Jump to content


HuskerNBigD

Members
  • Posts

    2,119
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by HuskerNBigD

  1. 2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

    Don't worry....I just got a chuckle because I just looked at the market for the first time today and remembered your post from yesterday.

     

    My wife (CPA) would laugh her head off at your idea of me being a financial advisor.  

     

    Since I'm not an active trader, I couldn't care less what it does intraday.  I just find it interesting.

    Sure. The jobs report came out this morning and while numbers weren't great, unemployment remained low and more importantly there was a strong tick up in wage growth. This is one of the data points the Fed utilizes as a proxy to the economy and now the market is reacting to the fact the Fed will probably raise rates next week, nullifying the late rally from yesterday afternoon.

  2. 2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

    Oh....isn't that precious.

     

     

     

    You were saying?

     

    Bow down to BRB! He knows it all! Maybe just quit your manufacturing job and become a financial advisor since you seem to have all the answers.

     

    Because everyone knows that the way the market is trending at 10:30 AM is a sure sign of how it'll finish. 

  3. 3 minutes ago, TheGainfulHusker said:

    If we pulled the offer and it wasn't due to grades then I'm a bit disappointed in the staff. The kid has been all N and busted his butt to make grades. With that said, I don't like having dead weight on the team if we are getting better players in. Its an odd catch 22.

    Agreed - something to be said about loyalty. But for now, it is all speculation and we don't know the full story.

    • Plus1 1
    • Fire 1
  4. 3 minutes ago, commando said:

    wonder if the markets will make it back to break even today?  they were almost 800 down earlier...now just over 100 down for the day.

     

    Yes.

     

    They will more than likely run up, given the Fed's recent comment.

  5. 8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

    This article is fairly close to my feelings.  I used the term moderate.  If you want to use slow....whatever.  I believe this has been good for the US.  As has been stated in this, the slow and steady growth, has made it possible to have a LONG growth period.  

     

    When you have to come back from as low as things collapsed at the end of the bush administration, from policies both Clinton and Bush put in place, I'm fine with longevity of growth.  

    Sure, and I should've clarified my original comment. It wasn't to throw s#!t at Obama. I think he did about as well as anyone could've, given the circumstance. It was more along the lines that people dig in on their political sides and are unable to ever give credit to the other side. 

     

    My whole argument was this, depending on what side of the aisle you sit on Obama's tenure headline would read:

     

    Republicans: Slowest economic recovery ever

    Democrats: Longest recovery ever

     

    Both are factually correct, but do not paint the entire picture. Why was it the slowest recovery ever? Well, maybe because the workforce just didn't come back and people were scared to death. Or that companies weren't finding attractive projects to put capital to work for. Or it could even be that we were in a new regime, given the accommodating stance from the Fed with its QE, one that other countries around the globe were carefully watching and trying to determine what was best for themselves. All of these are more than likely factors and create a complex picture.

     

    People get too caught up on "gotcha" moments due to a political belief or dislike of an individual. Case in point, many have pointed out the recent terrible trading days, including this morning. But look markets are reverting back already. At one point we were down over 3% and now we're under 2%. We could easily end up flat today, but holy s#!t headlines from 9:30 AM read its the worst trading day in 10 years.

  6. 1 minute ago, commando said:

    wasn't the trade war suppose to reverse our trade deficit?   so now china isn't buying our beans and we are buying stuff from them at a record pace with tariffs added to the cost.   so much winning!  

     

    https://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-trade-deficit-climbs-to-10-year-high-despite-tariffs-tough-trump-stance-2018-12-06

    I think everyone, collectively, can state the trade war with China was/is a terrible idea.

  7. 2 minutes ago, commando said:

    the opposing party?     you don't know me very well....do you.    of course...a traditional republican is considered the opposing party by the trumpers so yeah...whatever.   

    Sure don't

     

    Funny enough, I consider myself a traditional republican too. 

