bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Oct 29, 2013 23:45:25 GMT -5
dividends for cat of nine A+++ Alpha 3.28549% percentage of earnings for cat of nine... 56.02507124769523727536580% safe cat of nine .................................5.86432394312607296882334% 10Y T-Note........................................2.61000000000000031974423% ERP..................................................3.25432394312607220498990% erp average market earning risk ......... 5.51427140782863034473849% market return..................................... 8.12427140782862977630430% Target ERP for buy set at 6.0000%... get your buy list ready...we are 90% there!! all numbers direct fro Expert 50/50 fresh from 10:12 AM 9-30-2013 CAPM BASED average beta.................. 0.59016390424778 FOR CAT OF NINE Time to expand beta..take on more risk... erp average market earning risk ......... 5.51427140782863034473849% market return..................................... 8.12427140782862977630430% Example of higher ERP...C with beta of 2.33 would be.........12.85% or Guide Stone Small cap with Beta 1.20m would be.............6.62 Well..If so!!!!! limit HIGH risk to about 10%....M3 IS NOW UP 8.7% Y/Y 16576.19 BILLION DOLLARS..THE STOCK MARKET WILL VERY LIKELY ROCK IN Q1 2014!!!! Just a thought, BiMETALAuPt I should have done the math....10% erp = 1.81 beta...guts and balls of gold for fb at 2.098 or C at 2.33 beta...That is where my 10% have fun at LOST WAGES,NV is in...now cashed out...ridding the house money!!!! Now for "disiplan".... you see my plan but WYNN at beta 1.74 could be money on red!!!!PEG 2.12!!!Bit high but it was my bet for Lost Wages,NV!!! How about PowerShares S&P SmallCap Financials (PSCF) with an Alpha 5.92 (3 year) and a beta 0.95 ??A+++ is thinking 30 year T-Bonds...TOO exciting ? with zero inflation bond could reach 2% for the 30 years...Remember WWII!!! The 50/50 Expert system is a trading system..I like junk!!!! Made more money on junk bonds then stock many years!!!!BUT 30Y T-Bonds are better then zero my cash earns!!!! Who Me...My fun and play high risk is now 20+%^ cash... yes I need Just a thought, BiMetalAuPt
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 5, 2013 20:50:47 GMT -5
MORE ON CAT of NINE!!!!!
Test of any program is time....Cat of Nine...is a major risk study.... the 10th is T-Bonds
Why alpha holdings...Like HD or JNJ Return and ability to land on there feet...Buy on dips..Sell bonds and buy: stock or option .....all depends on the math...Future buy or sell?
Now for paring...Low correlation and high growth!!! going long on alpha!!!!Bet on red!!! ALWAYS TAKE THE RISK....... Lost Wages East = NYSE.......KEEP WAGES=T-BONDS!!!
THERE IS A REASON THEY CALL SHORTING T-BONDS.." WIDOW MAKER"
Just a thought, BiMetalAuPt
CURRENT PAIRS..... HD VS SE GE VS T AS IYZ IBM VS C DUK VS TXN JNJ VS T-BOND 30 YEARS ( NOW ZERO HOLDING) OR CASH(NOW 20%)
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Jun 20, 2014 19:31:29 GMT -5
THIS DEFENCE FOR THE POSIBILE CRASH: PROBLEMS AGAIN WITH EU BANKS. THE IMF FORECAST FOR THE EU.
The school of value system is all about understanding risk: system we will talk about is call " Value At Risk". From Hull's book. What I talked ABOUT IN THE PAST WAS THE MATH MODEL THAT PROJECTED MY RISK WAS 228% OF MY EXPECTED RETURN.
Our test system with real cash was set for the true Bar-Bell test of 80% T-Bonds and up to 20% futures and Options. In the real world 85% of all Calls and Puts reach the expiration date worthless. The trick we were working with was to write uncovered puts until the asset was put to the system then writing calls. T-Bonds are 90% Cash equivalents. Now if the stock market declines then you will see the lack of correlation with the bond market. This is known as the Efficient Frontier: best return for the risk.
