US Equity Collapse Erases All Post-QE3 Gains As FANTAsy Stocks Plunge
But, but, but... it's not a market-driven only by The Fed, right?
All major US equity indices (except Nasdaq and its FANTAsy stocks) are now deep in the red since The Fed stopped QE3...
Since the start of December stock have been dumped...
But FANTAsy stocks are collapsing so far in 2016...
As once again, the S&P 500 catches down to The Fed's balance sheet...
But it's the fundamentals right?
(7 votes)
»
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
Relax Tyler. Take a deep breath.
Wake me when GE goes below $24.
I'm not gonna lie, this is fun.
HA HA this is awesome...fuck the FED and Obama.
muh muh muh my kuroda can fix this
Yes, fundamentals. Look at the food stamp data. http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplemental-nutrition-assistance-program-snap. Things really haven't gotten better.
Deep in the red? Yeah, this is deep in the red so long as you also belive that the miniscule $20 rise in the price of gold is, as ZH describes it, a surge.
Let's compare where the market is now to when gold was at $1800. Gold is deep in the red. Everyone who was smart enough not to listen to the ZH gold bugs is doing extremely well. The stock market has experienced a minimal clawback, hardly even visible on a graph that is zero based, as opposed to these silly, sky-is-falling graphs ZH uses.
The only thing that is deep in the red is the asset values of the fools who keep drinking the ZH kool-aid and keep buying gold.
So, why are you here and not busy day trading your e-trade account? Let me guess, you're another one of those geniuses that only bought the 4 stocks that managed to rise all of last year. Can I have the link to subscribe to your newsletter?
He's what you call a "beta-orbiter". Or a cuck, one of the two.
I agree with him . . . as long as QE correlates well with equity prices, gold suppression will be effective. Until the relationship breaks. . . You own gold for when the Fed can't con new suckers. . .
No, I'm one of the geniuses that was smart enough not to buy gold.
And who said I'm not day trading? That's exactly what I'm doing. My biggest winner last year? Shorting the gold mining stocks. :)
Gotta admit you're sweating a little bit though, cmon.
That must be great considering you only make winning trades, apparently. Here is my investing strategy:
I use income from my regular job to start additional business I own. I buy equipment, tools, materials, and supplies.
The difference between us is that one day all the paper assets you currently own will go to zero (though you may not own them at that time, because you only buy low and sell high). Whereas even if one or all of my business goes tits up, I'll still own: equipment, tools, materials, and supplies.
Is the 'straw man fallacy' the only argument ZHers are capable of making? I never said any such thing.
I invest in plenty of companies that, as you say, "buy equipment, tools, materials, and supplies." Why are the tools you buy more special than the tools they buy?
Because I own them. They are in my possession. And they are not used as collateral to back a loan or mortgage. You own a paper claim. If the company in which you own stock goes belly up, try to go trade in that certificate for one of their milling machines, drill presses, or a screwdriver. Once you get turned away, go stand in line behind their CREDITORS and tell me what you get. I don't mind spirited debates, but if you can't see the difference between something I own and something you don't, there's no point in continuing.
And what happens when nobody wants to hire you and your assets sit idle? I guess your assets rot and you lose all of your investment.
The difference between you and me is that I dont' have to go into my own personal savings to cover the losses on the equipment that now goes unused. You don't have that luxury.
I get it, businesses can go bankrupt. Yours can too. Unless of course, yours is one of those unicorn businesses that sells rainbows and never goes bankrupt.
You haven't said anything new here, all you've done is failed to see how the same argument applies to both situations. You're not any more protected from business collapse than anyone else.
Um, I own the equipment. Which can be sold. Or warehoused. Savings are not used to invest in, well, anything. They are savings. What you are describing is risk capital. I'm using my risk capital to invest in myself in the same sense that you are using your risk capital to buy stocks. You use your "savings" to cover investing losses, unless, of course, you are saying to don't have investment losses. In which case, my statement was an accurate reflection of your trading record, and not a straw man at all. And, as an extension of your logic, if for every stock you own you thereby own their tooling, for every stock you short you have a tooling deficit until you close your short position.
Who can you sell it to when nobody is buying? And how can you pay for warehousing costs when you have no income being generated? Or are you now describing a situation where you are not only not making money, but you are in fact losing money, paying money out of pocket to cover the cost of warehousing idle and useless equipment.
Having to wittle away my life savings to warehouse equipment that sits idle, depreciates, and takes food off my table is not what I consider an enviable investment strategy.
You are obviously not following the discussion. I have a job that provides an income, the excess of which I use to invest. If I can afford to buy a saw for $50,000 and it sits idle, I can obviously afford the $10 a month it costs to warehouse it. I do not borrow money to buy tools and equipment. I OWN them. Who are you going to sell your shares to if no one is buying them? Oh, I know. Someone will ALWAYS be willing to buy stocks. Well, someone is ALWAYS willing to buy tools and equipment.
Also, depreciation provides a tax benefit. You apparently have no business experience. If you want to continue this you really need to do a better job, because to this point you have not been up the the task of debating me. I know you'll probably have some trite response, which I'll likely ignore, but I'm sorry it's true. You have not shown yourself to be terribly intelligent. Quite vapid, actually.
Oh, I see, you have a job that you can never lose, in an industry that never experiences a downturn, and even if there was a market downturn, you've always had infinite wealth so that you can cover any potential sunk costs that might be incurred by idle equipment. No, I totally get it now - your part of the ZH fantasy land. I totally get it.
If your idle equipment is making you zero income, putting you in a 0% tax bracket, how much money does your depreciating assets get you back when you post the loss against your income. Coudl someone quickly multiply zero by zero for me? Once again, a ZH tries to make it sound like a financial loss is the greatest thing ever. It sounds just like the money losing gold buying strategy everyone is so excited about.
Seriously?
Oh, I see, you only buy stocks that never lose, in shares that never go down, and even if there was a market downturn, you've always had infinite wealth so that you can cover any potential sunk costs that might be incurred by idle stock values. No, I totally get it now - your part of the ZH fantasy land. Itotally get it.
If your idle stock value is making you zero income, putting you in a 0% tax bracket, how much money does your account fees get you back when you post the loss against your income. Coudl someone quickly multiply zero by zero for me? Once again, a ZH tries to make it sound like a financial loss is the greatest thing ever. It sounds just like the money losing gold buying strategy everyone is so excited about.
FYI, I don't believe I EVEN ONCE mentioned gold in this discussion. BYE.
Look, I was simply demonstrating how intellectually vapid your argument was. I wasn't making the argument, you were. I simply demonstrated how silly it was.
You coming back, and rewording my argument to make it about stocks simply reinforces my original argument, demonstrating how intellectually flawed your own argument was.
You basically just proved how wrong your original argument was. LOL.
LOL indeed. You just resorted to "I know you are but what am I?"
You were the one who reworded my argument and ended up proving yourself wrong. Your point was that your situation was significantly different. Then you took your position, changed everything personal about you and interjected 'stocks' and 'money' and then reposted it, proving that in fact what applies to the stock market is exactly the same as what applies to you. So your original point was that your situation is significantly different. Then you made a post indicating that your situation is exactly the same. In your effort to be right, you managed to prove your original position completely wrong.
Read the posts again and maybe you'll realize where it was that you went off the rails.
Wow. How many times are you going to edit this comment?
I'm done editing. Now, try to save face. I'm listening.
You miss his point. He's starting and fully owning companies, vs. the fractional ownership you're talking about. Who's first in line of your stocks goes to zero? Anyhow, yours is no solution for anyone, most who don't have time to day trade and cash in on the greater sucker.
As to gold, look at places like Canada and Argentina, which are going through real trauma, and gold denominated in those currencies is way up the past couple of years. That will only increase globally, which is why the powers that be hate an independent store of wealth that people can hold like gold and silver. Is it the only important item, no one is saying that.
Good luck believing in the fake economic recovery. Better luck to those doing something real locally. May also want to volunteer at your local food kitchen, if you want to see what's really going on!
And who is first in line at the food bank when nobody is hiring him and his equipment is going idle? And who is forcing him out of his home when he can't get work and he can't cover his property taxes? One is not that much different from the other.
Ha, fuck you, fuck your paper stocks, fuck your faith in the system, and fuck your paper dollars. This meltdown is gonna be epic and people like you are going to be screwed. Ba da da da daaaaa I'm lovin' it. Burn baby, burn. LOL
i mock goldbugz as much as anyone but give them some credit. gold is catching a bid today even while crude and equities are down.
Gold is manipulated down. We don't get pissed, we buy more.
Once SHTF, and it wil, we are the winners.
