Santelli: 10 year treasury at 13% in 7 years

Status
Not open for further replies.
Can someone explain to me like I'm 10 what this means for an early retirement portfolio? I'm just looking for an explanation of what a higher 10 year treasury does to the economy and portfolios.

It would do very bad things to a portfolio.

When interest rates go up, the value of bonds decline.

Also, when rates are high, PEs on stocks, meaning value of stocks, are usually lower, like 40+ years ago when yields were the 16% he mentioned and PEs were about 7.

The effect on the economy of higher rates is to slow it down.

But if you are really EARLY in building your portfolio, where the portfolio isn’t worth a lot but it will be added to regularly over many years (like most of us current retirees were 40 years ago) it would present a great buying opportunity.
 
He probably threw at a dart board.
 
He said worse case was 13% and he doubts it would go there, he was comparing charts from the late 70's and 80's to present day. It would be a idea to watch it before commenting.:facepalm:

It seems that some commenters here wanted to do nothing but take an opportunity to make a personal poke at a media member known to be conservative. And go political a little.

Normally these discussions are shut down if done similarly to "The Media" in general. Hmmm.
 
Can someone explain to me like I'm 10 what this means for an early retirement portfolio? I'm just looking for an explanation of what a higher 10 year treasury does to the economy and portfolios.

(I'm sure a lot of folks won't agree with his projection.)

This is a good example of why people should ignore the talking heads.
 
It seems that some commenters here wanted to do nothing but take an opportunity to make a personal poke at a media member known to be conservative. And go political a little.

Normally these discussions are shut down if done similarly to "The Media" in general. Hmmm.

Read more carefully. No one in this thread so far has espoused or advocated a political view. Forum members are usually critical of anyone making outlandish predictions.

Politics and investing don’t mix well, something Mr. Santelli should take into consideration. He should learn from us.
 
He said worse case was 13% and he doubts it would go there, he was comparing charts from the late 70's and 80's to present day. It would be a idea to watch it before commenting.:facepalm:

Agreed. Most of the “comment before reading” posts are from folks who often do so on various threads and need to be ignored, tough as that can be.
 
Thing is that it doesn't matter if the US government ever pays down any principal ever. Most large US corporations perpetually fund their operations with debt that just gets refinanced at maturity and nobody blinks an eye as long as the debt isn't excessive and their interest covered ratio is good.

I don't understand why so many people think that the debt ever needs to be paid. It doesn't. The US government is a perpetual entity, similar to a corporation. As long as the debt isn't excessive in relation fo GDP then no problem.

Now all of that said, US debt is close to becoming excessive, but if we just increased taxes and reduced spending so be had a balanced budget then the debt would level off and GDP would grow and our ratio of debt/GDP would gradually decline.

Unfortunately it will never happen, especially the first part of increased taxes. IMO somethign is wronwhen a married couple can have $120k of income and if it is the right kind of income they pay zero tax. Crazy. It might have mad sense back when the corporate tax rate was 35% but not when the corporate tax rate is 21%.

So taxes are the answer, no wasteful spending to reduce........

VW
 
Read more carefully. No one in this thread so far has espoused or advocated a political view. Forum members are usually critical of anyone making outlandish predictions.

Politics and investing don’t mix well, something Mr. Santelli should take into consideration. He should learn from us.

Where specifically in that clip of Santelli’s presentation did you hear him advocate a political view?
 
Where specifically in that clip of Santelli’s presentation did you hear him advocate a political view?

My post was a message that we, and he, should leave politics out of investment related discussions.
 
One of my favorite authors as a younger pup was Earnest Hemingway. My mother bought me a hard cover series of his books, and after reading the first one I was hooked.

Anyway, in the Sun also rises, he states:
“How did you go bankrupt?"
Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.”

This is also frequently the fate of nations and empires, where the economic and other rot is at first ignored, first small. That can go on for a long time, until all of a sudden it doesn't.

The issue isn't whether we have debt, or even if it is ever paid off. The fundamental issue is our system is built where the risks of that debt are ignored compared to the call of the voters and special interests desires to have the goverment spend ever more, "fix" ever more, do ever more.

So the debt will never be paid off, and I doubt (and am bettting more and more) that it (the need for government to pay more in debt service and/or print more money) won't be fixed...until something catestrophic forces it to be "fixed".

Unlike us peons, the US Government doesn't ever have to default. After all, we have a printing press that can print an infinate amount of money (especially it just being bits in a computer). So in that sense, no worry. But in the sense of what that money will buy, yes worry.

Maybe for some here on the forum (including myself), the gradually part will be long enough that it won't matter (for us). But it will eventually matter for our decendants, and ya never know, that "suddenly" part might be sooner than we think.

Totally agree, everything is fine and manageable until it isn't. Recency bias keeps us from appreciating history.
 
Read more carefully. No one in this thread so far has espoused or advocated a political view. Forum members are usually critical of anyone making outlandish predictions.

Politics and investing don’t mix well, something Mr. Santelli should take into consideration. He should learn from us.

Tea Party, Tea Party, Tea Party. It was mentioned by several posters and does ring of a political view. I agree with joewras.

VW
 
Tea Party, Tea Party, Tea Party. It was mentioned by several posters and does ring of a political view. I agree with joewras.

VW

A political reference is not the same as a political post. Our forum is chock full of mentions of political parties. No one here is advocating any type of political view ior debate.

We need to move on from this, please.
 
I’m a regular user of the CNBC iOS app and find it useful. I haven’t seen any CNBC TV for about 10 yrs and don’t miss it at all.
 
"Since I heard his Tea Party rant back then, I have never listened to another word he says."

" His fear mongering started during the financial crisis and went to extreme levels when Obama was elected. His Tea Party rant marked the bottom of the equity mkt in 2009. He is a deficit hawk when Dems are in the WH."

OK, we'll move on, nothing to see here.
 
On February 19, 2009, during his spot on CNBC, Rick Santelli went off on a rant about the government helping people avoid foreclosure on their mortgages and said "We're going to have a Chicago Tea Party on Lake Michigan." He was discussing government economic policy. I thought he was petty, mean spirited and wrong as a matter of policy at the time and still think so. But it was a policy discussion, not a political discussion. The fact that others subsequently formed a political movement and called themselves the Tea Party does not ipso facto make views on Rick Santelli's specific rant political. It's a shame that some cannot make that distinction.

In the end, however, I agree with MichaelB - we should move on.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom