Jobs Report

It will be fine

Well-Known Member
More examples of lies, damn lies, and statistics. You know Bacha that when the market crashed in 2008 then rebounded that 38% it was due to it dropping so far it could go nowhere but up. Trump's first year was about anticipation that the corporate rate would be reduced and suffocating regulations rolled back. He delivered on both. The 500 lb gorilla in the room for both presidents is the billions pumped into the market every week from 401k contributions. It's no longer if investors will invest in the stock market, in a particular company that they'll buy and hold in anticipation of that company's success attracting new investors. The market is awash in money looking to invest wherever dividends are being shelled out to make a fast buck. The big funds have to reward their 401k investors so that they'll keep having that little bit taken out every week. So in effect Obama stifled business growth with reams of regulation, but still did ok because of the 401k tide. And Trump has benefited in a short time by doing what Wall Street hoped he and the Repubs would do. If he hadn't most likely there would've been a big downturn, because the best way for Wall Street to take advantage of a big upswing is to cause a big downswing by dumping stocks. And the little guys would've been left holding the bag once they panicked and started selling too.
You are arguing that the increases in the market are due to money needing a home as opposed to the actual value of the company stock being traded. That would be a bubble. What move would Trump have left when that bubble pops?
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
You are arguing that the increases in the market are due to money needing a home as opposed to the actual value of the company stock being traded. That would be a bubble. What move would Trump have left when that bubble pops?
Blame it on Obama and launch another investigation of Hillary Clinton. You're right while the market is trending upward there are persistent and qualified warnings regarding the formation of a market bubble and small investors such as myself know that the time to get out is drawing near. I'm no expert but I believe that given the projected short life span of the tax cut benefits a major market correction could come as early as Q4 of this year.It it were to happen what will VT have to say about?........ Blame it on Obama and call for another investigation of Hillary Clinton.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Blame it on Obama and launch another investigation of Hillary Clinton. You're right while the market is trending upward there are persistent and qualified warnings regarding the formation of a market bubble and small investors such as myself know that the time to get out is drawing near. I'm no expert but I believe that given the projected short life span of the tax cut benefits a major market correction could come as early as Q4 of this year.It it were to happen what will VT have to say about?........ Blame it on Obama and call for another investigation of Hillary Clinton.
No I wouldn't. Unlike Obama, who blamed his predecessor for a number of things, it's Trump's economy now. He and the Repubs have made some decisive moves that they'll have to own if it goes south. But if it works out it'll be their decisions also.
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
You are arguing that the increases in the market are due to money needing a home as opposed to the actual value of the company stock being traded. That would be a bubble. What move would Trump have left when that bubble pops?
It could be a bubble or it could be a new paradigm. With 401k's money can't just sit still. No one will participate if their account doesn't show growth. This system is making upper management of publicly traded corporations very wealthy but it's also designed to steadily improve retirement funds over time. Doesn't mean there won't be hiccups. If demand for products and services dries up then profits to pay dividends does too. If the big funds aren't going to be rewarded they'll stay on the sidelines until share prices fall enough that management will do whatever it takes to get profits up and shares bought again. That's what happened across the board after 2008. The employee suffers but does get ultimately an increase in his 401k. Trump and friends cutting taxes and increasing profits insures the cycle will continue awhile on the upswing. More people with more to spend, more profits, more dividends, the stocks are bought driving up the shares, management exercises options and rakes it in. If inflation hits it'll unravel eventually.
 

tonyexpress

Whac-A-Troll Patrol
Staff member
Here... I'll feed ya a "fake news" tidbit.

Economists: A Trump win would tank the markets

NEW YORK — Wall Street is set up for a major crash if Donald Trump shocks the world on Election Day and wins the White House.

New research out on Friday suggests that financial markets strongly prefer a Hillary Clinton presidency and could react with panicked selling should Trump defy the polls and deliver a shocking upset on Nov. 8.

Overall, the authors of the new paper envision a massive global market shock should Trump win. “Given the magnitude of the price movements, we estimate that market participants believe that a Trump victory would reduce the value of the S&P 500, the UK, and Asian stock markets by 10-15%,” they write and “would reduce the oil price by $4, would lead to a 25% decline in the Mexican Peso, and would significantly increase expected future stock market volatility.”

I wonder how many of the misinformed are still not participating in all this upside? :teethy:
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
No I wouldn't. Unlike Obama, who blamed his predecessor for a number of things, it's Trump's economy now. He and the Repubs have made some decisive moves that they'll have to own if it goes south. But if it works out it'll be their decisions also.
When it comes to blaming his predecessor Trump has set a new standard for that. Just yesterday he based his decision not to go to London for the ribbon cutting on the new US embassy on what he said was the decision by Obama to sell the old embassy building and building a new one on Obama when it was Bush who made the decision. A decision based on the fact the the old building could not be refitted to accommodate new security measures including the need for increased blast resistance.
 

bbsam

Moderator
Staff member
Here... I'll feed ya a "fake news" tidbit.

Economists: A Trump win would tank the markets

NEW YORK — Wall Street is set up for a major crash if Donald Trump shocks the world on Election Day and wins the White House.

New research out on Friday suggests that financial markets strongly prefer a Hillary Clinton presidency and could react with panicked selling should Trump defy the polls and deliver a shocking upset on Nov. 8.

