Broken Arrow: Sound familiar?

[Scanner]

Actually, I have that podcast on my computer - Chicago Public Radio did it. The young narrator did a great job (sounded all of 18 y.o to me but the innocent way he approached it made the piece good), along with the producers.

it was very interesting to see how the global pool of money just evaporated.

Which kind of means. . .it was never really there, doesn't it? I mean, money just can't be religiously "annulled" from existence like a marriage, right? Unless it maybe wasnt there and didn't represent something. . .something like oh, I don't know. . .a sliver of gold. . . an dram. of oil. . .or um. . .an oz. of silver?

Isn't that interesting?

Maybe I am not as much a simpleton as I let on, even though I don't look at P/E ratio information the same way as Pundits and Centrists?

[Broken Arrow]

Well, it didn't exactly disappear completely, but it certainly did shrink. And if you've listened to the recent follow-up, perhaps you'll be as shocked as I am to find out that that pool of money actually grew! Though perhaps for the wrong reasons, in my opinion....

Plus, I think you're still equating how tangibles are somehow better because it can not disappear. Sure, but the value of it can. The Dutch tulip bubble is a very good lesson on that.

Conversely, as I've said before, most companies out there have intrinsic value as well. Microsoft buildings can't exactly just disappear either....

To be fair though, yes, a lot of market capital did just evaporate. HOWEVER, it wasn't because something can just disappear so much as people were betting and borrowing on over-inflated stuff that wasn't there to begin with. Does that make sense? It was a bubble. People were betting on a bubble. Bubbles can happen to commodities as well, such as the massive oil bubble we just had back in 2008. Whatever happened to USO by the way?

Being simple isn't inherently wrong. I like to keep things simple too. But simplicity and truth isn't always the same thing....

[Scanner]

Whatever happened to USO by the way?

I'd prefer to ignore that question.

[Scanner]

And speaking of paranoia and conspiracies. . .you are only paranoid if they all aren't really out to get you. . .someone is watching me, Broken Arrow. . .on today's yahoo page:

Earnings likely to determine stock rally's future - Yahoo! Finance

[Broken Arrow]

I'd prefer to ignore that question.

You seem like a nice guy, and I respect that. But doesn't it seem wrong to be selective with only what we want to see? Well, either way. Your money, your business.

As for the news article, it's speculating on the upcoming short term earnings report and its impact on day-to-day trading. Such a practice is very common, and to be honest, it's not really news. Some traders bet on market movements relative to earnings reports weeks in advance. I know. I've tried to trade like that before, only to find myself out-maneuvered.

This two-quarter rally has been remarkable for having ran for as long as it has and as much as it has. I too have grossly underestimated the impact that the global stimulus would make on the collective markets. And because of that, I too have missed out on much of the speculative runs (though not my passive investments).

And please remember that I too am bearish about the short-term market performances. That's why I've taken up very defensive positions in my trading (but not on hair-trigger sells like last year).

[Scanner]

BA,

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scanner
I'd prefer to ignore that question.



You seem like a nice guy, and I respect that. But doesn't it seem wrong to be selective with only what we want to see? Well, either way. Your money, your business.

That was my weird way of saying, "You got me and you were right to call me onto the carpet for that buy" although I do think oil wil eventually hit $90+ barrel, where I bought in. I would say within 3 years it's likely it would hit there.

Luckily, oil can never be worth nothing.

[disneysteve]

Scanner, in the October issue of Kiplinger's, James Glassman's column is about suggesting that going forward, investors put less into stocks and more into bonds. It doesn't appear to be available online yet but you might be interested in reading it.

[Broken Arrow]

I do think oil wil eventually hit $90+ barrel, where I bought in. I would say within 3 years it's likely it would hit there.

Luckily, oil can never be worth nothing.

*smacks forehead*

Ok, well, here's to hoping you're right about that, because I have an oil position as well.

[Scanner]

Why Dow 10,000 Will Remain Untouched For Years - Yahoo! Finance

C'mon, BA. . .admit it. . .the whole financial industry is secretly following my every word. Notice the discussion on P/E's. . .you expect me to beleive this is a coincidence?

[Broken Arrow]

I don't know why you're baiting me. And I don't know if I need to repeat this any more than I already have, but I too am bearish on short-term market sentiments. I too believe that the market is over-valued.

To me, this is just another guy on the internet (and Yahoo op-ed of all things) saying we're due for a pullback. It's not really anything new, and it isn't even stuff that I disagree with (although I personally don't put too much stock on technical resets based solely on charting either).

The crux of the debate in this thread isn't so much whether the market may be due for a pullback, but rather, your proposed solution of 50% silver/ 50% REIT.

[Scanner]

BA,

I'm sorry. . .I am just more poking fun at myself, not at you or baiting you.

Okay, let's change the debate:

1. You and I agree now that the market is overvalued right now.

A. Do you do anything about it?
B. If not 50% silver/50% REIT, then what?

What is your alternative?

I sort of see what you are saying. . .even commodities and RE is tied to the market. . .a lot revolves around it but I do finally see signs of it becoming untied.

[Broken Arrow]

Oh! No worries! Hard to tell humor sometimes over text.

A. Trading-wise, yes of course. Passive investing, nothing at all.

B. Hmm, well, that's a good question. In this case, I don't know what the right answer is, but I'm pretty sure that I don't want to bet 100% against the dollar.

Short term, yeah, there's a lot of speculative play over the weakening dollar and precious metal. Today, gold popped over rumors of countries in secret talks to abandon the dollar in favor of a basket of currencies for oil transactions. But even that's highly speculative.

Moreover, there is a growing concensus that Bernanke is deliberately weakening the dollar, because more than anything, he believes deflation is the biggest threat right now to economic recovery. The gold run so far is partly an unintended consequence of him trying to achieve a greater objective, but speculatively, it's yet another reason why you don't want to keep riding the precious metal train. It may have a bit more to run, but ultimately, he does want the dollar to strengthen eventually, and you don't want to be stuck on the ride down when it does happen.

I can tell you what I am personally doing. Personally, I see the volatility returning to pre-recessionary levels. Sort of. As in, assuming everything else holds for the moment, we are experience a "regular" downturn as opposed to a really, really bad one.

So, I'm handling it like that as well, but still going long. I'm just taking very defensive positions doing it. By that, I'm picking very specific stocks of companies that are both strong on the balance sheet, pays a healthy dividend, and may have been beaten down a bit. That's how I ended up with my oil position and consumables.

Funny thing about Bernanke's actions is that I think we are also in a period of liquidity rally (hence the same reason why I say the stock market may be over-valued). I think it too could have a little bit more room to run, but not for too long. As such, I would like to balance that out with corporate bonds. They're paying extremely well because they're deemed risky at this point. The general market may be, but not all corporate bonds are. Still, because of the stigma, there are several amazing bonds that available out there, and you know what I'm talking about here because I've mentioned Wal-mart bonds before.

Now, all this may seem like a lot of running and hiding, but I don't think so. Two out of my three stock positions are already over 20% gain YTD (the third is flat), and that's before throwing in their dividends. Plus, when I move and add corporate bonds before the year's end, I expect to net a fairly decent 5% to 6% with those while I'm weathering the pullback.

[Scanner]

I think your thoughts are as well thought-out as mine, even if we have different strategies and different conclusions (which if your conclusion is different, your natural strategy would be).

It's my opinion that the de-valuation of the dollar is frankly inevitable and also frankly historical in America when you read about it. We have printed "funny money" before and it looks like we are doing it again. We are a global economy now and we can only flex our "fiat muscle" so much or Europe will cringe. All the talk about China. . .although growing explosively, they really aren't that big yet.

I also see it as a matter of a bubble. . .you had the tech bubble, then the housing bubble and then the credit bubble. . .the next bubble is the dollar.

Now, do I think we are going to experience a total monetary collapse with everyone bartering and exchanging silver bullion? No, lol. No "apocalypse" although I don't mind the reputation here. But like housing. . .I do think it will "pop" and set to where it can't be manipulated by the Fed any more because we are global.

So, it sounds like you are still stocks/bonds, right? I don't see anything too "Non-centrist" about your positions.