Now I will say that I am 95% sure that I will not lose more the 20%. Problem is It cost me profit to buy insurance. I tested the numbers against Citigroup that had36% ROE at the time( 2006-2007). There risk was 64% of return.
An TOTAL DEFENCE POSTURE COULD LOOK LIKE THIS: buy open CALLS on IYZ 10% Sell Necked PUTS on QQQ 10% KASH IS KING 1% Straddle with T-Bonds 79% Est Alpha 4.00 EST Beta -0.5
Problem has been that a market DEFENCE total system portfolio has in the past produced a long term return of 5% with the S.D. 9%. Assume more risk over time and high beta portfolio produced 12% with SD of 25% ( beta 2.00+). Can you live with HIGH VOLITILITY ?
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Jul 30, 2014 16:47:29 GMT -5
Calls in IYZ was a nice ride. iShares US Telecommunications (IYZ) -NYSEArca Follow 31.34 Down 0.04(0.13%) 4:00PM EDT until today Bonds did well! Treasury Yield 30 Years (^TYX) -Chicago Options Follow 3.31 Up 0.09(2.73%) 2:59PM EDT
This is a true divergence in Correlation
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Sept 11, 2014 19:14:17 GMT -5
RETURN TO THE OLD EXPERT 50/50: Pt... KASH IS KING correlation m2 to djia 0.7136164690126 MMXVI-ALPHA RIDK..................................... 5349.001875 RISK FREE .............................20502.9350687131 UPSIDE................................. 3391.51506871308 DJIA UPSIDE/RISK................... 63.4046341349% djia risk/return........................ 1.5771717850659 Highest risk DJIA...................... 15153.9331937131 PROF/LOSS PER$1.00.................. -$0.37 BOND RISK/RETURN CORRELATION OF M2 TO 10 YEAR T- NOTES ............... .-0.7647260706203
KASH IS KING FOR 50/50 ALMOST PRODUCES A PERFECT HEDGE FOR DJIA AND 10Y T-NOTES. Just a thought, BiMetalAuPt
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Jan 11, 2015 17:59:01 GMT -5
As you may recall: MMVII-Pt was calling a bear market starting Jul 2008 when the Delta for M3 went negative: look out for this again for July 2015. WE could see a recovery in the next 9 months but
KA$$$$H IS KING . THIS WILL BE A VERY DEMANDING EVENT. The 3rd derivative of delta M3 is -4% and declining: watch out for tight Monetary supply as defined as M3. Current rate of delta M3 is 5.3%. Yes thirty year T-Bonds might be the option or holdings. alpha Black Swan event studySTRESS TEST STUDY 01/09/15 RIDK.................................................. 5620.914375 15 MONTH DJIA PROJECTION................ 21820.8016474721UPSIDE.............................................. 4083.43164747208 DJIA UPSIDE/RISK................................... 72.6471064145% djia risk/return.......................................... 1.3765173168699 Highest risk DJIA.................................. 16199.8872724721 PROF/LOSS PER$1.00................................ -$0.27353
Just my thought, BiMetalAuPt www.nowandfutures.com/key_stats.htmlFinally and to put M3 into proper perspective with inflation (as measured by CPPI), the M3 and M2 strong inflation link is virtually unquestionable. The longer term inflation picture is clear, although M2 shows a pause and likely temporary disinflation as of 2008. Certain bloggers are incorrect and have continually avoided these facts and the linked chart.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Nov 13, 2015 11:55:52 GMT -5
Seems as good a place to post this as any. Wanting to become more balanced and having a boatload of cash, built out my spreadsheet adding 3 bond MF (MWTRX, PONDX, USATX, not GEDZX bc I wanted the field to be level with 5☆ Morningstar funds: GEDZX charge a transaction fee) ♤ 1st column: equal $$ in ♡ 2nd column: $$ dividends / cap gains ◇ 3rd column: difference I'll know in 3 months if bonds are worth it for me bimetalaupt, I know your poll is closed, but:
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 17, 2015 0:46:55 GMT -5
Seems as good a place to post this as any. Wanting to become more balanced and having a boatload of cash, built out my spreadsheet adding 3 bond MF (MWTRX, PONDX, USATX, not GEDZX bc I wanted the field to be level with 5☆ Morningstar funds: GEDZX charge a transaction fee) ♤ 1st column: equal $$ in ♡ 2nd column: $$ dividends / cap gains ◇ 3rd column: difference I'll know in 3 months if bonds are worth it for me bimetalaupt, I know your poll is closed, but: Ombud., Again: Thank you for your complex but difficult question: The Standard and Poor investments reference has a moving reference for the latest percentage needed to produce the best results to give you the maximum profits at the lowest risk: AKA risk abatement as Stocks to T-bonds have a negative correlation of -80.673146223973%. This will give you a very low Standard deviation foe the total investment. Expert 50/50 produced an standard deviation of less the 5% during the cassias of 2009. The best overal system for 100 years has been calculated at 37 % bonds and 63& stock and options for stocks. Problem is you can not finch during periods of stress like the 1930's. It is all about risk and risk tolerance. The problem is this is a long term study not three months. You sell your winners and buy the looser. I just keep interest payments and dividend in cash plus any cash savings until the system is out of balance. My grandmother used a very simple system: When dividends were greater then interest she removed monies from the bank and bought ATT. T-Bonds will add capital gains to the interest. T-Bonds are also 90-% for hedging with writing uncovered Puts. Kash is King but T-Bonds are the house you live in. Just a thought Bruce Duke-Lendrum, MBA ., PharmB
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Nov 17, 2015 10:36:36 GMT -5
bimetalaupt, my confusion stems from being repeatedly told to do 60 stock / 40 bonds now that I'm over 60, real dollar erosion on investments, and long term value of loaning money out (bonds) versus owning a portion of the firm (stocks) Trying to drill down why loaning $5000 to xyz is preferable to owning 100 shares @ 50
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 18:46:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2015 13:51:02 GMT -5
Ombud
Those that are ardent & tireless supporters of Bonds {either as some % of a mix or all out as primary}, would if truly pressed past all the theories & algorithms have to state the oft missed; yet sad truth in the cross instruments {though I haven't found one who will do so out rightly}.
That truth is, that in the event of a complete collapse of a Corporate Entity {Bankruptcy}; any deals and all emergence plans contain provisions which repatriate Bondholders as primary and then if anything is left Stockholders might get a tiny something.
So in the aspect of investing; Bondholders are the SENIOR & Stockholders are SUBORDINATE.
If in the event of a Corporate Collapse, if there is any monies which can be paid against liabilities; Bondholders will always get first serve.
Thus; ardent Bond investors stand on a premise of overall reduced risk against principle; whereas Stockholders have no such premise.
Thus; if a Company goes belly up & you are a Stockholder, you are fairly screwed; whereas a Bondholder might still at least get a nice lunch after the jackals {err, Lawyers} raid the coffers of what is left.
So, thus the age old 60/40 mix stuff. Though, it doesn't really make sense in todays environment; given that such Risk Reduction/Mitigation can be done using Options Contracts against and/or in conjunction with Stock Ownership.
Of course Bruce will argue against what is in this post; though I would expect nothing less, as he is more a Bond Investor than a Stock/Options participant.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 17, 2015 14:19:04 GMT -5
bimetalaupt, my confusion stems from being repeatedly told to do 60 stock / 40 bonds now that I'm over 60, real dollar erosion on investments, and long term value of loaning money out (bonds) versus owning a portion of the firm (stocks) Trying to drill down why loaning $5000 to xyz is preferable to owning 100 shares @ 50 Ombud, What and where are you reading that 60 stock/40 bonds is safer the 50/50. Sounds like the 2003 Standard and Poor to me. If you go from 10 year50/50 (4.86%) to 60 %/ 40%(4.89%) the increase in risk is more then the return from Guide stone. I will bet I have more computing on the subject then your advisor as for the last 15 years bonds have out preformed stocks. Growth was 5.46% return vs 7.69% Long term. Watch cost as funds of funds tend to double cost. You can buy Treasury bonds from the treasury free. Just a thought from a 70 year old that has owned bonds for 70+ years, Bruce Duke-Lendrum, MBA, PharmB Asset Allocation Funds Net Asset Value Month To Date Year To Date...................... Ten Year (Annualized) Since Inception Net Expense Ratio risk ( SD)Conservative Allocation I (GFIYX) .........9.40 -0.63% -0.84% -1.60% 1.99% 2.95% 3.62%............. 3.85% 7/1/2003 0.79% 0.79%............................3.4%Balanced Allocation I (GGIYX)............. 0.17 -1.17% -2.31% -2.92% 4.86% 5.49% 4.86%.............................. 7/1/2003 0.82% 0.82%..........................6.63%Growth Allocation I (GCOYX) ............ 11.38 -1.56% -2.57% -3.40% 7.96% 7.12% 4.89%.................. 6.44% 7/1/2003 0.92% 0.92%......................10.20%Aggressive Allocation I (GGBYX) .......13.09 -1.73% -1.28% -1.84% 11.94% 9.26% 5.01%............7.15% 7/1/2003 1.00% 1.00% .....................13.30% Do not forget the cost and risk of the underlining funds My source of data: www.guidestone.org/~/media/Funds/files/pdf/2318_Prosp%20pdf.ashx
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 17, 2015 15:20:44 GMT -5
Ombud
Those that are ardent & tireless supporters of Bonds {either as some % of a mix or all out as primary}, would if truly pressed past all the theories & algorithms have to state the oft missed; yet sad truth in the cross instruments {though I haven't found one who will do so out rightly}.
That truth is, that in the event of a complete collapse of a Corporate Entity {Bankruptcy}; any deals and all emergence plans contain provisions which repatriate Bondholders as primary and then if anything is left Stockholders might get a tiny something.
So in the aspect of investing; Bondholders are the SENIOR & Stockholders are SUBORDINATE.
If in the event of a Corporate Collapse, if there is any monies which can be paid against liabilities; Bondholders will always get first serve.
Thus; ardent Bond investors stand on a premise of overall reduced risk against principle; whereas Stockholders have no such premise.
Thus; if a Company goes belly up & you are a Stockholder, you are fairly screwed; whereas a Bondholder might still at least get a nice lunch after the jackals {err, Lawyers} raid the coffers of what is left.
So, thus the age old 60/40 mix stuff. Though, it doesn't really make sense in todays environment; given that such Risk Reduction/Mitigation can be done using Options Contracts against and/or in conjunction with Stock Ownership.
Of course Bruce will argue against what is in this post; though I would expect nothing less, as he is more a Bond Investor than a Stock/Options participant. DI & Ombud, As you may agree with Me :DI is a genius. If you understand risk and Puts: options may reduce your risk but the concept is very hard to understand. There also a barbell concept to 80% bonds and 20% very high risk options etc. This involves selling short and writing covered puts. Remember T-Bonds are 90% cash: short using the T-Bond as assets to short at the rate of 90%. I do in fact own a latter of bonds that go to 2025. FTI always has a re-pore with me about my use of complex system that are hard for anyone to understand with out a massive computer: Expert 50/50 was my answer to the problem I have with simple. XXXX, Bruce Duke-Lendrum , MBA, PharmB
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Nov 17, 2015 15:34:49 GMT -5
Getting rich slowly is the quickest and easiest way, because compounded interest is ONE of the most powerful forces in the universe.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Nov 17, 2015 16:03:52 GMT -5
This year I've done well selling naked Puts, all profitable so far (Saturday my JPM expire then I only have DIS). But when I went in for my 'annual checkup' my new advisor suggested the 60 / 40 mix. Having never done bonds before, I went to a seminar where unfortunately they suggested a minimum of 10 bonds / 10k each. So FAR FAR outside my comfort zone. Hence my current foray into 4 bond funds. I drive every advisor crazy bc on my accounts are all vastly different: LT index Dividend plays ST individual, where I do options Now bonds I swear I'm not schizophrenic in RL
