Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
Most investors have missed the move from 10,000 to 15,000
I'm curious myself...especially when we have had net outflow on domestic equities for the past 5 years as shown in this chart here: Net out flows, but market keeps going up
The Federal Reserve isn't just buying bonds, eh? How about other? (the above are questions, not statements) Mr. B has already stated he wants folks invested in the equity markets. At the same time the result is the slaughter of accts held by those who will not invest (gamble) in the equity markets and know that they are earning .15% on their CD's and money market accts, if they are fortunate. This is another group of folks paying the price for the follies of the powerful. Other than this, everyone should just move along and not pay attention; turn on the tv and dial in the shopping channels to fulfil the wants. Come on now folks, just move along; nothing happened here; disregard the yellow tape.
Tribbles, OJ. Hee hee. We just transported them into the Klingon engine room, where they'd be no tribble at all. No, but seriously: I can understand the premise: big monster institutional buyers kept things going while the little guy ran scared and doesn't know what to do, and as always, waited too late to get back in. I read the article. It's full of mitigations. (Is that a word? You know what I mean, anyhow.) Some things are just correct in a general way, whether or not some very specific and particular statistics bear them out.
"One more hit a week... A gork, a dying quail, a seeing-eye-ground-ball--- just one more hit per week, and you're in Yankee Stadium."
Hi Catch- if there is some information out there showing that the Fed or any other government group is directly or indirectly making purchases or trading in the equity markets, I suggest that you should provide references, because that is a pretty serious allegation.
I suppose that it's possible to make a case that large investment banks may be in a better position to engage in equity trading thanks to previous government support, but that's hardly the same thing, and the banks would surely be doing that sort of thing anyway, government or not.
Reply to @Mindy: The rich folks, i.e. those with the money. "Most" as used in the title probably refers to all the little people who are large in number but small in $$$. There's an old saying that it takes money to make money. Most folks I talk to today are just too afraid to do anything other than try to keep up with the expenses they already have.
Hi hank: Well, if he was, then I surely withdraw my comments and questions. Sometimes it's hard to tell, and if I'm in error (again!) I apologize (again!).
Interesting discussion. Dow rises 50% in a couple years with most investors standing on the sidelines. There's a story in there somewhere. I tried unsuccessfully to Googe Mr. Jeff Miller (Investor's source). Nothing much surfaced. Mostly a lot of self-promotion for his investment advisory service, NewArc Investments. He claims to have advised and instructed Wisconson officials on matters financial - but I cannot find his political affiliation if any. If anybody's interested (I'm not), this link provides additional links to about 100 of his writings on financial matters. FWIW http://www.economonitor.com/blog/author/jmiller3/
Reply to @Old_Joe: Dunno about that. I'm a little intrigued by his involvement in Wisconsin state govt. A bit of a hotbed there in recent years. Not insuiniating anything. Would just like to know a little more. Very interesting discussion however. Take care.
I am not sure when he did advise Wisconsin officials. It could be when he was active prof. Or It could be a long time ago. Would you mind email him and ask if that is important to you. I don't think it is important.
I like Mr. Miller. His blog postings are generally well balanced. He presents the good, bad and ugly. It is not all sunshine or clouds. I think his approach is more realistic.
I feel the article may have bothered you. The article is a bit stirring the pot and believe it is intentionally so to make a point with impact. I went back and fort between posting and not.
Still, I urge you would consider the main theme. He did not make the Dow 20000 like Harry Dent did. In fact he was using Dow 20K as a balance when popular pundits was talking about Dow 5000 when Dow was around 10000 and scaring the pant of people. When one pundit is claiming 50% drop the balance the network brings is often someone that claims stocks will earns 7% annualized. The difference in numbers is naturally leading people in the direction of fear.
So, you may not like the way it is put that while fear sells on TV and media, it has been a bad proposition for a lot of investors. If there are people that has not recovered than they did lose the whole rise and honestly it is themselves to blame. It is hard to accept. They want to come back but they are not sure if this is good time. So they are paralyzed and some portion of them will jump in after this run up and will try to make up for the lost time and take too much risk. Those that stayed with your basic 60/40 portfolio had much less to worry.
Reply to @Investor: . I have neither reason to agree or disagree with Mr. Miller's views on the stock market. I'll take you at your word that his past predictions have proven highly accurate. My comments were merely to the effect that when I Googled his name and investment firm (as I would routinely do when evaluating any source) I couldn't uncover anything that appeared remotely "objective." All the results I pulled up seemed to be "like-sounding" promotions for his firm. It is a bit unusual not to uncover any critics. It may be he has none. Or, perhapd my research skills are not as good as yours.
As for his involvement in state government, Mr. Miller uses that in his promotional materials. Here's an excerpt from one of them: "Jeff is a former college professor with a hands-on, real world attitude. His quantitative modeling helped inform state and local officials in Wisconsin for more than a decade." http://www.economonitor.com/blog/author/jmiller3/
If you are aware of any third-party independent appraisals of Mr. Miller, his firm, or his governmental advisory roles, please provide. Thanks.
Reply to @Investor: Concur with many points you made. For those who remain invested on a balanced portfolio through the entire market cycle would more than recover the 2008 loss and more. Those who pulled out on the bottom will likely stay on the sideline while real inflation is eating away at everything.
Reply to @hank: He was a Political Science Prof. at Univ. of Wisconsin. Apparently, when he was a professor he did quantative modelling of state and local tax issues. I read his blog. He mentions what he is doing for his client but, I do not see him promoting his firm. In fact, I do not remember seeing his company named in his blog (unlike many others) other than in his About page and that is pretty cut and paste bio everywhere else.
