Market Opinions.

why do you think the fed is going to cut rates just because people lose their homes?

I don't think this will be the reason the Fed will lower rates. I think the Fed will lower rates because it will have become apparent that the US economy is slowing. The fact that it will help folks with ARMs will be a by-product not a reason.
 
Fed's primary mission is to fight inflation. Economy slowed 1987 to 1990 and the Fed raised rates to 10% I think it was because inflation was a problem. Ever since the late 1970's they go by the Paul Volker playbook which is fight inflation even if it means recession

even the market is playing off oil prices lately since that is a big inflation driver

In John Woodward's book about Alan Greenspan, the former Fed president had very strong opinions about keeping the Fed out of the market and letting people hang themselves with their own ropes. the reason is he didn't want people to forget about risk and expect the Fed to rescue them every time

edit: according to their statement, looks like bernanke agrees with me
 
Last edited:
going to have to read a few more articles to confirm, but Cramer on his commentary said that the reason the market went up was that they paid lip service to the mortgage crisis and hinted that they will cut rates if need be. by his estimate, in october.

he also said that the real help will come from treasury or another branch of government, and there was a story a few days ago about Fannie asking regulators to increase the size of their portfolio. so it's possible there is going to be a stealth bailout to give some liquidity into the system and avoid a crisis like 1987 and 1998.

he did say stay away from homebuilders, financials and insurers
 
going to have to read a few more articles to confirm, but Cramer on his commentary said that the reason the market went up was that they paid lip service to the mortgage crisis and hinted that they will cut rates if need be. by his estimate, in october.

he also said that the real help will come from treasury or another branch of government, and there was a story a few days ago about Fannie asking regulators to increase the size of their portfolio. so it's possible there is going to be a stealth bailout to give some liquidity into the system and avoid a crisis like 1987 and 1998.

he did say stay away from homebuilders, financials and insurers

I just can't get into Cramer. He may be correct on the above, but I can't stand the guy.
 
Article in the WSJ today includes a bit about how Greenspan knew that lowering the fed funds rate was potentially dangerous:

How Credit Got So Easy And Why It's Tightening - WSJ.com

I believe Bernanke has a much stronger reticence to blow another bubble. He'll keep the brakes on for a while, and then lower to "neutral," but I wouldn't expect another super-low rate anytime soon.
 
going to have to read a few more articles to confirm, but Cramer on his commentary said that the reason the market went up was that they paid lip service to the mortgage crisis and hinted that they will cut rates if need be. by his estimate, in october.

he also said that the real help will come from treasury or another branch of government, and there was a story a few days ago about Fannie asking regulators to increase the size of their portfolio. so it's possible there is going to be a stealth bailout to give some liquidity into the system and avoid a crisis like 1987 and 1998.

he did say stay away from homebuilders, financials and insurers

Oh well in that case, do the opposite.
 
I'm definitely not worried, as I'm a young accumulator like WildCat and Brewer, but as a curious side note, this market correction (or whatever) was the first time I lost 5 figures on my portfolio ( or at least close, I'll have to do the math). It's a weird feeling, but its for the right reason. Just plugging another $300 a paycheck into the market and taking it easy. On the plus side, put $4,000 into DW's IRA and have had it sitting in cash for some months now, talk about accidental market timing!
 
I feel pretty good, so far at least I am down only 2%. If it keeps going my puts will be more supportive, so I think I should approach a limit somewhere around 3% but I 'll have to see to be sure.

I finally finished Nassim Taleb's Book The Black Swan. Essentially the same message as Fooled By Randomness, but IMO more interesting to read. I also saw him on Consuelo Mack's show. He was on with a Blackstone guy named Doll and Jonathan Clements. Before seeing Taleb I tended to dislike his personality, but actually he is quite polite. It's just that his message is so far outside the box of what is accepted today in financial planning that he really can't be integrated into anything else.

Has anyone ever seen Jonathan Clements? He looks like a really weird owl, with his tiny face and body and a large prominent forehead and shock of white hair. He was sitting next to Taleb and he would crane his head around with this look of "what am I going to do with this maniac?, all the while bugging out his eyes to signify his total bewilderment.

Excellent entertainment!

Re the book. He sure does not think highly of asset allocation or diversification or asset classes or bell curves or history as a predictor of the present or future.

I don’t think he is going to get many followers anytime soon, though I may move more toward his barbell strategy of having most assets in rock solid government securities- he suggest T-bills, of the US and major Western European countries and presumably anyway, Canada.

As compared to his suggestions I would take more risk and use TIPS whenever I liked the rates- as in the last auction. Then a much smaller portion (he suggests 10%) should be invested in highly volatile equities or options which could go ballistic but may do nothing or even crap out. Right now I have only 1% in options, but I am not really clear on the best way to look at this. If all these positions were to lose, over the course of a year I might burn 2-3% of my asset value if nothing else worked out. In reality it would be more than covered by interest, but I need some of that to live too.

I have more faith than he does in the ability of Wall Street to flog its merchandise, so whenever values seem OK to me I am likely to buy some inventory, or even some possible permanent holdings. Gradually I might see to it that my equity holdings are only in the area of energy, energy service and alternate energy – and keep them to a limit of 40-45 % of total portfolio. Even if they got whacked hard, as in a world recession I shouldn’t go down any more than 50 or 60% on these stocks at worst and thus less than 25% over all.

Ha
 
Ha -

So you are saying Taleb is more or less a Boglehead no? Could you go into his recommendations a bit more or is the book mostly about theory.
 
