Stock Market:: S&P 500 has worst day in 6 years

Via:  krishna  •  5 days ago  •  102 comments

Stock Market:: S&P 500 has worst day in 6 years
Dow Slides 500 Points as Market Losses Accelerate

Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Krishna
1  seeder  Krishna    5 days ago

2:15 p.m. It’s ugly out there.

The S&P 500 has dropped 1.8% to 2827.57, while the Dow Jones Industrial Average has fallen 490.85 points, or 1.9%, to 25,939.72. The Nasdaq Composite has tumbled 2.3% to 7558.89. The Dow briefly was down more than 500 points.

 
 
MUVA
1.1  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @1    5 days ago

Give it to Friday to see what happens  interest rates and profit taking and 4 quarter taxes due it may turn around before the end of the week.

 
 
Krishna
1.1.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @1.1    5 days ago

Give it to Friday to see what happens  interest rates and profit taking and 4 quarter taxes due it may turn around before the end of the week.

Actually my guess is that there will be an upturn on Friday. (Possibly even beginning tomorrow?). But I wonder-- will that last?

I've been gradually lightening up, selling a little during the last 2 weeks or so in anticipation of this.. Hoping for upturn on Friday to sell a bit more then-- slightly lower my overall exposure, move a bit more into cash.

 
 
MUVA
1.1.2  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @1.1.1    5 days ago

I don't really invest in the stock market I invest in cash real estate my father how ever does and like you has seen the hand writing on the wall for awhile.He also is excited about buying I was talking to him as I posted my first comment good luck.

 
 
Krishna
1.1.3  seeder  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @1.1.2    5 days ago

I don't really invest in the stock market I invest in cash real estate my father how ever does and like you has seen the hand writing on the wall for awhile.He also is excited about buying I was talking to him as I posted my first comment good luck.

If you're good at it, IMO investing in actual Real Estate is better than investing in stocks. But it pays to know what you're doing!

Another way: invest in REITS (Real Estate Investment Trusts). They get special tax advantages, so their payout are often fairly good. There's a general belief that they do worse with rising interest rates-- but well managed REITS do well anyway. And their business is in the U.S....

Two interesting possibilities for a watch list:

_____________________________________________________________

1. Ventas (VTR) - well of its highs. A play on the aging population:

Ventas, Inc., an S&P 500 company, is a leading real estate investment trust. Its diverse portfolio of approximately 1,200 assets in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom consists of seniors housing communities, medical office buildings, life science and innovation centers, inpatient rehabilitation and long-term acute care facilities, health systems and skilled nursing facilities. Through its Lillibridge subsidiary, Ventas provides management, leasing, marketing, facility development and advisory services to highly rated hospitals and health systems throughout the United States. 

Current dividend approximately 5.9%.
So why is the stock down? Well other people are aware of the growth in the aging population as well, so there's lots of competition-- apparently an excess of old age homes and similar properties were built (?). But it looks like the stock may be oversold. In addition, their CEO is supposedly one of the best in the business.
I am not recommending buying or selling any stock-- just suggesting stocks to watch and research. Do your own "due diligence"!
_______________________________________________________________
2. STORE Capital Corporation (STOR) 
STORE Capital Corporation is an internally managed net-lease real estate investment trust, or REIT, that is the leader in the acquisition, investment and management of Single Tenant Operational Real Estate, which is its target market and the inspiration for its name. STORE Capital is one of the largest and fastest growing net-lease REITs and owns a large, well-diversified portfolio that consists of investments in 2,084 property locations, substantially all of which are profit centers, in 49 states.
Current dividend about 4.8%
Yes-- bricks and mortar commercial properties. Because of fears of competition from Amazon, many people were fearful of buying  commercial real estate-- many stores are having a tough time because of competition from Amazon. .So the stock was way oversold. However this one has some uniquely positive features, probably mostly  immune from Amazon competition (?)
Unfortunately its "been discovered" by investors-- so its moved up a lot. If interested in buying, IMO it pays to wait for a signifcant pullback in stock price.
_____________________________________________________________
Again, do your own research!
Note: I am not recommending buying either of these-- or any other financial instrument. And remember-- investing in stocks can be risky and may result in the loss of some (or all) of your invested capital.
 
 
MUVA
1.1.4  MUVA  replied to  Krishna @1.1.3    4 days ago

I buy commercial mostly my wife is the one that finds them she learned for her dad.We are also investors in the Harbor group. 

 
 
Studiusbagus
1.1.5  Studiusbagus  replied to  Krishna @1.1.3    4 days ago

Another great REIT is Camden Property Trust. 

My ex-wife retired from them and we bought and were bonused a shitload of their stock before and after they made a trust. The dividends were monsters then and have settled at about 6.5% last I checked, I'm not really sure as other than selling some stock all my div's are reinvested to buy stock.

They are a huge apartment complex developer, about 60,000 units at this point and just got off a buying spree that hasn't been reported yet. They became a trust after they sold off their commercial building division in a trade with another huge developer that wanted out of residential.

When we first started buying it was $17 a share. It split on us 2 for one four times. It now trades at around $92-95 a share. I still have a chunk, but retreated to cash on everything else right now. 

The shit is coming....and it's too late to dial back the bullshit.

 
 
Krishna
1.1.6  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @1.1.1    yesterday

  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @1.1    3 days ago

Actually my guess is that there will be an upturn on Friday.

jrSmiley_24_smiley_image.gif

Well, just tooting my horn (to coin a phrase), but I did correctly call the action for Friday-- the market did go up-- the horrible plunge of the last two days was stopped (at least for Friday). 

(I had a feeling there'd be a correction, but try as I might, I could not predict the date. So while I did correctly call the move up Friday, while like many people I knew there's be a correction at some point -- I failed to call the date(s) of that correction.

 
 
Krishna
2  seeder  Krishna    5 days ago

Why?

Major factors:  Trade wars (especially with China)  starting to hurt some sectors of the economy but expected to get much worse. And Fed's raising interest rates, plus hawkish comments from the Fed (even more increases in interest rates are on the way).

 
 
MrFrost
2.1  MrFrost  replied to  Krishna @2    5 days ago
Major factors:  Trade wars

Exactly. 

 
 
Krishna
2.1.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  MrFrost @2.1    yesterday
Major factors:  Trade wars
Exactly. 

I had recently come across someone I hadn't seen for a while (actually it was over 15 years!). The guy is a brilliant market forcaster-- but not known by most people-- known mainly to people in power...

We had a long talk, and one of the main points he made was, basically, the danger of the trade wars (especially with China) will be much, much worse than many people know. Bad for China of course, but also bad for the U.S. (Worse for China because their economy is much weaker than ours). Also bad for the entire globe.

The main factor, IMO, is how long they will last. If China caves soon and agrees to a trade deal, the damage will limited. However, for various technical reason, he feels China probably won't give in soon-- and it may continue a long time.

 
 
Split Personality
2.2  Split Personality  replied to  Krishna @2    5 days ago

Ford takes Billion dollar hit to bottom line from tariffs

planning large white collar layoffs.  Cancels importing new SUV made in China.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/ford-plans-layoffs-1-billion-010934096.html

 
 
Studiusbagus
2.2.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  Split Personality @2.2    4 days ago
Ford takes Billion dollar hit to bottom line from tariffs

GM has said the same $1,000,000,000

POOF! GONE!

 
 
Jack_TX
2.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Krishna @2    4 days ago
Major factors:  Trade wars (especially with China)  starting to hurt some sectors of the economy but expected to get much worse. And Fed's raising interest rates, plus hawkish comments from the Fed (even more increases in interest rates are on the way).

It's all about rates.

Fixed investments look more attractive and safer, so money rolls out of equities.

 
 
MrFrost
3  MrFrost    5 days ago

I wonder how long it will be before trump blames this on the dems or Hillary. [eye roll]

 
 
Studiusbagus
3.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  MrFrost @3    yesterday
I wonder how long it will be before trump blames this on the dems or Hillary. [eye roll]

You almost nailed it...he tried to blame the Fed.

What scares me is he doesn't play the market and blurted out the same thing Bush did. "It's just an adjustment" 

Bush said it and then the walls caved in.

 
 
tomwcraig
3.1.1  tomwcraig  replied to  Studiusbagus @3.1    yesterday

Sometimes, it is an adjustment.  To determine if it is just an adjustment or not, you have to see how long a correction lasts.  If it is just a single day, or even a week, then it can be considered just an adjustment.  However, if there is an impact beyond just the stockmarket, ala the AIG bundling of bad mortgages into multiple Credit Default Swaps, which exacerbated the problem of the 2008 recession, then you have a wider problem than just a market correction.

 
 
Krishna
3.1.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  tomwcraig @3.1.1    yesterday
Sometimes, it is an adjustment.  To determine if it is just an adjustment or not, you have to see how long a correction lasts.  If it is just a single day, or even a week, then it can be considered just an adjustment.  However, if there is an impact beyond just the stockmarket, ala the AIG bundling of bad mortgages into multiple Credit Default Swaps, which exacerbated the problem of the 2008 recession, then you have a wider problem than just a market correction.

.Exactly!

Don't a long period of the market rising continually (such as we've had) a correction is inevitable. In fact the pros like corrections-- it gives them an opportunity to buy stocks "on sale"!

Of course the trick is to know whether its just a short correction that will soon followed by the market continuing to go up-- or if its the beginning of a long dangerous pullback. (For novices, when the market was actually doing what it did for two days-- its hard not to panic).

But even the pros are wrong sometimes.

And there things you can do to minimize losses knowing that there will eventually be some negative surprises. One key thing is to diversify your holdings in general.

And specifically-- buy some stocks that don't trade in sync. For example own some that tend to go down when interest rates rise, and others that tend to go up when rates rise.

 
 
tomwcraig
3.1.3  tomwcraig  replied to  Krishna @3.1.2    yesterday

Also, the big key to getting rich off the stock market is to buy and hold long term.  Buy stocks that from a company that will have products that will be in demand for a long time.  If I had $3000 in the fall of 1990 and bought 3M stock, I would be doing great right now financially due to it having split several times in that time period along with going up from around $19 a share to $198 a share.

 
 
Studiusbagus
3.1.4  Studiusbagus  replied to  tomwcraig @3.1.1    20 hours ago
Sometimes, it is an adjustment. 

Yes, sometimes it is. I've played long enough to see things from different angles.  And yes, I have been wrong.

But...I'm troubled by a few things and backed away to cash a while back.

Retail is taking a kick in the pants and after this holiday season expect to see major closings. 

Unemployment claims climbed slightly recently. 

Companies are starting to take a defensive posture. Some are buying back stock, some are looking to efficiency which means jobs will be affected. 

Politically, Trump is going to have to follow through with collecting the tariff tax from us because the income tax overhaul is failing to bring the returns and revisiting the issue would mean an admission which would not be likely.

I'm sort of in agreement with Ron Paul a major catastrophy is coming and the levers have all been pulled. We're going to be spread out way to thin.

 
 
Studiusbagus
3.1.5  Studiusbagus  replied to  tomwcraig @3.1.3    12 hours ago

Actually 3M has only split twice since 1990 and only 4 times since 1972.

Twice I had to hang on to 3M because it nosedived horribly. 

I like 3M, they do great research and the engineers have a great 50/50 deal. 50% of the time you are working on 3M mandated projects, the other 50% the engineers can follow whatever curious fancy they desire. 

3M is in the middle of changing their portfolio of holdings, the last time they did that they went off on an industrial technical binge. 

I can see them spinning off their abrasives line soon as the market is catching up with them and getting diluted.

 
 
Krishna
3.1.6  seeder  Krishna  replied to  tomwcraig @3.1.3    7 hours ago
Also, the big key to getting rich off the stock market is to buy and hold long term. 

That used to be true in the past. Buy the "Blue Chips" (major American companies that were always quite solid) and never sell them.

But IMO lately its gotten more complicated.

For example, years ago IBM and GE were considered some of the best U.S. companies. Low risk, paid a dividend etc-- seemed like you couldn't go wrong buying and holding over years...even decades. They both have done really poorly. 

I like now its sort of like "trust but verify"-- find relatively solid low risk companies and plan to hold them for a long, long time. But-- also keep an eye on them. 

The change seems to be because there's so much tech. Technology changes fairly rapidly. So some sub-sectors of tech that had looked like fool-proof investments suddenly plummeted if the technology was becoming obsolete-- or if they tried to develop hot new products but failed.

I don't follow the autos much any more-- but there was a time when it looked like you couldn't go wrong buying sand holding stocks like GM and Ford. I just took a quick look at a long term chart of Ford. It kept going up for a while. It looks like on or about Dec. 1st 1998 it sold for about $33/share.You wouldn't have done so well if you bought and held this former "Blue Chip"-- last Friday it closed at $8.64!

 
 
Krishna
3.1.7  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @3.1.6    7 hours ago

I don't follow the autos much any more-- but there was a time when it looked like you couldn't go wrong buying sand holding stocks like GM and Ford. I just took a quick look at a long term chart of Ford. It kept going up for a while. It looks like on or about Dec. 1st 1998 it sold for about $33/share.You wouldn't have done so well if you bought and held this former "Blue Chip"-- last Friday it closed at $8.64!

That being said-- there is a lot of truth is buying and holding for long periods of time. There have been studies done of the "average" investor. There's a clear pattern related to frequency of trading. In most cases those who trade a lot do worse than those who trade infrequently-- those who may add some money every month to a stock they own or occasionally buy a new one. But those small investors who keep fiddling with their accounts do much worse. 
 
 
Krishna
3.1.8  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Studiusbagus @3.1.4    6 hours ago
Politically, Trump is going to have to follow through with collecting the tariff tax from us because the income tax overhaul is failing to bring the returns and revisiting the issue would mean an admission which would not be likely.

Traditionally its the Republicans (and I think especially the more conservative ones, have wanted a balanced budget. In fact many seemed to obsess about it. But is Trump is greatly increasing spending and increasing the deficit. Where's the to remedy that going to come from? Under Trump taxes can't be raised.

And the tariffs will cut into most corporate profits-- so the government won't get much more money from them through taxing corporate profits because most corporate profits are declining due to tariffs.

And if he's able to build one of his major projects ("The Wall") that will cost a small fortune. He wants increased military spending which of course will also increase the deficit.

And then there's his cock-a-mamie idea of creating a fifth branch of the military-- a "Space Force". Creating a whole new and expensive bureaucracy! (WTF is he expecting? An invasion from Mars-- perhaps he also thinks it will be lead by Hillary or Obama, or Schumer or Pelosi-- LOL!)

 
 
Krishna
3.1.9  seeder  Krishna  replied to  tomwcraig @3.1.3    6 hours ago
If I had $3000 in the fall of 1990 and bought 3M stock, I would be doing great right now financially due to it having split several times in that time period along with going up from around $19 a share to $198 a share.

I just looked at a chart of AMZN. If you had bought shares on Jun 1st of 1997 (Looks like it was about $1.50/share!) and finally sold it even its very lowest price during the recent horrendous 2 day pullback (when a share was selling at the low, low pullback price of only $1700/share  (well, I rounded it off-- it was actually cheaper than that, a single share went for only $1690) . . . you would've done OK. (And at a dollar and a half, I imagine many folks who got in early could've afforded a few hundred shares-- or more).

 
 
tomwcraig
3.1.10  tomwcraig  replied to  Studiusbagus @3.1.5    5 hours ago

I haven't paid much attention to the stock market, particularly after I sold all my stock.  Those two splits, I know one was a 2-for-1 split, depending on the amount would still give me over 10 times the amount of the purchase price.  If you look at the numbers, I used earlier, they didn't account for stock splits.  You pay $19.00 per share in 1990, the stock splits once 2-for-1, you now have double the shares that you originally purchased, then you sell all your shares for $198 on Friday.  For every share you originally purchased, you made $396, that's almost 21 times the amount you originally purchased.  By my calculations, with $3000 in 1990, I would have been able to purchase 157 shares and if I sold them this past Friday, it would have netted $62,172.

 
 
tomwcraig
3.1.11  tomwcraig  replied to  Krishna @3.1.6    5 hours ago

That's why my caveat was about a product that would sell for a long time.  With everything that is changing, particularly in the Tech sector, you need to research the companies you invest in and find out what they produce or what services you provide and try to find out which products or services will be available long term.  Apple was a company back in the late 1970s and 1980s that looked like it was going to die a horrible death due to their foolish decision to make everything proprietary and if someone opened up a computer to fiddle with it, voided the warranty.  It was that foolishness that caused IBM and Microsoft to surge ahead in the early days of the Tech wars.  Then, Apple created the iPod.  That single device saved Apple as they were barely subsisting on computer sales to schools.  Since then, they have hit home runs with just about every single device they have created in recent years from the iPad to the iPhone.

 
 
lady in black
4  lady in black    5 days ago

I am not worried.  

This pull back is due in part as the result of the yearly (October) selling activity of the large hedge funds related to annual owner redemptions activities.  Also due to rising treasury rates, money is leaving the equity markets and going into the corp bond markets.  New money both domestic and foreign will come back into the stock markets to buy depressed stock prices.

 
 
Split Personality
4.1  Split Personality  replied to  lady in black @4    5 days ago

I just bought some depressed stock and they are tanking, lol.

now I am depressed as well,   smh.

Actually I am back to where I was at the top of the melt up in January...

 
 
Split Personality
4.1.1  Split Personality  replied to  Split Personality @4.1    5 days ago

Mutual fund just reported, added another $1,100 to my losses.

Sure hope Ender is wrong about the nosedive...

 
 
Ender
4.1.2  Ender  replied to  Split Personality @4.1.1    5 days ago

I do too.

 
 
MUVA
4.2  MUVA  replied to  lady in black @4    5 days ago

You are right trade war has very little to do with this down turn profit taking the bond market and interest rates are the major factors. 

 
 
Studiusbagus
4.2.1  Studiusbagus  replied to  MUVA @4.2    4 days ago

Don't agree. Too many other activities to say it was profit taking.

First, businesses are buying back stocks to control pricing not for immediate profits. They see this coming and if they can lock up more of their shares the panic selling will be minimized by lack of public shares.

Secondly, it's not because bonds are up that people are moving to them, it's a shelter from the storm brewing. They're running for safety.

 
 
MUVA
4.2.2  MUVA  replied to  Studiusbagus @4.2.1    4 days ago

I believe that my father law is a big investor and has pulled back over the last couple months he will sometime make moves as large as seven figures he is a original dollar tree investor his life long friend was Macon Brock he was of the founders.

 
 
Studiusbagus
4.2.3  Studiusbagus  replied to  MUVA @4.2.2    4 days ago

I've almost pulled out to cash with the exception of a couple safe ports and Camden. 

I did this before in 2005 and avoided losing a buttload.

My ex scoffed and stayed in...she lost $1.5 mil. She has it back but...what a blow.

 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.4  Jack_TX  replied to  Studiusbagus @4.2.1    4 days ago
Don't agree. Too many other activities to say it was profit taking.

Interest rates.  Interest.  Rates. 

First, businesses are buying back stocks to control pricing not for immediate profits. They see this coming and if they can lock up more of their shares the panic selling will be minimized by lack of public shares.

A smaller float makes their stock more volatile, not less.  If they're worried about a coming "storm", they'd keep the cash.  When it all goes to shit, cash is king.

