|
|
Post by FD1000 on Nov 17, 2021 8:43:39 GMT -5
How to deal with inflation easily...invest in gold and spend frugally. Gabe I'm sure you read it somewhere. Did you check the numbers? We have higher inflation in the last year, SPY(SP500) made over 31% while GLD lost -1.8%. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Inflation
Nov 17, 2021 14:08:01 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2021 14:08:01 GMT -5
How to deal with inflation easily...invest in gold and spend frugally. Gabe I'm sure you read it somewhere. Did you check the numbers? We have higher inflation in the last year, SPY(SP500) made over 31% while GLD lost -1.8%. Thank you Mr. Hindsight! |
|
|
|
Post by youth1 on Nov 17, 2021 15:04:47 GMT -5
Well...the last 30 minutes of the of the trading day should be interesting.
Gabe
|
|
|
|
Post by brocksamson on Nov 17, 2021 15:08:00 GMT -5
Link Well the Federal Maritime Commission must've watched 60 Minutes "(1) Whether Hapag-Lloyd, A.G. and Hapag-Lloyd (America) LLC. are violating or have violated section 41102(c) of the Shipping Act by failing to establish, observe, and enforce just and reasonable regulations and practices relating to its assessment of charges on containers when return locations with corresponding appointments were unavailable." Which makes it appear that private parties are acting in a usury manner and bad faith. And government is again forced to intervene due to bad players. We'll see. |
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 17, 2021 16:27:16 GMT -5
FD - you are leaving out quite a bit from that article....
Let's see what else Shiller said in that interview following FD's quote:
Comment: A real 4% return seems like a worthwhile investment.
Shiller: Then again, I don't know that I trust that number. It goes back to this whole academic literature on the outperformance of equities.
And later on:
Shiller: So when I said the 10-year P/E predicts a 4% return, that's conditional on past returns being a guide to future returns, and the truth is, we don't know. Maybe it will be only 2%.
Doesn't sound to me like he's predicting anything. He even clearly states it can be wrong. He is discussing his model and research. Period.
No, this is not like posting historical gold returns and saying that is a reason to not invest in it.
Did this post get deleted:
"Well, the post was "How to deal with inflation easily...invest in gold"
If there is a high correlation between inflation to gold + we are already in higher inflation...it means gold should do well...but, it didn't.
Similar to what Shiller told us in 05/2012 (article)
Question:You have become famous for your cyclically adjusted 10-year price/earnings ratio. What do the latest numbers say about future stock market returns?
Shiller: we found a correlation between that ratio and the next 10 years' return.
If you plug in today's P/E of about 22, it would be predicting something like an annualized 4% return after inflation.
FD: reality, the SP500 made 15+% since that date and much better than countries with lower PE10."
Pretty simple observation based on facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Nov 17, 2021 16:58:07 GMT -5
Not really knowing doesn't absolve him of being really wrong. 2-4-6% are so far from 15%. Shiller can't have it both ways. Either his research worth talking about or just bury it. It is his choice. If he wants to be truthful, next time someone asks him about PE10, he can just say, my model was extremely wrong and useless. If you talk in front of the camera to millions of people presenting your research, you should be aware of the consequences. BTW, even Siegel said Shiller was wrong ( link). It's not a surprise to me that most "experts" have been wrong because markets are unpredictable. So, does gold have a high correlation to inflation? Based on YTD, it doesn't. If it has, gold should be up nicely, but it lost money YTD. |
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 17, 2021 17:47:37 GMT -5
FD - . If the various cape ratios are of no value to you, that's fine. But they are to many others - including the big investment houses. But if you are going to make an argument, present the whole picture, and not just the part that you think supports your point. That was a misleading portrayal.