If this guy is going around self promoting, he is doing a very poor job IMHO.
Update: Here is the Interview that Kirk Report made with Jeff. It has a lot more information on the background of him.
The hardest part for us as investors is to put aside our political biases. Yet politics is woven into the fabric of the market. People throw around words like "freedom" and "fairness" but if you take the view that each side represents varying groups in society competing for the resources of government then people will be better informed as investors. People can't get over the "ideas" that each side represents but it is the people not the ideas that should control. The single most politically destructive government program because of its visibility is food stamps. I don't think it is destructive but many do because you pay they don't happens right in front of you. However, what is not seen is that for every program for the poor which are visible there are tax credits and tax breaks given to large corporations which are invisible--basically somebody else has to pay for roads and schools. There are many corporations who collect state income tax withholding from their employees and never forward those taxes onto the state, the state says why bother, because they are getting so many tax breaks and credits it doesn't make sense to go though the motions of sending it into the state. Our government is dysfunctional on one level because it was designed to be slow moving and dysfunctional. Our economy shrank 5 years ago, previously what looked like a functioning government was really the political parties dividing up the growth in government tax revenue among their constituencies--so it was easy my side gets pell grants and head start and your side does not have to pay for any of it through tax breaks and credits. This is why the middle class is so frustrated because the final compromise in Washington each year, and there has to be one, centers around the poor and large corporations not paying for government programs. With the economy shrinking one of these groups has to pay a price at least from a government view and that is what we are sorting out (the dysfunctional aspect) The single biggest threat to American business is that the middle class is going to figure out that voting for the word freedom is never going to cut food stamps it just means another tax break for somebody else.
Reply to @Hogan: "This is why the middle class is so frustrated because the final compromise in Washington each year, and there has to be one, centers around the poor ..." - Well said Hogan. After "Sequester" comes "Requester." Watch & see which programs get their funding back and which ones don't.
Comments
I'm curious myself...especially when we have had net outflow on domestic equities for the past 5 years as shown in this chart here:
Net out flows, but market keeps going up
(the above are questions, not statements)
Mr. B has already stated he wants folks invested in the equity markets.
At the same time the result is the slaughter of accts held by those who
will not invest (gamble) in the equity markets and know that they are
earning .15% on their CD's and money market accts, if they are fortunate.
This is another group of folks paying the price for the follies of the
powerful.
Other than this, everyone should just move along and not pay attention; turn
on the tv and dial in the shopping channels to fulfil the wants.
Come on now folks, just move along; nothing happened here; disregard the
yellow tape.
No, but seriously: I can understand the premise: big monster institutional buyers kept things going while the little guy ran scared and doesn't know what to do, and as always, waited too late to get back in. I read the article. It's full of mitigations. (Is that a word? You know what I mean, anyhow.) Some things are just correct in a general way, whether or not some very specific and particular statistics bear them out.
"One more hit a week... A gork, a dying quail, a seeing-eye-ground-ball--- just one more hit per week, and you're in Yankee Stadium."
I suppose that it's possible to make a case that large investment banks may be in a better position to engage in equity trading thanks to previous government support, but that's hardly the same thing, and the banks would surely be doing that sort of thing anyway, government or not.
Don't kill yourself on the house repair... OJ
Similarly, a series of low volume up trend can make the whole index/market go up.
http://www.economonitor.com/blog/author/jmiller3/
Here is his brief Bio from the blog.
http://oldprof.typepad.com/about.html
I am not sure when he did advise Wisconsin officials. It could be when he was active prof. Or It could be a long time ago. Would you mind email him and ask if that is important to you. I don't think it is important.
I like Mr. Miller. His blog postings are generally well balanced. He presents the good, bad and ugly. It is not all sunshine or clouds. I think his approach is more realistic.
I feel the article may have bothered you. The article is a bit stirring the pot and believe it is intentionally so to make a point with impact. I went back and fort between posting and not.
Still, I urge you would consider the main theme. He did not make the Dow 20000 like Harry Dent did. In fact he was using Dow 20K as a balance when popular pundits was talking about Dow 5000 when Dow was around 10000 and scaring the pant of people. When one pundit is claiming 50% drop the balance the network brings is often someone that claims stocks will earns 7% annualized. The difference in numbers is naturally leading people in the direction of fear.
So, you may not like the way it is put that while fear sells on TV and media, it has been a bad proposition for a lot of investors. If there are people that has not recovered than they did lose the whole rise and honestly it is themselves to blame. It is hard to accept. They want to come back but they are not sure if this is good time. So they are paralyzed and some portion of them will jump in after this run up and will try to make up for the lost time and take too much risk. Those that stayed with your basic 60/40 portfolio had much less to worry.
As for his involvement in state government, Mr. Miller uses that in his promotional materials. Here's an excerpt from one of them: "Jeff is a former college professor with a hands-on, real world attitude. His quantitative modeling helped inform state and local officials in Wisconsin for more than a decade." http://www.economonitor.com/blog/author/jmiller3/
If you are aware of any third-party independent appraisals of Mr. Miller, his firm, or his governmental advisory roles, please provide. Thanks.
Best advise is stay away from CNBC...
If this guy is going around self promoting, he is doing a very poor job IMHO.
Update: Here is the Interview that Kirk Report made with Jeff. It has a lot more information on the background of him.
http://oldprof.typepad.com/a_dash_of_insight/2008/11/charles-kirk-interviews-jeff-miller-a-dash-of-insight.html
Oh and happy parent 1* or parent 2* day tomorrow.
*must be female