iShares Dow Jones US Total Market Ind (IYY)

All Comments on IYY

  • commenter
    todd su
    Jun 07 12:29 PM
    My Website
    Why Did the Market Act Like Bernanke Said Something New? [view article]
    I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM JUST RUN THE SAME CLIP OVER AND OVER AND SAVE THE MEDIA THE EFFORT OF TRYING TO FIGURE HIM OUT..

    THERE IS NOTHING TO FIGURE     Reply
  • commenter
    emily x
    Jun 07 10:25 AM
    My Website
    Why Did the Market Act Like Bernanke Said Something New? [view article]
    Amen! My theory is b/c he made the speech so early, it seemed extra important. When I saw him on TV first thing in the morning, with a "breaking news" banner, I just went "Uh-oh -- what now? This can't be good..." And even tho he wasn't *saying* anything distressing, by then I was convinced it was bad news!

    I think in the future, Mr. Bernanke should present his comments from a beach chair, under a palm tree, with a cool drink in his hand and the waves gently cascading behind him. That would be the "good news" or "no bad news" scenario. If it is bad news, then he should deliver the speech from a plunging rollercoaster, or maybe having jumped out of a plane, just before he pulls the parachute (or if it's *really* bad - no parachute!). That way there would be no mistaking what he's trying to "signal."     Reply
  • commenter
    FourBrane
    Jun 07 02:44 AM
    Why Did the Market Act Like Bernanke Said Something New? [view article]
    The headline writers ascribe selloffs variously to worries about inflation, interest, etc. The journalists (whose portfolios--if they even have them--probably mostly have four digit balances) have to come up with something to say. They can't just write, "The market dropped. We don't know why."
    In this case, I think the market had run up too far, too fast, and everyone knows that the market will sell off in June and July as people leave for vacations. We were all crowded out on the shaky branch with lots of fast profits and all us monkeys decided to jump at the same time.

    As for the silliness about immigration, ...what can one say to a stupid theory like that? There are twelve million reasons that's the dumbest thing I've heard.     Reply
  • commenter
    Michael
    Hughes
    Jun 06 12:45 PM
    Why Did the Market Act Like Bernanke Said Something New? [view article]
    Perhaps, Bernanke is anticipating the effect that proposed immigration reform will have on inflation. Unlike our president and congress, he may be anticipating the additional wage, benefit, and tax consequentces of legally employing more than 12 million people. We might also see legal costs rise since companies currently hiring employees under the table may now have to justify in court the hiring of foreign labor over US citizens. Reply
  • commenter
    hmorgan
    Jun 01 02:11 PM
    My Website
    Dow 15,000? (ETFs: IVV, IWV, IYY, SPY, VTI) [view article]
    Dear WC:
    I hope you had a change of heart somewhere along the way. From our perspective, the argument still holds. Wishing you the best.

    Herb     Reply
  • commenter
    MDCigan
    May 17 07:58 AM
    Why U.S. Stocks Can Move Higher in 2007 - Part I [view article]
    Jeff,

    Thanks for your response. You say, "For the moment, let's just consider this idea. Either stocks were really overpriced in 2002, even after the bubble-bursting decline, or they are underpriced now."

    This is an interesting point, and I think a useful way to view the question. Let's go with this. From the S&P 500 peak in 2000 to the trough in 2002, there was a decline of approximately 50%. Now, I think the gut level reaction would be of course stocks weren't overpriced in 2002. But maybe not so fast.

    I'll go out on a limb here, and assume you would agree the 2000 peak level truly was an outrageous bubble valuation. Off the top of my head, I think the S&P 500 peaked at around 30-32x earnings. That was substantially higher than any other previous market peak. Off the top of my head, I think the 1929 peak was around 20x earnings and the 1972 peak was also around 20x earnings. Now let's compare the magnitude of the subsequent bear markets. The 1929-1932 bear market was an 85% decline I think while the 1973-1974 bear market was a 50% decline. So the 2000-2002 bear market was much less than the 1929-1932 drop and equal to the 1973-1974 drop despite starting from a valuation level almost 50% higher. Perhaps the 2002 trough didn't leave the S&P 500 underpriced at all, but at a valuation level that already anticipated and discounted a future profit recovery?

    I completely agree with your point that future earnings are more important then trailing earnings in valuation. But the problem is we don't know future earnings, but we do know trailing earnings. And at least historically over the very long-term we know earnings for the overall market grows at around 6-7% a year when you look at the overall business cycle and not just the expansion part. If the S&P 500 can grow earnings at 10%+ for another 5 years, then absolutely it is undervalued here. But that is the million dollar question! And after the magnitude of the earnings growth over the past 5 years, there is absolutely no historical precedent for another 5 years of 10%+. At least historically earnings growth reverts. Maybe this time is different. Globalization, outsourcing labor, etc. But if the S&P 500 only grows earnings at 2-5% CAGR over the next 5 years, this market is substantially overvalued.

