Proud Member Of
Random Roger
© 2009 | Gadget Theme Blogger Template
Original WPtheme By Blogger Template | Converted By Gadget Lover
| Distributed by eFree Blogger Help
Original WPtheme By Blogger Template | Converted By Gadget Lover
| Distributed by eFree Blogger Help
22 comments:
Hey thanks Roger, great video. Not completely sure I understood the 'lighten up' comment, was it a metaphor or lightening up on defence?
not a metaphor, i mean reduce at that time, if it happens
Hi Roger,
Thanks so much for the video and your thoughts. I've been a regular reader for only a few weeks. I wish I found you earlier. Keep it up! It's ironic that we have been looking to rescue a dog for our family. Perhaps your comments will finally allow me to take the plunge ... my 3 girls will love you for this.
Quick question: what's the likelihood that the stock market changes in some way that we've never seen before? I'm not talking about changes to market cap, index levels, loss of wealth, etc. I'm talking more in terms of market mechanics. Could this crisis change the stock market as we know it? Could the market go away all together or change in a way that is very different than today? Is this a crazy thought?
Could this crisis change the stock market as we know it?
barrons talks about this some. hard to see now but permanently different in the way i think you mean w/b like a 20 sigma event while where we are now doesn't even go to eleven.
i do think it is useful to ask the question, because really, who knows.
Roger,
News flash!! GM possibly to merge with Chrysler!
Two questions: In your opinion was the Government in the market buying financials in the last hour yesterday? It seemed very curious to me.
Also what is the possibility that on a rip down type day that the market closes. Specifically what are the guidelines as it closing on 911.
BWJR
Looked like a mess of hedge fund unwinding near the close yesterday: Everyone had to settle their Lehman stuff or be left out in the cold.
If the financial situation were even close to normal I'd expect an oversold rally next week but, based on what I've been reading and hearing, it looks like a critical confounding variable will be the policy response the G7 leaders develop this weekend: If it's reasonably clear, strong and positive the credit situation should begin to ease and market volatility should fall; if it's ambiguous, weak or, god help us, contentious then the credit wheel will probably break and a rolling market freeze will follow (can't have a market if business's can't operate).
WRT Tim's question if the latter scenario were to unfold it would be temporary but, for some period of time, the market segments would "go away" at least in a sense. I don't think asset prices would necessarily fall or what have you because, well, the problem would be you couldn't price them at all (this was actually the case for a few hours or, in a few areas, more than a day during the 1987 crash for those who remember that little party).
Speculation aside I'm still pretty much in the John Mauldin 'muddle through' camp but the possibility of a really stupid policy move remains. I'd probably be less concerned about this if recent history suggested nations and international trading partners trusted each other more or were more willing to work together cooperatively; eventually stepping on too many toes translates into a general absence of willing dancing partners which is where we seem to be now.
Regardless trading discipline is what it is: I've sold puts at strike levels where I would be comfortable owning the assets in question even if their prices fall further and some of those have already closed. Scaling in the first 10% is what my model calls for now and while a 20% crash or freeze would halt that, not much else would.
Everything else is either hedged, waist-deep in t-bills, or isn't a financial asset at all (I could even grow vegetables on some of it in a pinch).
See y'all on the other side (whenever it is).
ciao
Love the Puma shirt!
Ajw
no idea if that was PPT or not. my question w/b if it was, why no transparency? is not transparency better or worse?
muddle through makes a lot of sense but that could still mean big feel good rally in there at some point.
the shirt actual says Puna not Puma. Puna is the district on the big island where we have a place. People from Puna are called Punatics.
So I heard O'Reilly this morning saying that the wild swings in the market are because of Dubai hedge funds? Does that statement have any basis in reality? I take O'Reilly with a grain of salt ...
sounds like something got lost in the translation.
I know there are a number of ways to determine the value of the market as a whole, but, the simplest seems to be the yield. So I simply took the ETF's, DIA for DOW and SPY for S+P 500.
SPY 2.78 88.5 3.141%
DIA 3.02 83.75 3.606%
While the increase in yield is no surprise, I expected a bit more. Really isn't at a level that indicates great value, is it?Wondered how it compares to other bear markets. I seem to remember over 4% as the norm in the 70's.
Ron
check out barron's. is the yield above that of the ten year treasury? per the barron's article no.
at past extremes it has been.
Dividend yield today is a different animal than the past. If there was some way to compare yield plus STOCK BUYBACKS which is the "in" thing today instead of increasing dividends versus in the past, I would guess that our dividend yield plus other uses of cash versus the treasury yield comparison would be quite revealing.
Roger, who do you follow (if anyone) in the media? The classics are Buffett and Jim Rogers who both, whilst being very rich, are markedly different in their investing philosophies. Buffett says never bet against American companies/stocks whilst Rogers is all for the Asian markets and commodities. Much can be said for both of these guys which, in a small way, is quite reassuring.
dividend + buybacks = payout yield.
no great answer on specifically seeking certain people to read. Rogers, yes, Faber yes. Generally I think it is more useful to read bearish commentary because if Kudlow is right I have less to worry about and need to know less.
Dr Faber I presume ~ not heard of him before so thanks for the heads up.
They (the billionaires) all seem to be assuming the World's markets will continue as is without a Zombie Apocalypse or Greatest Ever Depression, now Global Warming has taken a back seat. It's a relief to know we've 'beaten' all of those risks. Whatever next.
Buybacks make up for excessive stock handed out to employees (usually at the top but not always)
If companies give away stock and then buy it back it does not help share holders
dividends + buy backs (actually effected as opposed to announced) - options dilution = yield
Roger,
You mention lightening up. I don't get that. Even on a possible bounceback from last week's nosedive, I would think to sell now would be to sell near the bottom. We know we'll be coming out of this trough sometime. So why lighten up? Please "enlighten" me.
Enjoy your insights, as always.
sorry if that was not clear. if we have a meaningful feel good rally in the next few weeks I would be inclined to sell into that at some point--the thought is that would be quite a bit higher from here.
if it were to build very slowly then i'd be less inclined to think about selling.
Roger,
What do your canine friends say is their favorite pet food and chew toy stocks?
Post a Comment