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 17, 2015 16:15:42 GMT -5
I found this ETF report and found it of interest: In fact my current balance is 50.8% so i think it is time to start my R& to find better ETF. Sensible Strategy Strategic-beta ETPs are the offspring of an active and a passive parent. Like their active parent, they deliberately stray from the “market” portfolio with the intent of improving relative returns, decreasing or increasing relative risk, or some combination of the two. As is the case with selecting active managers, investors must assess these products’ strategies to ensure that they are sensible and efficient and have ample capacity. Most strategic-beta ETPs’ underlying benchmarks are built to exploit one or more factors. Thus, the sensibility of the strategy depends on the viability of the factor or factors it looks to harness. There have been hundreds of factors “discovered” by academics and practitioners over the years. Most of these are the result of data mining and have no basis in sound economic theory (unexpected earnings autocorrelations?!?). [1] Economic intuition and investor behavior form the foundation of the good ones. Value makes sense. Investors demand extra compensation to assume the risks associated with value stocks (cyclicality, leverage, and so on), and one would expect that buying assets on the cheap would naturally yield respectable returns. Momentum is driven by investors’ herding behavior. On the upswing it makes assets overshoot their fair values, often further and for longer than can be reasoned. Momentum works in reverse as well, often giving rise to value. These two are near-unimpeachable. That’s not to say they couldn’t be diluted or arbitraged away at some point, but I wouldn’t count on it. I personally buy into the behavioral explanations of these factors more so than their risk narratives. I don’t think that investors, on the whole, will ever behave well—blame it on our caveman brains. As I mentioned before, there are a host of other factors that have been discovered ranging from borderline silly to serious contenders. The latter include quality and low volatility. Both factors are relative newcomers, and neither has been as fully vetted as value and momentum. Of course, that hasn’t prevented index and ETF providers from launching a raft of products aimed at delivering them in a readily investable form. Quality is closely related to profitability, which, along with investment, is a component of the newly minted Fama-French five-factor model. [2] Profitability passes the intuition test. After all, the present value of a stock is a factor of its future cash flows—the more profitable the firm, the greater its expected cash flows. From a behavioral point of view, it can be argued that investors tend to underestimate the sustainability of firms’ current profitability or otherwise misprice profitable stocks. Quality and profitability have recently been put to work by the likes of Dimensional Fund Advisors and AQR in their fund lineups. Quality is in vogue in ETF-land, too, as demonstrated by the rapid rise of iShares MSCI USA Quality Factor (QUAL), which has amassed some $840 million in net new inflows in the two years since it launched. The low volatility anomaly flips the traditional notion of the relationship of risk and reward on its head. Research has shown that less-volatile stocks have produced risk-adjusted returns superior to those of their more volatile counterparts. There are plenty of reasonable arguments as to why that might be. There is also research showing that this relationship might not be as clear-cut as it seems and may not persist. All told, low-volatility strategies have worked in the past, may or may not work in the future, and have yet to be enshrined in the way that value and momentum have. Efficient Exposure Not all factor exposures are created equal. Nuanced differences in index-construction methodologies can yield meaningfully different performance profiles amongst similarly labeled strategies. Furthermore, there is a whole lot of messy reality (like costs) that exists between factor theory as it is documented in academia and the rubber-meets-road implementation of factors in practice. It is important to understand how efficiently these funds’ underlying benchmarks are capturing their targeted factors and whether they might be missing the mark by virtue of being costly to implement or loading up on other, unintended exposures. In a recent research piece, Northern Trust’s Michael Hunstad and Jordan Dekhayser elegantly distilled their analysis of this concept into a “factor efficiency ratio,” or FER. [3] The FER is a ratio of the active risk coming from intended factor bets to the total active risk of a strategic-beta benchmark—with active risk being calculated versus the index’s market-cap weighted parent benchmarks. The authors found that strategic-beta indexes with higher FERs generate higher risk-adjusted returns. The tools employed by Hunstad and Dekhayser are out of