    Geoff Gannon has written a bunch of very interesting articles posted here on valuation. Here is one link:

    usmarket.seekingalpha....     Reply
  • commenter
    Jeff
    May 14 10:22 PM
    My Website
    Why U.S. Stocks Can Move Higher in 2007 - Part I [view article]
    MD --

    Thanks for your thoughtful observations. As you note, I have set up an agenda of questions to answer, and I appreciate your open-minded attitude.

    It is always difficult for someone actively engaged in managing funds to write at the same time, but I intend to pursue the agenda. Stay tuned as I follow the concepts which I believe are dangerous for the average investor.

    For the moment, let's just consider this idea. Either stocks were really overpriced in 2002, even after the bubble-bursting decline, or they are underpriced now. The balance sheets and earnings of corporations have improved dramatically, while the stock prices have lagged.

    That is the basic idea. Future posts will show that this idea is recognized by big money, so the individual can get on board sooner or later.

    Thanks again for your thoughtful ideas and questions.

    Jeff     Reply
  • commenter
    MDCigan
    May 14 05:55 AM
    Why U.S. Stocks Can Move Higher in 2007 - Part I [view article]
    Interesting article, and certainly food for thought. In your summary section, you list some "bogusss" arguments without refuting them. Simply listing them doesn't make them invalid. FWIW, I think I know who you are taking a shot at with some of those (peak earnings and earnings mean reversion). Suffice it to say, I've found the arguments for those particular items compelling and supported by the historical data.

    I think somewhere else you made the point that a good model has to be both descriptive and prescriptive. Otherwise, what's the point? Far too many strategists offer opinions based on notions/models that may have zero support in the historical data. One thing I think is important to note is to distinguish the ***TIME FRAME*** of the model.

    You say "It is our conclusion that stocks can move much higher during 2007." It is a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FORECAST to say what stocks may do over a 1-year time frame versus what the likely 5-10 year returns might be. If you carefully read the research which uses the concepts of peak earnings, earnings mean reversion, peak P/E ratios, you will note the conclusions refer to the probable 5-10 year returns and not what the market may or may not do in a single year.

    Just use 1998-present as an example. There have been a couple of really good years, 1998,1999, 2003, 2006. Yet the cumulative return over the entire time frame for the S&P 500 has been pretty poor. One was better off in T-bills. I am somewhat skeptical of models that try to forecast 1-year returns for the market. From year to year, the market probably trades more on technicals and sentiment then anything else, and fundamental valuation asserts itself over long time frames such as 5-10 years (voting machine in the short-term and weighing machine in the long-term). 2007 may very well be a strong up-year for the S&P 500 with the cumulative 5-10 year forward return being mediocre to poor.

    "Some assert that the market has gotten ahead of fundamentals, since stocks have advanced more than recent earnings growth. These analysts are focused on what we call "local efficiency." They are assuming that last year's pricing was an accurate valuation.

    In fact, stocks have lagged during a multi-year period where profits grew at double-digit rates.

    There is a lot of catching up to do."

    This is certainly possible, but it seems to me what could just as easily argue that stocks began this multi-year profit run at more expensive valuation levels then at previous troughs in the business cycle and therefore it is no surprise stock prices have lagged profit growth. Perhaps, there is not catching up to do, but just further multiple contraction. Exactly what time frame is it that the stock market gains should exactly match profit growth?

    "Our own preview of 2007 informed investors that market valuations were low when one took the current low interest rates into consideration. Those who ignore interest rates in their analysis of fundamentals are adopting a method that we find distinctly inferior."

    I struggle with this one myself. I think strong theoretical arguments can be made both ways for including and ignoring interest rates. The question has to be asked though why didn't low interest rates matter in the 40s, 50s, or much of the 60s in terms of higher P/E ratios. What data from what time period are you going to include in building your model? And if you are going to ignore certain time periods, then why? And where to do you draw the line? 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years?

