iShares MSCI Emerg Mkts Index (EEM)

All Comments on EEM

  • commenter
    fatcat
    Oct 02 06:23 AM
    Thursday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets [view article]
    Thanks a million....er...thanks a thousand,David....may be thanks a hundred next week.. Reply
  • commenter
    amatsak
    Oct 02 04:44 AM
    My Website
    Ukraine: Overlooked, Yet a Promising Emerging Market [view article]
    Ukraine is the everyday reality for me as I work for a Ukrainian investment bank in Kiev. There is a lot of truth – about the positives as well as the negatives – both in the article and the comments. However, now that the Ukrainian stock market has fallen around 70% from its all-time high in January, there are a lot of bargains. Some good companies are even selling below their book value.

    Jumping in for short-term gains is dangerous, but investing for mid- and long-term makes a lot of sense. Drop me a line at matsak art-capital.com.ua if you want to learn more about Ukraine.     Reply
  • commenter
    Pessimistic
    Optimist
    Oct 01 10:42 PM
    Tuesday Outlook: Commodities, Emerging Markets, More [view article]
    gonna use a metaphore here.. the farmer and his family in the front office should have kept a sharper eye on the hen house. I do not think we would be in conversations of such split opinions had our nation's leaders kept their eye on the prize. Oh, the prize.. our financial markets.
    I know, it is hard to think about Gov't monitoring our financial system which to a certain extent they do, but right now it appears that they did not do enough..     Reply
  • commenter
    BrunoT
    Oct 01 10:27 PM
    Bailout Cost, per Taxpayer, by Income [view article]
    JasonC.

    Interesting point. But did you stop to realize that aggregate GDP is not spread uniformly? What if most of the gains/benefits accrue to the top 5% (those who own stocks of these companies and others) yet the bonds are repaid by a broader spectrum? (those who consume most of their income)

    And more things come to mind that should be considered. What of the costs of inflation caused by injecting dollars into the economy, which is born more heavily by "working class" people, as the costs of necessities is a higher percentage of their income. And what of the intangible costs of the moral hazard created? Put a value on that one! And from what I'm reading $700B is not the end of it. What happens when CDS and credit card and auto loans are added to bailouts? Where does it end? And once we're in for $700B, there would be severe pressure to "protect our investment" with further cash outlays.

    I think the calculations required here are beyond any one page column.     Reply
  • commenter
    kurt walter
    Oct 01 08:31 PM
    Bailout Cost, per Taxpayer, by Income [view article]
    The more money congress takes from taxpayers, the more money they spend. We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem. But what the heck does congress care. It is easy to spend money that is not your money. I could do the same, too. I would like to see every incumbent in the house of representatives get voted out of office in November. All of them need to go. Also, get rid of 1/3 of the Senate that is up for vote in November, too. VOTE FOR NO INCUMBENTS IN NOVEMBER. Sent a big message to the fools. Reply
  • commenter
    Mr
    MarkToMarket
    Oct 01 05:17 PM
    Bailout Cost, per Taxpayer, by Income [view article]
    Glad to see some discussion of mark-to-market...an indepth examination of what would happen if it was suspended temporarily or phased in while abusive CDS practice is phased out would be interesting. Reply
  • commenter
    JasonC
    Oct 01 05:06 PM
    Bailout Cost, per Taxpayer, by Income [view article]
    No, we will grow 6-7% per year long term average after all the noise.

    The market dropped 777 points on Monday. But the same index was *worth* 777 points at the 1982 low, 26 years ago. In 26 years, a day's hard fluctuation is the size the whole market was then.

    The permabears will be screaming "doom, doom" when the market drops 10,000 points in one day, 26 years from now. All the way down to 175,000.

    Perhaps it won't be quite that good, and perhaps it will meander around for 5 years before taking off again. Or perhaps it will take off within 6 months after a bailout bill passes. Nobody knows, and I for one don't much care. As long as we don't deliberately nuke the golden goose that is our financial system, a generation from now every doom mongering short today, will look as dumb as the doom mongering shorts of 1982. Who all said that recession was Hoover all over again and Reagan was a dunce, etc, etc.     Reply
  • commenter
    Smarty_Pants
    Oct 01 04:00 PM
    My Website
    Bailout Cost, per Taxpayer, by Income [view article]
    iThinkBig:

    Too bad the world is going to end on December 21, 2012, per the Mayan Calendar. We'll never see the start of the next bull market. :-)

    Seriously though, you're right. Things will get worse before they get better. ARM resets will continue until at least 2010 and foreclosures will follow the resets. Housing prices will continue down until the excess inventory clears. New building will slow to a crawl and economic activity with it. Hunkerdown and look for bargain basement prices on things of value to build your net worth on. Until then, protect your savings and add to them every chance you get.     Reply
  • commenter
    iThinkBig
    Oct 01 03:52 PM
    My Website
    Bailout Cost, per Taxpayer, by Income [view article]
    What was the economy like in 1980? Did we use the Efficient Market Hyposis then? No? Then perhaps as an economist I take into consideration what an entire economic model the USA has run with the last 25 years. Then I will consider if the USA will remain the global currency peg in the foreseeable future Jason C.

    Yes, we'll move on and grow the economy yet again. But are we still a $14 T economy? I don't think you or I could answer that at this time.

    Will we grow 6-7% a at some point, sure. But your information is providing false hope for investors and citizens alike.

    Here is my advice since 2007 which has remained consistent and has been accurate as all can click on my screen name and see since then: We are going into a depression. Our 25 year economic model has failed. Inside greed from Washington and Banking accelerated this process.

    Prepare for a Depression. Plenty of ways to make money and buy up great assets cheap during one. People will become fabulously wealthy or fabulously poor in short spans.

    The start of the next sustained stock market and Bull will be 2013. I can click on your comments Jason C and see many, many incorrect forecasts. But on financial knowledge you are very bright in general, just over-optimistic about the short and mid-term.

    Hey, I want it to be wonderful too, but I am a realist not a cheerleader and as such I have a responsibility to advise those I care for about the realities I mentioned. Much of it is simple common sense and fundamentals.     Reply
  • commenter
    Socialism
    cannot
    compete!
    Oct 01 03:52 PM
    Bailout Cost, per Taxpayer, by Income [view article]
    "P.S. We don’t know all the history behind mark-to-market accounting rules, but wouldn’t temporarily creating more asset valuation flexibility in this locked-up credit market improve capital ratios and reduce the capital infusion requirements, reducing the size of the needed bailout, and grease the wheels of credit a bit?"

    Absolutely correct!! We leveraged this stuff up with more flexible models of valuing it...we cannot deleverage it with a strict mark-to-market model, without taking a huge hit. The hit will be hardest upon the buyer who gets in while the market is least functional and therefore paying worst-possible-case prices...and that stands to be the U.S. government! (i.e. taxpayers)

    Just Say No to the "bailout."
     Reply
  • commenter
    Mynion
    Oct 01 03:34 PM
    Tactical Asset Allocation, Part I [view article]
    Thanks Geoff.

    Would you say, then, that reducing volatility as measured by standard deviation, by default reduces risk as measured by downside deviation?

    If so, constructing a portfolio that maximizes return for risk, as measured by standard deviation, would still be inherently efficient.

    In regards to TAA, which the article is about, have you read "A Quantitative Approach to Tactical Asset Allocation" by Mebane T. Faber (it is available on cambriainvestments.com I believe)? Just wondered what you thought of the research.

    Thanks Again! Keep up the great work!     Reply
  • commenter
    Owen
    Oct 01 03:31 PM
    Bailout Cost, per Taxpayer, by Income [view article]
    Good comment, JasonC! Nice to see someone who understands real life economics.


    On Oct 01 03:16 PM JasonC wrote:

    > The UST collects 20% of national income regardless of policies, tax,
    > spending, funding, investment, any of it. That is the econometric
    > reality.
    >
    > Therefore, the only question and I mean the only question on the
    > cost of this policy is whether it will raise or lower future GDP.
    > If it will raise it, it will pay for itself many times over. If
    > not, it will cost something.
    >
    > But a very modest something. Our actual collective wealth is not
    > the money lying around, or the inventories, or even all assets at
    > their current prices, let alone the prices they would fetch in a
    > general deflationary smash. Instead, it is our entire future income
    > stream, also known as the economy. Which is $14.3 trillion a year
    > and rising 6-7% a year forever.
    >
    > Nobody debating the subject is remotely sane or thinking like an
    > economist, and it show. One entry accounting and tendentious spin
    > is all you see.     Reply
  • commenter
    JasonC
    Oct 01 03:16 PM
    Bailout Cost, per Taxpayer, by Income [view article]
    The UST collects 20% of national income regardless of policies, tax, spending, funding, investment, any of it. That is the econometric reality.

    Therefore, the only question and I mean the only question on the cost of this policy is whether it will raise or lower future GDP. If it will raise it, it will pay for itself many times over. If not, it will cost something.

    But a very modest something. Our actual collective wealth is not the money lying around, or the inventories, or even all assets at their current prices, let alone the prices they would fetch in a general deflationary smash. Instead, it is our entire future income stream, also known as the economy. Which is $14.3 trillion a year and rising 6-7% a year forever.

    Nobody debating the subject is remotely sane or thinking like an economist, and it show. One entry accounting and tendentious spin is all you see.     Reply
  • commenter
    Geoff
    Considine
    Oct 01 02:59 PM
    My Website
    Tactical Asset Allocation, Part I [view article]
    Mynion:

    Okay--here's the argument: Volatility (up or down) represents the markets uncertainty as to how to value the future earnings stream of a company--this uncertainty is a measure of risk. An investment with very high skewness (asymmetry between upside and downside) would have important implications but realized volatility is a measure uncertainty and the magnitude of changes in opinion in the overall market. Frankly, I have nothing against modeling skewness but every increase in statistical complexity brings its own challenges. Estimating skewness is harder than estimating variance because skew is a cubed statistic...a few data points can easily sway the stats. I do lean towards the simplest possible models--you are correct--largely because additional parameters lead to their own issues.

    Geoff     Reply
  • commenter
    Smarty_Pants
    Oct 01 02:44 PM
    My Website
    Bailout Cost, per Taxpayer, by Income [view article]
    New short form tax return for the post-bailout world:

    1040-TARP

    1) Write down your income: $____________

    2) Send it in.

    Make checks payable to the US Treasury.
    Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: