? The markets have collapsed faster than in 2008. In 2008 there was a sense that the entire financial system might collapse, that there was no precedent for what was happening, no bottom to the crisis ... & then very gradually things stabilized & started marching back up.

Where is the bottom for the markets now? What are the indicators? How significant will the be medium term effects on the global economy?
The bottom is another 20% down. It will stay there for several years. The significance will be roughly equal to the 2008 financial crisis combined with the dot-com bubble.
 
I've got to say it's a fascinatingly unpredictable situation right now. Just what is the longer term economic impact of the novel coronavirus? The markets have collapsed faster than in 2008. In 2008 there was a sense that the entire financial system might collapse, that there was no precedent for what was happening, no bottom to the crisis ... & then very gradually things stabilized & started marching back up.

Where is the bottom for the markets now? What are the indicators? How significant will the be medium term effects on the global economy?

I don't think we've even started to see the real economic effects yet. There have been no large scale layoffs yet, and there almost definitely will be (oil & gas, rental cars, airlines to start with - then followed by their suppliers). Remember corporate debt is now higher than mortgage debt was in 2008. So when companies start to fail, their creditors will be hit hard - many will probably collapse. I could see it morphing into financial crisis part 2. Everyone and everything is so leveraged after a decade of irresponsibly easy money. Zero interest rate policy judgement day. A lot of real estate investors will probably lose their shirt too once people lose their appetite for sky-high housing prices and lose confidence that the next guy will pay even more.
 
I don't think we've even started to see the real economic effects yet. There have been no large scale layoffs yet, and there almost definitely will be (oil & gas, rental cars, airlines to start with - then followed by their suppliers). Remember corporate debt is now higher than mortgage debt was in 2008. So when companies start to fail, their creditors will be hit hard - many will probably collapse. I could see it morphing into financial crisis part 2. Everyone and everything is so leveraged after a decade of irresponsibly easy money. Zero interest rate policy judgement day. A lot of real estate investors will probably lose their shirt too once people lose their appetite for sky-high housing prices and lose confidence that the next guy will pay even more.

The worse thing is I have to listen to my wife telling me "I told you so" every couple of hours. :ouch: She was all for taking a lot out of the market two months ago. I felt that made sense but didn't follow through. Now it's really hard to know what to do. I expect more losses, but it's possible that after 6 months to a year here will be a strong global recovery. Who knows really?
 
The worse thing is I have to listen to my wife telling me "I told you so" every couple of hours. :ouch: She was all for taking a lot out of the market two months ago. I felt that made sense but didn't follow through. Now it's really hard to know what to do. I expect more losses, but it's possible that after 6 months to a year here will be a strong global recovery. Who knows really?

Those financial guys are so full of crap.

They talk a good game. Diversification! Can't beat the returns! But the reality is that they sell you what makes them money, and there is only so much that you can diversify. It's true that it's hard to beat the returns from the stock market, but with those guys (and the government) wetting their beak in your returns, it's not such a great return after all.

Prior to this big selloff, I invested in a consumer staples index fund. It was my recession hedge (diversification!), it keys off of things like toilet paper. Woohooo! Riches! Obscene wealth! Down 18% on the year. How can that be? I played my cards just exactly right. I'm in exactly the right spot, sitting on the goods nobody can buy enough of, at just the right time.

The fundamentals do not matter right now (and I'd argue, they don't matter much ever). It's all irrational, emotion-based nonsense by gambling people. There's no way to really diversify. Sure you can kinda get away from the emotions of one sector or another, but not from broad downturns like this.

The truth is, you really can't beat the returns of the stock market. But to play it you have to play indexes and not pay a pro. I have an account where I pit myself against my professional counterpart. We started with the same money, and I invested it to see if I could out-do him. I loathe to look up the numbers, but I'm going to look them up just for you, so that I can see how I'm doing against him at the worst of times. Ugh... I'm blasted back to my balance in 2017 in my account. Let me check his... omg...

He's all the way back 2015!

So I've been killing him for years with my account. In January I was up 66% from where we started. In January he was up 35%. I'm sure he would say "sure I gained less than you did, but I did it with significantly less risk. You've been risking a lot of loss while I've been playing it safe". But right this second, I'm up 54%. He's up 13%.

Obviously I'm not recommending avoiding the stock market. The gains are too good, and have been for too long. But I hate it, and I diversify out of the stock market (to physical property) heavily.
 
Those financial guys are so full of crap.

They talk a good game. Diversification! Can't beat the returns! But the reality is that they sell you what makes them money, and there is only so much that you can diversify. It's true that it's hard to beat the returns from the stock market, but with those guys (and the government) wetting their beak in your returns, it's not such a great return after all.

