patrick.net

clambo says

You guys are something else. When Obama wanted to allow taxes to rise he was opposed not by Pelosi and her ilk.
The truth is that the danger to my future net worth is TAXES not the stock market.
What do you need, links to youtubes of various democrats like Obama saying we need to spread the wealth? That's income redistribution.

... and once again, as repeated earlier, if one wants to go on about "Wealth distribution", well I can't think of a better example of this than when Republicans decided 30+ years ago to start putzing around with the tax system, and trying "Trickle-down" economics via tax cuts for the wealthy. If that's not a redistribution of wealth then I don't know what is.

Secondly, do you folks who complain about taxes realize that as of now Taxes in the US are the LOWEST they've been since the 50's? That's right. We are currently paying less taxes than anyone has in over half a century and doing so with a Democrat in the office.

Anything else?

edvard2 says

We are currently paying less taxes than anyone has in over half a century and doing so with a Democrat in the office.
Anything else?

But I heard Obama hung around with Bill Ayers.

vicente, you are constantly changing the subject and changing what I have written. That's not allowed.
I don't fear the gyrations of the stock market.
I fear the future attacks on my investments in the form of TAXES.
It is a known fact that taxes did not go up recently, but that was because Obama met resistance.
Apple agrees with me, they are building a huge place in Austin Texas, which will mean their employees will automatically avoid paying up to a 10% California income tax.
You do pay California taxes also don't you? Do you plan on paying them in retirement?
My investing history predates your graph, which is also completely meaningless because you picked recent history. I don't fear what happened in the past. My portfolio started in 1982 and is doing fine.
Tax the rich, tax the rich, tax the rich. Later when you need to spend some of your investments, you will be considered "rich" because you saved your sweat and blood money, and had the balls to invest it when everyone else spent it on chicks, cars, club med trips, etc.
You guys make me want to puke. You don't get to take my money from me to give away. You wouldn't dare try it in person, but you want to do it with liberal lefty politics.

I love this site ...lot's of creative people..... Stocks are the best and the fastest game in this casino... You want 2% on the 10 year? Hell no... It's time to gamble in a ____ stock ... What have the Banks done lately? You get your money in 3 days

clambo says

I fear the future attacks on my investments in the form of TAXES.

Provably irrational fears can be resolved with counseling these days. Choosing to remain in irrational fear state when it is counter to reality, is of course a personal choice, as long as you are not stripping your clothes off on the street or climbing a clock tower. Taxes are at historic lows therefore your worries are misplaced.

clambo says

Apple agrees with me, they are building a huge place in Austin Texas, which will mean their employees will automatically avoid paying up to a 10% California income tax.

I wouldn't read too much into that. The California jobs are extremely well paid engineering and design positions. The Texas jobs are call center, sales and accounting jobs. Better than nothing, but not like what we have here.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/tech/Apple-to-Build-New-Austin-Facility-142076693.html

I suspect it is more of a concession to California real estate costs than state income taxes.

Vicente says

Taxes are at historic lows therefore your worries are misplaced.

They are going up at the end of the year, assuming no congressional action, and no congressional action is a pretty safe bet with this Congress. Most alarming is that tax rates on dividends are looking to nearly triple from 15% to 42%+ for high income investors. Other taxes will rise in the 3-10% range, which might be 10-30% larger tax bill for some.

If you believe in Modern Monetary Theory, it probably seems all a bit unnecessary.

clambo says

I predict that the Democrats will seek clever ways to tax our 401Ks, IRAs, and other investments.

They are so clever, it's already a done deal! (I don't want to rain on your parade, but you're paying tax on those things.) 401Ks already are taxed when you take the money out. IRAs are taxed before you put the money in. These are vehicles to encourage responsible saving and Democrats are likely to be solidly behind that. It helps keep social programs solvent by keeping wealthier people off their roles.

Now, *means testing* before you get social security benefits, that is something that the Democrats are likely to try! I'm sure they don't see much sense in making monthly social security payments to millionaires.

clambo says

I also fear ignorant people who think that taxes won't matter to their investment returns and future well being.

Bah. It's not the end of the world. If you want, you can structure your investments into small cap / growth stocks that don't pay dividends. Your returns will then be entirely capital gains. You don't have to pay any tax until your sell, which is entirely under your control. You can curmudgeonly refuse to sell a single share for years until an administration you like comes into office. Even when you do pay taxes, it will be 20%, which is fairly modest.

Besides, I don't get all this hysteria and hostility about taxes. As charities go, the federal government is actually a fairly good one. It is far more effective at preventing murder and mayhem than all other domestic charities combined. It facilitates commerce through roads and rule by law, makes it possible to invest in markets, and gives us (read: prints) all the money that you are grumbling about having to pay taxes with. That's good stuff!

If you want a country with out a government, go look at Somalia. I just don't think that whatever line of business you are in will function all that well there, unless it is piracy. I'm sure you are much better off here, even with the ruinous tax rates.

I noticed that Europe and Asia stock markets always go low in the morning.
After US stock market opens, it pushes the world market up.

Fed must print money like crazy now. Don't even think about short.

wthrfrk80 says

There are still plenty of "Black Swans" around:

with everyone looking for Black Swans, so maybe the Black Swan is no Black Swan?

rockyroad says

with everyone looking for Black Swans, so maybe the Black Swan is no Black Swan?

Bah! You need to hang out on some perma-bear forums like Market Ticker.

Those folks will convince you that every banging noise, is the thunder warning you of a hurricane about to wipe your town right off the map.

Yes, I have been thinking this way. I'm primarily invested in stocks, so I've seen their value go up enough to think it might be time to realize some profits. I want to do some calculations first, but last did this during Summer of....2007? when DOW hit 14000 and I squirreled away a little money into investments that hopefully will outgain inflation.

I was a perma-bull until the unemployment rate hits 10% and loses 50% in the stock market.

Here is something that should get everyones attention

http://www.senseoncents.com/2010/01/blueprint-for-government-takeover-of-iras/

If history has proven anything, its shown that government is the most dangerous entity in existance. Dangerous to life, liberty, happiness and now your retirement account.

Honest Abe says

If history has proven anything, its shown that government is the most dangerous entity in existance. Dangerous to life, liberty, happiness and now your retirement account.

Are you a bot? I mean really it's like you post without regard to thread content.?

So, someone says that double taxing me at 20% is nothing to be afraid of, and another says I have an irrational fear? No, my fear is very rational.
On KQED while channel surfing they had some "retirement expert" talking about retirement and the #1 threat to retirement he listed was TAXES.
Before Roth you had a few choices: small regular IRA, Vanguard Index funds, and variable annuities. After Roth, they came out with "tax efficient funds".
The problem is you can convert your IRA to Roth to avoid taxes, but you will pay income tax on the principal AND the gains, so you are being double taxed to convert to Roth.
You can choose to never "annuitize" your variable annuity, but you still pay taxes on the gains at income rates.
The index and tax efficient funds are about the same, so you are going to suffer the whims of the market fluctuations. Some managed funds are more defensive and better for your old age.
I don't accept that the choice is between the USA govt. and Somalia. I prefer the idea of Switzerland's attitude to taxes. It seems to work well. I have been there and it's pretty nice too.
Stocks balls to the wall boys.

clambo says

The problem is you can convert your IRA to Roth to avoid taxes, but you will pay income tax on the principal AND the gains,

I don't think this is completely true. If I did not take the traditional IRA deduction when I put the money in, I don't think I have to pay the tax when I take it (the principal only) out. At least I hope not.

I don't think it will be going through a price correction anytime soon.

With helicopter Ben out there, markets will stay pretty high as long as all the unused liquidity is directed at the stock markets like it is now.

There are many who OBSESS over Heli-Ben.

So much so, they fail to see anything outside the USA.

