# Price has spoken the Bull is dead chear leading the path to financial ruin



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

The DJI & DJT averages both closed below their Feb 1st lows the 09 lows will be taken out before new highs are seen.

Cheer leading each other on to buy the dips will not change anything. For get about investing unless your skilled enough to play the bear.

Capital preservation over investing needs to be the new focus. I look around me & see the boys that shorted or stepped aside for the 87 crash, the 2000-2002, 2007- 2009 bear markets have stepped aside or have moved to as high as 200% short near the highs so do not use the excuse no one saw it coming. When your broke near the bottom from buying the dips on the way down you will have no one to blame but yourself. Get off your butt & do some research the signs are everywhere the move to the downside will be huge.

A strong bear rally will be the mother of gifts to the bears use it wisely to buy puts that will print fists full of money when the bear resumes.

Enough said I posted back a while ago regarding charts of the S&P they say it all.


----------



## GreatLaker (Mar 23, 2014)

lonewolf said:


> For get about investing unless your skilled enough to play the bear.


I am not going to play the bear.
I am going to *slay the bear.*


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

GreatLaker said:


> I am not going to play the bear.
> I am going to *slay the bear.*



what a fabulous quote. Laker, did you invent it yourself? it's classic, it should go on bumper stickers.

bull calves will have to struggle to survive though. Latest CROP poll says that the landslide NDP quebec sweep in the last election was not a fluke, which is what everybody believed at the time.

CROP says 47% of quebecers are now supporting mulcair, highest percentage ever. I'm assuming the mere thought of an NDP win will increase angst for canadian markets.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

How do you know it isn't another correction? I agree it sure looks like the end of the bull market but I've been fooled before.


----------



## LBCfan (Jan 13, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> CROP says 47% of quebecers are now supporting mulcair, highest percentage ever. I'm assuming the mere thought of an NDP win will increase angst for canadian markets.


Nah, if the NDP is big in Quebec, the ROC will (or should) abandon them. Quebec always votes for the BQ, the party just changes it's name every so often (now it's the NBQ). How many Notley supporters want a Quebec centric government?


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Not buying yet. Not shorting either. To much computer time.


----------



## Butters (Apr 20, 2012)

2011 - 2012 the TSX went down... what happened there, how is that different from today


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

The S&P "crashed" worse last October and nobody even remembers. This could be just another bump in the road, who knows?


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> How do you know it isn't another correction? I agree it sure looks like the end of the bull market but I've been fooled before.


 dow theory primary trend change seen on Friday.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

bloomberg futures still all in the red right now
Is it just another dip, or is this time gonna be the one we were waiting for?


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

mrPPincer said:


> Is it just another dip, or is this time gonna be the one we were waiting for?


Yes.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

I'll be a buyer on the way down if we have that major correction.
Looking forward with both dread and anticipation..
what would suck most is a flat market going nowhere indefinitely, at least from my perspective.


----------



## Hiitsme (Jun 14, 2012)

lonewolf, I have to wonder how much time you spend his time looking for the worst possible news to reinforce your thinking. I can find a repudiation for every article and talking head you quote butt can't be bothered.
Save yourself some time and bother: print out an historical chart for the TSX, DOW whatever and put it on your wall. A quick look will tell you more about how markets can behave than all the experts and analysis you keep quoting. The run up of valuations has me nervous too but truth is no one knows where it goes from here.


----------



## godblsmnymkr (Jul 15, 2015)

http://markdow.tumblr.com/post/127114686560/i-believe-two-things-and-that-might-be-enough

like i said in your other thread, you need a trigger for huge stock market declines. imo, fear over china, greece, and oil are not enough. it took a lot of things in the economy to go wrong to create the 2009 crash. besides a bit of an earnings slowdown, the USA economy is still doing well.


----------



## godblsmnymkr (Jul 15, 2015)

On the day Lehman declared bankruptcy (Sept. 15, 2008) the $VIX spiked about 23%. It was +46% on Friday (8/21) on no apparent news..... 
pretty weird

here's some rational, level headed market commentary http://fat-pitch.blogspot.ca/2015/08/weekly-market-summary_22.html?spref=tw
http://www.seeitmarket.com/sp-500-market-update-8-reasons-a-bottom-may-be-near-14685/


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Hiitsme said:


> lonewolf, I have to wonder how much time you spend his time looking for the worst possible news to reinforce your thinking. I can find a repudiation for every article and talking head you quote butt can't be bothered.
> Save yourself some time and bother: print out an historical chart for the TSX, DOW whatever and put it on your wall. A quick look will tell you more about how markets can behave than all the experts and analysis you keep quoting. The run up of valuations has me nervous too but truth is no one knows where it goes from here.


