|
Post by madm002 on Sept 5, 2024 12:00:13 GMT -5
Conversely, if there is a real fear of a hard landing, the herd will pile back into mega tech since it is safe in terms of revenue and balance sheet. I did not sell any tech, even though its is about 9% of our accounts. I am weary of the game though, thinking about just sending it to Fisher.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Sept 5, 2024 12:17:23 GMT -5
The job openings report (JOLTS) came in weaker than expected.The Fed pays close attention to it - is 50 bps back on the table? I'm still thinking 25 bps. 50 would really surprise me. Where's that soft landing? 😉
|
|
|
Post by madm002 on Sept 5, 2024 12:22:56 GMT -5
Have you ever flown into SFO or Laguardia. You descend and descend really quickly, you look like you are going to hit the water, you get ready to crash, and then the plane lands on the tarmac. That is a soft landing.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Sept 12, 2024 8:48:30 GMT -5
Well, it's been an interesting month so far.
I did buy some ROAD on the dip last week.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Sept 16, 2024 7:41:03 GMT -5
25 or 50 on Wednesday? "This week, the Federal Reserve is expected to reduce its target interest rate. This will have a ripple effect on deposit account rates, which means now could be your last chance to lock in today's high rates with a certificate of deposit (CD). Here’s a look at today’s CD rates and where you can find the best offers." "As of September 16, 2024, CD rates are still competitive, particularly for shorter terms. For example, several financial institutions offer CD rates close to 5.00% APY for terms of around a year or less. Longer-term CD rates are not quite as high, but the top offers still hover around 4% APY for terms of three years and longer." finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance/cd-rates-today-monday-september-16-2024-100016723.html
|
|
|
Post by johngalt on Sept 16, 2024 7:48:18 GMT -5
Hopefully 0. Until spending and money printing is reduced inflation will continue. Actually we are probably going into stagflation.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Sept 16, 2024 7:59:32 GMT -5
There's going to be a reduction so the "0" is unrealistic.
As for stagflation, it's possible but unemployment would have to shoot up. It's around 4% right now so it's within expectations presently.
|
|
|
Post by madm002 on Sept 16, 2024 8:07:50 GMT -5
The FED is in a very restrictive situation with current rates versus GNP. The other thing that we do not always have vision of is what the FED is doing with its balance sheet. If they are currently shrinking their balance sheets, they buy assets and reduce money in flow, which is restrictive.
I think they will opt for a cautious lets do 25 so we can show we are doing something, but still maintain the reduction of the balance sheet and the fairly high current rates.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Sept 16, 2024 8:43:26 GMT -5
I think you're right but I'm thinking part of the market has already factored in 50. We'll see.
|
|
|
Post by richm on Sept 16, 2024 8:49:23 GMT -5
50 would be nice. Just looking at it from a personal perspective.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Sept 16, 2024 9:04:31 GMT -5
("Bloomberg) -- A Kamala Harris victory in November’s US presidential election is seen as better for Treasuries and worse for stocks than a win for Donald Trump, according to a survey of Bloomberg Terminal subscribers." "Half of survey participants plan to increase exposure to equities if Trump wins, whereas only 28% said they would do so if Harris becomes president. More than a third would reduce their stock exposure should Harris prevail. Meanwhile, nearly half of 340 respondents indicated they would reduce bond exposure in the event of a Trump victory. Some 23% said they would do so if Harris wins." "Trump bringing the White House under Republican control could have a bigger impact on financial markets than Harris keeping it in the hands of the Democrats, institutional investors said. About a third of respondents said they would likely hold their equity exposure steady if Harris wins, compared with 24% if Trump does. About half plan to keep their bond stakes the same under Harris, versus 37% under Trump." "MLIV Pulse survey participants, including portfolio managers, traders and economists, clearly see some difference between the candidates. Still, in the survey conducted Sept. 9-13, during the week of the Trump-Harris debate, 54% of respondents said they hadn’t yet positioned for the election, with the balance of those who are positioning evenly split on either side. Most respondents answered the survey after or during the debate." "History shows that equities tend to go up regardless of who sits in the White House. The S&P 500’s average annual price return, in data going back to 1945, has been an 11% gain under Democrats and a 7% advance under Republicans, according to data from Sam Stovall, chief investment strategist at CFRA Research. Only one of the last six presidents, George W. Bush, has seen the S&P 500 fall under his watch — and he left office in the midst of the Great Recession." "Both presidential candidates are expected to increase federal borrowing. Trump’s proposal to permanently extend tax cuts from 2017 could lead to a debt-to-GDP ratio of 142% over the next 10 years — about 20% higher than at the end of World War II — according to Bloomberg Economics." "US stocks will outperform their global peers over the next four years, according to about two-thirds of surveyed investors. American exceptionalism in stocks over the last two years has been driven largely by excitement around artificial intelligence—and within the US market, tech mega caps like Nvidia Corp. or Apple Inc. will continue to dominate, investors said." finance.yahoo.com/news/investors-see-harris-win-better-120028260.html
|
|
|
Post by johngalt on Sept 16, 2024 10:29:22 GMT -5
One problem with that article. A president cannot spend anything. Only the congress controls the purse strings. It’s obvious that Wall Street cares only about one thing,,, itself.
|
|
|
Post by ferris1248 on Sept 16, 2024 11:49:13 GMT -5
One problem with that article. A president cannot spend anything. Only the congress controls the purse strings. It’s obvious that Wall Street cares only about one thing,,, itself. Well duh. That's what Wall Street does. Primarily Wall Street exists to make money. While they may have preferences, you adjust for influencing factors. They have an obligation to make money for their investors. You sneeringly reply "that Wall Street cares only about one thing,,, itself." What would you replace it with? What would you change? .
|
|
|
Post by johngalt on Sept 16, 2024 13:51:27 GMT -5
One problem with that article. A president cannot spend anything. Only the congress controls the purse strings. It’s obvious that Wall Street cares only about one thing,,, itself. Well duh.   That's what Wall Street does. Primarily Wall Street exists to make money. While they may have preferences, you adjust for influencing factors. They have an obligation to make money for their investors. You sneeringly reply "that Wall Street cares only about one thing,,, itself." What would you replace it with? What would you change? . I would not replace it with anything. I just understand how it works and know that brokerage houses are only in it for themselves. But, I firmly believe that nothing is too big to fail.
|
|
|
Post by nuevowavo on Sept 16, 2024 14:19:24 GMT -5
The FED is in a very restrictive situation with current rates versus GNP. The other thing that we do not always have vision of is what the FED is doing with its balance sheet. If they are currently shrinking their balance sheets, they buy assets and reduce money in flow, which is restrictive. I think they will opt for a cautious lets do 25 so we can show we are doing something, but still maintain the reduction of the balance sheet and the fairly high current rates. Actually, we do know what the Fed is doing with its balance sheet. They began "quantitative tightening" in 2022, and have trimmed it by about $1.5 trillion so far, about 18%. They've accomplished this by allowing debt in the portfolio to mature without replacing it. They slowed the pace in June, currently allowing $25 billion in maturing Treasuries and $35 billion in mortgage backs to run off each month without replacing.
I'm guessing we'll see 25 bp this time. They don't want to signal that they're worried about the soft landing, which the market might infer from a 50 bp cut.
|
|