willynill

Move on Gold Coming Soon? U.S.'s 'Willy-Nilly' Actions Could Be to Blame

Yes, it absolutely is willy nilly. My name is willynill and I know willy nillys.

How That $8,000 Tax Credit Subsidizes Housing Deterioration

This article is an eye-opener. It is a good analysis of the problem and also a guide for prospective buyers who are choosing locations.

More Weakness, More Volatility

Wrong, the volume was much higher Friday than it was Thursday.


On Oct 31 09:49 AM YoYoMama wrote:

> Actually, the volume on this sell-off was pathetically low, a sign
> that this rally still has legs. Sorry, your shorts will have to wait
> a little longer.

When Will the Dollar Snap-Back?

Daisuke Uno, at Japan's third largest bank said recently: "The dollar is now at wave 5 of the 40-year Elliott Wave Cycle. It will drop to 50 yen during the current wave, based on multiplying 92 (the low point during wave 1 that ended March 1973) by 0.764, a number in the Fibonacci sequence, and subtracting from the 123.17 level of 2nd quarter of 2007."

Beware the Ides of October

That was an apple, this is an orange.


On Oct 01 08:47 AM Dean M wrote:

> Sorry Rich, you already called the market top, I think it was back
> in July. You only get one bite at that apple.

The Housing Bounce: Why It's Artificial

It matters, it really matters. Trillions of dollars have been lost in the housing bubble already; now the temporary patches on the still-existing bubble are precariously near to popping again.


On Sep 30 07:05 AM Zack Miller wrote:

> does it matter?

Funding a Rally Extension

The author said there will be an additional six weeks of "funny money" going into the market, but then watch out as the funny money runs out. It's going to be an interesting fall! (autumn)


On Sep 20 08:47 PM beaux wrote:

> Interesting analysis. Well done. I think you may be on to something.
>
>
> But it must be said that the posts following the article are so consistent
> in their vitriol and cynicism for this rally one could be forgiven
> for concluding that they find themselve among those who have missed
> this move (or have even played it from the short side) and are experiencing
> an associated emotional reaction. It reminds me of the emotional
> outbursts that the longs expressed on the meltdown. Perhaps melt-ups
> provoke the same responses.
>
> Could it be that the posts, as a contrarian indicator, suggest that
> the rally may indeed have some way left to run?

Foreclosures: They're Not Just for Breakfast Anymore

If this administration is successful in controlling/manipulating FASB, then we really are in big trouble because FASB is not a government agency. But then Goldman Sachs is not a government agency either--is it being controlled? May be.


On Sep 10 01:46 PM User 463833 wrote:

> How can we be sure that the FASB will begin requiring banks to report
> off-balance sheet assets/liabilities? This administration has been
> controlled and therefore has pandered to banks and investment firms
> in proportions never seen before. They have spoken out of both sides
> of their mouth and will, in all probability, continue to manipulate
> the situation.

A New Worry for Stock Market Bulls

It is confusing because Barron's and Wall Street Journal, both Dow Jones publications report different trailing (current price divided by latest 12 months' earnings) P/Es. Barron's (online) under Data & Tools, Market Lab reports the S&P 500 P/E as 128.66 based on earnings of $7.90. The WSJ (online), under Market Data, U.S. Stocks Highlights reports the trailing P/E as 69.11, but with a P/E based on future estimated earnings of 16.69 (that would be current price divided by next 12 months' estimated earnings). My own view is that these estimated earnings may be too optimistic. Someone else has written about the huge difference between top-down and bottom-up estimations of future earnings.


On Sep 09 09:56 AM JLarkin wrote:

> I see other bloggers out there claiming the S&P web page shows
> the S&P P/E ratio is 145 (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> or something like that. Where did you find 17, which sounds more
> realistic to me? Is 17 based on the forward looking 12 months?

Joe Klein Is Wrong About Krugman's Numbers

Right on, Whidbey!

Corporate Profitability Is the Real Problem

User 353732 has nailed it. He is exactly right.

How Are the 200-Week Simple Moving Averages?

I like this use of the 200 week SMA. It makes you step back and take a look at the bigger picture. One hundred or 200 days limits your range.

Indexes Could Test Support Levels Today

David, I'll double check this, but I think the earnings are the latest 12 month earnings of the stocks currently in the index. Earnings of stocks no longer in the index are not included.


On Sep 01 07:49 PM David Van Knapp wrote:

> The high PE right now is a result of BOTH current prices and trailing
> earnings. That is obvious from the calculation: (current price) divided
> by (trailing earnings) = PE.
>
> Thiazole is correct that the PE ratio is based on past earnings of
> stocks that are no longer in the index. S&P has replaced more
> than 40 companies in the past 12 months. Further , the current price
> used in the calculation is the current price of the stocks in the
> index now.
>
> So the PE is a mish-mash. Each investor will need to decide how relevant
> this number is to forward-looking investment decisions. I am with
> thiazole, it is not very relevant. There are plenty of other valuation
> metrics available than this historically aberrational PE.

Indexes Could Test Support Levels Today

thiazole, I don't follow your logic on this one. The ridiculous PE is a RESULT of this huge rally. Yes, it is a trailing PE, but it is a measure of the prices now. In order for the PE to get down to, say, 20 (Graham and Dodd would never buy a stock with a PE higher than 20), the earnings would have to increase by a factor of 6 (500% increase!) if the price stays at this level. I'm betting on a big drop in the P, not such a big rise in the E.


On Sep 01 03:52 PM thiazole wrote:

> I figured that is what he meant, but it obviously doesn't work, does
> it. It would have suggested that you miss this huge rally and that
> it was much better to own before the crash. If you use trailing P/E
> as an indicator on whether to buy or not, you are using backward
> looking data to make a purchase that you plan to hold in the future.
> That explains why it gives the wrong signal. What do I care that
> GM, Ford, Chrysler, AIG, etc, etc, lost billions in the 4th quarter
> of 2008? What does that have to do with what they will do in 2010?
> You do realize that the ridiculous P/E ratio that you quote is a
> result of what happened in Q4 08 and not what is happening right
> now, right? Hell, the companies in the S&P right now aren't even
> the same companies that were in the S&P back then - the worst
> companies are gone, but they are still being counted in the trailing
> P/E...

Indexes Could Test Support Levels Today

I think he means expensive relative to earnings. With the S&P PE now at over 130, I think he is correct.


On Sep 01 11:45 AM thiazole wrote:

> If you really believe that stocks are more expensive now than in
> 2007, it exposes a very serious flaw in your price analysis.