 Don Wallenchuck AKA as Da chief one of the best market timers ever never used a computer he had a huge chart on the wall of the Dow that he made tick by tick. looking @ the price chart of the DJI minor support around the Oct 2014 lows, Stronger support the 09 lows, down side target price area of the 4th wave that ran from the year 1966- 1982.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

mrPPincer said:


> bloomberg futures still all in the red right now
> Is it just another dip, or is this time gonna be the one we were waiting for?


 Just like from 1929 - 1932 there was a series of crashes & strong failed rallies I think it will be similar. The bear has started Oct of this year looks even worse then now in regards to negative cycles.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> How do you know it isn't another correction? I agree it sure looks like the end of the bull market but I've been fooled before.


 2007-2009 bear market was 909.30 S&P points

909.30 X 1.618 (fib) added to the 09 lows of 666.79 = 2138.04 the peak was 2134.74 in the S&P just over 3 points of ideal level.

Stated another way the decline was a fib .618 +/- .001 of the advance


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Any rally that retraces .618 of the decline from the all time highs will most likely be a wave 2 rally. @ the .618 retracement level will be an area for the bears to short. I can not understate the importance of shorting the .618 retracement rally. Put premiums on the out of the money puts will have become cheap again & will explode upwards on the 3rd wave crash. The wave 2 rally will most likely be the best money making rally to short we will live to see.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

Technical analysis is meaningless. That would be like saying we can predict the future by looking at the stars...


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I disagree. Charts can reveal trends and patterns of behavior. This is not far fetched, everyone knows stock prices respond to buying/selling pressure, meaning market sentiment. Stocks reflect the the personalities of their owners. The typical Tesla investor is not the same as the typical Exxon investor and their charts reflect that, along with the different fundamentals affecting their businesses.

If stocks were priced by their fundamental value and nothing else, they would all sell for about the same multiple of earnings. You would not have some stocks with a P/E of 5 and others with a P/E over 100. The difference reflects the combination of fundamentals plus investor opinion . And, share prices would not vary by more than a few pennies from one day to the next, and a rise or fall of 5% a year would reflect fundamental changes in the business. Everything else is the whim of the market, or the emotions of buyers and sellers.

Sometimes, not always, it is possible to detect patterns or inclinations in stock charts and predict future movements with better than chance accuracy. Even though it is far from an exact science.


----------



## My Own Advisor (Sep 24, 2012)

GreatLaker said:


> I am not going to play the bear.
> I am going to *slay the bear.*


Love it!


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Excellent saying

Just make sure ones ego does not get to big & one thinks they can control the markets. The powers that be do not seam to understand they are no match for the emotions of the masses in the powers that be effort to slay the bear they are only making matters worse.


----------



## godblsmnymkr (Jul 15, 2015)

indexxx said:


> Technical analysis is meaningless. That would be like saying we can predict the future by looking at the stars...


what i say to every person who says they think TA is meaningless (ie people that dont understand it) is that many other people DO believe in it so you better at least pay it some credence. its pretty clear that stocks react to support and resistance levels if you look at a chart. 
do you look at P/E when evaluating stocks? then you believe in TA.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

I see value in technical analysis... but I don't view it as predictive. I view it as giving you information on how others see a stock, including their emotional trading and fundamental analysis. So it tells you what others believe, and there's fundamental analysis underlying some of that.

e.g. energy sector. Let's say it gets low enough that institutions' fundamental analysis shows that it offers good value. And let's say that the panic selling subsides and optimism starts returning. One of the first things you would see is that you _no longer get lower lows_. So the underlying reasons (optimism returning and fundamental analysis) _manifests_ itself as a T/A result.

Let's say that institutions are increasingly catching on that there is good value here and that stocks are fairly valued. Now you will see institutions come in and buy large numbers of shares on every dip. That causes an invisible "floor" to start appearing in the T/A charts. Here again is a fundamental reason, based on valuation, that _manifests_ itself as a T/A result ... which in the T/A world is caused support level.

