Dead cat bounce or were out of the woods?
Printable View
Dead cat bounce or were out of the woods?
Probably a dead kitten bounce. China market is still going to shit despite all the government intervention. Their stock crash will trigger a liquidity crash that will trigger their real estate crash. They have shed 5 TRILLION in market value since mid-June.
Anybody start buying yet? I dabbled very lightly in the market this morning... very lightly, but I have cash earmarked for a good opportunity.
I have my finger on the trigger but haven't squeezed it yet. The stock I'm looking at is still dropping slowly.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMX7
Oil is pretty interesting right now. At sub-$40 per barrel prices, it just can't go much lower without companies shutting off supply and quickly pushing the price back up. 12-15 months from now it could easily be back up over $75.
A lot of producers were and are still hedged with contracts based on $80 oil. As these expire you will see production gradually drop but not as much as you might expect. the rig count may drop but it will be your latest generation walking rigs still running and they are a lot more productive than the old school rigs...They can punch 12 or 15 holes on the same pad without ever having to break down and move. That and new tech on the fracking end can still give some of these fields a damn good profit at $40 oil.Quote:
Originally Posted by DMX7
You sound like you know about drilling than I do, but we're talking about the big picture broad market here.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
I don't think the impact of hedging in this regard or some fields that can sustain an overall profit at $40 is going to have a material impact on overall supply near-term (next 12-15 months).
But we will see... I am obviously only speculating here.
I understand that a lot of people are looking at rig counts being cut in half and assuming that production will be cut in half. I'm saying that at least in the US these latest gen II rigs are at least twice as productive as the older rigs which makes the process cheaper and more efficient.
Great rally today, but most seem to expect heavy volatility ahead.
I haven't changed my portfolio. Ride or die.
better sell now schlong
JAMES HENRY, jamesshelburnehenry at mac.com, @submergingmktQuote:
Originally Posted by DMX7
Henry is former chief economist at the international consultancy firm McKinsey & Co. He is now senior fellow at the Columbia University Center for Sustainable International Investment.
He said today: “This stock turbulence is a great example of why we need a Financial Transaction Tax.
As brilliantly portrayed in this video by the British actor Bill Nighy, a tiny tax on financial translations carried out by institutions would raise hundreds of billions of dollars.”
http://www.commondreams.org/newswire...ransaction-tax
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM
how would stock or bond trading transaction tax be bad news for small businesses.
it would have to be a federal tax because the financial system is worldwide, not state limited. eg, NY or other states with trading exchanges would not impose the tax.
exchanges FLEE the USA tax operate in other countries? I'm pretty sure the industrial countries would impose similar taxes after USA's lead. The revenues would be too enormous to ignore.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/...ket-crash.htmlQuote:
And this is what most of the commentators don’t get, that all this market runoff we’ve seen in the last year or two has been by the Federal Reserve making credit available to banks at about one-tenth of 1 percent. The banks have lent out to brokers who have lent out to big institutional traders and speculators thinking, well gee, if we can borrow at 1 percent and buy stocks that yield maybe 5 or 6 percent, then we can make the arbitrage. So they’ve made a 5 percent arbitrage by buying, but they’ve also now lost 10 percent, maybe 20 percent on the capital.
What we’re seeing is that short-term thinking really hasn’t taken into account the long run. And that’s why this is very much like the long-term capital market crash in 1997, when the two Nobel prize winners who said the whole economy lives in the short term found out that all of a sudden the short term has to come back to the long term.
Now, it’s amazing how today’s press doesn’t get it. For instance, in the New York Times Paul Krugman, who you can almost always depend to be wrong, said the problem is there’s a savings glut. People have too many savings. Well, we know that they don’t in America have too many savings. We’re in a debt deflation now. The 99 percent of the people are so busy paying off their debt that what is counted as savings here is just paying down the debt. That’s why they don’t have enough money to buy goods and services, and so sales are falling. That means that profits are falling. And people finally realize that wait a minute, with companies not making more profits they’re not going to be able to pay the dividends.
