lol. If the narrative doesn't fit, just go further and further out. If you go back far enough, it never breaks the range to to downside.

Confirmation bias at its finest.

that's right buddy. you could just pull a random timeframe out of somewhere to confirm to yourself that these price levels don't matter. we already established our disagreements. you and some others on here disagree with technical analysis and think there are a group of professionals with the CMT designation (https://www.mta.org/) that are just clowns. your above all that.

no need to continue attacking me, just disregard what I post about. if you think TA is meaningless why even subject yourself to my posts? Your pessimism and negativity seep through this forum and makes me sick when I read most of what you write. just stay out of my way, please and I wish you the best.

please please lets not ruin this discussion with a waste of time TA argument.
arguingontheinternetislikecompetinginthespecialoly mpicsevenifyouwinyou'restill******ed.jpeg

Well, every finance thread needs a token technical analyst.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G925A using Tapatalk

The key problem is they tend to aggressively break out when the level of resistance to them gets too low.

Buddy,
You made the following statement:
January of this year broke the >1 year range it had been bound in, to the downside. It then rapidly reversed. Had you shorted on this range break (as many technical analysts did), which occurred after a long time "in a range", you would have lost a fortune.

Your response to this comment is to go further back in time - 1.5 years - to claim that the >1 year range it's been bound in isn't the true range - it goes back further than that.

I called that laughably confirmation biased - and it is. This isn't my opinion, it's a fact. Since the nature of the markets is such that you can always find a lower low (or higher high) if you keep going back further, how are you avoiding confirmation bias?

This is a perfectly valid critique. It has nothing to do with whether TA is real or not. In fact, if you believe in TA, you should be even more vigilant against confirmation bias, due to the large number of patterns you can find relative to true signals.

Your response to this perfectly valid and important critique is this bizarre comment:

Chiropractics (pure quackery) have all kinds of professional organizations and certifications, and professional standing on par with doctors in the US.

Astrology (something we can agree is hilarious, I hope) has professional certification as well. There are courses that certify financial astrology.

Professional certification as a measure of the correctness of a field is meaningless. Your critical thinking skills should tell you that.

And then this gem:
I don't know what to say man. If my comments on stocks "make you sick", perhaps stay away from the Internet?

I love people who disagree with my theses. You should be seeking that out rather than having an ego so precious and fragile you believe this:
This is pretty much the opposite of what you need to be a good trader. There isn't an opinion I have on anything - including the market - that can't be swayed by other people's input. You should be testing your TA theses for contrary arguments, and actively looking for reasons they're flawed, not doubling down when they're threatened.

I mean, I don't really think it's even debatable that we never broke the range we have been in. Not sure why you decided to only go back a year. The S&P broke above 1820 for the first time ever in 2014, so it's not like you can go back as far as you want in time and find other levels like 1820. It's pretty clear how important 1820 is if you look at a chart dating back to when we first crossed above that level.

So ya, I'm not here to argue on a forum like I said before. I'll leave that up to you, your certainly skilled in that useless arena.

And your right, I should probably just stay away from the business thread to save myself the headache. The only thing that sways my opinion and outlook on the market is the tape, plain and simple.

I do think astrology is meaningful, I must be a true quack then, huh? TA and astrology for me.

While I'm at it, I think it's extremely important to always control our thoughts. This is because of our subconscious minds. Our subconscious is the reason the law of attraction works. -WOW I must be really crazy to believe in the law of attraction too, huh? There's only one thing God gave everybody complete control over (uh oh, I believe in God, oh no, wait there's no proof though!!) and that is our mind and thoughts. Consciously direct your thoughts repetitively towards positive things and your subconscious will manifest it (law of attraction). Guys like you will have a field day on me, huh? lol go ahead. I like to think I attracted the life I have and I love my life and am very grateful for everything I have. I'm always positive and eliminate negative thoughts as soon as they enter my mind. I guess Napoleon Hill and Joseph Murphy fall under the "quack category?" As well as The Secret?? Here let me write down this excerpt for everybody to see real quick:

"Third, one must remove himself from the range of influence of every person and every circumstance which has even a slight tendency to cause him to feel inferior or incapable of attaining the object of his purpose. Positive egos do not grow in negative environments. On this point there can be no excuse for a compromise, and failure to observe it will prove fatal to the chances of success.

The line must be so clearly drawn between a man and those who exercise any form of negative influence over him that he closes the door tightly against every such person, no matter what previous ties of friendship or obligation or blood relationship may have existed between them."


I'll catch you later, I'm going to go find groups of certified people that I can write off as quacks and be completely close minded to. And then once I find them, I will look for reasons to confirm to myself that they are all idiots.

Ohh ya, even better, then I'll come to a forum and write about it.

Hey bottom line is that I know how important it is to always have an open mind and a positive mental attitude. I'm extremely grateful for everything I have in my life and am constantly working to get myself to a better place. Like I said before, I wish you the best.

Judging by the way you come across on this forum, seems pretty likely you live a pretty miserable life outside of 2plus2.... God Bless

please no more TS/wealth sidetrack, this thread was going so well...

as an aside i like that icahn and buffett are on different sides of the fence on this. it's fun when titans can disagree so heavily on something.

i am still mostly cash, its weird that buffett was generally the guy saying that as the bull market continues you want to ease more into cash (generalizations ftw) and yet he bought a billion$ AAPL up here.

ive given a lot of thought to real estate, if markets continue to stagnate then best way to get yield might be via renting out properties. i was previously of the opinion that index funds were easier since they required zero expertise but this just feels like the worst area to pile on my investments.

also this just being the quintessential FOMO area where smart people are in buffetts camp and if I lump it now the S&P goes to 1500 and if I dont the S&P is at new all time highs.

very easy to just say to hell with it and lump for peace of mind, but then one of your heroes is now megashort...

maybe i'll just tap out when carl taps out

Are you kidding, this thread is just getting good lol

Buffett's a clown. He's good at finding deep, traditional value (chewing gum, railroads, banks, shampoo, insurance floats, private deals), but a ******/loser at everything else. Icahn crushes Buffett at anything that's not traditional value.

He bought IBM too. He's not very bright outside of his core area.

There's not a huge amount of upside here, and plenty of downside potential. You're negative EV holding the broad market here (as opposed to decent P/E dividend paying stocks, of which there are quite a few), especially considering the range of outcomes, which include the market going higher, or you getting your cash in 30-50% better when the next recession happens.

That's not a spot to be long. I've been saying that for a year now.

See thats what I meant when I said most of your posts make me sick. Pessimism. Some of your posts aren't like that but too many of them are.... hope it clears it up for you.

But really though, when has Buffett ever been bearish?

This statement strikes me as kinda odd. You invest in index funds not because it requires "zero expertise", rather to avoid stock/sector-specific risk, i.e. a $200 stock going to $150. I don't know what your timeframe is, but worrying about the S&P going to 1500 sounds silly.

Interesting perspective. And thanks for the dismissive ZH jabs to start things off. This should go well.

Your yield curve link's premise seems to rest on Fed policy. There's a whole lot of "as long as ZIRP remains in place... " in there, throughout. So, do you think the bolded is some sort of sustainable strategy to fix all ills, perpetually? Or a one-time period in a desperate bid to calm markets?

As for energy investment, probably a smart move in the short-term. But I've seen a few analysts insisting oil price will be heading right back down again after a short rally to come. In any event, frackers are doomed.

im saying when the alternative is looking at something like real estate, the appeal in indexing is that it requires zero additional time. getting good at renting out properties would require a ton of hours.

/end sidetrack

i think a discussion over owning apartment REITs vs owning actually apartments would be interesting for another thread. I could never justify the time costs of owning the physical properties themselves or how dangerous it is holding leveraged mortgages on physical properties that are the hardest to sell when the market is at its worst. would rather hold the REIT and can sell it with 3 clicks on a mouse.

would love to hear some macro talk on the fed and the dollar because it really seems that thats the key to the market.

this conversation is what i find so fascinating about the BFI

as a finance noob its hard to tell good ideas from bad so you read peoples posts and they sound informative but you dont really know

wealth$ might be successful at what he does while still having the logical leaks that allow him to believe in jesus, astrology, and the secret

toothsayer has the ability to confidently lecture and breakdown any topic, weather hes knowledgeable or not. when it comes to things like real estate he will get basic concepts like gentrification completely backwards, and see 3D printing as a major factor but when those things are explained to him he just moves the goal posts or disappears from his original point. he is the poster boy for always-right-on-the-internet guy. while being this way, hes also able to spot this and break it down when others are behaving that way

fascinating stuff
in BC for example, greater vancouver has had pretty much zero vacancy for decades. this obviously correlates with the constantly rising rents. renting homes to quality tenants in a market with a diverse economy is very low risk with very low work load. managing slums or high-risk high-yield property is where the work comes in. obviously the purchase prices at this time are nutty though. but take NY for example. what happened when the housing market and stock market crashed and the city with the highest RE prices and the epicenter for the banking industry employment? landlords didnt take even a slight hit. vacancy stayed low and rents stayed high

everyone likes to use the S&P500 as a benchmark. look at real estate with a 4-5% cap (annual net income) which is completely standard for low vacancy and quality tenant areas and compare returns to the S&P500. the S&P is select group of companies. take the top 20 cities in north america and compare how investing in real estate performed vs the S&P over the last 25-30 years. look at appreciation in value and the rise in rents. think about leverage and volatility. you can also compare to reits

shooting from the hip I would assume the S&P has vastly outperformed real estate over that time span. I don't know a ton about real estate though and would be interested to see the comparison. I just know most asset prices are correlated. How has the return in real estate been compared to the S&P since we bottomed in Mar 2009? I would also assume the equity markets have vastly outperformed since then. The S&P bottomed at roughly 670 in march 09 (the last time CAPE was below it's historical mean). roughly 204% return to date. I don't think real estate has come that far although we are in a lot of areas above/right where we were before the bubble.

if youre interested then you can start by doing this

-assume 4-5% net return on rent. this will include a maintenance budget for the longevity of the home (roof every decade or so, etc)
-google top 20 cities in north america by population in 1986-1995
-pick a city
-look up housing price index
-rents and rent increases should track the HPI (4-5%)

you then have what you need to do a quick and dirty comparison to with the rental income and appreciation vs the S&P500

now you can take that number and compare it to the S&P500. then you can factor in any sort of leverage you want. from say 20% dowm payment and up

once you've don that you can plug in any cities HPI

i think you'll be surprised

Buffett called the 2000 tech crash in 1999. This is his famous fortune article.
http://archive.fortune.com/magazines...9071/index.htm

What effects do you think interest rates going down have had on housing prices since the early 80s?

In the early 80s a mortgage was like 9-11%, now it is 4%. Thus the same price of house costs 15-25% less to finance.

If the answer is that we think it is significant, then wouldn't that be a case for houses not appreciating as much in the future, since rates can not go much lower at all.

Mark Faber has turned BULLISH! this guy is always wrong!



My insurance premiums went up $2,500 a year. Any wonder why the economy is stuck in the mud. I used to shop at M. Kors and Macys. Now i shop @ dollar General

Should we bump the peak oil threads? Lulz jiggs

LOL!!!! Please do, you got pants'd in them every time. ... it's a subject that's more relevant than ever, with U.S. frackers absolutely falling apart ...

For the record, that's 133 bankruptcies in the domestic oil/gas patch since 2015 started, and U.S. production nosediving as a result. But I'm sure Saudi Arabia selling off parts of their Aramco and shifting investment to offshore is no indication they're at all concerned about their production promises going forward.

Jiggs, oil production is at an all time high. We are looking at peak consumption in the us in the next ten years. Saudis see the end of the oil age and are seeking to diversify the economy.

Also, the Internet is still working and you are still broke. Life is normal.