I look at T/A all the time, because it tells me something about the thoughts of the world of traders and investors out there. It's like getting some insight into their behaviours.

For example with energy (using XEG) I look at that and say


 it keeps having lower lows, which tells me that everyone is in a mood to sell it
 it is far below its moving averages, which tells me there is intense pessimism among the shareholders
 there is no sign of a support level yet, which tells me that big institutions/analysts have not decided it's cheap yet


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

At the same time, I think classical technical analysis has become harder to apply since 2008. Notably, T/A did not help you identify the market bottom. There was a very *fast* turnaround in stock prices, and they shot straight up to the moon. This does not usually happen following a bear market, historically.

And the reason is simple: the central banks caused the stock and index prices to go up. They pumped a huge amount of free money into the system ... an unprecedented amount of money... and it made the indices go crazy. A very fast turnaround *not* based on fundamentals and not based on organic buyers. Instead, based on manipulation by the central bank.

So the way I see it, technical analysis has lost much of its value in the current market, basically because prices are so heavily manipulated by central banks. *This is not a good thing for investors*. T/A was showing us what actual investors were doing. The reason T/A doesn't work any more is that actual investors aren't driving stock prices; central banks are.


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

indexxx said:


> Technical analysis is meaningless. That would be like saying we can predict the future by looking at the stars...


Apologies all- a bit of a reactionary post on my part, poking fun at some of the 'reasoning' behind superstition/prognostication. Please let me rephrase.

Technical analysis, in my opinion, is meaningless in predicting what will happen in the future or where a stock may be headed. There is of course a lot of interesting info in studying past 'patterns', and yes, if enough huge money piles in or out of a stock based on any indicator, then it could move. But if TA worked well enough to be of real value, we'd all be rich. It's a given that NOBODY knows what will happen and 'past performance is no guarantee'...


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

indexxx said:


> Apologies all- a bit of a reactionary post on my part, poking fun at some of the 'reasoning' behind superstition/prognostication. Please let me rephrase.
> 
> Technical analysis, in my opinion, is meaningless in predicting what will happen in the future or where a stock may be headed. There is of course a lot of interesting info in studying past 'patterns', and yes, if enough huge money piles in or out of a stock based on any indicator, then it could move. *But if TA worked well enough to be of real value, we'd all be rich. It's a given that NOBODY knows what will happen *and 'past performance is no guarantee'...


I don't really think TA works either and somewhat consider it voodoo, but I don't like the logic of this argument against it. Just because something works doesn't mean "we'd all be rich", not by a long shot. What if it only works for those who are smart enough to begin with, then those few % need to dedicate 10+ years to educating themselves, then those few % of them need adequate mentoring and guidance, then those few % need business acumen to attract funds to thrive. This is not specific to investing, but any form of successful career.

Becoming a specialist doctor/surgeon is a pretty surefire way to make half a million/year. But how many people actually have the drive or capability to do it? Maybe TA is the same. Maybe it's just so damn hard to get right that only a tiny tiny percentage have successfully figured it out.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> ... And the reason is simple: the central banks caused the stock and index prices to go up. They pumped a huge amount of free money into the system ... an unprecedented amount of money... and it made the indices go crazy. A very fast turnaround *not* based on fundamentals and not based on organic buyers. Instead, based on manipulation by the central bank.
> So the way I see it, technical analysis has lost much of its value in the current market, basically because prices are so heavily manipulated by central banks. *This is not a good thing for investors*. T/A was showing us what actual investors were doing. The reason T/A doesn't work any more is that actual investors aren't driving stock prices; central banks are.


