Tuesday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets 23 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
<< Return to page 1 - In Like a Lion
That sums up today’s activity.
Most reliable technical indicators are being blown away by the strength of the current decline. The only way to prosper in this environment for most investors has been to stay out or day-trade.
Nevertheless, the bullish bias from the financial media persists given who pays their tab. I was listening to Bloomberg radio this morning at the opening, and with conditions dire and economic news dripping blood, commentators were searching through the rubble to find bullish shreds of news to pump folks up. That’s when I turned it off.
I got a kick out of Jeremy Siegel, the professor of Wisdom Tree fame. He wants to change their ETF dividend focus to exclude financials from their product menu. It’s always interesting to review a reasonably recent interview where the professor urges investors to buy financials—even average down no less! It’s from TheStreet.com:
The "Wizard of Wharton" says don't worry.
"If investors have cash on the sidelines, they should not wait too long to put it to use," says Jeremy Siegel, Wharton business school professor at the University of Pennsylvania and well-known markets commentator. "There are good values out there in equities -- especially in financial stocks -- and you will be rewarded in the long run if you start dollar cost-averaging now."
You can read the article in its entirety here.
It’s also instructive to listen to Greg Newton’s thoughtful and correct take on the removal of the “uptick rule” as a false cause of the market’s fall.
March is coming in like a lion, but there are many days in the month ahead.
Let’s see what happens.
Disclaimer: Among other issues the ETF Digest maintains positions in IEF, TLT, FXE, DRR, GLD and GDX.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Joseph L. Sha...
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This Crisis is not just Obama's problem although he is making it FAR WORSE and the recovery pushed MUCH FARTHER OUT.
Remember, (and I say this as a lifelong registered Republican) this Crisis came about with MORE REPUBLICAN administrations (Reagan, Bush I, Bush II) and with a Republican Congress since 1996 than with the Democrats.
We all know that the Democrats are the politcal equivalent of gang-land thugs.
But where the hell were the cops (Republicans) who were supposedly walking the beat all those decades?
We will either wrest the country back soon, or we are doomed for decades.
On Mar 03 04:37 AM Schweizer wrote:
> The Obama budget was the trigger. It suppresses economic activity
> rather than promotes it, and it punishes anyone trying to make a
> profit through increased taxation to feed an ever increasing government.
> This is the exact opposite of what's needed.
>
> I didn't think he was that stupid, but I am obviously wrong.
But how come with with Republicans in power for most of the last 25 years, with voices on the airwaves like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Neil Boortz....Hell... for that matter Fox news......
How come we are losing? What is it that the Republicans are failing to articulate?
Or could it be that Republicans have for too long been in bed sleeping with the Democrats to the point that this mass of uneducated American Sheeple really do not see a difference between the two except that Democrats are HONEST about stealing your money and forwarding their agenda of socialism and the Republicans simply want to do it on a much slower basis all the while giving their Wall Street Whores all the Corporate Socialism they could ever want.....(TARP under Bush/Bernanke/Paulson anyone?)
The country needs leaders in politics, to get voted in, and articulate conservative values and lead.
- people creat jobs, not government
- its our money, not theirs
- the folks carrying the water should be be penalized, so they can create jobs for the ones now only drinking the water
- NO ONE IS "ENTITLED" TO ANYTHING THEY DON'T EARN; we need to address the budget, there is no way we can lower the national debt otherwise
- increasing the marginal rates ( soak the rich ) has NEVER worked; the idea is to increase tax revenues, to bring more money in. The rich know how to avoid higher taxes; expand out of country; don't expand ( to hell with you ); exploit the 21K page tax code
- Obama's plan will crush the economy, crush job creation, crush tax revenues.
You can complain all you like about Reagan or the idiot Bush ( I agree, he was an idiot ), but they weren't Jimmy Carter or socialists.
On Mar 03 09:16 AM Sentinel wrote:
> True patio.......
>
> But how come with with Republicans in power for most of the last
> 25 years, with voices on the airwaves like Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham,
> Sean Hannity, Neil Boortz....Hell... for that matter Fox news......