As far as gold and inflation, there is a lot written on both sides. I haven't studied it and don't plan to. I bought a little bit of a gold miner stock with inflation in mind. Am I loading up on gold even though I believe we are in a moderate inflation environment for some time? No. Do I think I can prove gold won't be a good investment over the next 5 years. No. So, I didn't comment on that post.
|
|
|
|
Post by youth1 on Nov 17, 2021 19:19:04 GMT -5
GLD has been traditionally a hedge for inflation. I have owned Gold for many years....5 to 10 percent of my equity portfolio.
Gabe
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 17, 2021 20:06:18 GMT -5
GLD has been traditionally a hedge for inflation. I have owned Gold for many years....5 to 10 percent of my equity portfolio. Gabe Fair enough Gabe. FD has a point. It doesn't have the greatest track record and there's debate that crypto has taken a slice of any hedge. Crypto exchange and a gold miner are 1% of my portfolio. 10% - I wouldn't sleep well personally. |
|
|
|
Post by youth1 on Nov 17, 2021 20:57:17 GMT -5
GLD has been traditionally a hedge for inflation. I have owned Gold for many years....5 to 10 percent of my equity portfolio. Gabe Fair enough Gabe. FD has a point. It doesn't have the greatest track record and there's debate that crypto has taken a slice of any hedge. Crypto exchange and a gold miner are 1% of my portfolio. 10% - I wouldn't sleep well personally. Well...Sara, that is why we have opposing views that make a market. Sleep well! Gabe |
|
|
|
Post by intruder1 on Nov 18, 2021 1:01:00 GMT -5
Fair enough Gabe. FD has a point. It doesn't have the greatest track record and there's debate that crypto has taken a slice of any hedge. Crypto exchange and a gold miner are 1% of my portfolio. 10% - I wouldn't sleep well personally. Well...Sara, that is why we have opposing views that make a market. Sleep well! Gabe Don’t know why investors want gold in their portfolio when the sole reason for owning it is to get a better rate of return than inflation which has averaged less than 3% over last 30 years. Better to own stocks with pricing power which can raise prices when inflation increases such as AAPL, MSFT, NVDA and QQQ which will provide returns 10-20x the rate of inflation. NVDA is up 50% in the last 4 months. |
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Nov 18, 2021 8:25:02 GMT -5
GLD has been traditionally a hedge for inflation. I have owned Gold for many years....5 to 10 percent of my equity portfolio. Gabe The problem with GLD, it has a "terrific" performance, only 0.43% average annually in the last 10 years. |
|
|
|
Post by youth1 on Nov 18, 2021 15:12:12 GMT -5
The average return of gold is 10.61% over 20 years...The average return of gold for 2020 is 24.62%
Gabe
|
|
|
|
Post by yogibearbull on Nov 18, 2021 15:32:53 GMT -5
FD1000, DT, some e-mail links from closed e-mail systems just open to login screens of the e-mailers (so the user has to login to see them). Security is NOT compromised and closing of the e-mail account was not necessary. AOL and Yahoo e-mailers are becoming problematic progressively - now VZ dumped them both to private-equity firm Apollo Global.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 30, 2021 14:08:41 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by brocksamson on Nov 30, 2021 15:01:44 GMT -5
I am not putting much stock in that myself. I think the term "transitory" was so vague and misunderstood to be almost meaningless. Always expected 12-18 months of higher inflation and then a leveling off. That would put us into 3rd quarter 2022.
|
|
|
|
Post by youth1 on Nov 30, 2021 17:23:52 GMT -5
Taper should not be in Powell's vocabulary. Because of the mention, the market was dumped.
Gabe
|
|
|
|
Post by intruder1 on Nov 30, 2021 17:34:41 GMT -5
The average return of gold is 10.61% over 20 years...The average return of gold for 2020 is 24.62% Gabe Year to date Return for MSFT is 50%. Did you mean average return for gold for 2021 is 24.62%? |
|
|
|
Post by archer on Nov 30, 2021 17:49:15 GMT -5
GLD Down 6.57% in 2021. 10 yr pretty shabby too. Love that Sharpe ratio though LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Nov 30, 2021 18:19:46 GMT -5
I continue to rely on inflation of 5% to 6% for several years for basic allocation planning - likely 90-10 next year - currently 85-15. Continue to rely on quality dividend stocks as my mainstay with some growth.
|
|
|
|
Post by youth1 on Nov 30, 2021 18:37:16 GMT -5
The average return of gold is 10.61% over 20 years...The average return of gold for 2020 is 24.62% Gabe Year to date Return for MSFT is 50%. Did you mean average return for gold for 2021 is 24.62%? I own MSFT for many years. 2020 24.62% not 2021. (gold) Gabe |
|
|
|
Post by mnfish on Dec 1, 2021 6:12:19 GMT -5
Probably off topic, but below is probably the best one liner from the hearings yesterday. It came from Kevin Cramer from No Dak after sparring with Yellen about the CBO report on Build Back Better and whether or not the plan is "fully paid for".
Yellen replied that the CBO "have indicated that their scoring of that does not take account of behavioral changes that would result from a regime of stricter tax enforcement and Treasury put out its own estimate.”
Cramer sniffed: “And fairy dust creates energy, I understand.”
|
|
|
|
Post by brocksamson on Dec 1, 2021 12:23:41 GMT -5
Yellen responded honestly, as she always does.
Cramer responded snarkily, as grandstanding politicians with nothing relevant to say always do.
I'm certain that Cramer knows less about energy (physics), then Yellen knows about economics.
it is also relevant to point out that CBO was exactly right about the cost of the TCJA. Which was sold on a similar "fairy dust" principle. That all the growth it would produce would pay for the loss of revenue. That was some serious wishful thinking. Peter Pan would be proud.
|
|
|
|
Post by intruder1 on Dec 1, 2021 16:53:11 GMT -5
Yellen responded honestly, as she always does. Cramer responded snarkily, as grandstanding politicians with nothing relevant to say always do. I'm certain that Cramer knows less about energy (physics), then Yellen knows about economics. it is also relevant to point out that CBO was exactly right about the cost of the TCJA. Which was sold on a similar "fairy dust" principle. That all the growth it would produce would pay for the loss of revenue. That was some serious wishful thinking. Peter Pan would be proud. Not exactly. Reduction in tax revenue from lower rates was offset by reducing unlimited salt deduction to $10,000. No one could have predicted the negative impact of the covid epidemic on the US and global economies when TCJA was drafted in 2017. First covid cases in US were not identified until January 2020. Congress had to inject $2.45T into the economy in March 2020 and again 2 more times later in the year to prevent a collapse. Fed was responsible for 20% decline in stocks at end of 2018 when it foolishly raised interest rate 3 times in last 7 months of the year. Fed had to lower rates 3 times in 2019 to correct mistake. |
|
|
|
Post by CarlosDS on Dec 1, 2021 17:26:43 GMT -5
Yellen responded honestly, as she always does. Cramer responded snarkily, as grandstanding politicians with nothing relevant to say always do. I'm certain that Cramer knows less about energy (physics), then Yellen knows about economics. it is also relevant to point out that CBO was exactly right about the cost of the TCJA. Which was sold on a similar "fairy dust" principle. That all the growth it would produce would pay for the loss of revenue. That was some serious wishful thinking. Peter Pan would be proud. Not exactly. R eduction in tax revenue from lower rates was offset by reducing unlimited salt deduction to $10,000. No one could have predicted the negative impact of the covid epidemic on the US and global economies when TCJA was drafted in 2017. First covid cases in US were not identified until January 2020. Congress had to inject $2.45T into the economy in March 2020 and again 2 more times later in the year to prevent a collapse. Fed was responsible for 20% decline in stocks at end of 2018 when it foolishly raised interest rate 3 times in last 7 months of the year. Fed had to lower rates 3 times in 2019 to correct mistake. I am not so sure that was the case LINKDo you have a source supporting your statement? |
