CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 (edited) actually I'm not sure if anyone has noticed but a lot of stocks have done well in the past 6 months while having nothing but bad news.... there's a lot of market manipulation going on right now especially with banks... IMO a lot of stocks have done well because everything fell as one. Strong companies took aggressive cost cutting measures and the good ones rose to the top and their stock prices increased accordingly. Of course long term growth will rely on the return of consumer demand as you can only cut your overhead so much. Edited January 21, 2010 by CaP'N GRuNGe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 IMO a lot of stocks have done well because everything fell as one. Strong companies took aggressive cost cutting measures and the good ones rose to the top and their stock prices increased accordingly. Of course long term growth will rely on the return of consumer demand as you can only cut your overhead so much. Again, most stocks have done well because the market as a whole has rallied since March. In a general sense, It doesn't really matter which stock you own - if the market is trending up, provided you've done some homework and picked a stock with solid earnings,your stock will follow, if the market is trending down, your stock will follow. Pick your 5 favorite stocks and look at their 3 year chart - you will see an identical pattern (waves) among each of them. Of course this doesn't apply to ALL stocks but most stocks from the major indices should show these similar patterns. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Neutron Posted January 21, 2010 Share Posted January 21, 2010 there's a lot of market manipulation going on right now especially with banks... Agreed. Whomever is in chage politically when the banks come crumbling down again will pay hell. Nothing's significant has been done to prevent it from happening again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Some of the American states have deficits as high as 45 percent of their revenue and increasing taxes to cover the gaps is not likely to work because people would just move elsewhere or leave the US altogether, Faber said. "When you look at the US… it's a total disaster, we're all doomed, we're doomed," he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 we're all doomed, we're doomed Who authored this, Brentastic or Avernus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Who authored this, Brentastic or Avernus? lol....faber. he is a mega bear. but some of things he says are true. these states are all broke. when china stops buying our sh1t, we have probs. how will bills get paid? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Who authored this, Brentastic or Avernus? You realize the market has been down 3/4 days since my initial posting (1/16/2010) - right? Not saying I'm right yet since I forecasted a much bigger drop, but could it really be just coincidence? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 could it really be just coincidence? Yes, it could. It also bears out what I was saying about a bunch of sheep. To extend that argument, here's an example of how brainless the whole crock of chit really is: Google shares slip after 'strong' 4Q still did not meet some investor expectations PHILADELPHIA - Shares of Google Inc. fell Friday after the Internet search giant posted fourth-quarter results that some analysts described as strong, but still weren't good enough for some investors. Several analysts were impressed that Google seemed to have regained its momentum in the quarter, with at least one saying the decline in the shares reflected over-speculation on the part of investors. But Jefferies analyst Youssef Squali, while generally happy with Google's performance, nevertheless said growth in pricing, measured in cost-per-clicks, slowed to 2 percent from the prior quarter. That compares with a 5 percent sequential growth in the third quarter. Still, cost-per-clicks showed a year-over-year increase after four straight down quarters. Squali also noted that Google's international business slowed to an increase of 16 percent compared with 21 percent in the prior quarter. However, "we would not read too much into the above issues as we do not believe they represent the beginning of a trend," he wrote in a research report. "We find Google to be very well positioned for 2010." Other analysts agreed. Kaufman Bros. analyst Aaron Kessler said in a research note that Google's fourth quarter was solid and the sell-off is an "overreaction." Oppenheimer analyst Jason Helfstein said he sees "no flaws" in Google's fourth-quarter earnings report. He deems the price decline as an opportunity to buy shares. On Thursday, Google reported earnings of $1.97 billion, or $6.13 per share, in the quarter compared with $382 million, or $1.21, a year ago. Excluding one-time items, earnings were $6.79 per share. Revenue rose 17 percent to $6.7 billion. Results beat analysts' estimates of $6.48 per share and revenue of $4.92 billion. Shares of Google, based in Mountain View, Calif., were down $20.62, or 3.5 percent, to $562.36 in premarket trading. So, revenue up, increase in international business of 16%, earnings 600% up on the previous year.......and down go the shares by $20. That is flat stupid. Baaaaaa! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Yes, it could. It also bears out what I was saying about a bunch of sheep. To extend that argument, here's an example of how brainless the whole crock of chit really is: So, revenue up, increase in international business of 16%, earnings 600% up on the previous year.......and down go the shares by $20. That is flat stupid. Baaaaaa! I'm glad you posted that because it exactly supports my claim (and discounts yours and dmarc's) that stocks do not trade off news. This also makes the wave theory I follow seem more relevant - the market doesn't move on earnings or news, it moves in predictible waves based on social mood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I'm glad you posted that because it exactly supports my claim (and discounts yours and dmarc's) that stocks do not trade off news. This also makes the wave theory I follow seem more relevant - the market doesn't move on earnings or news, it moves in predictible waves based on social mood. lol...ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBalata Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 I'm glad you posted that because it exactly supports my claim (and discounts yours and dmarc's) that stocks do not trade off news. This also makes the wave theory I follow seem more relevant - the market doesn't move on earnings or news, it moves in predictible waves based on social mood. and what exactly drives social mood? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 lol...ok Is that all you got? Do you think stocks trade based on news? If so, shouldn't that be the case all the time? Either the model works or it doesn't - if there are inconsistencies in the model, then it's not correct. Wouldn't you agree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) Count Brentastic as against the Efficient Market Hypothesis. And for the record, I think the evidence is that the market responds to both news and other intangible effects - both predictable and not. Edited January 22, 2010 by The Irish Doggy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 Count Brentastic as against the Efficient Market Hypothesis. And for the record, I think the evidence is that the market responds to both news and other intangible effects - both predictable and not. Absolutely! The entire wave theory goes against the efficient market theory. Ursa was right in part about the sheep analogy, but instead of limiting it to just traders, he should have said all humans. That's what social mood is basically, the masses herding toward one common theme or mood. Of course there are always outliers but there will always be the masses. That's what the whole wave theory is based off - the market moves in predictible waves and correlates exactly with social mood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 (edited) Is that all you got? Do you think stocks trade based on news? If so, shouldn't that be the case all the time? Either the model works or it doesn't - if there are inconsistencies in the model, then it's not correct. Wouldn't you agree? ive been trading for over 13y. stocks move based on news. obama has a news conference yesterday about trading restrictions he wants to put on banks. banks were down on that news yesterday. Edited January 22, 2010 by dmarc117 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 and what exactly drives social mood? recreational drugs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 22, 2010 Share Posted January 22, 2010 ive been trading for over 13y. stocks move based on news. obama has a news conference yesterday about trading restrictions he wants to put on banks. banks were down on that news yesterday. Like I said in an earlier post, except when they don't (trade based on news). When you make that assertion, it needs to be absolute - but we can all find evidence that it is not absolute, so therefore your hypothesis is not correct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 Who authored this, Brentastic or Avernus? I actually don't think we're doomed....I want things to get as bad as they are going to get (which is pretty bad) as soon as possible so we can start the real recovery as soon as possible... I've said on numerous occasions that I don't foresee anarchy and bedlam, but that there will be very critical times for a generation that doesn't know how to handle the said scenario....and nothing will be as bad as the depression of the 30's, but we would have had a depression similar to 1920 if we followed the same philosphy that was implemented at that time.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 I actually don't think we're doomed....I want things to get as bad as they are going to get (which is pretty bad) as soon as possible so we can start the real recovery as soon as possible... I've said on numerous occasions that I don't foresee anarchy and bedlam, but that there will be very critical times for a generation that doesn't know how to handle the said scenario....and nothing will be as bad as the depression of the 30's, but we would have had a depression similar to 1920 if we followed the same philosphy that was implemented at that time.... This is exactly my thoughts. It will be awful financially but as an evolved generation (financially) we won't suffer quite as bad as the great depression. Everything's relative, instead of waiting in bread lines, maybe this time around no cable and hamburger helper every night? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 This is exactly my thoughts. It will be awful financially but as an evolved generation (financially) we won't suffer quite as bad as the great depression. Everything's relative, instead of waiting in bread lines, maybe this time around no cable and hamburger helper every night? don't forget no cell phones or internet for everyone either.... ...these are things that a lot of people think they can't live without - which is sad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmarc117 Posted January 23, 2010 Share Posted January 23, 2010 I actually don't think we're doomed....I want things to get as bad as they are going to get (which is pretty bad) as soon as possible so we can start the real recovery as soon as possible... I've said on numerous occasions that I don't foresee anarchy and bedlam, but that there will be very critical times for a generation that doesn't know how to handle the said scenario....and nothing will be as bad as the depression of the 30's, but we would have had a depression similar to 1920 if we followed the same philosphy that was implemented at that time.... wait til all the the city and state workers see that their pensions are under funded, badly. police strikes, fire strikes, no garbage pickup. good times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Well, when I said this, the DOW was around 8300. It has sputtered it's way up to about 10,800 since then and I believe the doomsday scenario I describe below has started. Don't say I didn't warn you guys. I would be heavy cash as much as possible. I sold all my stocks a few months back in anticipation of a HUGH drop. Don't be surprised if by training camp, the DOW is hovering around 6,000. The next 5 years is going to be BRUTAL in the financial markets. If you are cash heavy, at least you can't lose money. Be patient the next 5 years and buy at the absolute low (DOW below 1,000 as a worst case scenario). I wasted all my money on hookers and cocaine because I was expecting the collapse of the nation a couple drafts ago. I traded a bunch of talent for Ryan Matthews. I got a couple gold bars left. Buy or sell? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 Except for almost every economic exppurt the last few months is harping on how all signs are pointing to a slow and sustained global economic recovery. KeyneSSSIANNN! If anyone wants to hop on the Elliot Bushwacked Wave, I'm pretty sure my portfolio over the last two years has done better than those following the Prechter Helter Skelter theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 IMO, some major structural reforms in the way the stock market conducts business would be very helpful in ironing out this insane volatility. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted June 2, 2012 Share Posted June 2, 2012 I wasted all my money on hookers and cocaine because I was expecting the collapse of the nation a couple drafts ago. I traded a bunch of talent for Ryan Matthews. I got a couple gold bars left. Buy or sell? sell if it goes another $100 higher, buy more if it drops another couple hundred.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.