>
>
> How come we are losing? What is it that the Republicans are failing
> to articulate?
>
> Or could it be that Republicans have for too long been in bed sleeping
> with the Democrats to the point that this mass of uneducated American
> Sheeple really do not see a difference between the two except that
> Democrats are HONEST about stealing your money and forwarding their
> agenda of socialism and the Republicans simply want to do it on a
> much slower basis all the while giving their Wall Street Whores all
> the Corporate Socialism they could ever want.....(TARP under Bush/Bernanke/Paulson
> anyone?)
>
Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama's plan.
"I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," said Poczatek. "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off."
"Generally it means being less productive," she said.
"The motivation for a lot of people like me – dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers – is that the more you work the more money you make," said Poczatek. "But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing."
On Mar 03 09:43 AM patio wrote:
> How timely, from ABC news article, "upper income earners seek to
> avoid Obama's tax hike'. Well, duh. An excerpt...
>
>
> Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder,
> Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out
> of paying the taxes proposed in Obama's plan.
>
> "I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," said Poczatek.
> "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees,
> seeing fewer patients and taking time off."
>
> "Generally it means being less productive," she said.
>
> "The motivation for a lot of people like me – dentists, entrepreneurs,
> lawyers – is that the more you work the more money you make," said
> Poczatek. "But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to
> the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing."
Best part is, speaking as an ex-brainwasher, about half of the remaining 70% of the regular folks still believe today that God sent us W. Talk about one neat trick. Rove deserves a medal, and the country deserves what it got in November.
The truth about the US is almost too awful - or too damn funny - to describe. I would write more, but I have bottled water to sell.
On Mar 03 09:43 AM patio wrote:
> How timely, from ABC news article, "upper income earners seek to
> avoid Obama's tax hike'. Well, duh. An excerpt...
>
>
> Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder,
> Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out
> of paying the taxes proposed in Obama's plan.
>
> "I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," said Poczatek.
> "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees,
> seeing fewer patients and taking time off."
>
> "Generally it means being less productive," she said.
>
> "The motivation for a lot of people like me – dentists, entrepreneurs,
> lawyers – is that the more you work the more money you make," said
> Poczatek. "But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to
> the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing."
G
On Mar 03 09:49 AM boats wrote:
> Anybody that can't squeak by on $20,000 a month just ain't living
> right!
Use the bits that are beneficial to you and ignore the bits that aren't!
Have a great day!
On Mar 03 10:50 AM thotdoc wrote:
> I read these comments on articles to gain more insight on the thinking
> in the article. But eventually people begin to attack each other.
> Happens on every thread. Is there a way to have intellectual discourse
> that does not eventually move to personal attacks?
>
> G
You wrote:
"Dr. Sharon Poczatek, who runs her own dental practice in Boulder, Colo., said that she too is trying to figure out ways to get out of paying the taxes proposed in Obama's plan.
"I've put thought into how to get under $250,000," said Poczatek. "It would mean working fewer days which means having fewer employees, seeing fewer patients and taking time off."
"Generally it means being less productive," she said.
"The motivation for a lot of people like me – dentists, entrepreneurs, lawyers – is that the more you work the more money you make," said Poczatek. "But if I'm going to be working just to give it back to the government -- it's de-motivating and demoralizing."
I'll make my comment based on the assumption that Dr. Polczalek's current AGI is $450,000 and she is considering cutting that to $250,000.
Dr. Poczalek will be thanked by other dentists in her community who will be happy to pick up her patients and an extra $200,000 per year, somewhere between $100,000 and $120,000 a year after taxes, depending on where taxes end up after 2010.
If Dr. Polczalek is happy with an after tax income of about $150,000 to $170,000 from an AGI of $250,000 rather than an after tax income of $250,000 to $290,000 from an AGI of $450,000, then she should work less.
I have just estimated federal income taxes and FICA. Of course she will have state income taxes.
Dr. Polczalek would benefit from "running the numbers": But maybe she is just rationalizing wanting to make her own life a little easier in the future.
I made 200k + before I retired and was never able to spend all the money I made. Owned a nice home east of 95 in Lauderdale, drove a Caddy, ate out every meal. Impossible for me to spend it all. Did not try to save. How can I do it and others can't? Oh, and I was an employee not a business owner.
I just don't get how 250k a year isn't enough?
Thanks John!
You have got to be kidding me!!!!! Try living in California with a family and priviate school tuition for your kids and property taxes of 1.1% and State income tax of 10+%, etc...$250k is a MINIMUM in some places in this country...besides, it's a slippery slope when you let the government decide who's rich and who's not.
On Mar 03 02:51 PM plumstupid wrote:
> Oh, then she'll have to learn how to get by $14,000 a month? How
> will she ever survive?
>
> I made 200k + before I retired and was never able to spend all the
> money I made. Owned a nice home east of 95 in Lauderdale, drove a
> Caddy, ate out every meal. Impossible for me to spend it all. Did
> not try to save. How can I do it and others can't? Oh, and I was
> an employee not a business owner.
>
> I just don't get how 250k a year isn't enough?
>
> Thanks John!
Plumstupid,
"You have got to be kidding me!!!!! Try living in California with a family and priviate school tuition for your kids and property taxes of 1.1% and State income tax of 10+%, etc...$250k is a MINIMUM in some places in this country...besides, it's a slippery slope when you let the government decide who's rich and who's not."
You miss the point. About 95% of this country makes under 250K. That's a bigger number of people than the 5% group. The repuks cared more about you and the 5% than the 95%.
Well, things are changing now. Yet, I feel your pain. Having trouble affording private school are you? Don't like the property taxes and the Ca state tax?
WELL MY HEART BLEEDS FOR YOU, you spoiled little brat. Do you know what empathy or compassion are, you selfish, blind jerkk?
Regardless of how bad off you THINK you are, you are far better off than the vast majority of people in this country. So stop your boring whining and open your eyes to what is really going on around you. And cut back on the BS you spend money on - cause your taxes are going up, pal, and DESERVEDLY SO!
I could have been a jerk and bought a house east of US 1 in Lauderdale for 200k more than the one I bought 1 block west of US 1. Same neighborhood, same stores, same access to the beach....The house East of US 1 would have been smaller too and no pool. I didn't give a crap about what anybody thought about my choice either. Its my money. They aren't getting their checkbook out to pay my bills. The only one I have to impress is ME!
Private school is great I suppose. Teaches the little ones to think they're better than everyone else. I went to public schools and was able to retire at 41! Thanks for paying my tuition too by the way. Oh, and your neighbors appreciate you paying taxes for their kids to go to public school. Paying for something and not using it is a sound financial choice, yes indeed.
We all make our choices about how to spend our money. Frankly, anyone who can't make it on 250k a year just isn't making the right choices.
I respect they are their choices. I do not respect they're stupid ones.
I now find myself paying increasing attention to the chart analysis from a limited but a number and variety of sources.
Rationale for this increased focus in quant analysis is
1. the less sophisiticated or under-educated individual investors and similarly deficient "professionals" supplying motivation to the herd to participate is being heavily culled.
2. results in increased rational evaluation rather than momentenum driven markets which was the basis of most advise from these mainstream "professionals" driving previously sited under informed individuals into investing largely based on momentum
3. the "can not lose, don't be left behind" driven momentum mentality siphoned off available cash which otherwise should / could have been used to maintain and service debt levels consistent with ordinary income levels. Which both fueled and reinforced the momentum driven markets.
For the near term ( 1 - 2) years will leave the capital and debt markets to individuals and institutions with business models with a real sustainable sources of investable funds and retard the frothy speculative enviroment of the last 15 years .
Query> is the logic being applied here consistent with other approriately funded sources of sustainable investment ?
> how / will "quant' cleanse the models of the past 15 years from ananlysis ?
> with the "rise of the rest" BRINC and other emerging how / when will the "quant" approach factor in these new drivers.
Answers will be speculative but none the less of interest at minimum to this writer