gut;1837590 wrote:No that's not how it works.
You only see PE's this high a year or two before and after recessions (when earnings are much lower).
No, I am just a fake accountant.sleeper;1837591 wrote:Not sure QO understands P/E ratios. Keyword "ratios".
That argument really doesn't hold water at these levels and 8 years since the last recession. That argument applies more to individual stocks than entire markets, anyway.QuakerOats;1837623 wrote:What I am saying is that the market is pricing in earnings growth which will lower the P/E's, so if we are at 26x now, in a couple of quarters it may be at say, 21, when those earnings post.
Why is the money looking for a home? The most pro-business President ever was just elected, shouldn't they be getting in at the bottom? What's stopping them?QuakerOats;1837639 wrote:And there are a couple trillion in cash still looking for a home; and the individual investor has yet to return to the market.
I don't know; I am not seeing a 40% pullback. Obviously 5-10% could be in the cards, but if we get tax and regulatory relief, we could see growth that we have not seen in many years.
Dude, CC is in the market. You know they say it's time to get out when Joe Schmo finally decides to get in.QuakerOats;1837639 wrote:And there are a couple trillion in cash still looking for a home; and the individual investor has yet to return to the market.
LMAO.....5-10%?!? BULL markets routinely have pullbacks and corrections like that.QuakerOats;1837639 wrote: I don't know; I am not seeing a 40% pullback. Obviously 5-10% could be in the cards, but if we get tax and regulatory relief, we could see growth that we have not seen in many years.
Howard has turned the position down.ptown_trojans_1;1837358 wrote:Man, I really really hope Howard takes the National Security Adviser role. Seems like he would bring in his own people and would bring actual structure to the NSC.
http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/02/15/robert-harward-plans-a-housecleaning-of-trumps-national-security-council-staff/
The names as deputies are solid and are national security professionals, not talking heads.
O-Trap;1837438 wrote:I would just like to point out these three agreements.
superman;1837451 wrote:So with these 3 all agreeing, there's no way this common sense decision gets made.
Beat me to it.majorspark;1837662 wrote:Howard has turned the position down.
I mean, with the shit show so far, I'm not sure we could have justifiably hoped for something like that.ptown_trojans_1;1837663 wrote:Nope.
UGH. Looks like Howard pulled out of the running.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2017/02/16/trumps-pick-to-replace-michael-flynn-as-national-security-adviser-turns-down-offer-people-familiar-with-decision-say/?hpid=hp_no-name_no-name%3Apage%2Fbreaking-news-bar&tid=a_breakingnews&utm_term=.ad79839dd47a
Did you really write that? The money is now coming off the sideline and helping with the rally, and there is more to come.sleeper;1837642 wrote:Why is the money looking for a home? The most pro-business President ever was just elected, shouldn't they be getting in at the bottom? What's stopping them?
So you have taken some major short positions I take it.gut;1837644 wrote:This market is arguably built on shakier fundamentals than it stood in 2007. The values have been severely inflated by easy money and artificially low interest rates. A market correction is 10%. A bear market is 20% - this will be worse because of the weaker fundamental underpinnings. I'd fully expect something between 30-40%....just look at those 3 periods that were higher - 2007 lost 50.9% and 2000 lost 44.7%, lasting 2.1 and 1.3 years, respectively. And the third was the Great Depression.
If the market is expected to take off, why are investors waiting for the price to increase?QuakerOats;1837708 wrote:Did you really write that? The money is now coming off the sideline and helping with the rally, and there is more to come.
Get in the game.
LOL, no. I had some professors who lost a lot of money shorting NASDAQ back in the late 90's. They weren't wrong, they were just early. That's the problem with markets driven by momentum and enthusiasm - unsustainable valuations can persist for months or even years....but it's not a new normal and it just means the snapback is more severe.QuakerOats;1837709 wrote:So you have taken some major short positions I take it.
sleeper;1837713 wrote:If the market is expected to take off, why are investors waiting for the price to increase?
Do you understand the concept of efficient markets? Trump's "rally" has already been priced into the market.
Efficient markets and government programs have nothing to do with each other.QuakerOats;1837726 wrote:The market has already been taking off -- up 16% since the election, and investors will likely continue to wade in as they see growth policies enacted, which is why I think there is still a fair amount of upside left.
As for "efficient markets", you obviously have no concept; you advocate for government healthcare. LOL
Explain the connection between the concept of efficient markets and single payer healthcare.QuakerOats;1837742 wrote:Thanks.
...one-payer
This is essentially the difference between Obama and Trump.Azubuike24;1837861 wrote:The immigration stuff (and the statistics) are all irrelevant. The issue is the overall message they are sending. I don't think most people have an issue with raids to get rid of criminals. I just wish they wouldn't take such a brash approach.