Stock Market: Dow drops 450 points, biggest fall in 2 months, after Trump says he could wait on China deal
Category: News & Politics
Via: krishna • 5 years ago • 118 commentsBy: Thomas Franck @TOMWFRANCK - Fred Imbert @FOIMBERT
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Photo: Christian Hartmann/Reuters
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell more than 450 points in morning trading, led lower by trade-vulnerable Apple, Caterpillar and 3M. The S&P 500 slid 1.2% amid losses in chip stocks like Nvidia, Micron and Advanced Micro Devices. The Nasdaq Composite also lost 1.3%.
Both sides have introduced tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of imports as the disagreement escalated over the last year; additional U.S. tariffs are set to take effect on Dec. 15.
Tuesday’s losses would add to a steep decline from the previous session and by 10:07 a.m. ET were on track to push the Dow to its biggest two-day loss since Oct. 2.
Related: Here's why Warren Buffett's record $122 billion cash pile could be a worrying sign for stock markets
- Warren Buffett's mountain of cash may be a warning to investors that stocks are overvalued and that a crash is around the corner.
- The investing guru's firm, Berkshire Hathaway, held a record $122 billion in cash at the end of June.
- The conglomerate's cash is worth nearly 60% of its portfolio of public companies, the largest proportion since before the financial crisis.
Tags
Who is online
103 visitors
Both sides have introduced tariffs on billions of dollars’ worth of imports as the disagreement escalated over the last year; additional U.S. tariffs are set to take effect on Dec. 15.
Tuesday’s losses would add to a steep decline from the previous session and by 10:07 a.m. ET were on track to push the Dow to its biggest two-day loss since Oct. 2.
Smart traders have been lightening up on their positions as they realize what Trump actually means when he says a deal may be reached after the Election.
Markets go up, trump did it.
Markets go down, trump had nothing to do with it.
The stock market will close today higher than it ever was under Obama.
I made MORE money under Obama in my portfolio, every time fat fuck opens his mouth, my 401ks take a dive.
Then you should hire a professional to manage your money.
If you haven't made money the last three years, your investments seem suspect.
When fat fuck keeps his mouth shut, I make money, when fat fuck opens his fat fucking mouth I lose some of my gains.
Fat fuck crooked donnie should just keep his fat fucking mouth shut.
Trump talks every day.
Hell, some folks here are always complaining that he talks every day.
Like I said, if you lose money, then that is on you and your personal investment choices.
I have done rather well over the last 3 years personally.
Of course, I don't get all upset over some minor fluctuations in the markets, I am in it for the long haul.
Stock rise and fall.
Pick better if you want better results.
[deleted]
You coukld say that about the market under Obama as well-- or any president.
But trump's initial manipulations that made the market go up can only last so long-- artificial "goosing" of the economy won't work forever.
(And the deficit keeps exploding....eventually that sort of financial mismanagement will take its toll).
What a fucking asinine statement.
Then why are you bitching about losing when plenty of others are winning?
[deleted]
I am sure there are mountains of things you don't know.
Yeah, Trump didn't have the Fed pumping $3 trillion into the stock market like Obama did.
Everyone did.
6,594 was the low after the market crash.
19,732 was where Obama left it in January of 2017, an increase of $13.1 trillion during the Obama administration
27,394 is where it is today, an increase of $7.6 trillion under Trump.
So in less than 4 years, stocks have risen well more than 50% of what they did under Obama in 8 years.
Nope, I made a lot of money when Obama was in office, now fat fuck opens his mouth and stocks fall.
That "math" is such a pesky thing.....
You're surely not going to attempt to accuse Trump as the lone "gooser" of the economy. It's been "goosed" continuously since the latter days of GWB.
[deleted]
Stocks are still higher than they were 30 days ago.
I'm not sure what your expectations are, but I suggest they may not be wholly realistic.
No, I work for a University Medical School
Every time the market drops a percent under Trump, we get a post predicting that economic end times are here.
The sky is falling this time, for sure.
I said I am making money but when fat fuck opens his mouth, stocks fall.
And yet you do not seem to recognize opportunity knocking.
I have no idea what her financial situation is. However I should point out that while the majority of people don't make money in a down market, many do. Perhaps you are assuming that she has all her money in index funds (in which case you'd be right).
But there are several ways you can make money in a down market:
1. Be smart enough (or lucky enough!) to have most of your money in fairly safe, non-volatile securities that pay high dividends.
2. Own relatively non-volatile safe securities and keep selling covered calls.
3. In rare cases some people own only a very few stocks and if they are smart-- or lucky-- they may just have picked those that go up under those conditions.(Or all their investments in one sector. For example, if you owned only 2 or 3 stocks in a bear market, and they were all defense stocks-- and war broke out...). Or oil stocks if there was a war in the Persian Gulf.
Or-- an oil exploration company that has never discovered any oil-- and suddenly "hits pay dirt)
4. Have most (or all) your money invested in something that goes up when the market goes down. *(depending on several variables, that could be, for example, Gold).
5. Own a few speculative biotech-- and one of that has a miraculous breakthrough on a cure for a disease....
And there are other ways-- those are just a few that come quickly to mind.
Wow, that's some pretty raw language for a "lady".
So did Hunter Biden.
I noticed that none of the progressives who jumped all over these numbers in this seed had a thing to say about today’s numbers here or on the seed about today’s great numbers.
The goosing of the economy was done by the federal reserve under social fairness over economic growth Obama not for Trump.
It was around 9,000 when Obama took office and is at 28,000 now.
That comment shows your lack of knowledge of the history of the stock market!.
(Did you know that the stock market was higher under Obama then it ever was under Clinton? Why?)
And it was much, much higher under Clinton than it ever was under George Washington! Much, much higher.. LOL!
Do you have any idea why?
(Kind of a dumb question, given your obvious lack of knowledge of the market...)
And did you know that there man, many more unemployed people under the Reagan administration than under his presidency then there ever was under Thomas Jefferson?.
Why?
(Does that "prove" that Reagan was really, really horrible for the economy?)
Was my comment true or not? No bullshit, no excuses, no explanation--just a very simple yes or no.
Go!
You ought to quit while you're behind. Forever ubiquitous as a philosophy has never paid off.
You should learn what behind is.
So will the deficit.
And even more to the point-- so will the total U.S. population!
(Food for thought...heh
FALSE statement.
Please ensure accuracy!
You're right. The deficit Obama inherited in 2009 from the irresponsible Republicans was over $1.4 trillion so today as we near $1 trillion it's still less than how badly the Republicans screwed us last time with two unfunded unnecessary wars and $6 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.
But as you can see in your own link, President Obama got it down to $585 billion by the time he left and during his last 4 years in office the annual deficits were all below the current Trump inflated deficit.
I know.
Democrats held the House. Obama inherited the deficit from his own party. You DO know where spending bills originate, right?
Look, I am not claiming that the GOP is fiscally conservative because they have proven themselves to NOT be, just as Democrats have.
Republicans had control of both the house, senate and executive in May of 2001 when they passed the irresponsible Bush tax cuts which exploded the deficit even before the two unfunded unnecessary wars that the lying Republican administration convinced everyone were necessary. Trying to blame the house Democrats who later gained a majority is beyond dishonest.
You should probably read the link I provided then.
Unfunded wars?
How did they manage to get paid for then?
Seems to me Congress appropriated money for them.
That is a ludicrous comment.
Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz suggested the war could be done on the cheap and that it would largely pay for itself. Rumsfeld stated "the $20 billion the president requested is not intended to cover all of Iraq's needs. The bulk of the funds for Iraq's reconstruction will come from Iraqis -- from oil revenues, recovered assets, international trade, direct foreign investment, as well as some contributions we've already received and hope to receive from the international community."
Paul Wolfowitz told Congress that "we're really dealing with a country that could finance its own reconstruction."
"March 16, 2003 Meet the Press interview of Vice President Dick Cheney, held less than a week before the Iraq War began, host Tim Russert reported that "every analysis said this war itself would cost about $80 billion, recovery of Baghdad, perhaps of Iraq, about $10 billion per year."
"The CBO estimated that of the $2.4 trillion long-term price tag for the war, about $1.9 trillion of that would be spent on Iraq, or $6,300 per US citizen"
So here we are nearly $3 trillion later after a bunch of "emergency supplemental" funding bills were cobbled together to deal with the HUGE expenses that weren't calculated by Republicans before they pushed for an invasion. Thus the Iraq and Afghanistan wars weren't formally funded, we just continued to borrow money to throw at them because we had little choice once we put boots on the ground.
I guess if you want to hurt US security and cost the lives of allies and hand over the reigns and spoils to adversaries, you support Trump. And because conservatives are so against helping others, look up exactly what happened leading up to and after this disaster was tweeted yourself. Then you can do some deep thinking about why you are so happy to harm US interests and help the autocrats in Turkey and Russia. Oh, and hand over our best allies fighting ISIS over for ethnic cleansing. We blew up our own base to keep our business out of Russian/Syrian/Turk hands. And NOW we are back in Syria fighting ISIS after all because Trump is fricken moron. How exactly is that a good thing?
You bought into TDS Trump DENIAL Syndrome
The supposed "tantrums" were about the lack of a plan and the rushed abandonment of Kurdish allies with no discussion or debate, just a unilateral withdrawal after a phone call with the slimy religious extremist Erdogan who was itching to wipe out the Kurds. But none of that has anything to do with the point I made, which was Republicans pushed for the Iraq war with false pretenses of WMD's that weren't there and they knew it, and then they lied to us about how much it was going to cost and we are still paying millions in interest on the near $3 trillion we borrowed to fight that war idiotic war. The fact that many Democrats bought into the lies presented by the Republican administration and voted to approve their requests doesn't make Democrats complicit in the illicit Republican administration plan to invade Iraq even though they had nothing to do with 9/11 and didn't have WMD's.
In regards to our support for the Kurds, we needed them in our fight against ISIS, which ultimately was a product of the Iraq war debacle. And once we were there on the ground with them it changed our responsibility to them.
If you have a large raft coming from Cuba with say 50 defectors, and the boat sinks and they all die, well that's a sad story and I feel bad for the victims. But if it's a large raft sinking with 50 people and we get a coast guard boat out to them in time, get them on the boat, and then get a message from the shore that says "Do not bring them to shore, abandon all defectors, dump them back in the sea" I have to imagine and hope our Coast Guard officers would refuse such a blatantly criminal order.
If we had never invaded and gotten ourselves entangled in the Middle East, we wouldn't be responsible for those Kurdish lives as they fought their regional conflicts. But now that we did involve ourselves, we were the boat that thousands of people were relying on for safety.
Is this what the TDS sufferers call it now to feel better about their disease?
Nope, it's what trumpster's are afflicted with
Well according to the web you are wrong. I'll stick with the what people say to make them feel better about their disease belief.
Thank you for displaying such empathy and humanity... /s
I'm not surprised this would be one of the tactics of the brain dead right, to just vilify those we've abandoned and accept the bullshit rhetoric being fed them by RT and the right wing fascist machine. Why wouldn't Trump supporters believe Erdogan over our own intelligence? They believe Putin over our intelligence agencies, so why do we even bother having intelligence agencies if we're just going to accept the word of murderous despots? Might as well hand over our intelligence to the FSB, it appears many on the right already have, or perhaps there's some other excuse for their lack of it.
Nope, you are still wrong and have TDS
That's different.
Trump wanted to pull out. Therefore it must be wrong.
Like I stated, the idea that the war was unfunded is simply ludicrous.
Obama didn’t inherit any big deficit from republicans. That statement is a lie. Congress ran continuing resolutions from Oct. 1 2008 to February 28, 2009. CR’s ran on prior year spending. Congressional democrats didn’t do a FY09 budget with Bush, waiting for Obama to be elected and take office. The vast majority of the deficit of FY 09 occurred after Obama signed the FY09 budget into law. It is telling a lie to say that Obama inherited a 1.4 trillion deficit from Republicans. Democrats controlled both houses before and after Obama took office and the signature on the 09 budget is Obama’s not Bush 43.
The stock market has gone up , over time, always , since the end of the great depression. Saying it is higher than it was 5 or 6 years ago is almost meaningless.
Ding, ding, ding!
Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner!
But doncha know fat fuck crooked donnie is God and he can't do no wrong
Pretty amazing, especially after one of the left's favorite economists predicted gloom and doom if Trump were elected!
Wait til you find out the damage he's done by way of the deficit, healthcare (including costs), tariffs (check the stats for small farms going bankrupt) or the costs we will all pay for in his foreign policy decisions that will cost us for decades and that deficit that will be bringing on a big fat recession again in the not too distant future.
When he says he won't work on a trade deal with China until after he is re-elected, shows me he cares more for winning the title than any actual trade deal.
He didn't say he wouldn't work on the deal until after the election. He said "they want to make a deal now and we will see whether or not the deal is going to be right,"
"A China trade deal is dependent on one thing — do I want to make it"
Yes if it’s a bad deal he will reject it.
You have way to much faith in him.
That is hilarious, he doesn't know anything about tariffs and trade. He doesn't even care if its bad, if he can make it work (by lying about it) for a few days or weeks, he'll do anything.
Actually that reminds me of a strategy some experienced brokers use when advising new investors.They usually come into the office excited but sometimes a little nervous.Sometimes they come in with a list iof a few stocks they think might be good-- sometimes its some hot tech co like Netscape or SApple, etc.
But the advisor recommends that for the first few thousand dollars they want to invest, they don't buy stocks. Or even Mutual Funds. Or ETFs, which seem to have become popular the last fews years (?)>
They are advised, instead, to begin by putting money only in an Index Fund. Which moves up and down with the overa lmarket.
Why?
Because over time, the market moves up.(So ten years from now-- or 20, you can be pretty sure the market will be higher.
(And BTW, I am not saying its because the president, 20 years from now, willbe better than trump-- it has nothing to do with that).
Most important thing people will read on NT today.
The American capitalist system is strong enough to survive almost any president.
Every time Crooked donnie opens his big fat mouth, he crashes the stock market
Sort of...
Actually what happens is usually when he announces one of his crazy policies, the market moves down (because the "smart money") knows how destructive they are.
But when trump realizes that, then he makes a comment that fools enough naive traders into thinking things are about to get better (usually that "we had good talks about a trade deal"...or "North Korea is getting closer to giving up its nuclear weapons")...or words to that effect.
Not results...just that we are "making progress".
His "base" laps it up and believes his bullsh*t-- but the "smart money" knows what's really going on.
The "smart money" knows destructive policies are unlikely to happen.
The "smart money" buys call options when the market dives on presidential announcements, and buys puts when the market rockets on presidential announcements.
The "smart money" is greedy when others are fearful and fearful when others are greedy.
Why do you think that?
(Because its not true-- for some yes,for others no).
Are you bt any chance familiar with Warren Buffett?
Because I've made a decent amount of money doing it.
Because Donald Trump is all hat a no cattle. He spouts bullshit like a teenager trying to impress a cheerleader. 99% of what he says never comes to fruition. If he knocks the market down with off the cuff comments like "we may postpone the trade deal until 2021", intelligent people know he's probably going to reverse that in a week's time.
You're correct. Huge numbers of smart money investors simply ignore noise altogether.
I quoted him. Intentionally. So yes.
Jack keep in mind you're dealing with someone that up until recently never made a premarket trade and found it to be emotionally draining.
OK, but I'm cool with that. Everybody starts learning somewhere and we're all at different points along that road. Earlier in my career I held multiple securities licenses, and I've been investing for nearly 30 years, so most people I meet are less experienced.
If you're going to pattern yourself after another investor, Buffet is probably the best choice, along with maybe Peter Lynch.
Krishna's cool about it. He doesn't present himself as some authority or anything, (at least he never has to me) and frankly the fact that he's investing at all puts him ahead of the NT and national average.
Yes he has said he trades stocks for a living.
The reason I said that some do and some don't-- and then brought up Buffet is because he doesn't do that. Actually I was surprised to hear it, but while Buffet is definitely "smart money", he doesn't buy call options when the market dives, nor does he buy puts when the market rockets.
Why?
Because he doesn't trade any option at all! What he does , bascally, is buy stocks (he seems to generally have a knack for that)> Mainly buys and holds-- doesn't trade options, doesn't trade in and out (only sells when he seesa need to)> very si9mple, conservative strategy.