  8. 5 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

     

     

    33% of Americans have a 401k. 

    Fair enough. 

     

    I revise my comment to state that it isn't just the company lining their pocketbooks with share buybacks. Investors, through retirement plans or brokerage accounts, also benefit from the share buyback program.

  9. 4 minutes ago, commando said:

    and the added national debt that went along with those tax breaks?

     

    Oh yes! I guess it is about that time that we all start focusing on national debt, given that the opposing party is in office.

    • Plus1 1
  10. 7 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

    The tax breaks Trump implemented were lauded because the companies that are traded knew exactly what was going to happen.  It was going to paint a picture of gains and profitability and make people excited.

     

    They also knew it would be short lived and the chickens would come home to roost because they had zero plans to do anything with the tax break aside from one time paltry bonuses to the worker bees to give people the warm and fuzzies and most importantly, line their own pockets and buy back stock.

     

    Mission accomplished.

     

    Share buybacks are also beneficial to owners of stock which are, when considering we're talking about the major indices, most Americans as a result of their 401k. 

  11. 7 minutes ago, Fru said:

     

    Yes, and things have gone swimmingly since. 

     

    I don't know how many times I have to say this... I understand the markets are volatile right now, a result of Trump's pandering and tweeting. What I am arguing is on one hand, you cannot sit there and blame him for this, but then give him absolutely no credit for the tax bill that provided a boost to markets late last year, early this year. It is a two way street. 

  12. 4 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

     

     

    I'll answer this.

     

    I loved it.  I personally like moderate steady growth...and that is what we saw since 2009.  What goes up fast, typically goes down fast.  Ever since Trump has taken office, we saw a steep rise, followed by a steep decline in February....followed by more volatility since then.

    This wasn't the point of my argument, but moderate steady and slowest growth on record can't describe the same thing.

  13. 3 minutes ago, Fru said:

     

    They influence the market, not control. His bogus claims stem from how he's consistently claimed that the stock market is doing well because of him, which simply isn't true. It was strong when he got there, and in his first year there was enthusiasm about having a "business man" in charge. The 2017 gains aren't from anything he did, just the idea that he would be good for the market. After that enthusiasm wore off and his policies have been put in place, it has started to perform poorly. He himself directly contributed very little, if anything, for any market gains during his presidency. 

     

    Nov & Dec '17 / Jan '18 returns were a direct result of tax break implementation. 

  14. 1 minute ago, Nebfanatic said:

    The market went up in anticipation of Donald Trumps presidency, but the policy that has been passed under his administration will have lasting negative effects. If you think the tax plan is good for the future of the market that is your belief but we can check back once more data has been accumulated. 

    Republicans said the same exact thing about Obama and guess what, it hasn't been as bad as they thought. It's funny that it sort of works out that way, but people on opposite sides of the aisle continue to flip out when the opposing party is in office like it's the end of the world.

     

    The tax plan has already been priced into the market, companies have benefited from it, hence why earnings were damn all-time records this year (in case you didn't know). For that, there is credit due to Trump. Again, let me make this perfectly clear, he also deserves the s#!t storm he has caused in the last few weeks.

  15. 7 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

    One other thing I'd like to add is anticipation of action is nice but not the same as action. The market might have surged thinking a businessman was coming into office, but the businessman still has to make the right decisions once in office to justify the surge. I'm confident the Obama economy will only look better compared to the Trump economy over time based on their decisions. We can hem and haw about what impact who has on what now but in 20 years I think the results will speak for themselves in hindsight.

    The action already occurred, the market went up. It's fine I can tell you're dug in on your side and nothing will change that. What do you make of the fact that people argue Obama's recover was the slowest on record?

     

     

    RemindMe! 20 Year

     

  16. 17 minutes ago, Fru said:

     

    The tweet used objective facts to prove that Trump's claims about himself and the stock market are bogus. 

     

     

    And what bogus claims are those?  That he doesn't control the stock market? I mean, in a sense he or his assumed policies do, at least to a certain extent. When the tax cuts were implemented, the markets lauded him. Did he deserve credit for it? Sure! On the flip side, his dick measuring contest with China is clearly moving the markets. You bet ya.

     

    15 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

    We aren't willfully ignoring anything. How did markets react to an Obama win? You are conveniently leaving that out. What are you arguing over? First it was that 'the president doesn't control the stock market why are you using it against him' and now its 'well he did affect the stock market, that graph is just unfairly plotted' 

     

    What we are saying is Trump is taking credit for doing something that isn't that amazing. He kept the market going, great job. But the market isn't going from bad to great. Its gone from great to greater. Everyone wants to tout The Donalds business expertise and his ability to spur the economy, but realistically Obama did greater job on the economt than Trump has done. That is what the chart shows. Obama had more room for improvement, sure, but the big point is Trumps fantastic claims  about himself aren't quite as nice as they sound, and if he is going to take the credit he must also take the blame.

     

    I left it out, because I don't think it is necessarily fair to place blame on the downturn that proceeded Obama's election squarely on him, just as I believe it is unfair to start at inauguration for Trump because of course his numbers won't look as good, given there was an immediate run up after election.

     

    But since you asked, between Obama's election night and his inauguration the markets were down 17.88%. Between his election night and year end they were down just under 7%. 

     

    Also, it was not my argument that the president doesn't control the stock market, then use it against him; that was the original tweeter's argument. I do believe that presidents, and more specifically presidential polices, have a major impact on economy and market.

     

    I guess what I find wrong with that tweet is that people are using a chart, that tries to paint a picture with limited / skewed data.

  17. 47 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

    Exactly what commado said. If Trump is going to spout off about his effect on the amazing economy then he gets to take the blame when it falls too. Stock market isn't controlled by the president at all but Trump has tied himself to it. @HuskerNBigD what do you think starting the chart earlier would prove? 

    45 minutes ago, commando said:

    so you want to fit your bias and narrative by starting a chart when it was going up under obama?

     

    I don't have a bias. I couldn't care less who is in office. However, if you're going to willful ignore the fact that there was market enthusiasm immediately following the election, you're purposely being dense. Moreso, I get tired of people just posting random tweets that are click bait worthy and don't provide context. Everyone is so reactive and quick to provide absolutes and these articles /graphs will just provide fuel for a strongly burning fire, which only divides people more and more, not allowing for any sort of resolutions or compromises to take pace.

     

    Putting political preferences aside, it is a proven fact the markets, as a whole, are more receptive to a pro-business leader. That is the platform the that Trump, and most republicans run on, and once it was known Trump had won the market reacted. Want evidence? The market was up ~12% during 2016, of which 65% of the return was generated post November 6th. That is more than coincidence. Furthermore, 2017 was the best annual return the S&P 500 had obtained since 2009, which coincided with coming out of the great recession.

     

    However, Trump deserves the criticism he's received for the trade games he's playing. He's an ignorant fool. I got into this argument earlier with someone, but the reason that China is going after the Midwest, and the Ag business, isn't because the tariffs will cripple the economy (again, agriculture in a broader sense only contributes ~5% to total GDP), it is due to the fact they want to hit the Trump constituents where it hurts.

     

     

    35 minutes ago, Fru said:

     

    The tweet didn't say anything close to that. 

    It didn't explicitly state it, just provided a graphical inference...

     

     

  18. 24 minutes ago, commando said:

    they started the chart when he took office and when obama took office.  not sure how that is unfair.   :dunno   and that article i posted talked about exactly what you said...but trump and the redhats have been claming his great brain is the only reason the markets were going up.    if they want to claim that then they can also own this. JMO

     

    I outlined why it was "unfair". Starting the chart at that point in time of him taking office is purposely creating bias to fit a narrative. 

×
×
  • Create New...