ECB actions of late are far more relevant than the Fed's "stay the course" meaning it's only action is remaining at ZIRP.

Vicente says

There are many who OBSESS over Heli-Ben.

Vince,

It's because his policy drives markets up. Banks are given loans that are practically free. Since banks aren't loaning most of the money out, instead they use them to buy up stocks which causes an upward movement on the stock market.

B.A.C.A.H. says

I don't think this is completely true. If I did not take the traditional IRA deduction when I put the money in, I don't think I have to pay the tax when I take it (the principal only) out. At least I hope not.

If you contributed to a traditional IRA but didn't take the deduction...you may be entitled to a tax refund from the government, but I don't think you can decide to not pay taxes when you withdraw the principal portion of the money...If you didn't take the deduction, you ought to have used a Roth, in which case all withdrawals are non-taxable...

FortWayne says

It's because his policy drives markets up. Banks are given loans that are practically free. Since banks aren't loaning most of the money out, instead they use them to buy up stocks which causes an upward movement on the stock market.

Yes, but Federal Reserve is not doing any special QE right now.

Therefore stock market moves upward likely due to something else. I can postulate all sorts of other things, but European Central Bank moves tops my list of suspects.

Anyone else getting market acrophobia now?

Seems like a minor correction to me at this point.

*RING* RING

Hello, Ben Bernanke's office, for a liquidity injection press 1. To speak to an operator press zero.

That said, I liquidated today some options contracts and a few stocks. I had already harvested dividends on them a time or two and had some gain. Still holding AAPL.

In S&P500 companies, worker productivity is at an all time high. In 2007, the companies generated an average of $378,000 in revenue for every employee on their payrolls. Last year, that figure rose to $420,000. Hiring is up as well, though a lot of it is overseas. Bullish for S&P500 funds, but that does not necessarily translate into jobs here. Some feel that companies will have to start hiring soon as they've wrung as much as the can out of the existing workforce with efficiency gains.

Vicente says

Hello, Ben Bernanke's office, for a liquidity injection press 1. To speak to an operator press zero.

Love it! +1.

According to Bloomberg:
The price-earnings ratio for the S&P 500 fell 8.9 percent last year, and even after the multiple rose to 14.2 yesterday, it’s still 14 percent below its average since 1954, data show.
and a counterpiont of from SmartMoney:
The cyclically adjusted P/E ratio, which uses 10 years of profits to make the calculation, is about 22, well above its long-term average of about 16. While the current level is lower than at the peaks of 2000 and 2007 -- one a bubble, the other fueled by easy money -- it is about where it was when the stock market peaked in 1966, just before entering 16 years of essentially flat performance.

I think I'm with SmartMoney.

www.multpl.com

Fork, I'm still trying to find some good data, but what do you think will happen to the Shiller PE Ratio once earnings from the mid-2000's get dropped (think FIRE from happier times)? Just trying to wrap my brain about what the Shiller PE Ratio reflects.

EBGuy says

Fork

It's "freak"..."weather-freak." But that's ok, it's just an internet identity. ;)

Shiller PE is just the "trailing 10 year" PE ratio rather than the usual "trailing twelve month" PE ratio. It takes overall S&P 500 company earnings over the last 10 years. The idea is to "filter out" the effect of economic cycles.

For example, "cyclical" companies (durable goods makers like GE, Caterpillar, Deere, Ford, GM, etc) will have massive PE ratios (100x or more) during recessions when their earnings tank during recession. It's an artifact of dividing by very small numbers, not a realistic measure of valuation.

EBGuy says

what do you think will happen to the Shiller PE Ratio once earnings from the mid-2000's get dropped (think FIRE from happier times)?

It's my impression that the whole point of Shiller PE is to ignore the short-term fluctuations. Shiller PE gives you the long-term view. It doesn't tell you what might happen in the short term. Short term market movements are anyone's guess. They're simply a reflection of whatever is in the news as well as the general mood.