Overall, the authors of the new paper envision a massive global market shock should Trump win. “Given the magnitude of the price movements, we estimate that market participants believe that a Trump victory would reduce the value of the S&P 500, the UK, and Asian stock markets by 10-15%,” they write and “would reduce the oil price by $4, would lead to a 25% decline in the Mexican Peso, and would significantly increase expected future stock market volatility.”

I wonder how many of the misinformed are still not participating in all this upside? :teethy:
Wait.
 

bacha29

Well-Known Member
Oh, I've enjoyed the profit. Just gonn take it off the table about now.
For 2017 the Dow gained 24.6% while the S&P 500 gained 19.6%. Reach those levels again this year? Not likely and most of what will be realized will come the first half of this year and that might even require being in step with sector rotation and the Fed leaves interest rates alone for the most part.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
For 2017 the Dow gained 24.6% while the S&P 500 gained 19.6%. Reach those levels again this year? Not likely and most of what will be realized will come the first half of this year and that might even require being in step with sector rotation and the Fed leaves interest rates alone for the most part.
One fact remains, if Hilary was president under the present conditions your perception would be 180 degrees different and you would be singing her praises.
 

Meat

Well-Known Member
One fact remains, if Hilary was president under the present conditions your perception would be 180 degrees different and you would be singing her praises.

I’ve said it before, the whole good guys vs. bad guys political narrative is absurd. If Hilary was elected, approximately 60 percent of populace wouldn’t own any stock. At the end of Trump’s presidency, approximately 60 percent of the populace won’t own any stock. I’m positively baffled as to why an average wanker would really favor one party over the other.
 
Last edited:

bacha29

Well-Known Member
One fact remains, if Hilary was president under the present conditions your perception would be 180 degrees different and you would be singing her praises.
Just as you're singing Trump's praises. At the same time however he's risking the possibility of much higher inflation which will result in higher interest rates along with a nasty trade war in exchange for a short term boost in the GDP.Don't get me wrong the growth might be sustainable for a bit longer than projected but if it doesn't improve job numbers generate some wage growth and sustained consumer spending you might just end up right back where you started along with exploding federal deficits.
 

floridays

Well-Known Member
Just as you're singing Trump's praises. At the same time however he's risking the possibility of much higher inflation which will result in higher interest rates along with a nasty trade war in exchange for a short term boost in the GDP.Don't get me wrong the growth might be sustainable for a bit longer than projected but if it doesn't improve job numbers generate some wage growth and sustained consumer spending you might just end up right back where you started along with exploding federal deficits.
I'll challenge you to find one post where I have sung his praises, I merely agree with most of his positions. He simply is not afraid of being crude to move the ball down the field. You didn't address the truth of my post, and are trying to lose people in the weeds with further assessments. Tackle the initial comment, and I may follow you into the weeds.
 

Meat

Well-Known Member
It could be a bubble or it could be a new paradigm. With 401k's money can't just sit still. No one will participate if their account doesn't show growth. This system is making upper management of publicly traded corporations very wealthy but it's also designed to steadily improve retirement funds over time. Doesn't mean there won't be hiccups. If demand for products and services dries up then profits to pay dividends does too. If the big funds aren't going to be rewarded they'll stay on the sidelines until share prices fall enough that management will do whatever it takes to get profits up and shares bought again. That's what happened across the board after 2008. The employee suffers but does get ultimately an increase in his 401k. Trump and friends cutting taxes and increasing profits insures the cycle will continue awhile on the upswing. More people with more to spend, more profits, more dividends, the stocks are bought driving up the shares, management exercises options and rakes it in. If inflation hits it'll unravel eventually.

Van, you seem EXTREMELY knowledgeable. Let me ask you this: under the new paradigm you speak of, if someone currently has hundreds-of-thousands in the market, how much will that be worth in 25 to 30 years?
 

vantexan

Well-Known Member
Van, you seem EXTREMELY knowledgeable. Let me ask you this: under the new paradigm you speak of, if someone currently has hundreds-of-thousands in the market, how much will that be worth in 25 to 30 years?
How could I know? Depends on inflation, return on investment, taxes, risk aversion, market timing, etc. Based on past performance it's better to be in the market than out over the long term. If you averaged a real return of 10% you'll double your money every 7 years.
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
When it comes to blaming his predecessor Trump has set a new standard for that. Just yesterday he based his decision not to go to London for the ribbon cutting on the new US embassy on what he said was the decision by Obama to sell the old embassy building and building a new one on Obama when it was Bush who made the decision. A decision based on the fact the the old building could not be refitted to accommodate new security measures including the need for increased blast resistance.

you realize we moved an embassy in London and spent 1.5 billion dollars doing so? why does it take 1.5 billion dollars to build an embassy? poor example for your argument.

you realize Obama spent 8 years blaming bush for his (Obama's) anemic results?
 

newfie

Well-Known Member
I’ve said it before, the whole good guys vs. bad guys political narrative is absurd. If Hilary was elected, approximately 60 percent of populace wouldn’t own any stock. At the end of Trump’s presidency, approximately 60 percent of the populace won’t own any stock. I’m positively baffled as to why an average wanker would really favor one party over the other.

I don't understand your argument. I don't make political nor financial decisions based on what 60 percent of the population does.
 
Top