(I was surprised to hear it, but apparently he doesn't use options or any derivatives at all-- or at least that's what was reported).
Everyone who trades doesn't do it after hours-- or before the open. (In fact, IIRC there was a time when you couldn't do that at all-- you could only execute trades when the market was open, regular hour).
Just as everyone doesn't trade options. (I used to do a lot of options trades but only buying covered calls-- I did it as a low risk way to generate income. (Covered calls actually lower your risk).
Some people mainly "buy and hold"-- others constantly trade in and out-- buy and hold stocks for a short time. And then there are the real day traders.
I've know very conservative investor who've mainly bought very conservative stocks, and held them for years. The only "trades" they did was put more small amounts into the same stocks at regular intervals. (Those were the days of "Blue Chips"-- and people who mainly put their money into the old AT&T before the breakup-- when the phone co was an actual monopoly!. (When T, GE and IBM were great stocks...)
Some people aren't looking for present income-- they don't care about dividends. Others are more concerned with income, won't buy a stock unless it pays good dividends. Some folks mainly buy small startups, or small biotechs in hopes one will discover an amazing drug. Other buy only ehat they think are "safe" major established corporations.
People have different strategies.
From my experience its usually the case that there are many different approaches to investing that are equally good. The success or failure is based on how smart an investor is, not whether he trades options or not, or what time of day, etc.
P.S; What is your "style" of trading?
Right now I have all long positions mostly index etf's and a few individual stocks. If the market turns to a bearish cycle I will probably sell with stop losses and begin shorting again but with a smaller portion of my overall portfolio than I currently have tied up in equities. I also have treasuries as a safety net and smaller portion of my portfolio tied up in municipal bonds that are paying higher returns than the treasuries but have a small amount of risk. It's just a hobby for me as most of my income comes from rent on buildings I hold in LLC's that I lease to a sub s corporation we own that does advanced manufacturing in aerospace and defense work. We have about six hundred fifty thousand square feet of office and industrial space. This allows me to return all the profits from the business back into the capital investments needed for the business to grow without debt. Our biggest customer is Boeing and we've been doing a lot of work on the mission to Mars and NASA's SLS space launch system.
Buffet does not use options, because options make no sense when you have $120billion in cash and you like to buy whole companies.
But I can't imagine we'll disagree on the idea that Buffet is not a typical investor.
I'm more typical, except I've been doing longer than most people.
On Tuesday, I bought Jan 2020 call options on leveraged exchange traded fund SPXL, at a strike price of $60. I'm selling them today...because the market is up 300 points and it's a good time to take profits. It looks like I'll get about a 76% return in 4 days. Not bad for just keeping my cool and failing to become hysterical at whatever bullshit flows out of Donald Trump's mouth on a given day.
I've got two other options trades still cooking from Nov 1 that are up 95% and 70% respectively, based primarily on the historical data on Nov-Dec market movements. I'll sell those the last week in Dec.
Now, as you correctly point out, if options are used correctly they are a risk reduction tool. I use options for my trading because I can risk a small fraction of what I would have to if I bought the ETF.
Oh No !
The last drop that happened under Trump....I gained 1000 points 1 week later !
People bitching about a fluctuation in the stock market crack me up.
Fact is, the market is up by over 7500 points since the day Trump was inaugurated.
I'm having flashbacks to when Krishna and Galen were claiming the market was dropping and would continue to drop at the beginning of the tariffs. Or when Krishna said the fat lady was putting her makeup on because the market was about to crash. The market up is substantially since they made those false predictions. As of 1:05pm est the S&P is down less than 1% for the day a big nothing burger.
Come on, we should go easy on them because they probably love them some Paul Krugman!
We all know how accurate HE is!
Are you sure I said that? I might have have it looksed like we were in for a correction-- but an actual "crash"?
I generally don't like to give stock market advice. The only time I remember (and even then I advised caution) was to look at STOR (a great bricks and mortar play when people were avoiding that sort of thing)-- and that was about 2 years ago).
Come on, we should go easy on them because they probably love them some Paul Krugman!
LOL-- you're doing it again!
You continually post things you know nothing about. (How doyou even know what news sources I watch?)
