U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-13-2015, 09:42 AM
 
Location: Central Atlantic Region, though consults worldwide
266 posts, read 285,777 times
Reputation: 95

Advertisements

I am not going to bored the informed with all the ongoings however,

Consider:

- inflation may materialize - labor cost increase might crimp corporate earnings.
- unemployment to be ~5% this summer, ahead for Fed's EOY 2016 projection?
- lastly, does January 28, 2015 mean anything to anyone. Could be bad...

Not so sure the godd times are here again.

Inviting comments...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-13-2015, 12:34 PM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,121,963 times
Reputation: 5171
3100 maybe, 31000 is a fantasy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2015, 01:17 PM
 
17,627 posts, read 12,224,034 times
Reputation: 12864
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
3100 maybe, 31000 is a fantasy.


Why am I not surprised by this response? While I think 31,000 in 3 years is overly optimistic and not realistic it's certainly not impossible. Interesting to think +21% a year is fantasy but you think -43%+ a year is more likely? Well if this isn't a negative view point I don't know what is
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2015, 01:20 PM
 
Location: DFW
6,717 posts, read 11,177,059 times
Reputation: 4980
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Why am I not surprised by this response? While I think 31,000 in 3 years is overly optimistic and not realistic it's certainly not impossible. Interesting to think +21% a year is fantasy but you think -43%+ a year is more likely? Well if this isn't a negative view point I don't know what is
And it still would not be impressive by the 1982-2000 bull market standards. 6500 (roughly the 2009 low) to 31000 would be only a 377% increase..

Not saying it's likely or unlikely but just putting things in perspective..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2015, 01:23 PM
 
2,775 posts, read 2,583,642 times
Reputation: 2967
Whatever happens it is 100% out of your hands, so why worry about? If you feel like investing in some stocks, do it. If not, then don't. The influences are completely out of your hands AND unknown to the likes of you and others at this website... your guess is as good as anyone else's because those who know aren't going to tell anyone ahead of time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2015, 02:43 PM
 
Location: NJ
22,690 posts, read 28,583,687 times
Reputation: 14625
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
3100 maybe, 31000 is a fantasy.
what is your asset allocation and how has your performance been over the past 10 years?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2015, 07:30 AM
 
Location: San Diego California
6,797 posts, read 6,121,963 times
Reputation: 5171
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lowexpectations View Post
Why am I not surprised by this response? While I think 31,000 in 3 years is overly optimistic and not realistic it's certainly not impossible. Interesting to think +21% a year is fantasy but you think -43%+ a year is more likely? Well if this isn't a negative view point I don't know what is
You confuse a negative view point with a realistic one.
Markets are like buildings, in order to evaluate their condition, it is necessary to evaluate their foundation.
It is the foundations of the current market which are not solid. Had this market cycle been built on organic growth based on sound economic fundamentals instead of the pump and dump policies of the Fed we would be looking at an entirely different situation.

All you need to do is to look at a chart of the market since QE ended to see how it's momentum is completely stalled.

Fundamentally, markets require a constant supply of new buyers to go up. That supply of new buyers was being artificially manufactured by 85 billion per month in printing by the Fed which was a fraud from the beginning and is now discontinued.

Now the market must exist on it's own fundamentals which are very problematic. The commodities markets are reflecting exactly where the economy really is. Ignore what they are telling you at your own peril.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2015, 08:10 AM
 
17,627 posts, read 12,224,034 times
Reputation: 12864
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimhcom View Post
You confuse a negative view point with a realistic one.
Markets are like buildings, in order to evaluate their condition, it is necessary to evaluate their foundation.
It is the foundations of the current market which are not solid. Had this market cycle been built on organic growth based on sound economic fundamentals instead of the pump and dump policies of the Fed we would be looking at an entirely different situation.

All you need to do is to look at a chart of the market since QE ended to see how it's momentum is completely stalled.

Fundamentally, markets require a constant supply of new buyers to go up. That supply of new buyers was being artificially manufactured by 85 billion per month in printing by the Fed which was a fraud from the beginning and is now discontinued.

Now the market must exist on it's own fundamentals which are very problematic. The commodities markets are reflecting exactly where the economy really is. Ignore what they are telling you at your own peril.


Can you post the chart you are looking at when you say the market stalled when QE ended? I'd love too see what it is exactly you are talking about. As I see it the market has been making higher highs even post the stop of QE. I would like to remind you also when QE "stopped" it went from 10 billion a month to zero not 85 billion a month to zero as they wound down QE over time. Hey but don't let facts get in the way of your fear mongering


Again comical that 21%+ appreciation a year for three years is fantasy but -43%+ depreciation a year for three years is more likely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2015, 08:28 AM
 
28,906 posts, read 45,227,864 times
Reputation: 45815
No one with a brain.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-14-2015, 09:35 AM
 
3,723 posts, read 1,671,952 times
Reputation: 5129
That would imply earnings growing 50%+ in three years from a pretty high starting point. Not likely. The current expansion would be 9 - 10 years old, kind of long in the tooth. The earnings cycle may already have peaked.

If the economy keeps expanding 3% - 3.5% a year, the Dow could be at 22,000 - 24,000 in 3 years. And that assumes things go mostly right. Oil stabilizes, Ukraine is quiet, ILIS is contained, China keeps chugging, Europe doesn't become PIGS land, the $ doesn't rocket or collapse, interest rates only rise 1% - 1.5%..a lot of sunshine needs to happen to keep things on track.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Economics
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top