Secondly, it's not because bonds are up that people are moving to them, it's a shelter from the storm brewing. They're running for safety.

Massive institutional investors don't invest like retail investors, and they move the market.  Bonds are more attractive.  Higher interest rates also slow the flow of lending and new capitalization.

 
 
Studiusbagus
4.2.5  Studiusbagus  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.4    4 days ago
smaller float makes their stock more volatile, not less.  If they're worried about a coming "storm", they'd keep the cash.  When it all goes to shit, cash is king.

You don't have a good source of cash if your stock drops 90% from panic selling. Better to hold the bulk of the stock and command the price.

 
 
Jack_TX
4.2.6  Jack_TX  replied to  Studiusbagus @4.2.5    2 days ago
You don't have a good source of cash if your stock drops 90% from panic selling.

Your outstanding stock is not a source of cash.  You sold it already. 

 
 
Studiusbagus
4.2.7  Studiusbagus  replied to  Jack_TX @4.2.6    yesterday

If your stock drops 90% from panic selling then what does that do to the existing stocks you own?

If you have less stock out there you can control the value. The higher value is either good as a sale item or used as collateral in a loan. Do you find cash in stock that is dropped 90% ? Rather put up 1000 shares and get a $50,000 loan or 1000 shares and get a $500,000 loan?

And since they're collateral, you still control the company AND have better cash flow. It's not just about buying and selling.

 
 
Krishna
4.2.8  seeder  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @4.2    yesterday
You are right trade war has very little to do with this down turn profit taking the bond market and interest rates are the major factors. 

I believe interest rates are a factor-- and many people feel as you do. However from all the research I've done, they as not nearly as important as the trades wars-- particularly with China. (And Iran-- the boycott will cause oil prices to rise, which lx not only be inflationary but also raise costs of just about everything. Probably the only people to benefit will be the oil companies of course-- but everyone from the consumer to most large corporations will be hurt).Of course the key determinant of how much damage they do is how long our new self-destructive trade policies last...)

 
 
Ender
5  Ender    5 days ago

I have read doom and gloom articles and articles that just call it a blip in the radar.

In my opinion the stock market is artificially inflated. 

Global corporations can withstand more of a hit than the average small time investor. If a crash occurred, it will be people that lose retirement funds and life savings. To protect their own bottom line corporations/business will lay off. Then consumer spending will cease. With the US debt at unsustainable levels, the economy will take a nosedive.

 
 
Krishna
5.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Ender @5    yesterday
Global corporations can withstand more of a hit than the average small time investor. If a crash occurred, it will be people that lose retirement funds and life savings.

Only the ones who haven't bother to save for the future-- and also some who have saved but who haven't invested wisely.

(One group of people that this includes is people who invest based upon their emotions-- strong emotions  caused by their political views. Instead of showing some emotional self control and invest based upon them committing to pursue the actual facts. Regardless of whether or not what they discover supports their political biases or not!!!!!!)

 
 
tomwcraig
5.2  tomwcraig  replied to  Ender @5    yesterday

As I said above, the real key to getting rich from the stock market is to buy and hold long term.  I gave an example of a stock that would have possibly made me rich if I actually had $3000 in 1990 to use to purchase stock.  The market is volatile with day-trading and various large funds trying to maximize instant returns.  The problem for me is that I probably would have had to sell them as I had to sell my stock in Coke and Hershey (that I had purchased when WorldCom was around) due to my health issues.  WorldCom burned me, because I didn't listen to my instincts and instead went with the recommendation of a broker...

 
 
Ender
5.2.1  Ender  replied to  tomwcraig @5.2    yesterday

I agree.

Most people don't take care of it themselves though. Like with a 401k I had with a company I worked for several years ago, a firm took all of our money and invested it themselves. The only choice we had was whether we wanted to be in a more high risk pool or lower risk bonds and such.

 
 
Krishna
6  seeder  Krishna    5 days ago

Global corporations can withstand more of a hit than the average small time investor

I'm wondering if that's also true of Global corporations that have large investments in China?

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Krishna @6    5 days ago
I'm wondering if that's also true of Global corporations that have large investments in China?

I think they will fair better than a lot of company's that don't have investments in China, I think China has found a "key" to success in the global market and, are taking advantage of it.

 
 
Krishna
6.1.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1    5 days ago
I think China has found a "key" to success in the global market and, are taking advantage of it.

Well, you might be right. However at this point I think the U.S.-China trade war is hurting both countries-- and now may be hurting China even more than the U,S. (?)

 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1    5 days ago
I think they will fair better than a lot of company's that don't have investments in China, I think China has found a "key" to success in the global market and, are taking advantage of it.

Maybe some people should actually investigate the Chinese economy before they tout how good it is....

Is China’s Economy Stagnating?

To hear some say it, China is currently pursuing aggressive foreign and economic policies on several related fronts. It is asserting its hegemony over the western Pacific Ocean with island building and military installations in the South China Sea, an important trade lane. It is actively investing in both advanced and developing economies to secure technologies, products, and commodities. And it is pursuing economic policies that will bolster the economy both domestically and abroad.

It is also well known that China’s economy has slowed in recent years—although still growing at comparatively robust rates—according to official numbers—as has its trade volumes.

PLEASE note the DATE of the link....  January 2017

Source:  http://www.globaltrademag.com/global-trade-daily/chinas-economy-stagnating

And of course there is this:

China’s Economic Numbers Have a Credibility Problem

China’s gross domestic product grew 6.8 percent in the first quarter, smack on its pace in the preceding quarter, which was unchanged from the quarter before that. It’s a well-established pattern: Since 2015, China’s quarterly growth figures haven’t varied by more than 0.1 percentage point on a year-on-year basis. That contrasts with the U.S., where swings of a full percentage point from quarter to quarter aren’t uncommon.

....

The world has long suspected that China fudges its numbers, which is why the investment community has assembled an array of alternative measures, including rail cargo volume, electricity use, and satellite imagery of factory sites, to gauge economic output. “I suggest investors ignore China’s GDP growth rate,” says Andy Rothman, a former U.S. diplomat in Beijing who’s now an investment strategist at Matthews Asia, a money manager. “There are so many other data points which help us understand the health of the Chinese economy and which we can verify by comparison with private data.” High-frequency metrics on movie ticket sales, iron ore imports, and orders for bulldozers are considered a more useful measure of demand in key sectors from consumption to construction. Bloomberg Economics’ monthly growth tracker, which shows more variability than the official GDP number, registered growth of 6.97 percent in March.

Source:   https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-19/china-s-economic-stats-have-a-credibility-problem

Or if you're interested in forward looking:

2019 Economic Outlook: Deflationary Bust Led By China

Summary

The synchronized global growth experienced for the past 18 months has been driven by expansionary monetary policy in China.

Excessively loose monetary policy has resulted in misallocation of capital on an unprecedented scale.

As monetary conditions tighten, the tide will go out and the unsustainability of the realized global growth will become clear.

China has led the way in disguising weak economic fundamentals with unsustainable credit growth and government sponsored asset bubbles.

As this act comes to a close, commodities and emerging markets will feel the brunt of the pain.

Global economic growth and optimism has experienced a significant upswing over the past eighteen months as measured through a variety of metrics (GDP growth, financial market performance, business and consumer confidence and so on). This uptick in growth was not the result of an increase in labor force population growth rates, entrepreneurship, the pace of technological innovation or broad based political and economic reforms.

Instead, it was the direct result of the efforts of the People's Bank of China to breathe life into its economy following the economic malaise of 2015 and early 2016. As China has flooded its financial system with easy credit, a property and construction boom ensued and its demand for commodities and imports began to get back on the path to growth. In an interconnected global economy, where China has been responsible for~30%of the global economic growth in the post financial crisis era, a boom in China is a boom for the rest of the world's economies as well. And as we will see in 2019, a slowdown in China will be a headwind for the rest of the world's economies as well.

Source:  https://seekingalpha.com/article/4187426-2019-economic-outlook-deflationary-bust-led-china

China has been effectively bullshitting the world for about the last two decades.   But, they're building roads no one uses, and cities no one populates to keep the people bamboozled and working on something as the "government" tries to figure out what it's doing.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.3  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Krishna @6.1.1    5 days ago
and now may be hurting China even more than the U,S.

Maybe but, wasn't there a story recently about China buying up or, getting control of ports in other country's, if this is true then, wouldn't they control more major shipping of goods and, receive moneys in that sector as well? Seems a great way to weather tariff's at home.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.4  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.2    5 days ago
 But, they're building roads no one uses, and cities no one populates to keep the people bamboozled and working on something as the "government" tries to figure out what it's doing.

If you have money to throw away like that it seems like you can weather a tariff storm. We can't even take care of the infrastructure we have already.

 
 
MUVA
6.1.5  MUVA  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.3    5 days ago

China manipulates their currency  they steal intellectual property and bully companies that do business in their country use slave labor what a country.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.6  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  MUVA @6.1.5    5 days ago
China manipulates their currency  they steal intellectual property and bully companies that do business in their country use slave labor what a country.

I'm not saying that China has a great business model or, that they are the way to go but, there may come a time, if we don't catch on, when China will be the only way to go because, they will control most of the global business's.

 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.7  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.3    5 days ago

Hell, they own ports here....   but when they start their own economic implosion and need an infusion of cash, guess what will get sold...   the only thing they have that will be worth anything.....  and it won't be in China.

 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.4    4 days ago

They're throwing money around that they don't have.

When you own the money presses and the property the roads are built on and the companies that build the roads and the companies that supply the materials....   who cares if the ink is still wet and smears on your fingers.

PS:  Most of that infrastructure we have that's crumbling, talk to the states.   The feds help build it then it's on the states to maintain it.   Oh, and a lot of that Chinese infrastructure is crumbling WITHOUT being used.   Can you imagine hoe it would do if it was used?

 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.9  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.6    4 days ago
if we don't catch on,

We caught on, and President Trump is finally doing something about it.    We caught on back in Bush one time frame....   but no one had the balls to challenge them until Trump.  

Don't think they'll control most of the global businesses.   We're putting the brakes on them buying American properties and companies.   

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.10  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.7    4 days ago
but when they start their own economic implosion and need an infusion of cash, guess what will get sold...

The Emperors treasures from 10 thousand years of imperial rule.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.11  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.9    4 days ago
We caught on, and President Trump is finally doing something about it.    We caught on back in Bush one time frame....   but no one had the balls to challenge them until Trump.   Don't think they'll control most of the global businesses.   We're putting the brakes on them buying American properties and companies.

If you think Trump is actually doing something about it, then I have a bridge you would love to own.

 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.12  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.10    4 days ago
The Emperors treasures from 10 thousand years of imperial rule.

I think even the peasants would rise up if they tried that.

 
 
XDm9mm
6.1.13  XDm9mm  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.11    4 days ago
If you think Trump is actually doing something about it, then I have a bridge you would love to own.

Not think....   know.   

But, I do need to ask.  Where did you get that bridge?   Hopefully not from the progressive moron I sold the Brooklyn Bridge, Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and East River Parkway to.  He thought he got a good deal.   So, what did you pay might I ask?   A dollar three eighty?

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.14  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.13    4 days ago
Where did you get that bridge?   Hopefully not from the progressive moron I sold the Brooklyn Bridge, Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and East River Parkway to.

No, no, no and, no.

  He thought he got a good deal.

LOL

   So, what did you pay might I ask?   A dollar three eighty?

A buck two ninety-eight.

 
 
Ender
6.1.15  Ender  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.8    4 days ago
They're throwing money around that they don't have. When you own the money presses and the property the roads are built on and the companies that build the roads and the companies that supply the materials....   who cares if the ink is still wet and smears on your fingers.

I would say that we do the same.

 
 
MUVA
6.1.16  MUVA  replied to  Ender @6.1.15    4 days ago

Agree we spend money we don't have a give away citizens money like a drunken sailor.

 
 
Studiusbagus
6.1.17  Studiusbagus  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.3    4 days ago
Maybe but, wasn't there a story recently about China buying up or, getting control of ports in other country's, if this is true then, wouldn't they control more major shipping of goods and, receive moneys in that sector as well?

I just heard an hour of that on PBS. China is going crazy loaning money or outright buying transportation and ports in Africa and South America. 

Shit! They control the Panama Canal now! They built a transportation network in Nigeria and everyone thought it would bring big jobs...nope.

The Chinese built it with Chinese labor amd operate it with Chinese labor and management. 

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.18  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Studiusbagus @6.1.17    4 days ago
The Chinese built it with Chinese labor amd operate it with Chinese labor and management.

Yep, total control by the Chinese.

 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.19  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.3    4 days ago
Maybe but, wasn't there a story recently about China buying up or, getting control of ports in other country's, if this is true then, wouldn't they control more major shipping of goods and, receive moneys in that sector as well? Seems a great way to weather tariff's at home.

