forgot password register

reset password

register

patrick.net

 

#investing


#housing #investing #politics #random more»
770,724 comments by 11,155 registered users, 9 online now: anotheraccount, astronut97, BlueSardine, Blurtman, Booger, freespeak, iwog, PCGyver, storm1
new post
« prev   investing   next »
1 Patrick   2017 Sep 17, 10:53am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
Is your point that they are appropriately strongly correlated in the long term?

Or that stock prices have surged ahead of earnings lately?
2 iwog   2017 Sep 17, 11:54am   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
I think his point is that trying to push through corporate tax cuts during a time when American corporations are enjoying record revenues and their stock issues are making new highs every day is ridiculous.

Also I wouldn't say they are strongly correlated. I'd say they are weakly correlated at best.

2008 doesn't count. It's the end of the world, of course both graphs are going to bottom out.
1996 to 2002 You've got the biggest spike in the stock market, perhaps ever, and profits did nothing.
Correlation ends almost completely in 2012 with profits nearly flat-lining but the stock market surging higher.
3 Bellingham Bill   2017 Sep 17, 12:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
This is just an interesting if accidental correlation.

As trillions and trillions were pushed into the system 2011-2013, all this QE has to come back into investments, which will push yields down (P/E up), so maybe we've departed permanently from the 1986-2008 regime of the S&P being ground on corporate profits, 1 pt of S&P 500 = $1B of profits.

Also, global capital mix also changes things, not all corporate profits are reflected in the S&P 500 any more.

Still, the chart does tell a story.

The 1970s saw a rise in profits but since inflation was so high (and the boomers so young) nobody bought stocks.

'86 ~ '98 saw a secular rise in profits as globalism and consolidation improved efficiencies and concentrated wealth.
Market saw a decade of nice gains then the late 1990s speculative bubble hit as everyone started chasing these gains, tulip-chasing was writing checks the profits couldn't cash 1998-2001.

2002-2004 was a correction period until Easy Al's 2001-2002 rate cuts, Bush tax cuts, & the housing credit bubble lifted all boats 2003-2007.

So the 1995-2002 mismatch visible in the chart may be replaying now and we're due a 25% correction back under 2000 in the S&P., or we've entered a different reality and 25 P/E ratio is the new floor not ceiling.

http://www.macrotrends.net/2577/sp-500-pe-ratio-price-to-earnings-chart
4 iwog   2017 Sep 17, 1:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Bellingham Bill says
So the 1995-2002 mismatch visible in the chart may be replaying now and we're due a 25% correction back under 2000 in the S&P., or we've entered a different reality and 25 P/E ratio is the new floor not ceiling.


We're going to see a major stock market crash by 2020.
5 Bellingham Bill   2017 Sep 17, 2:20pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
That's why they want tax cuts, to defer the crash into the 2nd term.

Replay of Bush 2001-2008 exactly.

But is the system going to pull back spending like what happened in 2007-2008?



https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?g=f5Jz
real (2009 dollars) per-capita (age 25-54) durable goods spending

millennials are age 17 - 35 and thus only halfway into "prime" economic age.

their parents are going to be dying off this decade and next, passing on trillions in inheritances.

(I'm not a millennial but am certainly in a holding pattern until I get mine . . .)

Aside from the $1.5T in student loan debt they owe, millennials come into adulthood with no household debt.

(Recent grads have $50,000 in debt on average, but they have a borrowing capacity of hundreds of thousands more.)



shows debt service is at an all-time low, but this is more likely our increasing Gini making things look better here for the median folks than it really is
6 goat   2017 Sep 18, 8:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
Any theories as to what the next crash will do to bond funds like NAC?

My limited understanding is that rates may be slashed to provide stimulus, which is good for bonds. But, market turmoil may cause bond repayment fears - a negative, downward price pressure.
7 BorderPatrol   2017 Sep 18, 10:22pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
of course corporate profits will reach record high every year when inflation is not taken into account.
8 anonymous   2017 Sep 18, 10:51pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
The S&P correlates in the effort to anticipate rising corporate profits. The age-old discount is 6-8 months. The stock market is discounting new highs in profits.
9 Strategist   2017 Sep 18, 11:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↑ dislike (0)     quote        
anonymous says

The S&P correlates in the effort to anticipate rising corporate profits. The age-old discount is 6-8 months. The stock market is discounting new highs in profits.


This is why I love capitalism. It can turn poor peasants like me into middle class peasants.
10 iwog   2017 Sep 19, 12:07am   ↑ like (1)   ↑ dislike (1)     quote        
goat says
Any theories as to what the next crash will do to bond funds like NAC?


A stock market crash is flight to bonds which will send NAC sharply higher in the short term.

A stock market crash is also going to coincide with a recession which as it continues, puts municipalities at risk of default.

So my advice on NAC is you're perfectly fine until you see the first negative GDP quarter and rising unemployment and then you can bail. By then NAC should be riding high and you can avoid the VERY small risk of default loss.

users   about   suggestions   source code   contact  
topics   best comments   comment jail  
10 reasons it's a terrible time to buy  
8 groups who lie about the housing market  
37 bogus arguments about housing  
get a free bumper sticker:

top   bottom   home