reach for many investors (myself included). Fortunately, there are other implements readily available at no cost that can help you conduct factor analysis on your own. My personal favorite is Portfolio Visualizer (www.portfoliovisualizer.com). You can plug any ETF (or traditional mutual fund) you’d like into this powerful tool to decompose its historical factor loadings in a number of different ways and analyze how they’ve evolved over time. You can also do side-by-side comparisons of strategic-beta ETPs employing like strategies to analyze their relative loadings on different factors and how they vary with time. Has Capacity The persistence of any factor is reliant on there being someone on the other side of the table willing to take the opposite side of your factor bet. In order for value to produce excess returns, there must be a cohort of investors shunning value. If everyone were to simultaneously bet on value, it would ultimately become the “market.” Thus, it is important to understand the capacity of factor bets, much the same way it is important to understand the capacity of an active strategy. In May 2013, MSCI published an exhaustive analysis of the capacity of its various strategy benchmarks across a number of geographies on behalf of Norway’s Ministry of Finance. [4] The key takeaway as it pertains to capacity? “…it should be noted that market capitalization weighted indexes are the only macro consistent indexes. All other index weighting schemes cannot be held by all investors. This puts natural bounds on the capacity of a risk premia allocation. As an index increasingly deviates from a market capitalization-based index, it becomes less and less investable, particularly for funds of very large size.” Where is there capacity? Generally speaking, look for the foundational factors (value and momentum) in broad, deep markets (U.S. stocks, developed ex-U.S. stocks). This is where I personally believe these factors have the most staying power. A Capable, Responsible Sponsor Last, but certainly not least, it is important to partner with a capable, responsible sponsor. Morningstar research has shown that good stewards of shareholders’ capital have tended to produce better long-term investor outcomes. [5] Fees (which I’ve discussed at length above) factor into our assessment of stewardship. It is not surprising that firms with lower fee levels have, on average, experienced greater Morningstar Success Ratios—the percentage of an asset-management firm’s mutual fund offerings that have both survived and outperformed their respective Morningstar Category median fund’s results over a given time period. Culture also factors into our assessment of fund sponsors’ stewardship practices. We tend to frown upon firms that emphasize salesmanship over stewardship, product proliferation over useful and meaningful innovation. There is plenty of spaghetti being slung at the wall in the strategic-beta arena. Stay away from the slingers, and focus on firms that take a measured approach to product development and offer their funds at reasonable prices. (Have I mentioned that costs matter?) Our Favorites Using the criteria I’ve described above, I’ve whittled down the field of 124 strategic-beta ETPs that invest in U.S. large-cap stocks to a short list of my favorites. These funds are reasonably priced (all have fees lower than 0.40%), employ sensible, efficient strategies that have ample capacity and are managed by capable, responsible sponsors.
news.morningstar.com/articlenet/article.aspx?id=722195&SR=Yahoo
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 17, 2015 16:32:28 GMT -5
What is risk ( aka RIDK) tolerance? I thought this is interesting: This is about basic understanding. The hot field in Economics today is about complex of Neurology and Economics. Just a thought, Bruce Duke-Lendrum MBA, PharmB Again : Bonds have a better ten-15 year record then stocks.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Nov 17, 2015 21:10:16 GMT -5
I swear I'm not schizophrenic in RL We're all just a little crazy, OB!
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Nov 17, 2015 21:12:33 GMT -5
The hot field in Economics today is about complex of Neurology and Economics. Doc L, And how far ahead of the game are we in that department, EH? God bless,
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 17, 2015 23:18:50 GMT -5
The hot field in Economics today is about complex of Neurology and Economics. Doc L, And how far ahead of the game are we in that department, EH? God bless, Cold fusion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedi
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 18:46:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 9:58:52 GMT -5
OmbudI swear I'm not schizophrenic in RL Neither am I but; I swear the pink elephant next to me (which no one else can see) is telling me that everyone else is.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 18, 2015 11:02:08 GMT -5
OmbudI swear I'm not schizophrenic in RL Neither am I but; I swear the pink elephant next to me (which no one else can see) is telling me that everyone else is.
DI, In fact "Pink Elephants" are albino and usually live only a short time. This is why they are covered with mud. Just a thought, Bruce
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 18:46:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 18, 2015 12:04:32 GMT -5
bimetalaupt
The microwave and I were just talking; the microwave pointed out that it seems you are as crazy as I am. Don't worry though; I told the microwave that, that is the exact reason I like you.
|
|
Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger
Senior Associate
Viva La Revolucion!
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:22:04 GMT -5
Posts: 12,758
|
Post by Aman A.K.A. Ahamburger on Nov 19, 2015 11:21:00 GMT -5
Doc L, And how far ahead of the game are we in that department, EH? God bless, Cold fusion From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedi For NOW, anyway... Now on the OTHER hand.. Coal Gasification, also from Wiki: Just a thought on ALL our projects unified into one over the long term 7th generaltional planning thinngy... God bless,
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Nov 19, 2015 20:01:43 GMT -5
I thought stocks and bonds moved in opposite directions ... one up other down. But this week they're all up. I must be wrong
Meanwhile waiting for those 2 puts to expire and looking for more
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Nov 20, 2015 10:44:42 GMT -5
With this current run up, I've only got 2 in the red inc bond funds: MCK + TWX. Still not balanced Just a thought on ALL our projects unified into one over the long term 7th generaltional planning thinngy... So you've combined everything into 1 account?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 18:46:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2015 12:00:41 GMT -5
Ombud
RE: Post #117
No you are not incorrect; in more normal environs. However, the last near 9 years have been anything but normal by any means.
What you are picking up on is the contention over the strength/value of future dollars; in the vacuum of true clarity in regards to inflation.
More and more folks are realizing that inflation; is in fact afoot & on the rise; while back at the ranch the FED is downplaying inflation; they (the FED) has at least now acknowledged that inflation is in fact alive and is in fact moving upwards; though they are saying now that it is more like a light fog, rather than a true spring rain.
A long as that and the uncertainty over Rate hikes and what subsequently occurs when Rates are in fact lifted; is what is causing the anomalous actions & reactions.
Fact is that one fact still remains; which the FED doesn't want to acknowledge and folks in general have spaced out which is:
The St. Louis FED report from a year or so ago. In that report the St. Louis FED stated very clearly that using the FEDs preferred equations and models that the Zero Interest Rate Policy up to that point had in fact been suppressing inflation by a staggering 30% on annum. The report also concluded that 2 things were equally true: {1} The longer the FED held on to ZIRP, the worse the issue would get, which would complicate not only Economic Growth, but also future FED policy decisions & {2} That raising rates and reversing ZIRP; could very well unleash Economic reactions which through progression set GDP reads far above the highest ever on record, cascade into Inflationary numbers that would make those of the Stagflation Era look like a day at the beach and result in the FED having to chase Rates harder, faster and higher than the FED ever has. The general conclusion was that in the heated effort to save the Economy via extreme & extraordinary measures with all due prejudice, that the FED in fact created the mother of all PANDORA'S BOXES; one which would need to be opened at some point. But, that opening that Pandora's Box; most likely would result in effects that neither the Doomsayers or the Gladhands could even fathom in their wildest dreams or wildest nightmares.
On the Bond Front; there are 10's of Trillions of dollars in that market now and it is still running as a Bull Market; which is now in excess of 34 years in length, making it one of if not the longest Bull Market In Bonds in recorded history. Given that historically the average Bond Bull Market lasts on average 20 years and Bond Bear Markets have on average lasted 35 years; the overextension on this Bond Bull Market, coupled with the extremely over weighted dollar valuation of the Bond Market as a whole; can be seen to be a very real threat. Couple that with a serious overvaluation on the equity side; given the HOW & WHY; things got where they are & HOW companies proceeded through the carnage to this point; and the potential for very "Interesting Times" is also very real.