The primary purpose of a tariff is to suppress demand for foreign products.  It's not about the amount of tax.  It's about the falling sales the tax creates.  

The Chinese are already paying people to do shit they don't need done, just so they can provide jobs.  If you add 30 million factory workers to that number because US sales have fallen, it becomes financially unworkable pretty quickly.

Nobody, including Trump, things tariffs are a long term solution.  They are a negotiating tactic to force other countries to agree to fairer trade arrangements.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.20  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.19    4 days ago
Nobody, including Trump, things tariffs are a long term solution.  They are a negotiating tactic to force other countries to agree to fairer trade arrangements.

Someone once said you can't fight a war on two fronts, Trump created a tariff war with the world, ok, so, Trump thinks that fighting a war on hundreds of fronts is a winner, as do you. The country's that have U.S. tariffs on their products will trade with each other without putting tariffs on those country's products and, make money and, they will either not trade with the U.S. or, put tariffs on our products going to their country, either way, that is bad for the consumers in the U.S. and, costs U.S. jobs.

 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.21  Jack_TX  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.20    3 days ago
Trump thinks that fighting a war on hundreds of fronts is a winner, as do you.

You haven't a clue what I think.  Don't guess.

The country's that have U.S. tariffs on their products will trade with each other without putting tariffs on those country's products

Yes.  To the extent that those other countries have markets for each others products.  But pretending that losing sales in the US won't bother them is idiotic.

and, make money

Some nominal amount, yes.

and, they will either not trade with the U.S. or, put tariffs on our products going to their country, either way, that is bad for the consumers in the U.S. and, costs U.S. jobs.

Temporarily, maybe.  But on a longer term view..... admittedly against all expectation.... Trump seems to be having success re-negotiating trade deals in a way more favorable to the US.

 
 
Ender
6.1.22  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.21    3 days ago
Trump seems to be having success re-negotiating trade deals in a way more favorable to the US

How so? Besides minor altercations, the deal he made with Mexico and Canada are virtually the same.

Plus we have not seen all the specifics. So to say it is better, is stretching it a bit.

Edit: Forcing companies in Mexico to raise their wages, will only raise the price of vehicles. Guess who pays that?

 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.23  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.1.22    2 days ago
How so? Besides minor altercations, the deal he made with Mexico and Canada are virtually the same.

It will require 75 percent of auto components to be built in North America, up from 62.5 percent.

Forty to 45 percent of auto components will have to be made by laborers making at least $16 an hour.  The average wage in a Mexican auto factory is less than $8, including benefits.

U.S. farmers are getting more access to Canadian dairy markets.

70% of the steel used in vehicles sold in North American must come from North America.

Plus we have not seen all the specifics. So to say it is better, is stretching it a bit.

It's better than we had.

Edit: Forcing companies in Mexico to raise their wages, will only raise the price of vehicles. Guess who pays that?

The same people who would pay higher prices for $15/hr minimum wage, or who pay higher prices every time an American labor union negotiates higher wages for its members.  

I find the "prices will go up" line of thinking to be astonishingly, brainlessly hypocritical.  The same people who gladly proclaim they would happily pay higher prices to support a Democrat/liberal program like a massive minimum wage increase suddenly object to doing so because "Trump".  

 
 
Ender
6.1.24  Ender  replied to  Jack_TX @6.1.23    2 days ago

62 to 75. OMG. Drop the presses! Big whoop. Will not make any difference.

It is not hypocritical when it has an impact on wages in this country. I think it is kind of ironic that the America first crowd are cheering other countries making higher wages. That is what is hypocritical. 

The steel tariffs are still in place.

What is brainless is touting this as a major success.

If it was some great thing, they would be shouting about it non stop. Do you see any republicans, or trump for that matter, using this as a talking point for the elections? I sure don't.

 
 
Jack_TX
6.1.25  Jack_TX  replied to  Ender @6.1.24    yesterday
62 to 75. OMG. Drop the presses! Big whoop. Will not make any difference.

It's a half trillion dollar industry.  13 percent is not a small amount of money.  

It is not hypocritical when it has an impact on wages in this country. I think it is kind of ironic that the America first crowd are cheering other countries making higher wages. That is what is hypocritical. 

The new agreement more than doubles labor costs for companies moving auto production to Mexico. 

The steel tariffs are still in place.

And?  It's still going to mean more steel production from US sources as opposed to Chinese or Indian sources.

What is brainless is touting this as a major success.

You're the only one arguing that point.  I simply said it's better than what we had.  Which it is.

If it was some great thing,

Why does something have to be "some great thing"?  Why can't it just be "better"?

 
 
Krishna
6.1.26  seeder  Krishna  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.2    yesterday
Is China’s Economy Stagnating?

Definitely.

 
 
Krishna
6.1.27  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Galen Marvin Ross @6.1.3    yesterday
Maybe but, wasn't there a story recently about China buying up or, getting control of ports in other country's, if this is true then, wouldn't they control more major shipping of goods and, receive moneys in that sector as well? Seems a great way to weather tariff's at home.

If what you say is true, its only a minor factor. The China economy is hurting for many reasons. For starters there's a tremendous of corruption. And Communist ideologues just aren't good ar understanding how capitalism works. And given a choice between what works and what support their (Communist) agenda-- they have to follow the political party line! 

Actually the trade war is very bad for the U.S. as China-- but its really only just started.  it will get much worse. I think Trump's looks at it as the U.S. will win-- and China will lose. But what he doesn't realize is that if China "loses" big-- it will hurt the entire world economy-- including the U.S.

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
6.1.28  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Krishna @6.1.27    22 hours ago
Actually the trade war is very bad for the U.S. as China-- but its really only just started.  it will get much worse. I think Trump's looks at it as the U.S. will win-- and China will lose. But what he doesn't realize is that if China "loses" big-- it will hurt the entire world economy-- including the U.S.

This reminds me of what happened just before the "Great Depression" in a few ways, country's wanted to "show" Germany up but, they ended up hurting themselves doing it, that included the U.S.

 
 
Krishna
6.1.29  seeder  Krishna  replied to  XDm9mm @6.1.7    6 hours ago
but when they start their own economic implosion and need an infusion of cash, guess what will get sold..

That's an easy question to answer. They will sell U.S. Treasuries-- they own a YUGE amount of U.S. debt. (I haven't kept up with this, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are already starting to do it). 

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    5 days ago

I made ton of $$ shorting stocks. Anytime a hurricane is about to hit I short.

Always works.

 
 
MUVA
7.1  MUVA  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    4 days ago

Every time a storm comes I short sheet everyone's bed It doesn't make me money and pisses everyone off.