Now STFU.
So the lower it goes, the more you buy, and as it continues to go down, you continue to lose. So basically your investment strategy is to catch a falling knife? How's that working out for you?
So you believe that currencies don't devalue and that currencies/governments last forever...
That's some funny shit right there. I suggest you talk to successful businessmen who's bussiness survived the great depression and two world wars.
Nice "straw man" argument there. I never said any of that.
I'm guessing you believe that gold never goes down in value and that it always goes up? Can I push that straw man argument onto you? So you don't believe gold ever hit the $1800 handle and then crashed to where it is now? You can't deny history.
Everything goes down and up asshole.
Now answer the question, there is no "straw man" there.
What was gold prices in dollars 20 years ago, 30 years ago, 40 years ago 50 years ago?
Talk about "denying history".
Remind us, what are central banks preferred collateral again?
You are an idiot or NSA troll of the highest order.
I'm not denying history. I think history and historic rates of returns are extremely instructive.
Let's go back even further! Let's go back 200 years.
I'm sorry, is that a little too historical for you?
Except none of those companies exist. They have all gone bankrupt just like 29 of the original 30 DOW companies. Your 10000 would be worth zero
Wrong. Capital moves to where it is treated best. I doubt nobody in the history of mankind has never cashed out of a winning position....
And you are assuming your move to another position was another winning one.
An you assume all of my moves or Pots are loses? Unlike many on this site I guarantee that I am extremely well diversified and am hedged for about any shitshow that is survivable. This includes that the SHTF event never occurs.
I gave a pick for 2016. How about yours if you are so smart??
We'll compare at the end of the year to see who had maximum gain opportunity.
Only a fool holds on to a position indefinitely.
Healthcare, TBTF banks, GMO food providers, gun makers.
No I dont assume that at all.
You guys are the ones claiming invesying in the markets over 200 years will produce 5 billion. Now you say the investor has to make the right trades. How much is the stock in the dutch east india company worth now? How about all those car companies that used to exist? Airlines? Polaroid and Kodak? Xerox?
How much is a spanish gold coin from 200 years ago worth today?
It's funny. The ZHer asked for a historical comparison, which I provided, blowing his gold argument out of the water.
Then the ZHers come back claiming that the comparison isn't valid because it doesn't assume buying and holding the same stock over 200 years. Well, duh!. Who takes a 200 year buy and hold strategy.
And what's clearly lost on the gold bugs is the fact that the 200 year comparison was done to completely humiliate them, as it goes way beyond their request to compare 20,30 or 50 years of data. A historic comparison was asked for, an extreme historic comparison was provided to prove the point, and now the ZHers are trying to nit-pick any fine point they can in the comparison.
The ZHers clearly don't understand that stocks can be bought and sold. No wonder they don't understand why buying gold at $1800 and holding it while it drops to a $1000 handle is a bad thing.
Do us all a favor and keep investing with lots of leverage.
Your Spanish coin is only that valuable to YOU if your family has held it that entire time. Therefore your argument implodes on itself. Also your IRR is what it has gained/loss since you acquire possession of the coin.
Value to an individual has a defined time horizon which will define YOUR maximum gain or loss. During that time period asset classes will vary in opportunity. Said asset classes will vary in people's ability to manipulate. Therefore it is more likely that Gold will appreciate more slowly over an individuals lifetime but will have legacy value stored within it to heirs which most likely will not see the asset depreciate to any great extent - primarily due to lack of counter party risk.
So again the key is to deploy capital to were it is treated best by YOU but diversify into assets that will have legacy value. Thus why generational wealth usually takes the form of PM, RE, and land and not CASH and Stocks.
If you want to get rich (and hedge inflationary theft) you need to take risk in the market, if you want to transfer wealth you do it through Gold, RE, and land.
That is the point of my two cents on this.
I also stand by my statement that only a fool would never exit, maybe not fully, any winning position. Same is true of a losing position - not a worthless position. Most people exit before any investment goes to zero.
You buy stocks at the lows and sell at the highs. He buys gold at the lows and sells at the highs. See how two can play that game?
The Hudson's Bay Company still exists. Or does that not fit your narrative?
You mean the one thats public then not, public then not, public then not, then public? Sure man.
If you own the company and then take it private, and then take it public, and then take it private, and then make more money by making it public again, does that really matter?
For the owner yes, but not for a paper stock investor.