Prior to this big selloff, I invested in a consumer staples index fund. It was my recession hedge (diversification!), it keys off of things like toilet paper. Woohooo! Riches! Obscene wealth! Down 18% on the year. How can that be? I played my cards just exactly right. I'm in exactly the right spot, sitting on the goods nobody can buy enough of, at just the right time.

The fundamentals do not matter right now (and I'd argue, they don't matter much ever). It's all irrational, emotion-based nonsense by gambling people. There's no way to really diversify. Sure you can kinda get away from the emotions of one sector or another, but not from broad downturns like this.

The truth is, you really can't beat the returns of the stock market. But to play it you have to play indexes and not pay a pro. I have an account where I pit myself against my professional counterpart. We started with the same money, and I invested it to see if I could out-do him. I loathe to look up the numbers, but I'm going to look them up just for you, so that I can see how I'm doing against him at the worst of times. Ugh... I'm blasted back to my balance in 2017 in my account. Let me check his... omg...

He's all the way back 2015!

So I've been killing him for years with my account. In January I was up 66% from where we started. In January he was up 35%. I'm sure he would say "sure I gained less than you did, but I did it with significantly less risk. You've been risking a lot of loss while I've been playing it safe". But right this second, I'm up 54%. He's up 13%.

Obviously I'm not recommending avoiding the stock market. The gains are too good, and have been for too long. But I hate it, and I diversify out of the stock market (to physical property) heavily.

I also get the feeling there is rampant fraud in the stock market...probably going all the way to the tippy tippy top. Sure wish we had some financial disclosures for DT45!
 
The truth is, you really can't beat the returns of the stock market. But to play it you have to play indexes and not pay a pro. I have an account where I pit myself against my professional counterpart. We started with the same money, and I invested it to see if I could out-do him. I loathe to look up the numbers, but I'm going to look them up just for you, so that I can see how I'm doing against him at the worst of times. Ugh... I'm blasted back to my balance in 2017 in my account. Let me check his... omg...

What's your index strategy?

If I could do it again, I would put it all in Berkshire Hathaway. I've been holding individual stocks.
 
If I could do it again, I would put it all in Berkshire Hathaway. I've been holding individual stocks.

Berkshire is really diversified as more or less an investment holding company and the stock would indirectly reflect that, but a true index strategy would be tied to something like a S&P 500 fund or a Russell 2000 fund.
 
Those financial guys are so full of crap.

They talk a good game. Diversification! Can't beat the returns! But the reality is that they sell you what makes them money, and there is only so much that you can diversify. It's true that it's hard to beat the returns from the stock market, but with those guys (and the government) wetting their beak in your returns, it's not such a great return after all.

Prior to this big selloff, I invested in a consumer staples index fund. It was my recession hedge (diversification!), it keys off of things like toilet paper. Woohooo! Riches! Obscene wealth! Down 18% on the year. How can that be? I played my cards just exactly right. I'm in exactly the right spot, sitting on the goods nobody can buy enough of, at just the right time.

The fundamentals do not matter right now (and I'd argue, they don't matter much ever). It's all irrational, emotion-based nonsense by gambling people. There's no way to really diversify. Sure you can kinda get away from the emotions of one sector or another, but not from broad downturns like this.

The truth is, you really can't beat the returns of the stock market. But to play it you have to play indexes and not pay a pro. I have an account where I pit myself against my professional counterpart. We started with the same money, and I invested it to see if I could out-do him. I loathe to look up the numbers, but I'm going to look them up just for you, so that I can see how I'm doing against him at the worst of times. Ugh... I'm blasted back to my balance in 2017 in my account. Let me check his... omg...

He's all the way back 2015!

So I've been killing him for years with my account. In January I was up 66% from where we started. In January he was up 35%. I'm sure he would say "sure I gained less than you did, but I did it with significantly less risk. You've been risking a lot of loss while I've been playing it safe". But right this second, I'm up 54%. He's up 13%.

Obviously I'm not recommending avoiding the stock market. The gains are too good, and have been for too long. But I hate it, and I diversify out of the stock market (to physical property) heavily.

My "financial guy" doesn't make money from what he sells me - at least not any kind of a commission, only his salary. He works for the bank & simply helps advise on which funds to choose. He isn't "full of crap" at all - he doesn't make any claims about any special investing insights.

I don't count myself as any kind of expert, but I have been investing a lot longer than you & here are a few anecdotal examples that illustrate a few of the the many potential pitfalls of investing that I have experienced.

In the mid '90's, when I first started having a significant amount of money to invest I decided I had to get "serious" about it, so I spent some time reading financial papers to find the best fund to invest in. I ended up with a very highly rated fund that had had stellar results in the preceding 10 years. This fund was based on a "value" concept - seemed like a very sensible approach. What followed was 5 years of a wildly rising market, consistently 25% - 30% gains each year. During that time my fund trailed the market by a huge amount. The market was driven by "growth stocks" & irrational exuberance about the tech revolution - "value" based investing turned out to be a mug's game during that period. When the tech bubble burst & market collapsed at the end of the '90's, my portfolio still went down, less than a lot other growth portfolios, but as I had not made big gains in the interim, I still ended up in a bad place.

After that I subscribed for a few years to the index funds philosophy. I did OK, but not necessarily better than a decently managed fund - & you still have to pay to have an index fund managed. The risk of an index fund does tend to be greater than a managed fund, although, of course, when the market is rising you may very well do better than a managed fund. When it goes down you will commonly experience word losses than an actively managed fund.

For a couple of years leading up to 2008 my investments were handled by a young & innovative fund recommended by a smart acquaintance. Everything was going fine until they weren't. My wife & I pulled our money completely out of the market a little before the half-way mark of the collapse. This turned out to be a good idea ... except, of course, we were slow putting out money back in & so missed the best part of the recovery. I actually started going back in the actual day the DOW hit bottom - brilliant! - but was too nervous to re-invest much & so didn't reap the amazing financial rewards that would have accompanied full investment at that time. The bottom line: I ended up about where I would have been if I had simply kept my investments throughout the whole of the downturn & recovery.

Over the last 10 years or so my investments have been more fully diversified thanks to the variety of funds now offered by my bank. Progress was slow but reasonably steady, until Trump came along, at which point the US portion of my investments started to do very well. A couple of months ago I went to my advisor & suggested that it might be time to start pulling back. My wife was adamant about it, based on our age & potential exposure & actually went to a much more conservative portfolio. I was sort of talked out of it - although it really was my decision to make & what stopped me, in the end was greed - the hope of making more gains.

Nobody could have anticipated how bad the impact of the Coronavirus would become , but regardless, I should have pulled back from the market at the time because my own common sense indicated that the market - especially the US market - was way overblown.

Now I'm faced with making a decision for Monday. Given everything the is happening, I would be very surprised if the markets did not end up lower over the next week - perhaps a lot lower. Jumping out now will "lock in my losses", but those losses are not that severe at this point & there's always the possibility of getting back in later. In my experience, realizing gains over the market in the long term is an elusive prospect. Even matching the market can be challenging.

Edit: I read that the Fed is reducing rates to .25% on Monday. A Hail Mary for economic stability. I'm doubtful that it will make a huge difference - it sort of signals "desperation". I'm not sure that will inspire confidence in investors going forward ...
 
Last edited:
“(The) market is wondering what the Fed knows that the rest of us don’t,” said Phil Orlando, chief equity market strategist at Federated Hermes in New York.

“Is COVID-19 an even bigger deal than we think?”



“(The Fed) must really be scared. To do that in one fell swoop is really quite shocking,” said Robert Pavlik, chief investment strategist at Slatestone Wealth LLC in New York.

“They pulled out whatever weapons they had and my sense is I think it may help initially but I don’t think it goes much further because this is still a developing issue. They used up basically all their ammunition and we’re down to sticks and stones.”

It's shocking how quickly things have changed. A few short weeks ago, when the US economy was apparently trucking along, Trump was constantly pressuring the Fed to cut interests rates in pursuit of the growth rates of 4% that Trump had promised. Now, the Fed has no additional room to maneuver & growth rates of 2% sound like a distant fantasy. :indiff:
 
I've put in correspondence to my IRA manager to move basically everything to cash ASAP. Next week is going to be bloodbath, especially now that the Fed has gone with the nuclear option.

 
Now I'm faced with making a decision for Monday. Given everything the is happening, I would be very surprised if the markets did not end up lower over the next week - perhaps a lot lower. Jumping out now will "lock in my losses", but those losses are not that severe at this point & there's always the possibility of getting back in later. In my experience, realizing gains over the market in the long term is an elusive prospect. Even matched the market can be challenging.

Edit: I read that the Fed is reducing rates to .25% on Monday. A Hail Mary for economic stability. I'm doubtful that it will make a huge difference - it sort of signals "desperation". I'm not sure that will inspire confidence in investors going forward ...

The Dow futures hit a limit down after falling 5% Sunday night after the Fed rate cut, so Monday will likely open in the red. I am no savant, I cannot predict the future, but my personal operating assumption is that there's more losses to come (with a few bounces spread in between, like the Friday rally), with the overall trend down over the next month or two at least.
 
Back