    I look forward to any additional articles from you. I am not dogmatic, or a perma-bear, and would love to see a persuasive case supported by the data to be very bullish over the next 5-10 years and not just for a single year. But I think you are going to have to carefully examine and refute some of the arguments you list as bogusss.     Reply
  • commenter
    Chad Brand
    May 10 03:21 PM
    My Website
    Dow: Longest Winning Streak in 80 Years [view article]
    Geoff,

    I totally agree that the streak itself is not important. The only reason we even know that it was 24/27 up days is because the media reported it constantly. I think the key is trying not to get caught up in the euphoria and chasing it too far. How we got to be overbought (whether it was one day up 9% or 24 days up 9%) isn't important itself, but it is notable only because when streaks reach once in 80 year levels, it signals that the market is indeed overly extended to the upside. After all, if such a streak wasnt usually followed by sell-offs, then streaks like this would happen far more frequently. Hence, it isn't surprising that the Dow is down 125 today, for instance.     Reply
  • commenter
    Geoff
    Considine
    May 10 12:13 PM
    My Website
    Dow: Longest Winning Streak in 80 Years [view article]
    Chad:

    I think that it is a big mistake to think too much about this issue of a long 'winning streak' measured in terms of daily returns. Why is this meaningful. Maybe it is, but why? Is a string of small incremental positive gains more meaningful than a choppy market that ends up at the same point? Sure, it may say something about psychology--but what? It is true that investors have been getting complacent--this is evidenced by the VERY low market volatility:

    etf.seekingalpha.com/a...

    But this issue of watching daily returns for the length of streak is, IMHO, a distraction.     Reply
  • commenter
    huangjin
    May 02 03:12 PM
    Market Milestones: Sixty-five Years Since the 1942 Low [view article]
    Everything in that speech is why the Depression lasted as long as it did. It wasn't too different from his peacetime policies. Reply
  • commenter
    CrossProfit
    Apr 27 07:18 AM
    My Website
    S&P 500 P/E Ratios at 20-Month High [view article]
    A ttm PE of 16.87 is not a problem when earnings grow at 13% to 20% YOY as was the case for 2006. Should earnings growth slow to 7% / 10% or less, this could pose a problem.

    Strong international economic growth should mitigate the results from a US slowdown. Companies (like XOM) that derive two thirds (66%) of their revenues from overseas should fair better as well. In general, exporters and foreign base companies should do well in 2007.

    We do not have a current S&P 500 company breakdown for over 50% exports by revenue. If you have one, please post it.

    Disclosure: Opinion of CrossProfit (IL) analyst and may not be the consensus at CrossProfit.com.     Reply
  • commenter
    huntzinger
    Apr 23 12:23 PM
    S&P 500: Could We Get a Seven-Year Double Top? [view article]
    Thank you for your perceptive remarks on the stock market. If you look at it from a historicl perspective, you wll find about an 8.0% average growth rate in market averages from the bottom in 1932 to the top in 2000. This included the period from 1966 to 1982 in which the market couldn't get above the 1,000 mark on the Dow 30. From the breakout in 1982 at 1,000 to 11,750 in 2000, the market advanced at slightly better than 15% p.a., about twice the rate from 1932 to 1966. Now, since 2000, the Dow has moved into new highs after a 7-year dip, while the S&P 500 still has 3% or so to go to reach its 2000 high. So in this 7-year period, the market has been essentially flat. But if you measure from 1982 to 2007 as going from 1,000 to 11750 it is still high at about 10.35% p.a. If you measure from 1,000 to today's average of 12,960 (as I write) or 13,000 on the Dow, you get 10.8%, the difference having been earned or created in just the last month or two. So, the market is stilll running better than it's long term average. Of course, even at 8.0% p.a. (it could be less depending on the dates you use) without the 16 year period between 1966 and 1982, and assuming a normal market during that period, the Dow today would be above 23,000.
    But that didn't happen and we have to contend with the real world, which today is low to moderate real GDP growth, modest CPU inflation and low to moderate long-term interest rates. So, with that in mind, an argument can be made that we are in for another period like 1966 to 1982 in which the Dow (as a proxy for the market) reaches 13,000 then backs off, tries again and so until the growth rate since 2000 begins to average out into 8% or so on average. The federal government made a mess of things that contributed to the 1966 - 1982 sickness, and it certainly can do that again. Your double-top in the S&P may not kick the market into a new long-term high growth mode after all is said and done. It will be interesting to see what happens. Thanks again for your perspective.     Reply
  • commenter
    jwt
    Mar 15 12:30 PM
    My Website
    US ETFs Hit Hard, Asian Markets Split [view article]
    can you name any ETF specializing in Vietman also a site where I can find ETF based on a search by the country ?????

    thanks for help

    john tyrone e-mail; jtyrone@verizon.net     Reply
  • commenter
    Brian Croner
    Mar 01 01:39 PM
    My Website
    Does The Wimpy Economic Outlook Finally Matter? [view article]
    Very well said. If I had this author's writing ability, I would have said it the same myself. Great job, Mr. Davis. Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: