Jump to content

Tractor Beam Market


JEast
 Share

Recommended Posts

i think the problem (one of them) with z/h is they spend their time looking for conspiracies and weird chart patterns instead of looking at companies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think the problem (one of them) with z/h is they spend their time looking for conspiracies and weird chart patterns instead of looking at companies.

 

Munger: 'I think the reason why we got into such idiocy in investment management is best illustrated by a story that I tell about the guy who sold fishing tackle. I asked him, “My God, they’re purple and green. Do fish really take these lures?” And he said, “Mister, I don’t sell to fish.”'

 

z/h is just looking for readers...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That chart indicates that since roughly the end of 1995 (nineteen years ago) the market has gone up by...

 

3.4x

 

A mind-blowing 6.7% annualized.

 

So with dividends included, less than 8.5% annualized total return (the dividend yield today is higher than it was back then).

 

But during the 20th century the market returned 10.4% a year.

 

So, it's been a period of sub-par returns, tractor beams or not.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That chart indicates that since roughly the end of 1995 (nineteen years ago) the market has gone up by...

 

3.4x

 

A mind-blowing 6.7% annualized.

 

So with dividends included, less than 8.5% annualized total return (the dividend yield today is higher than it was back then).

 

But during the 20th century the market returned 10.4% a year.

 

So, it's been a period of sub-par returns, tractor beams or not.

 

I agree with this sentiment mostly regarding prior returns seeming reasonable when compared historically. My only problem is considering  the big picture - we have had 2 decades of below average returns despite being fueled by an unprecedented expansion of debt and historically high margins. Debt has to be paid back in the futureand margins generally compress. This suggests that growth will be even slower, and earnings possibly lower, going forward. Future market returns are a function of current value (reasonable to high, depending on what metrics you consider) and future growth (doesn't  look good if debts are to actually be paid).

 

Its not unprecedented to have a market have negative returns over a 20 year period - negative is a long way down from 6.7% annualized.

 

That being said, ZH used to actually have decent articles that covered topics more in depth, and far in advanced, relative to the mainstream media. They were talking about the London Whale long before the trade blew up and lost JPM billions. Now it seems to be mostly fear mongering. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debt has to be paid back in the future and margins generally compress. This suggests that growth will be even slower, and earnings possibly lower, going forward. Future market returns are a function of current value (reasonable to high, depending on what metrics you consider) and future growth (doesn't  look good if debts are to actually be paid).

 

A. Gary Shilling believes that in 4 years we'll be back to our normal long-term rate of GDP growth.  He is aware of all the issues you've raised.  So even though they sound convincing, there are other things to think about as well that are also important.  For one thing, I doubt the debt has to be repaid as you suggest (one form of repayment is to issue more debt as the old bonds mature).  You just need to grow it slower than GDP and you're golden long-term.  So you can run deficits in perpetuity and yet still be deleveraging at the same time.

 

There was also a boatload of malinvestment over those 19 years.  Did that contribute to the slow growth (and relatively poor market returns) that we've seen?  I imagine it didn't help.  Could the next 19 years not have this drag?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debt has to be paid back in the future and margins generally compress. This suggests that growth will be even slower, and earnings possibly lower, going forward. Future market returns are a function of current value (reasonable to high, depending on what metrics you consider) and future growth (doesn't  look good if debts are to actually be paid).

 

A. Gary Shilling believes that in 4 years we'll be back to our normal long-term rate of GDP growth.  He is aware of all the issues you've raised.  So even though they sound convincing, there are other things to think about as well that are also important.  For one thing, I doubt the debt has to be repaid as you suggest (one form of repayment is to issue more debt as the old bonds mature).  You just need to grow it slower than GDP and you're golden long-term.  So you can run deficits in perpetuity and yet still be deleveraging at the same time.

 

There was also a boatload of malinvestment over those 19 years.  Did that contribute to the slow growth (and relatively poor market returns) that we've seen?  I imagine it didn't help.  Could the next 19 years not have this drag?

 

Shiller is certainly smarter than me so I would probably go with his analysis  if I were you.

 

I'm just too skeptical to get there myself. Its hard for me to reconcile that there hasn't been massive malinvestments over the last 5 years and that it wont continue until a market correcting event. Its hard for me to believe that politicians will suddenly get fiscally  responsible  after decades of overspending or that the American voter will actually demand real change.

 

I think we'll  get back to a good place eventually....after exhausting every alternative and being forced to by things events outside of our control (debt crisis, inflation threat, two decades of 0 growth, war, etc). It's a very cynical view, but it has thus far been supported year after year of continuous massive deficits, constant manipulations of market participants (malinvestment), constant war, and politicians who regularly prove how inept they are on both sides of the aisle, etc.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debt has to be paid back in the future and margins generally compress. This suggests that growth will be even slower, and earnings possibly lower, going forward. Future market returns are a function of current value (reasonable to high, depending on what metrics you consider) and future growth (doesn't  look good if debts are to actually be paid).

 

A. Gary Shilling believes that in 4 years we'll be back to our normal long-term rate of GDP growth.  He is aware of all the issues you've raised.  So even though they sound convincing, there are other things to think about as well that are also important.  For one thing, I doubt the debt has to be repaid as you suggest (one form of repayment is to issue more debt as the old bonds mature).  You just need to grow it slower than GDP and you're golden long-term.  So you can run deficits in perpetuity and yet still be deleveraging at the same time.

 

There was also a boatload of malinvestment over those 19 years.  Did that contribute to the slow growth (and relatively poor market returns) that we've seen?  I imagine it didn't help.  Could the next 19 years not have this drag?

 

Shiller is certainly smarter than me so I would probably go with his analysis  if I were you.

 

I'm just too skeptical to get there myself. Its hard for me to reconcile that there hasn't been massive malinvestments over the last 5 years and that it wont continue until a market correcting event. Its hard for me to believe that politicians will suddenly get fiscally  responsible  after decades of overspending or that the American voter will actually demand real change.

 

I think we'll  get back to a good place eventually....after exhausting every alternative and being forced to by things events outside of our control (debt crisis, inflation threat, two decades of 0 growth, war, etc). It's a very cynical view, but it has thus far been supported year after year of continuous massive deficits, constant manipulations of market participants (malinvestment), constant war, and politicians who regularly prove how inept they are on both sides of the aisle, etc.

Yeah i think the analogy of the lobster that is slowly boiled and does not jump out, vs the lobster that is thrown in boiling water and jumps out, is in order here.

 

I think people blame corporations and banks too much. Few point fingers at politicians. They usually are the good guys because they want a home for everyone! And they dole out free stuff. On the one hand corporations are evil, and on the other hand people are marvelling about the wonders of modern technology and how amazing that all is. Which ironically is a direct consequence of capitalism.

 

Even smart guys like jon stewart don't really understand economics that well. When it all goes to shit, everyone probably points there fingers at bankers and evil corporations dodging taxes again. And the whole thing starts all over again after that. It is almost as if economics should be taught in a simple, entertaining and easy to understand manner in high school...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Debt has to be paid back in the future and margins generally compress. This suggests that growth will be even slower, and earnings possibly lower, going forward. Future market returns are a function of current value (reasonable to high, depending on what metrics you consider) and future growth (doesn't  look good if debts are to actually be paid).

 

A. Gary Shilling believes that in 4 years we'll be back to our normal long-term rate of GDP growth.  He is aware of all the issues you've raised.  So even though they sound convincing, there are other things to think about as well that are also important.  For one thing, I doubt the debt has to be repaid as you suggest (one form of repayment is to issue more debt as the old bonds mature).  You just need to grow it slower than GDP and you're golden long-term.  So you can run deficits in perpetuity and yet still be deleveraging at the same time.

 

There was also a boatload of malinvestment over those 19 years.  Did that contribute to the slow growth (and relatively poor market returns) that we've seen?  I imagine it didn't help.  Could the next 19 years not have this drag?

 

Shiller is certainly smarter than me so I would probably go with his analysis  if I were you.

 

I'm just too skeptical to get there myself. Its hard for me to reconcile that there hasn't been massive malinvestments over the last 5 years and that it wont continue until a market correcting event. Its hard for me to believe that politicians will suddenly get fiscally  responsible  after decades of overspending or that the American voter will actually demand real change.

 

I think we'll  get back to a good place eventually....after exhausting every alternative and being forced to by things events outside of our control (debt crisis, inflation threat, two decades of 0 growth, war, etc). It's a very cynical view, but it has thus far been supported year after year of continuous massive deficits, constant manipulations of market participants (malinvestment), constant war, and politicians who regularly prove how inept they are on both sides of the aisle, etc.

Yeah i think the analogy of the lobster that is slowly boiled and does not jump out, vs the lobster that is thrown in boiling water and jumps out, is in order here.

 

I think people blame corporations and banks too much. Few point fingers at politicians. They usually are the good guys because they want a home for everyone! And they dole out free stuff. On the one hand corporations are evil, and on the other hand people are marvelling about the wonders of modern technology and how amazing that all is. Which ironically is a direct consequence of capitalism.

 

Even smart guys like jon stewart don't really understand economics that well. When it all goes to shit, everyone probably points there fingers at bankers and evil corporations dodging taxes again. And the whole thing starts all over again after that. It is almost as if economics should be taught in a simple, entertaining and easy to understand manner in high school...

 

Yes, the people who steal from me by threatening my life if I don't pay up then give me some of my money back in the form of public goods and services are the good guys, while the people who put their own capital and time at risk to create jobs, wealth, and human progress in general are the bad guys because they have more than me. 

 

By the way I've always heard that analogy of the slowly boiling pot told with frogs.    I didn't know lobsters could jump. I've thrown my share of lobsters into boiling water and I've never seen one jump.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...