I vaguely remember his name-- but its been so long that I've seen any comments by him, I don't even remember where I saw it--- I don't know if he's on TV or a print columnist. (And if memory serves, wasn't he a regular news reporter-- not a stock market guy?
I don't buy stuff much on "tips"-- my best trades have been from my own research. I start my day watching MSNBC and Fox for regular News-- then Bloomberg and CNBC for market news. (Occasionally I go to the Fox market channel-- but they spend so much time on politics and not helpful market newsI don;t spend much time there-- also, there seem to be more lectures about "the dangers of Socialism" then there is helpful market news.. Then I scour numerous sites on the Internet.
Sometimes I discuss stocks on the phone with some pretty smart friends. (But I don't do what you so incorrectly assumed-- I don't think I've ever bought a stock just could someone said it was good...)
If I took all the advice I see each morning I'd be buying 200 different stocks a day! .
I didn't claim you had any news sources. Where did you get THAT from? LOL!
Vaguely? LMAO now!
Here: Paul Krugman from Wikipedia
Paul Robin Krugman (/ˈkrʊɡmən/ (listen) KRUUG-mən;[1][2] born February 28, 1953)[3] is an American economist who is the Distinguished Professor of Economics at the Graduate Center of the City University of New York, and a columnist for The New York Times.[4] In 2008, Krugman was awarded the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his contributions to New Trade Theory and New Economic Geography.[5] The Prize Committee cited Krugman's work explaining the patterns of international trade and the geographic distribution of economic activity, by examining the effects of economies of scale and of consumer preferences for diverse goods and services.[6]
Krugman was previously a professor of economics at MIT, and later at Princeton University. He retired from Princeton in June 2015, and holds the title of professor emeritus there. He also holds the title of Centenary Professor at the London School of Economics.[7] Krugman was President of the Eastern Economic Association in 2010,[8] and is among the most influential economists in the world.[9] He is known in academia for his work on international economics (including trade theory and international finance),[10][11] economic geography, liquidity traps, and currency crises.
Krugman is the author or editor of 27 books, including scholarly works, textbooks, and books for a more general audience, and has published over 200 scholarly articles in professional journals and edited volumes.[12] He has also written several hundred columns on economic and political issues for The New York Times, Fortune and Slate. A 2011 survey of economics professors named him their favorite living economist under the age of 60.[13] As a commentator, Krugman has written on a wide range of economic issues including income distribution, taxation, macroeconomics, and international economics. Krugman considers himself a modern liberal, referring to his books, his blog on The New York Times, and his 2007 book The Conscience of a Liberal.[14] His popular commentary has attracted widespread attention and comments, both positive and negative.[15]
You seem very well-informed to not really know who Krugman is.
Said fluctuations usually turn out to be nothing more than minor hiccups, but you won't see many on the progressive liberal left say or acknowledge that.
Market up or down what ever. Something doesn't add up. Mass incarcerations at the border. Murky trade policies. Unfettered Bank and Market policies. A withering increase of debt. National disasters. Fracturing of long standing alliances. Abandonment of strategic allies. US foreign policy more sympathetic to autocratic regimes and so much more.
And yet---apparently----the economy is the best the World has ever seen. What, just exactly is this great economy based on?
This too, the high number value of The Markets------whose numbers are they and what is the true value of those numbers? Is it over valued? Or, praise be, is it under valued?
The economy is based on actual figures, rather than emotions driven by a particular one-sided view of political events. The markets are based on the expected earnings of the companies being traded.
The optimism over the US economy is based in large part on the largest generation in US history finally "adulting" on a regular basis, and their potential to redefine productivity in a way we've never seen before. Combine that with a tax and legal structure that creates favorable conditions for businesses, and the possibilities are very promising.
Considering some of the meme's I've seen here on NT, I regret not buying stock in an eye bleach company.
I'll take a dozen!
Now that's hilarious, I love it!
I was at work all day--did we reach a trade deal with China or something?
I saw the stock market was way up like over 300 points, and after all the crying about the drop, I was just wondering.
It was all about the jobs report 266,000 new jobs last month and upward revisions to the two prior months. Then there was the unemployment rate drop to 3.5% and wage increases of 3.1% loaded toward lower income workers.