Well, companies themselves have been causing this crisis as much as speculators, because companies like Amazon, like Google, or Apple, especially, have been borrowing money to buy their own stock. And corporate activists, stockholder activists, have told these companies, we want you to put us on the board because we want you to borrow at 1 percent to buy your stock yielding 5 percent. You’ll get rich in no time. So all of these stock buybacks by Apple and by other companies at high prices, all of a sudden yes, they can make that money in the short term. But their net worth is all of a sudden plunging. And so we’re in a classic debt deflation.
PERIES: Michael, explain how buybacks are actually causing this. I don’t think ordinary people quite understand that.
HUDSON: Well, what they cause is the runup–companies are under pressure. The managers are paid according to how well they can make a stock price go up. And they think, why should we invest in long-term research and development or long-term developments when we can use the earnings we have just to buy our own stock, and that’ll push them up even without investing, without hiring, without producing more. We can make the stock go up by financial engineering. By using our earnings to buy [their own] stock.
So what you have is empty earnings. You’ve had stock prices going up without really corporate earnings going up. Although if you buy back your stock and you retire the shares, then earning the shares go up. And all of a sudden the whole world realizes that this is all financial engineering, doing it with mirrors, and it’s not real. There’s been no real gain in industrial profitability. There’s just been a diversion of corporate income into the financial markets instead of tangible new investment in hiring.
And yet for the long haul the individual that plays makes far more money if well diversified.
You keep your money in Savings, you lose.
Look at almost any 15 year period and compare. We know there are people/institutions with an unfair advantage yet "we" must play. I challenge any poster to reveal the secret of a better investment than US stocks.
Be that as it may, more than half of Americans don't, as of September of last year.Quote:
We know there are people/institutions with an unfair advantage yet "we" must play.
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/09/08/the-s...-year-low.htmlQuote:
The Federal Reserve Survey of Consumer Finance found that only 48.8 percent of Americans held stock either directly or indirectly in 2012, the latest period measured. That's the lowest level since 1995, when 40.5 percent of Americans held some form of stock. (Indirect ownership of stock includes stocks held in mutual funds, 401-K plans and other investment vehicles.)
The survey said only 14 percent of Americans own stocks directly—down from 21 percent in 2001.
But even more than most assets in America, their ownership is highly skewed toward the wealthy. Fully 93 percent of the wealthiest 10 percent of Americans own stocks. That's nearly twice the level for the middle 50 percent and far more than the 26 percent stock-ownership rate for the bottom 40 percent.
:tuQuote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
I've been investing in pipeline companies (MLPs) and MLP funds. they make their money transporting and moving NG and petroleum, and although the price fluctuates ("goes down") with oil & gas stocks, they still make their money and they have great dividend yields.
besides that, I'm generally very diversified.
been leaning towards Ginny Mae funds the past year or so. Hopefully a safe-haven in any market meltdowns.
Having all of your money in savings/CDs/MMs etc at near-zero interest rates.... no thanks, although I have the recommended 4-6 months income in them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgardn
bonds and mutual funds are pretty good too. just have to keep diversifying your portfolio.
Mutual funds have all sorts of stock/bond mixtures and are indeed the easiest way to diversify IMO.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Reckoning
Most of my stock is thru mutual funds as it is so much easier to diversify this way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Winehole23
I suggest Vanguard as it has very low fees and does not allow constant churning if one is in for the long haul.
It would also make sense that many in the U.S. who are not wealthier do not participate as they don't have money to. But if they work for a company that has some sort of pension then they do probably participate.
And I totally get why owning stock directly is down, this all correlates well with individuals entering via mutual funds exclusively.
This is a TERRIBLE time to hold long bonds unless you are planning to collect them out. FED is gonna HAVE to start creeping rates back up and existing low interest bonds will take a shit in value.
It indeed is but bonds are not as volatile either unless they are junky. In stock you can take a one day pounding and some people can't handle that psychologically.Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicCowboy
does booboo seriously think you can solve every problem by taxing it?
I feel sorry for people who think now is a good time to buy in
So you are selling?Quote:
Originally Posted by m>s
Only thing I have out there is some money in retirement accounts and I've weighted it heavily toward bondsQuote:
Originally Posted by pgardn