James4 - I don't want to hijack this thread but have followed similar comments in a few threads. While I agree that CB intervention changed market sentiment, outlook and borrowing costs - I don't follow how the improved performance of many companies over the past several years (increased sales, market share, profits, etc.) and hence share price and/or dividend payout is not organic? 
I realize that the prospect of future interest rate increases will squeeze some sectors or investments (see prefs) and benefit others. Also that an overall market correction feels 'due'. And that as always, stuff happens so that growth & dividends are not assured and can even reverse (see oil sector). 
But I don't see the overall market being 'manipulated'. That gives me an image of a conspiracy, or of the wizard of Oz, destined to fail when his curtain is pulled back?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> James4 - I don't want to hijack this thread but have followed similar comments in a few threads. While I agree that CB intervention changed market sentiment, outlook and borrowing costs - I don't follow how the improved performance of many companies over the past several years (increased sales, market share, profits, etc.) and hence share price and/or dividend payout is not organic?
> I realize that the prospect of future interest rate increases will squeeze some sectors or investments (see prefs) and benefit others. Also that an overall market correction feels 'due'. And that as always, stuff happens so that growth & dividends are not assured and can even reverse (see oil sector).
> But I don't see the overall market being 'manipulated'. That gives me an image of a conspiracy, or of the wizard of Oz, destined to fail when his curtain is pulled back?


+1 from me ... there has been enough evidence of organic growth and organic profits from all kinds of companies who continue to report good earnings and all kinds of sectors ... we are now 7 years away from 2008

james has a way of spinning all kinds of esoteric pieces of economic news to the standard zero hedge / austrian line that qe has deformed the traditional market by its injection of money as well as buy the purchases of assets by central banks

aside from the fact that the economy seems to be absorbing the money and it is doing exactly what it is supposed to do, namely avoid a brutal recession / depression there isn't evidence that it is doing what james (and dog and wolfie) say it is

and there is plenty of evidence of the buying and selling of real products at real market determined prices

the recent sharp downward pullback and snapback shows that the market is having an intense dialogue about the justification of current price levels

our resident bear-in-chief gives every impression of being utterly hide bound by both his own ego (he must find a way to justify missing a 6 years bull market all while he was invested in zero-returning gold and 2.5% gic's) and trapped in a political philosophy that he can't admit simply doesn't hold water

aside from deforming asset prices, qe has saved our *** because deflation was and is the real problem we face, not inflation (which is not to say we don't have stealth inflation in some areas)


----------



## Oldroe (Sep 18, 2009)

Don't forget the bogus portfolio of 10k bought in 2014 and now Air Canada 155 shares.


I wouldn't call it a spin, that was about 3000 posts ago.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Well personally I continue to be happy to have differences in opinion and macro analysis. Again, this is what makes a market. For example I think the market is broadly over-valued, but many of you don't. It would be more worrying if we all aligned and believed the same thing... market participants should have different opinions, to make things interesting.

Regarding central bank manipulation, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's the fact of what central banks do, it's explicitly stated. They call it "policy", I call it manipulation: The US Federal Reserve directly buys Treasury bonds, pushing up the price (this is a clearly stated goal). The ECB buys European sovereign bonds (again, the goal is to raise bond prices). The Bank of Japan buys stock ETFs -- there are news articles on this in case you think I'm making it up. And some other central banks buy stock futures through the CME's central bank assistance program, which is an entire business division to assist central banks in futures trading.

On top of those direct examples of manipulation/price influence, global central banks - including the Bank of Canada - keep interest rates at basically zero, with full knowledge that low interest rates induce people to pour money into the stock market. I agree this is a weaker instance of "manipulation", but the above (with bonds etc) is much more direct manipulation.

We also have the situation where the S&P 500 correlates tremendously well with the Federal Reserve's balance sheet. So call it what you want, but I think there's more than enough evidence that the stock market is tied to central bank actions.

And we already know the (US) stock market has gone up more than what just earnings justifies. The proof of this is in the Shiller PE, or CAPE. The current CAPE of 26 is again well above historical long term averages.

Regarding organic vs policy-induced growth. My argument would be that much of the economic activity can be traced back to central bank or government actions. Remember, they were meant to stimulate the economy. And they did! Nobody questions this part ... economists and academics all endorsed government/CB stimulus to start up the economy.

The question is whether it's sustainable and can continue once stimulus is yanked. That's the GIANT question in all of this. All you guys are betting: yes, the economic growth that was kick-started by stimulus can continue even once stimulus is withdrawn.

In contrast, I am betting that: no, the economic growth kick-started by stimulus can not continue without ongoing stimulus.

Examples are numerous. In Canada, low interest rates stimulates borrowing and credit, which stimulates buying of housing. This in term creates construction jobs, financing jobs, and a whole industry.

In US (but also Canada), central bank stimulus and emergency bail-outs in 2008/2009 meant that distressed loans were removed from bank balance sheets. Banks received a tremendous boost from this, and 'normal' lending started up again. So they loaned and financed businesses, etc.

And in banking, I will argue that the fundamental problems have not been resolved. The banks just got a huge stimulus that let them lend again. However, when loans turn bad again, all the same problems will resume -- another global banking crisis is inevitable. It will require more stimulus. So can governments keep affording that kind of stimulus?


----------



## Jaberwock (Aug 22, 2012)

Whether the market goes up or down, there is always someone who can produce a chart that tells you what is going to happen next.

Some of the charts point to a bear market, some point to a bull. Some of them are right, and some of them are wrong. Technical analysis might give you a hint as to to the short term effects of market sentiment, but over the long term the charts are useless, only the fundamental earnings and values matter.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

The U.S. Congress established three key objectives for monetary policy in the Federal Reserve Act: Maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates. The first two objectives are sometimes referred to as the Federal Reserve's dual mandate.

I think they(the Fed...not Congress lol) have done a great job this time around, I guess they learned a lot since the late 20's-30's.

I think we can all find data points that show markets are under valued or over valued, but since everyone in the universe also has that data, things like Shiller PE has already been noticed by everyone and either acted on or ignored...who is right?

So if this is a welcome correction then we can all have a Holly Jolly Christmas...if it is a new bear and the S&P drops to 1200 those that stayed in the market will still be ahead....HOHOHO


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Well personally I continue to be happy to have differences in opinion and macro analysis. Again, this is what makes a market. For example I think the market is broadly over-valued, but many of you don't. It would be more worrying if we all aligned and believed the same thing... market participants should have different opinions, to make things interesting.
> 
> Regarding central bank manipulation, it's not a conspiracy theory. It's the fact of what central banks do, it's explicitly stated. They call it "policy", I call it manipulation: The US Federal Reserve directly buys Treasury bonds, pushing up the price (this is a clearly stated goal). The ECB buys European sovereign bonds (again, the goal is to raise bond prices). The Bank of Japan buys stock ETFs -- there are news articles on this in case you think I'm making it up. And some other central banks buy stock futures through the CME's central bank assistance program, which is an entire business division to assist central banks in futures trading.
> 
> ...


you give every impression of being willing to wait 5-10-20 years to see your prediction come true ... 

what if you are wrong ? 

simple as that, what if you are wrong ? ... 

your 2.5% government bonds and zero yielding gold will put you deep behind the 8-ball ... like them or not equities are reasonably good inflation protection

you may be right james but you are making a fundamental mistake by not preparing for the possibility that you are wrong

your hubris will drive you to the poorhouse and drop you off but ain't nobody coming to pick you up


----------



## indexxx (Oct 31, 2011)

peterk said:


> I don't really think TA works either and somewhat consider it voodoo, but I don't like the logic of this argument against it. Just because something works doesn't mean "we'd all be rich", not by a long shot.


Fine, not 'all', but you get the point.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

fatcat said:


> you give every impression of being willing to wait 5-10-20 years to see your prediction come true ...
> 
> what if you are wrong ?


I agree, this is a big risk and it's a serious danger. I may be wrong, and if so I will be passing up on gains. I've mitigated this risk, a bit, by having some stock exposure. Obviously it's a very low percent compared to some of you guys, but I still do have stock exposure.

Still, I think the "missing out" danger is somewhat exagerated. How much in the way of gains have I passed up on? See this table I made in another post. 

20 year annualized total return of the TSX is about 8.0% per year before fees. But of course there were also fees and inefficiencies, so let's call it 7% a year growth.

Now this goes back to 1995 and some of you may remember that GIC yields were pretty good back then. What's an average GIC ladder return over this period? Probably in the 5% to 6% range. I know I still had 5% GICs at late as 2007.

So, in the 20 year time span, what was the penalty for "sitting out" the stock market? *The penalty was approx 2% missed growth per year*.