I'm thinking the EuroFiasco will be back in the news again at some point and cause more volatility. And perhaps an opportunity to get back in at lower prices.

Not surprising: the higher the market PE ratio, the worse future returns are likely to be.

It's "freak"..."weather-freak."
I get a D- for reading comprehension; I always read it as What the Fork. Obviously I missed the r in weather.
The ten year span in the Shiller PE (aka Cyclically Adjusted PE Ratio) does some nice smoothing on a business cycle (a peak to trough can be around ten years, YMMV). However, at this juncture, I'm still at a loss as to why I care about earnings from 10 years ago as the current PE (1 year trailing) is rational (less than 16). A lot of those earnings 10-5 years ago were FIRE voodoo goosed by free money via the securitization chain. If the current PE remains rational moving forward, we should see a steady decline in Shiller PE moving forward as we 'lose' the craziness of the mid 2000s.
And that's a big if, as we're still fighting the scatter chart you posted. Also, I don't believe Crisis Eurozone is over until we see Eurobonds, and that's probably a ways off.

EBGuy says

I get a D- for reading comprehension; I always read it as What the Fork. Obviously I missed the r in weather.

It's ok. "Honest Abe" called me "what the f***er 80" so you're mistake is pretty mild.

EBGuy says

However, at this juncture, I'm still at a loss as to why I care about earnings from 10 years ago as the current PE

My understanding is that it's the average annual earnings (inflation adjusted) of the past 10 years, not the 1-year earnings of 10 years ago.

See: www.multpl.com/faq

Weatherman, you are correct in your understanding. When I say "earnings from 10 years ago", that is shorthand for "the 1/10 contribution of inflation adjusted earnings from 10 years ago". My point is that half the current trailing P/E is made up of 'juiced' earnings from the mid-2000s. Shiller would probably respond, "You borrowed from the future back then, pay the piper now, da Shiller PE don't lie". He may be right. Paying the piper happens in hundreds of small ways as debt is repudiated; so, perhaps I'm too optimistic now.

EBGuy says

Weatherman, you are correct in your understanding. When I say "earnings from 10 years ago", that is shorthand for "the 1/10 contribution of inflation adjusted earnings from 10 years ago".

I also get a D- in reading comprehension.

EBGuy says

My point is that half the current trailing P/E is made up of 'juiced' earnings from the mid-2000s. Shiller would probably respond, "You borrowed from the future back then, pay the piper now, da Shiller PE don't lie".

True, but the reduced earnings during the crash are also included by now.

Regardless, I still say stocks are expensive. With alternative investments paying so little, I think folks are piling into stocks. I don't want to "follow the crowd", that's a good way to lose money. If interest rates (real interest rates) go up, bond prices will drop and ordinary bank CD's will become more attractive and money will flow out of stocks.

I'm mostly in cash right now. It's the worst asset class right now (thanks to inflation), except for all of the others. ;)

If you factor in 2009's negative earning, the P/E is very high.

Wall street is saying that negative earning shouldn't count.

I'm getting nervous because only Nazi's grow food now. Vincente made me aware of that fact. Thank you for sharing your wisdom and experince. I have this recurring dream of Hitler in a cornfield planning death camps for whoever dares to think about planting some beans. Its really rough out there in farmland I agree. Klan rallys and such are happening everywhere.

mE thinks since they are running a huge deficit more than their 43 predecessors. But maybe not the last predecessor. Maybe we might want to condsider not invading anyone anymore. The "wolf pack" really dosen't need us that bad. They could get say oh Korea or say Romania to get on point from now on. Everyone needs a turn on point its U.S. military etiquette.

So much for my opinion on leadership do anything but for Gods sakes don't stop stealing. If Ivan and Aristotle ever stopped stealng and invading well that will probably be when Jesus comes back. Although Aristotle will never acknowlege Ivan cause thats in bad taste in ANY church.

I hope you liked Hitlers tractor I found it on Ebay. Some people in Kansas own it I guess. I wouldn't buy it you may not come back.