So you are saying Taleb is more or less a Boglehead no? Could you go into his recommendations a bit more or is the book mostly about theory.

Wildcat, I must not understand what a Boglehead is. I would have thought that Taleb is the Anti-Boglehead.

The Black Swan is not really an investment book at all. I would call it philosophy or epistemology or history of thought. He is quite an erudite person.

What I said about his investment stance is based more on what he said on Mack's show. He believes that you should not take any risk with money that you may need. Not in 3 years, or 5 years, or an eternity. He does not include inflation risk in this. He just wants to avoid devastating nominal loss.

It is not a message that can by its nature translate to an ER audience- other than to suggest that we all go back to work!

Another thing from the TV show that I would like to mention is something Clements said. He said if this recent drop scared you, get the hell out of the market now. (Well, he isn't a coarse person like me so he didn't say hell.) He said leave now, because should the market continue down you will almost certainly leave, only with much bigger losses.

Ha

 
Ahh Boglehead, owninig the market is what an investor should aim to do -- Total Market Index Fund. He suggests we are often fooled by style/size performance. At least that is my interpretation of his recent interviews.
 
Nah, more like *****, only with a 90% TIP portfolio, instead of 100%...

A little whacky, even for me. :p
 
Ahh Boglehead, owninig the market is what an investor should aim to do -- Total Market Index Fund. He suggests we are often fooled by style/size performance. At least that is my interpretation of his recent interviews.

Disclaimer, I haven't read his book. But, he strikes me as a permabear that makes other bears look absolutely bullish.

As way of example. From a probability standpoint, there's no indicator that the US couldn't switch to a fascist regime and flip to the Euro. So, plan your portfolioto adequately protect against a potential black swan event like that.
 
Disclaimer, I haven't read his book. But, he strikes me as a permabear that makes other bears look absolutely bullish.

This isn't a disclaimer; it's a disqualification. :)
 
This isn't a disclaimer; it's a disqualification. :)

I've read enough about him to feel that I can relegate said book to the bottom of the pile.

edit: Point taken though ;)
 
This book has been marketed as an investment book but that is not honest marketing. On Consuelo's show she introduced him as a former options trader, so I guess he has gone out of the investment management business altogether. It must have been hard to keep clients bumping along at close to a zero return.

The book is really about the limits of knowledge, or what we call knowledge. For me, it was interesting purely in that way. Yet I do think that there may be cautions contained in his evidence that apply to retirement investing.

Ha
 
even the market is playing off oil prices lately since that is a big inflation driver

I would say high oil prices while inflationary in the transportation area are non inflationary for everything else as the consumer has less to spend. When you put $75 in your tank that's $75 less for Wal-Mart. High oil prices are like a tax on the consumer and tend to slow the economy.
 
Basically his theory is to keep a large chunk of your portfolio in a stable bond base and shoot for the moon with 10-30% of high risk/reward products.

Pretty much what I was doing with my original single guys ER portfolio...two thirds of it in Wellesley and the other third in my IRA in REITS, emerging markets, small cap value and Energy.

The downside is that you pretty much need a shitload of money to consider such a strategy...which isnt a big problem for NT.

The strategy did more or less work for me. All my "rockets" flew to the moon and when I couldnt explain the valuations anymore I dumped them. Then I got married. Thats when it turned weird...
 
The market is volatile. I was looking at market volume in the S&P 500. I has experienced a significant rise. This goes along with the volatility... but the last time we had a spike was at the end of the last Bull.

I know there are other considerations. But the market is looking increasingly nervous.
 
I would say high oil prices while inflationary in the transportation area are non inflationary for everything else as the consumer has less to spend. When you put $75 in your tank that's $75 less for Wal-Mart. High oil prices are like a tax on the consumer and tend to slow the economy.
Don't they put food in that category as well, anything with milk or corn
these days is up. And unlike driving, its tough to eat less (ok, maybe for
some that would be a good thing ;) ).
TJ
 
The market is volatile. I was looking at market volume in the S&P 500. I has experienced a significant rise. This goes along with the volatility... but the last time we had a spike was at the end of the last Bull.

I know there are other considerations. But the market is looking increasingly nervous.

Could it be part of Hedge Fund trading? They do account for A LOT of volume and they are a lot bigger these days.

teejayvans:
Don't they put food in that category as well, anything with milk or corn
these days is up.

Yeah, corn is up huge and it is having some far reaching effects on what we consume. Milk is up because of corn right? Spikes in cattle feed?
 
i looked back on 2004, 2005 and 2006 and each year was volatile with at least 2 10% to 15% drops or more in the indexes even if there was a gain for the year. starting from last year it seems like a line up with smaller corrections. almost like people expect these returns

looks like homebuilders and financials are on fire. my guess is everyone thinks there is a rate cut in october and that the Fed is going to avoid a crisis and that there is going to be a soft to medium landing for housing and the financials. CNBC is also saying that the banks are thought to have less exposure than first thought.
 
Last edited:
speaking of market opinions :D :
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.

the highlights:
100% chance of recession, further...
100% chance of depression.

total economic collapse....gold above 1000, oil above 100, Dow
below 10000...
Don't say I didn't warn you ;-)
TJ
 
Last edited:
... there is going to be a soft to medium landing for housing and the financials. CNBC is also saying that the banks are thought to have less exposure than first thought.
The thing to watch out for is hedge funds and any fund holding MBSs or CDOs, It is those derivative instruments that have protected the banks from even more exposure.

I wonder what a medium landing for housing would look like? I have this image of a plane coming in for a medium hard crash landing...:D
 
Back
Top Bottom