And that's assuming that you put it in the most efficient way possible in the stock market, and did not suffer any tragic instances (e.g. Nortel, Bre-X, tech bubble stocks, US banks)

To me, missing out on 2% growth a year is not a big deal, especially when you consider that the stock market is a mine field. I'm going to guess that many stock investors would have actually been better off in GICs over the past 20 years. All it takes is one bad fund with hidden fees ... one surprise loss ... one stock going poof ... to nullify that 2% advantage of stocks.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

And let's not forget that the 15 year return of the TSX is _worse_ than GICs. Why do you guys get so breathlessly excited about stocks, and so horrified about sitting out of the stock market?

They have not been a windfall to riches, and GICs come very close to their long term returns. Even now, with the TSX near an all time high, this is still the case!


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

In the end many of the the gains and losses are a paper game that is being played out and managed by the Fed company. Next we will find out as a true recession comes every decade and that is if they can keep it going or will they go all out and print trillions more while keeping the illusion of a solid currency. So if one is willing to do the hard work get stock certificates of solid companies in your hand, own some real estate and some hard assets like gold and silver. 

I have to agree staying out of the stock market entirely is dangerous as money in the bank is devalued. Staying in the stock market one hundred percent or close to it is equally as dangerous as an implosion is possible because at some point the Fed will have to pull out. People who think intervention is a fairy tale then probably think TARP, the bail outs in 2008 and the QE's didn't happen just like some think the holocaust didn't happen.


----------



## cainvest (May 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> To me, missing out on 2% growth a year is not a big deal, especially when you consider that the stock market is a mine field. I'm going to guess that many stock investors would have actually been better off in GICs over the past 20 years. All it takes is one bad fund with hidden fees ... one surprise loss ... one stock going poof ... to nullify that 2% advantage of stocks.


I'm sure I don't need to remind you what a 2-3% gain is over 20+ years on one's portfolio. 

Over the past 5 years with low GIC rates that would have been a substantial difference, say less than 2.5% compared to 7% for CDN index and 10% for CDN dividend ETF. As you've pointed out before, the fed will likely keep interest rates low for the near future and at the same time support the markets .... do you really want to miss out on these returns?

Now I'm not saying stocks are the end all, be all of investing but they are a very important part of the overall investment picture, of course with some risk attached. In the end, one has to invest in what they are comfortable with but you shouldn't bash stocks because you can't handle the risk yourself.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> you give every impression of being willing to wait 5-10-20 years to see your prediction come true ...
> 
> simple as that, what if you are wrong ? ...
> 
> ...




cat you would know by now that every investor should stick in large measure with what he is comfortable with. 

especially young investors. For them it's learn-as-you-go, experiment a little as they progress, meanwhile IMHO it's wise if they can be prudent with the bulk of their hard-earned dollars.

james4 is a young man with a good job & a promising career. He regularly saves extra $$ out of his paycheck. He thinks pro-actively about his investments. What more could one ask from a young investor? if he happens to own a few too many GICs for your liking, cat, at least he's not presently gambling & losing his money.

there's no reason to threaten james4 with "the poorhouse." i for one believe that if he keeps going the way he's been going, he'll be fine in his old age.

but wait, there's more. In recent years james4 has put his toe in the stock market sea. Not surprisingly, he's developed his own protocol for wading in. Also not surprisingly, jas4 has posted descriptions & breakdowns of his protocol. Some parties have already written in to thank him. Not saying they agree, but saying it's always valuable to hear another coherent point of view.

me i tend to think that, over the next few years, james4 will continue to wade deeper. Soon, he'll be well over his ankles. He's explained that his newish common stock investments are related to his salary & to the job that he says he likes (liking one's job & being successful at one's work are already big financial assets for a young person) (they boost human capital quantifiably) (did you think about that, cat?)

bref, jas4 now seems to feel he can afford to put some of his savings at risk. Never mind that he calls it gambling. Semantics is nothing more than wordplay, said noam chomsky.


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

From RFD Investing Forum:



Jeenyus1 said:


> *Moody’s Investors Service on Friday cut its 2016 growth forecast in Group of 20 economies to 2.8 percent, down 0.3 percentage point from the company’s call less than two weeks ago.*
> 
> "Credit rating firm Moody's cut its 2016 global economic growth forecasts on Friday, with China and United States both trimmed and Russia and Brazil seen staying in recession."
> 
> ...