|
|
|
Post by archer on Dec 1, 2021 18:16:01 GMT -5
Not exactly. R eduction in tax revenue from lower rates was offset by reducing unlimited salt deduction to $10,000. No one could have predicted the negative impact of the covid epidemic on the US and global economies when TCJA was drafted in 2017. First covid cases in US were not identified until January 2020. Congress had to inject $2.45T into the economy in March 2020 and again 2 more times later in the year to prevent a collapse. Fed was responsible for 20% decline in stocks at end of 2018 when it foolishly raised interest rate 3 times in last 7 months of the year. Fed had to lower rates 3 times in 2019 to correct mistake. I am not so sure that was the case LINKDo you have a source supporting your statement? |
|
|
|
Post by brocksamson on Dec 1, 2021 21:09:23 GMT -5
Not exactly. R eduction in tax revenue from lower rates was offset by reducing unlimited salt deduction to $10,000. No one could have predicted the negative impact of the covid epidemic on the US and global economies when TCJA was drafted in 2017. First covid cases in US were not identified until January 2020. Congress had to inject $2.45T into the economy in March 2020 and again 2 more times later in the year to prevent a collapse. Fed was responsible for 20% decline in stocks at end of 2018 when it foolishly raised interest rate 3 times in last 7 months of the year. Fed had to lower rates 3 times in 2019 to correct mistake. I am not so sure that was the case LINKDo you have a source supporting your statement? I wouldn't hold my breath. www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/cbo-thinks-tcja-will-cost-433-billion-more-last-decembers-estimate-what-happenedbudget.house.gov/publications/report/cbo-confirms-gop-tax-law-contributes-darkening-fiscal-futurewww.brookings.edu/policy2020/votervital/did-the-2017-tax-cut-the-tax-cuts-and-jobs-act-pay-for-itself/The last link is particularly interesting as it is dated Feb 14,2020. Right before COVID struck. During what its supporters deemed exceptionally good economic times.
Some excerpts: "Before and after passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), several prominent conservatives, including Republicans in the House and Senate, former Reagan economist Art Laffer, and members of the Trump administration, claimed that the act would either increase revenues or at least pay for itself. In principle, a tax cut could “pay for itself” if it spurred substantial economic growth—if tax revenues rose from the combination of higher wages and hours worked, greater investment returns, and larger corporate profits. The TCJA, however, is not that tax cut." "The most appropriate test of the revenue impact of the TCJA is to compare actual revenues in FY2018 with predicted revenues in FY2018 assuming Congress had not passed the legislation. In fact, the actual amount of revenue collected in FY2018 was significantly lower than the Congressional Budget Office’s (CBO) projection of FY2018 revenue made in January 2017—before the tax cuts were signed into law in December 2017. The shortfall was $275 billion, or 7.6% of revenues that were expected before the tax cuts took place. Given that the economy grew, and in the absence of another policy that could have caused a large revenue loss, the data imply that the TCJA substantially reduced revenues (Figure 1)." |
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Dec 3, 2021 6:46:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by FD1000 on Dec 3, 2021 9:19:09 GMT -5
Let's make it simple as usual: 1) Never invest based on predictions 2) Not all bonds are Treasuries. 3) Didn't we see this movie already? Rates will rise and fast(every other "expert" predicted 2% in 2021) + inverted yield is around the corner, just to find out it didn't happen 4) If you are sure that rate will rise, pay attention to bank loans, they usually do well. 5) BTW, Minerd is frequently on target and yesterday said rates might go down( link)...what? Or, just follow the market, it keeps whispering in my ear. I never invested directly in a high-rated funds longer term, regardless what % I had in stocks (0-70%). |
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Dec 3, 2021 9:28:20 GMT -5
FD - honestly. Please don't derail this. If you don't want to discuss, don't. That goes for everyone. Take the drama out of it and let's discuss.
|
|
