Capital gains?

[wolf]

I wonder if you could please refrain from political statements in this forum. It's a hard and fast rule here! Thank you!

-BB

Agree, keep politics out. However, IMHO. When planning for the future.
ie. Should one sell now. Under current tax rules. Or wait, but the tax rules
may change, based on what current administration is proposing.

There should me a little leeway. This helps us less informed posters, to be more aware. So we can have a plan A, B, and C.

 

[RetireeRobert]

Solid proposals or mere "rhetoric", Barrons says the market went down today because:

https://www.barrons.com/articles/wh...1-reason-51619114904?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

 

[Gumby]

Maybe that was the cause of today's decline, maybe not. Hard to tell. But journalists always try to peg the day's action to something in the news.

 

[steelyman]

I like to believe that most members of e-r.org are long term thinkers and not easily spooked by the daily news or action.

 

[Austin704]

Actually, IMO the most actionable data is the fact that nationally housing costs cannot continually increase faster than household incomes, which long-term IIRC increase a couple of points faster than inflation.

Housing prices can continually increase faster than household incomes if inventory remains low and enough buyers are foreign and/or institutional investors. There's a lot of money sloshing around looking for investment vehicles. Housing is one of them. No reason to believe ordinary homebuyers can't be priced out for a long time to come.

 

[RetireeRobert]

Maybe that was the cause of today's decline, maybe not. Hard to tell. But journalists always try to peg the day's action to something in the news.

You mean you don't believe the news media?

 

[icono5]

You mean you don't believe the news media?

Hmm: So much for avoiding politicized statements?

 

[FLSUnFIRE]

Not sure about that...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ci...of-all-us-dollars-were-created-this-year/amp/

If the govt has printed that much money, then it stands to reason that the purchasing power of cash will go way down shortly. Conversely, that would also mean that all goods, stocks, real estate, etc will go up on value. I personally believe this is why the stock market is at or near an all time high today..

As I approach my FIRE date, that is my hope - especially wrt the market. Really would like the bull to last till I quit (so I'm not spooked, another OMY would be very detrimental to my mental health) and run a few more years to give me extra cushion before the piper gets paid would be appreciated!


WRT housing, the "cost of housing" I think the payments buyers pay relative to income (their cost) is much more important than the price of the property. If mortgage rates stay low and/or terms extend beyond 30 years the valuations may remain high.

 

[Gumby]

You mean you don't believe the news media?

Hmm: So much for avoiding politicized statements?

Journalism is not necessarily a political topic, although it has too often been politicized recently. I don't doubt their report that the stock market went down yesterday, as I rarely doubt their reports of 'what' happened. Facts are facts. I do, however, take their explanation of 'why' that happened with a grain of salt, because analysis is not the same as fact. And I have noted over the years a tendency of business reporters to tie stock market movements to the headlines. Sometimes, that might be a correct analysis. Sometimes that might be incorrect. Crucially, I can doubt or disagree with their analysis about 'why' something happened without concluding that they are falsifying (or faking, in modern parlance) the who, what, when and where of the event.

 

[Dd852]

Journalism is not necessarily a political topic, although it has too often been politicized recently. I don't doubt their report that the stock market went down yesterday, as I rarely doubt their reports of 'what' happened. Facts are facts. I do, however, take their explanation of 'why' that happened with a grain of salt, because analysis is not the same as fact. And I have noted over the years a tendency of business reporters to tie stock market movements to the headlines. Sometimes, that might be a correct analysis. Sometimes that might be incorrect. Crucially, I can doubt or disagree with their analysis about 'why' something happened without concluding that they are falsifying (or faking, in modern parlance) the who, what, when and where of the event.

I covered markets as a journalist for many years, in the US and overseas. It is absolutely true that there is pressure (from readers, from editors) to give a reason for a particular movement up or down. It is also true that the reasons the journalist gets from interviewing traders aren’t always “right” because often the traders themselves don’t know. The only thing that is ever really accurate can’t be printed because it is too obvious and too unhelpful : stocks go down because there are more sellers than buyers and go up because there are more buyers than sellers. The real question is why are people selling - and the honest answer is “many reasons”. Some are spooked by a piece of news. Some need money. Some fall in a momentum trap. Some had a sell order pegged to a price level. Some want to make a quick turn. Some are trading for the long term. - and on and on.

As a journalist you try to get a sense from market participants for what the main causes or threads were, but you always know that it is just part of the story.

Markets exist for volatility. No one makes money when things are static. So news catalysts are always just excuses to set the pinballs going.

Think back to the ship blocking the Suez Canal - lots and lots of trades were made in the first minutes after that news broke, but only a tiny fraction of them were done by people directly affected or even indirectly affected. Most were done by people guessing how the markets would react and trying to get a piece of the action.

Market reporting is really tough work! And so is trading. That’s why quite honestly buy and hold with strict asset allocation triggers is the only sensible option, in my opinion.

 

[OldShooter]

Au contraire; I am constantly impressed by the market analysts. With a couple of billion shares changing hands and tens if not hundreds of thousands of players, these journalists are able to interview a statistically significant number of players and have the consensus on the wires within 15 minutes of the market close.

... stocks go down because there are more sellers than buyers and go up because there are more buyers than sellers. ...

Well, every trade has a buyer and a seller, aka the optimist and the pessimist. The market goes down when it takes lower prices to attract enough optimists and it goes up when it takes higher prices to attract enough pessimists.

 

[RetireeRobert]

Hmm: So much for avoiding politicized statements?

How you infer this statement/question "So, you don't believe the news media?" is political is interesting. Your inference probably says more about you than either about me or the person I was asking that question of.

 

[ivinsfan]

I covered markets as a journalist for many years, in the US and overseas. It is absolutely true that there is pressure (from readers, from editors) to give a reason for a particular movement up or down. It is also true that the reasons the journalist gets from interviewing traders aren’t always “right” because often the traders themselves don’t know. The only thing that is ever really accurate can’t be printed because it is too obvious and too unhelpful : stocks go down because there are more sellers than buyers and go up because there are more buyers than sellers. The real question is why are people selling - and the honest answer is “many reasons”. Some are spooked by a piece of news. Some need money. Some fall in a momentum trap. Some had a sell order pegged to a price level. Some want to make a quick turn. Some are trading for the long term. - and on and on.

As a journalist you try to get a sense from market participants for what the main causes or threads were, but you always know that it is just part of the story.

Markets exist for volatility. No one makes money when things are static. So news catalysts are always just excuses to set the pinballs going.

Think back to the ship blocking the Suez Canal - lots and lots of trades were made in the first minutes after that news broke, but only a tiny fraction of them were done by people directly affected or even indirectly affected. Most were done by people guessing how the markets would react and trying to get a piece of the action.

Market reporting is really tough work! And so is trading. That’s why quite honestly buy and hold with strict asset allocation triggers is the only sensible option, in my opinion.

These "traders" that you refer make MONEY off of market moves( up or down they don't care), so why anyone expect them to be forthcoming about anything market related. A journalist should do their own research not ask the fox what happened to the chickens in the hen house.

 

[icono5]

How you infer this statement/question "So, you don't believe the news media?" is political is interesting. Your inference probably says more about you than either about me or the person I was asking that question of.

Your statement about the news media is now shorthand, among some folks, for political disputation. ("Fake news," etc.). My apologies if that wasn't your intent. I'm a communication professional, fwiw.

 

[Dd852]

These "traders" that you refer make MONEY off of market moves( up or down they don't care), so why anyone expect them to be forthcoming about anything market related. A journalist should do their own research not ask the fox what happened to the chickens in the hen house.

Of course they’re making money off the moves but they are also making the moves happen. Your 100 shares frankly mean very little compared to the blocks of 10s of thousands of shares these pros move. They are the ones that tend to know the gossip, hear the rumors and have a sense - the actual fundamentals of a company mean something long term but very little day to day.

 

[ivinsfan]

Of course they’re making money off the moves but they are also making the moves happen. Your 100 shares frankly mean very little compared to the blocks of 10s of thousands of shares these pros move. They are the ones that tend to know the gossip, hear the rumors and have a sense - the actual fundamentals of a company mean something long term but very little day to day.

What's your point, mine was even if they "know" what's going on you can't be certain they are sharing the truth with John Q Public. A business journalist shouldn't take what they say at face value.