Heading into today I had 90% cash and a little hedge via LABD. I closed it out today for a 3.5% loss and started buying stocks again. Does it make sense to buy when the market is +350, after being up 30% for the year?
Absolutely.
There is a ravenous appetite for equities now and forever. Each and every time it looks as if stocks might breathe and head lower — we climb effervescently towards new lurid highs and crush the bears into dust and urinate on their graves. There is no future in being a pessimist. If you’re a negative thinking fellow, cut it out or kill yourself. There is not enough room on this crowded planet for the likes of you.
Early next week I will get around to allocating the balance of my money into stocks. Quite frankly, there isn’t a rush because any time is a good time to buy stocks. You can buy them now or Monday, or maybe even Wednesday. If busy, you can even buy them on Thursday. Just try to avoid buying too much on Fridays.
My advice to you pal is to drink the Kool-Aid. You see it there all cold and red and glistening with sugar. I bet if you picked it up and took a sip you’d like it. No point in fighting realities any longer. Trump is your Emperor. Russia is our greatest ally. And the stock market is going higher forever and ever and ever.
If you say “TOP” after reading this post, God will strike you down and kill you.
If you enjoy the content at iBankCoin, please follow us on Twitter
TOP
LIGHTENING
Agree 100%. Markets will go up so long as the US government keeps borrowing and printing money. In fact, there is no incentive to stop borrowing or printing so long as the financial/credit markets allow it. And why will they allow it? Because the Dollar is king. Bernanke realized the power of QE first, and Yellen and Powell have made it the new normal. We can borrow/print to no end–all without causing hyper-inflation–it is a thing of beauty.
Well, there is a limit. QE works by lowering borrowing costs. So QE will continue to work only as long as borrwing costs continue to be lowered. The lower bound is somewhere between -0.5 and -1%, and many countries have already reached that.
Fair enough, but that lower bound could easily change were we to see real deflation.
Also, the masses are getting upset.
The whole wealth disparity thing has only been boosted by QE. We’ve already had one Populist president elected, destroying major candidates on **both** sides of the establishment spectrum.
Now look at the Democrats:
1) A traditional Democratic establishment candidate (Biden)
2) A traditional Democratic establishment candidate in newer, hipper skin (Buttigieg)
3) A former Republican-turned populist Democrat (Warren)
4) A former Independant socialist turned socilist/populist Democrat (Sanders)
5) A 1% who made his money on Wall Street and who sees the trouble ahead and became a populist (Steyer)
6) A 1% who made his money on Wall Street and who’s motivation is to grab primary votes o make sure Big Money is at the table in a brokered convention (Bloomberg)
Without the increasing wealth gap, Warren, Sanders, and Steyer would not be competative, and Bloomberg would have no reason to run.
If anything, the next populist will “double-down” on QE/debt/money-printing–but making sure to funnel that money to their social programs.
Yes, but they will also raise taxes on the wealthy.
If Steyer, Soros, Buffett, Bloomberg, etc. **really** want to convince the right-wing public that taxes are too low, they just need to release their tax returns.
There is liquidity and there is a frantic search for returns. And in reality there isn’t enough of the good stuff to go around in the competition for investments. So it is justified that returns yielded from the search for returns shall yield yet more returns. The only problem is liquidity is a troublesome ever morphing ghost when it’s not supposed to.
RIP Mr. Jack Bogle, for you have shown me the True Path to riches.
Msgt Hartman, I agree with you. Have a good weekend, sir.
My view is populist leaders are NOT ultimately acting in the best interest of the masses. Not to say other leadership agendas are acting in the best interest either…
Best outcome is if the masses become more educated and far less distracted and engaged by the Bread and Circus show. I think the founder’s structure of the USA government is wise system. It’s based on representation, checks and balances and it is deliberative. Difficulty is when citizens don’t understand their role, and fail to participate.
Given obsession of millions with social media and drama, the USA could change dramatically. Government decisions by instant social voting and drama of the moment provides a huge opportunity for bad actors.
How many things seemed like a great idea Friday night, or in a time of drama or stress. Later you realize, what was I thinking?
Shut up