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.
Not for me. There is too much porn for me to watch.
During the day, I watch financial porn on CNBC.
In the evening, I watch science porn on PBS, Science, Discovery and such. I love Outrageous Acts of Science - always a DVR event. So is NOVA.
There is also history porn also on PBS and biography.
Animal porn on the Animal Planet. My Cat From Hell and Bad Dog! are always on DVR.
PBS is going to air another Ken Burns special on the Vietnam War ( History porn again ).
Sometimes, I watch porn on youtube. I can get gold porn there. Right now, I'm doing some puzzle porn on solving the Rubic's Cube. I think I'll have it in a week. youtube also has computer geek porn.
Why would I watch stuff like America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars with all that porn to watch?
( I consider the c-d investment forum to be financial porn. )
Thank you.
I am so sick of reading ignorant posts that imply there is nothing on TV other than Kardashians and Punky Brewster reruns. There is a lot of great, educational stuff today. If they don't want to explore what is really there that's their call but claiming TV is a waste only shows the poster has no idea what they are talking about.
Not for me. There is too much porn for me to watch.
During the day, I watch financial porn on CNBC.
In the evening, I watch science porn on PBS, Science, Discovery and such. I love Outrageous Acts of Science - always a DVR event. So is NOVA.
There is also history porn also on PBS and biography.
Animal porn on the Animal Planet. My Cat From Hell and Bad Dog! are always on DVR.
PBS is going to air another Ken Burns special on the Vietnam War ( History porn again ).
Sometimes, I watch porn on youtube. I can get gold porn there. Right now, I'm doing some puzzle porn on solving the Rubic's Cube. I think I'll have it in a week. youtube also has computer geek porn.
Why would I watch stuff like America's Got Talent or Dancing With The Stars with all that porn to watch?
( I consider the c-d investment forum to be financial porn. )
I watch some of those shows. I was merely responding to the post that a poster turned it on and then muted it. I might as well turn them off if that's the case.
The trailing p/e is not as high as it was in 2000. And we need to look at more than that, quite honestly.
Where are we in the earnings cycle? Earnings for the dot-com bubble peaked in mid-2000, so those high p/e numbers were based on peak earnings. Today we are nearly two years into an earnings recession so an elevated p/e is not as scary as if it were based on peak earnings. I made this mistake in 1992, believing the market was overheated after a strong 1991 and a trailing p/e north of 25. Oops.
Where are interest rates? In early 2000 one could get around 6% from the 10-year T-note, and 7%-8% from long-term investment-grade debt. Rates are far lower today, which makes stocks more valuable.
I also like to look at the p/e for some high profile stocks. Take a look at J&J, Coke, GE, JP Morgan, etc. Today's p/e ratios are about half of the 1999-2000 levels. This is a considerable difference.
Of course we can have a correction at any time, 10%, 20%, whatever. I don't have any reason to believe I can guess when the next one will happen nor how severe it will be. But taking a long-term perspective, say 10 years, I don't believe stocks are scary expensive today.
You made the mistake of looking at recession earnings and P/E ratio. The same mistake would've been made in 2009 when the market average P/E was 123.
The interest rate frankly doesn't tell you anything about whether the stocks are cheap on their own merit. Two years later, the overnight interest rates were 1% and stocks were halved (or 80% less in the case of Nasdaq which were supposed to be insensitive to interest rates). If rates made stocks more valuable on their own merit, the central banks wouldn't be doing asset purchases to shore up their prices.
There are different stocks that lead each bubble. GE was one of the main stocks during the 90's bubble. Worldcom, Enron, AOL, Time-Warner, Qualcomm, Lucent, Intel Corp, Applied Materials, and others led that bubble. If you know what stocks are leading today, you look at the FANG stocks or the stocks in the MTUM etf.
My only expectation at the present is that the SPX will rise to 2350-2450 based on an equidistant move from the the recent 1810-2135 trading range and the 2000-2015 ranges of 750-1550 and 666-1575. With so much ongoing central bank intervention, natural market forces are in suspended animation.
If you're a financial journalist, how many choices do you really have when writing about the market's future? It can go up, down, stay flat, or their favorite term lately, "volatility." You have to choose one and some say "down."
I remember the mid 2000s. People said housing could never go down. It didn't look irrational to say that at the time.
The markets will have a sizable correction when interest rates go up, probably a Brexit style or bigger. If Donald Trump wins the election that will send markets down. Other than that it's hard to say what might happen. Generally I'm skittish when it's at "all-time highs" like now. 2007 had a lot of that kind of talk.
The market will be down after the election regardless of who wins.
You think? I would expect a Hillary Clinton win to already be priced in to the markets since she is basically the status quo candidate. Donald Trump is the one who's going to introduce uncertainty by mucking with our trade policies, etc...
You think? I would expect a Hillary Clinton win to already be priced in to the markets since she is basically the status quo candidate. Donald Trump is the one who's going to introduce uncertainty by mucking with our trade policies, etc...
I think from previous elections, every time we change president regardless of party we have a recession if I recall.
I remember the mid 2000s. People said housing could never go down. It didn't look irrational to say that at the time.
That's true. But in healthy local markets, real-estate more than recovered from the crash. In vulnerable or depressed markets, there either was no "bubble" to begin with, or the subsequent crash was merely the sudden instrument hastening the trend of interminable decline. In other words, the crash itself was - in the proverbial "long term" - a non-event.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redguard57
I'm skittish when it's at "all-time highs" like now.
This presumes that there's something fraught and illegitimate with the market hitting a new high, as if the market is merely a yo-yo, and basic physics necessitates a decline following every rise. I have no basis to judge regarding "volatility" or short-term moves, but it seems to me to be the essential property of modern capitalism, is that the stock market rises overall, and that whenever it declines, is does so merely briefly. Hitting a new high could indeed mean a pullback on the subsequent day or subsequent week, and if we're "active traders", such information could be tradable. For the rest of us, is there any merit to greeting a new high with timorous skittishness? Is there any benefit to so-called hedging of bets, by withdrawing some portion of our money from existing equity holdings?
I too regard another high as likely to be followed by short-term retreat, but the whole point is that retreats are smaller than the moves forward, so that the overall trajectory is forward. If this were not to be so, our whole basis of modern capitalism would be suspect. Is it?
That's true. But in healthy local markets, real-estate more than recovered from the crash. In vulnerable or depressed markets, there either was no "bubble" to begin with, or the subsequent crash was merely the sudden instrument hastening the trend of interminable decline. In other words, the crash itself was - in the proverbial "long term" - a non-event.
This presumes that there's something fraught and illegitimate with the market hitting a new high, as if the market is merely a yo-yo, and basic physics necessitates a decline following every rise. I have no basis to judge regarding "volatility" or short-term moves, but it seems to me to be the essential property of modern capitalism, is that the stock market rises overall, and that whenever it declines, is does so merely briefly. Hitting a new high could indeed mean a pullback on the subsequent day or subsequent week, and if we're "active traders", such information could be tradable. For the rest of us, is there any merit to greeting a new high with timorous skittishness? Is there any benefit to so-called hedging of bets, by withdrawing some portion of our money from existing equity holdings?
I too regard another high as likely to be followed by short-term retreat, but the whole point is that retreats are smaller than the moves forward, so that the overall trajectory is forward. If this were not to be so, our whole basis of modern capitalism would be suspect. Is it?
I invest a certain percentage of my income every month that I don't think about. It's small enough that I don't miss it but big enough that it'll add up over the long term.
However, I have a decent amount of cash sitting on the sidelines waiting for a correction either in the markets, real estate or both. I made the mistake of taking my hard-earned savings and investing it in 2007. It was pretty traumatic to see it go down as much as it did and Idon't wish to repeat that. Of course my income situation was different then and I probably made a mistake investing almost all my cash in the first place. When my income went away I was screwed. Now I have a much greater cushion to ride out downturns. But I'll feel better if I invest at something below the "all-time high." It will obviously not go up forever.
I don't think we'll have another 2008 in the near or medium term. That was quite clearly a once-in-a-generation downturn. We probably won't see something like that again for 15-30 years. However, we will definitely have some downturns like 1987 or 2000 again in the relatively near future, when I'll pull the trigger on moving the cash. Interest rate increases are an obvious thing that's going to turn the market south when they happen, which they have to in the next 2 years.
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.
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.