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7.1.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  MUVA @7.1    4 days ago

Krishna is my financial advisor and Atheist is my spiritual advisor.

I'm set.

 
 
MUVA
7.1.2  MUVA  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7.1.1    4 days ago

You have it made.

 
 
Krishna
7.1.3  seeder  Krishna  replied to  MUVA @7.1    3 days ago

Every time a storm comes I short sheet everyone's bed It doesn't make me money and pisses everyone off.

I recommend buying the stock of Home Depot if/when there's a major pullback. (And it current pays a dividend as well).

 
 
Krishna
7.1.4  seeder  Krishna  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7.1.1    3 days ago
Krishna is my financial advisor

You have chosen wisely! :-)

 
 
Krishna
7.1.5  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @7.1.3    17 hours ago

I recommend buying the stock of Home Depot if/when there's a major pullback. (And it current pays a dividend as well).

And FWIW, I do not own any shares of Home Depot. (I wish I had purchased some in the past, but every time I looked at it I had thought (mistakenly) that it had gone up too much). Currently I do not follow that stock . . .

 
 
321steve
7.1.6  321steve  replied to  Krishna @7.1.5    16 hours ago
I do not own any shares of Home Depot. (I wish I had purchased some in the past, but every time I looked at it I had thought (mistakenly) that it had gone up too much).

LOL... I did buy shares of HD @ $21 watched it go up to $70  pretty quickly and then it start jumbling around on headlines like everything else so I pulled out. Home depot Now sits at  $192.47

OUCH !!  

 
 
Krishna
7.1.7  seeder  Krishna  replied to  321steve @7.1.6    5 hours ago
LOL... I did buy shares of HD @ $21 watched it go up to $70  pretty quickly and then it start jumbling around on headlines like everything else so I pulled out. Home depot Now sits at  $192.47 OUCH !!  

I think HD is just a really well run company. There's one near me I've been shopping in for years. Recently a Lowes opened up nearby, so I went there in looked around, even asked 2 different salesmen a few questions. For a variety of reasons I liked HD much better.

I've been trading a long time, and now I've become pretty good at not worrying about a stock I missed. (Actually it happens a fair amount of time-- even with some of the very best traders. I've had stocks that seemed to be going nowhere, seemingly forever.Sold them - and shortly thereafter the stock took off. And I've bough a stock and shorltly thereafter the price plummeted.  (Actually I did that recently. Did some research, decided the future looked good for PEP (Pepsi). Then several analysts wrote some negative stuff about it (some of which seemed to be true) and the started going down. It might have been a mistake to buy it.

(I still think they probably have a good future-- its just that now its "dead money"---  the stock won't do anything positive for a while-- so that money could've been better put to work elsewhere).

 
 
321steve
7.1.8  321steve  replied to  Krishna @7.1.7    4 hours ago

I think HD is just a really well run company.

I did as well and still do. It kinda kills me that I didn't have the balls to ride out the turbulences that I bailed for.  again...OUCH 

I also thought about PEP when I bought the HD and don't remember why now I chose HD over PEP especially because at one time long long ago I worked at Pepsi in the field.

I never have been a "gambler"  LOL My dad "won" that out of me when I was about 9 

I  bet him, My Bet , His win... every cent I had saved.

OUCH  .. and I paid it or he took it !  

lol 

Unfortunately or fortunately I'm still holding more gold than I care to because I paid to much for some of it as the last run up was happening years ago then the sudden drop and now the long term stagnation.

Stuck with Gold though isn't something I can really bitch too damn much about though so.. Holding an investment that hasn't increased in years is though. so Damn !

I guess we do Live and learn eh.

 
 
Krishna
7.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    3 days ago
I made ton of $$ shorting stocks. Anytime a hurricane is about to hit I short.

OK-- but don't short stocks related to building-- especially those that sell plywood for boarding up windows, portable electric generators, event those that do or sell supplies for reconstructing buildings. These frequent hurricanes may be bad for many sectors (insurance companies?) but they're great for companies such as Home Depot!

 
 
bbl-1
8  bbl-1    4 days ago

1.  Cramer.  Should have his shoelaces tied together and be thrown onto I-90 during rush hour.

2.  The market's meteoric rise makes as much sense as it's meteoric falls.  Based on what?  Why?  And who benefits from all of this, really?

3.  The real shame is the fact that 'Main Street' is played like a puppet on a string by Wall Street. 

 
 
Krishna
8.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  bbl-1 @8    3 days ago
The market's meteoric rise makes as much sense as it's meteoric falls.  Based on what?  Why?  And who benefits from all of this, really?

People who are smarter than the average person....

(To some degree that means wealthy people who've made their own money not inherited it or won the lottery-- often that's why they're wealthy). But also people of average means who are frugal-- who save money regularly-- and then do the work to learn how to invest successfully).

 
 
bbl-1
8.1.1  bbl-1  replied to  Krishna @8.1    2 days ago

I voted you up on principal. 

Except 'these markets for the past couple of decades' are most definitely not my grandfather's or father's markets.

 
 
Krishna
8.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  bbl-1 @8    yesterday
 Cramer.  Should have his shoelaces tied together and be thrown onto I-90 during rush hour.

There's been a widespread trend in recent years-- there's been a noticeable increase in the number of people who refuse to take responsibility for their lives. They blame all their failings on someone else!   The market's meteoric rise makes as much sense as it's meteoric falls. 

Correct!

Based on what? 

Basically its based upon supply and demand-- as well as peoples refusing to take responsibility for themselves-- they are mostly fools and blindly  follow trends (the latest fad). Many people make a decision based on something they heard or read online. Making a financial decision based on one article or online comment someone made? I PITY THE FOOLS!

Of course it makes no sense-- to people who don't understand and are unwilling to do so!

The way subatomic particle operate also makes no sense. To people who don't understand it and haven't bothered to find out. Of course it makes perfect sense to informed physicists..

Why? 

Because it based on the aggregate of peoples' opinions. Most people are too lazy to learn the facts....

And who benefits from all of this, really?

People who take the time and put in the effort to understand how the market works. (Most individuals refuse to do this-- they'd rather spend their time whining about how unfair life is).

3.  The real shame is the fact that 'Main Street' is played like a puppet on a string by Wall Street. 

To some degree-- for gullible people or those to lazy to find out how to avoid being constantly manipulated others. And that's true not only in the Stock market. But its more like the smart people on Wall Street put in the time and effort to do the necessary research. "Main Street'" for the most part refuses to take responsibility for their lives-- they'd rather whine-- and look for someone to blame.

And just as stupid is letting one's political agenda govern their action in the market. Trading based on your emotions (caused by being influenced by ones political bias) is an excellent way to trade-- if your goal is to lose a lot of money quickly!

You can't be "Played' by anyone-- if you're willing to do what it takes to win.

 
 
Krishna
8.2.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @8.2    yesterday
more like the smart people on Wall Street put in the time and effort to do the necessary research. "Main Street'" for the most part refuses to take responsibility for their lives-- they'd rather whine-- and look for someone to blame.

For anyone who still doesn't understand how it works,  perhaps this poem will be of some help:

Miniver Cheevy

BY EDWIN ARLINGTON ROBINSON
Miniver Cheevy, child of scorn,
   Grew lean while he assailed the seasons;
He wept that he was ever born,
   And he had reasons.
Miniver loved the days of old
   When swords were bright and steeds were prancing;
The vision of a warrior bold
   Would set him dancing.
Miniver sighed for what was not,
   And dreamed, and rested from his labors;
He dreamed of Thebes and Camelot,
   And Priam’s neighbors.
Miniver mourned the ripe renown
   That made so many a name so fragrant;
He mourned Romance, now on the town,
   And Art, a vagrant.
Miniver loved the Medici,
   Albeit he had never seen one;
He would have sinned incessantly
   Could he have been one.
Miniver cursed the commonplace
   And eyed a khaki suit with loathing;
He missed the mediæval grace
   Of iron clothing.
Miniver scorned the gold he sought,
   But sore annoyed was he without it;
Miniver thought, and thought, and thought,
   And thought about it.
Miniver Cheevy, born too late,
   Scratched his head and kept on thinking;
Miniver coughed, and called it fate,
   And kept on drinking.

 
 
bbl-1
8.2.2  bbl-1  replied to  Krishna @8.2    10 hours ago

The vast majority of Americans survive on $40k or less.  Just what it is.

 
 
Krishna
8.2.3  seeder  Krishna  replied to  bbl-1 @8.2.2    5 hours ago

The vast majority of Americans survive on $40k or less.  Just what it is.

And another really serious problem-- its amazing how little most Americans have saved for retirement. (Even people who are not well off but who could save more than they do).

 
 
Dean Moriarty
10  Dean Moriarty    3 days ago

Don’t miss out on the buying opportunity.  

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/global-stock-markets.html

 
 
Krishna
10.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Dean Moriarty @10    yesterday
Don’t miss out on the buying opportunity.   https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/12/business/global-stock-markets.html

I couldn't access-- its protected by a paywall (I've used up my quota of free articles for the month).

 
 
MrFrost
11  MrFrost    3 days ago

Not to be a stickler, but the market actually dropped just over 800 points, not 500. 

 
 
XDm9mm
11.1  XDm9mm  replied to  MrFrost @11    3 days ago

That was then....   but you need to look at the time the seed was posted.....   BEFORE trading ended.

Besides, as I said that was then.

It's up 287 today, and when company profits are reported, it will likely go up yet more.

 
 
Krishna
11.1.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  XDm9mm @11.1    3 days ago
That was then....   but you need to look at the time the seed was posted.....   BEFORE trading ended.

Besides, as I said that was then.

It's up 287 today, and when company profits are reported, it will likely go up yet more.

You might be right.

But some companies report better earning but don't go up- and that's even with the overall market going up today! 

Here's why bank stocks are getting hit even after their earnings beat the Street

Fri, 13 April 2018  Updated 3:20 PM ET Fri, 13 April 2018

  • Bank earnings beat analyst expectations across the board, but the sector was off more than 1 percent in morning trade.
  • J.P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and PNC all saw share prices fall.
  • Analysts had expected rising interest rates, market volatility and tax cuts would produce stronger results.
 
 
Krishna
11.1.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  Krishna @11.1.1    yesterday
Here's why bank stocks are getting hit even after their earnings beat the Street

Something unusual is happening. The bank stocks that reported good earnings should've been expected to go up.

In addition, the Fed is raising interest rates. Generally speaking, that is bad for most stocks.But there's an important exception-- generally speaking rising interest rates are good for banks!

(And it seems rates will continue to rise).

 
 
Krishna
11.2  seeder  Krishna  replied to  MrFrost @11    3 days ago

Not to be a stickler, but the market actually dropped just over 800 points, not 500. 

Go ahead-- be a stickler! Its good to be accurate :-)

And also remember the recent downturn ended today-- the market closed up.

Which may or may not happen again next week.

(Both types of moves really don't say all that much about the future. Well-- except that we are probably in for more volatility then we've experienced in the recent past).

 
 
It Is ME
12  It Is ME    2 days ago

"Dow Slides 500 Points as Market Losses Accelerate"

oh Noooooooooo………..

I lost 500 points of the 18,000 points I already gained.

I'm jumping of the highest bridge I can find,  right now ! jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_87_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Krishna
12.1  seeder  Krishna  replied to  It Is ME @12    yesterday
oh Noooooooooo……….. I lost 500 points of the 18,000 points I already gained.

Like most people my portfolio went down for two days.

Of course that's only a "Paper Loss"-- a loss on on paper (now-a-days more likely to  be on a computer screen). Because you don't lose or gain money on a stock, no matter how much it moves-- until you actually sell it*.

I've been trading for a long time. I was happy to see I'm getting better at it. Every day I check the total value of my holdings against a "benchmark". I compare my %age gain or loss against the S & P (or usually against the NASDAQ for tech stocks). Then everyday I try to see what I can learn from what happened-- and how I can do it better in the future.

When the market plummeted on Weds & Thurs-- the average value of my stocks also went down. But I was surprised to see how little they went down compared to the bulk of the market. Compared to the averages.

No coincidence-- I've spent years trying to learn how to construct a portfolio that when the market has a big plunge, my portfolio dips considerably less!

The main way I do this is by smarter and smarter hedging-- for example, I have stocks that tend to go down when interest rates rise, and others that tend to go up when interest rates rise. 

(Another way to protect yourself is by smart use of options. I used to do that but it takes me a lot of time to do that, and I am trying to spend less time on the market). 

P.S: My Amazon stock went down a lot those 2 days-- but it turned out it was still up considerably from when I bought it. (At one point i tmore than doubled in price-- one of only three stocks that I've had that did that well...since the Tech Bubble where I had many Yuge gains..and more Yuge losses-- IIRC that was over 15 years ago).

___________________________________

(*Some exceptions-- if you trade various types of options and don't do it wisely, or if you are really really in debt by overuse of margins).

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online








44 visitors