And while there are folks that say this type of thinking is "fanciful" & "idiotic"; I say consider how the Bond Market works on Base line:
Companies issue Debt (Bonds) at one rate; then over time seek to adjust that debt via swaps, retirement and early redemptions; so they can reissue that Debt at lower Yields than the Original. But at this point, companies have issued TRILLIONS of Long Term Debt (BONDS) at near zero Yields, so there is no real chance that they will ever be able to revert that Debt to lower Yields in the future. And if you are a Company which has raised Billions of Dollars in that manner, which is siting in a Bank just waiting for Higher Interest Rates to come; while you are making BILLIONS annually; why would you even want to try?
Face it the Big Corporations have raised sufficient capital (which collects dust currently); to be able to nearly on the Interest payments alone {once rates rise} to fund operations for at least the next 15 years.
|
|
bimetalaupt
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 9, 2011 20:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 2,325
|
Post by bimetalaupt on Nov 20, 2015 16:09:42 GMT -5
I thought stocks and bonds moved in opposite directions ... one up other down. But this week they're all up. I must be wrong Meanwhile waiting for those 2 puts to expire and looking for more Ombud, The USA is the only Safe left. A++++ and I have been talking about this for some time. On average for the last 15 years DJIA and 30 year T-Bonds have a negative correlation of about 80% Per MMXVI-Alpha. Just a thought, Bruce Duke-Lendrum, MBA,PharmB Our Mathematical Model known as MMXVI-Alpha has been projecting that the Dow Jones is overpriced do to the increased "Black Swans" by at lease 29% - 31% for the last 7 months. Monday we sold stocks and added to our T-Bonds. Our other model Expert 50/50 has a slight biases toward T-Bonds of 50.97% ( in balance). China has a major problem witjh the1.2 Trillion USD ponzi interest system to pay past debts. Bruce Duke-Lendrum MBA, PharmB Adjunct Professor Midland College : Economics
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Apr 19, 2024 18:46:40 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2015 18:23:18 GMT -5
bimetalaupt
Here is a "gem" from Our thread (A Day In The Life) from Aug 23rd, 2012 {Page 11; Post # 328}
Which would support what you are saying; if not for the Undervaluation of Companies primary businesses at the core and the Over Valuation of Companies stock across the upper segments of ALL INDICES.
At no other time have so many Companies sported stock prices in excess of $100 per share.
Or put another way, there are far to many companies which; due to the way things have been that are valued on a Stock Value Basis at far to low a price. Which would indicate that if there is a reversion in the Higher Priced Stocks to lower more realistic prices; then the Lower Priced "ignored" stocks will (or should) see their Stock Prices rally.
And in thus; solid support for the DJIA at present according to Our Models stands in at DJIA 14,250; which is roughly 20% lower than todays close.
Which then means that such a re pricing event in the shadow of a Market Shifting FED policy change; would most likely be in line with a Standard Correction in the first volley of the monumental shift of monies from an extremely over valued (bubblesque) Bond Market as the Bond Market would begin to shift into a Bear Market.
True fallout, which could send the DJIA and all indices down by 50% or more; most likely would from that first volley be 3 to 5 years out. Unless, of course the attempted exit by bond holders from Near Zero Yielding instruments ends up being like a Tornado, in a Hurricane, During a Tsunami, While Being Run Over By a Train, While Being Struck By Lightning as your best friend watches and laughs at you.
Which is sadly a real possibility.
|
|
Ombud
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 14, 2013 23:21:04 GMT -5
Posts: 7,592
|
Post by Ombud on Jan 8, 2016 7:11:54 GMT -5
So far (not reinvesting dividends): MWTRX: 5K in - 57.91 ret = 4958 net in (4954 current value) PONDX: 5k in - 117.38 ret = 4883 net in (4818 current value) USATX: 5k in - 21.18 ret = 4979 net in (5078 current value)
So USATX is up, MWTRX holding its own, only PONDX is dn
Upped USATX 2 days ago and it's my only 'green' this week
|
|
Blonde Granny
Junior Associate
Joined: Jan 15, 2013 8:27:13 GMT -5
Posts: 6,919
Today's Mood: Alone in the world
Location: Wandering Aimlessly
Mini-Profile Name Color: 28e619
Mini-Profile Text Color: 3a9900
|
Post by Blonde Granny on Jan 12, 2016 10:33:54 GMT -5
|
|