Damn, maybe we should reverse my husband's TFSA transfer from People's Trust (where it makes safe 2% - down from last year's 3%) to Questrade (where we planned to buy more equity ETFs) and buy more GICs in RRSPs while we're at it... Nah, I'd still prefer to "gamble with equities" (upping their portion to 90% of our total portfolio - we're both 47, with no DB pensions) - even if James turns out to be right


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> cat you would know by now that every investor should stick in large measure with what he is comfortable with.
> 
> especially young investors. For them it's learn-as-you-go, experiment a little as they progress, meanwhile IMHO it's wise if they can be prudent with the bulk of their hard-earned dollars.
> 
> ...


pie, yes, i certainly do know and believe that all investors must know their goals and stay within their plan and their comfort zone, this is a key for success 

but some sort of response is called for when faced with james's relentless thumping bearishness ... james just pulls these loony "facts-idea-notions" out of the air and uses them as launching pads for an assault on the stock market/banks and an assortment of other assets

james see a boogeyman behind every company and every asset (except, god bless him, his beloved CEF.A), he is so risk-averse that he will not be of any help to newbies trying to decide what to do with their money

my own belief is that we all must be both bull and bear to stay safe and prosper

i am 66, i know james is in his thirties, lets say 35, he has a working and investing life that is at least 35 years long left, he has his projections and i have mine ... in mine i see zero chance that placing money at 2.5% risk-free will come close to participating in the worldwide equity market over the next 35 years, zero, even with contractions

this is my bias of course ... james disagrees, fair enough, but i can't sit by and let him pass off as fact his ideas about central banks and their effect on the economy when in fact it seems to me they have actually gotten it right ... like it or not we are in a pickle and james presumed solution to do nothing and not stimulate would have us sitting in a depression, a far worse option than the risk we now run

james is under the mistaken notion that investing in equities is about numbers when in fact investing in equities has relatively little to do with numbers, equities are about human beings and what they need and beyond that what they want, those needs and wants fundamentally don't change

james is welcome to be a saver hanging out on an investing forum which is perfectly fine, james can be entertaining and often helpful, i just cannot let his ideas pass by unexamined


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

fatcat & humble_pie - Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful exchange of comments and ideas. Very helpful to other readers IMO. :encouragement:


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

spoken like the flexible, fair-minded gentleman that you are, cat.

a couple of points if i may, though. I don't believe newbies in cmf forum are swayed by one extremist or another. Me i find the young newbies arrive here with their notions already pre-set, so one might as well let them put their ideas into practice. Because if they lose, they'll learn (most of the young newbies on here do sound pretty smart, ie highly capable of learning.)

2nd point, the forum does need extreme POVs. Forums cry out for a vast range of opinion. We need speakers to hold up each end of the spectrum. I believe we are blessed with not one but 2 colourful & highly articulate permabears, along with one wiser type who seems to be dancing nimbly, on-again-off-again, with his bear.

the colourful pair are the zoroastrian poet & the resident son-of-austrian-school-look-out-the-sky-is-falling-&-those-%@!!?#-banks-are-to-blame, james4. Could we ask for better than those 2, do you think?

then, of course, we need someone like yourself. A thoughtful, experienced writer closer to the middle. Someone to keep the scrappy kids under control.





fatcat said:


> james disagrees, fair enough, but i can't sit by and let him pass off as fact his ideas about central banks and their effect on the economy when in fact it seems to me they have actually gotten it right ... like it or not we are in a pickle and james presumed solution to do nothing and not stimulate would have us sitting in a depression, a far worse option than the risk we now run



as it happens i agree with you 100%. But it's impossible to discuss with an austrian school disciple. No sooner does one say QE saved the world in late 08/09 - or even in 1987 - than they go how currency printing presses & inflation produced hitler & weimar germany, not to speak of pinochet in chile .each:


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> spoken like the flexible, fair-minded gentleman that you are, cat.
> 
> a couple of points if i may, though. I don't believe newbies in cmf forum are swayed by one extremist or another. Me i find the young newbies arrive here with their notions already pre-set, so one might as well let them put their ideas into practice. Because if they lose, they'll learn (most of the young newbies on here do sound pretty smart, ie highly capable of learning.)
> 
> ...


indeed pie, far be it from me to stifle speech ... i personally despise our wonderful countries' hate speech laws ... the best answer to speech of any kind is more speech ... cmf doesn't need me to act as the speech police

yes our newbies will muddle through and they can choose from a range of views what suits them best, the diversity of the forum is a huge asset to all of us

like you i do enjoy all the views we see here from our dear uber-bears to the wonderful fellow who was convinced it was time to make big money shorting oil and "oh, by the way, how do you short oil ? " (as i recall his timing was impeccable and he would have made a killing, i do hope he figured out to short oil )

and as you say, james and his fellow austrians will hold the austerity-flag high in the face of all evidence to the contrary (or at least my and perhaps your interpretation to the contrary), i will not convince him and indeed, he may be right but until he is proven right i have to take him to task periodically ... james hopes he is helping me by making me more cautious (and he often does) i hope i am helping him by encouraging him to take a second look at what equities are 

believe me, if i could return enough and grow my money with a pure gic ladder that would guarantee my money, i would do it in a heartbeat



> OnlyMyOpinion
> fatcat & humble_pie - Thank you for your respectful and thoughtful exchange of comments and ideas. Very helpful to other readers IMO.


 thank you OMO


----------



## godblsmnymkr (Jul 15, 2015)

indexxx said:


> Technical analysis is meaningless. That would be like saying we can predict the future by looking at the stars...


this is a very first level way of looking at things. 
have you heard of this book? http://www.amazon.com/Way-Turtle-Methods-Ordinary-Legendary/dp/007148664X
in it, they took regular people off the street, and gave them a winning trading system. some made money, some were breakeven, and some lost. all with the same system. just because someone learns TA does not mean they can use it correctly, and then they will think it is meaningless. 

i feel like people say TA is meaningless just dont understand it. you need to think of TA as a way to increase your chances of making the right short term decisions. its just a way to increase probability. that is all. just because xyz pattern appears in a chart, does not mean that x is going to happen. some people will see one TA pattern not manifest the way its supposed to and write it off. 
no it cannot predict long term price movements, but it is a tool to put in your investing tool box along with FA, market sentiment, investor psychology, etc. 
i think of my investment portfolio as building a house. difficult to build a house with just a hammer. but if you have a saw, a level, etc then it becomes much easier. you are doing yourself a disservice by not using TA.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> I disagree. Charts can reveal trends and patterns of behavior. This is not far fetched, everyone knows stock prices respond to buying/selling pressure, meaning market sentiment. Stocks reflect the the personalities of their owners. The typical Tesla investor is not the same as the typical Exxon investor and their charts reflect that, along with the different fundamentals affecting their businesses.
> 
> If stocks were priced by their fundamental value and nothing else, they would all sell for about the same multiple of earnings. You would not have some stocks with a P/E of 5 and others with a P/E over 100. The difference reflects the combination of fundamentals plus investor opinion . And, share prices would not vary by more than a few pennies from one day to the next, and a rise or fall of 5% a year would reflect fundamental changes in the business. Everything else is the whim of the market, or the emotions of buyers and sellers.
> 
> Sometimes, not always, it is possible to detect patterns or inclinations in stock charts and predict future movements with better than chance accuracy. Even though it is far from an exact science.


I agree. your post deserves repeating.

Look at the volume on S&P last week. Volume on down days much higher than volume on up days. Doesn't look good. I have no faith in any significant up side until volume on up days over shadows volume on down days. Market looks very weak.


----------



## godblsmnymkr (Jul 15, 2015)

Pluto said:


> I agree. your post deserves repeating.
> 
> Look at the volume on S&P last week. Volume on down days much higher than volume on up days. Doesn't look good. I have no faith in any significant up side until volume on up days over shadows volume on down days. Market looks very weak.


while volume is a very important indicator, to be fair, during this lengthy bull market you have seen generally much bigger volume on down days then the up days.


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

Pluto said:


> Market looks very weak.


Yep, the futures are mostly red: http://www.investing.com/indices/indices-futures

Are you shorting the market?  I still didn't get around to try it, keep catching the falling knives (have another limit order for a ~10% U.S. stock market drop as I not always have the time to act fast during the day...)


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Good discussion, folks. Thanks as always to humble_pie, fatcat and cainvest... yes it's true that I am wading into stocks more and more. I certainly have more exposure than in the past, and as long as this good income continues I expect to add more stocks.

I'm not sure why you see me as ultra bearish, and not sure why you use words like loony. You'll see me recommending XIC and ZCN in many posts (I even had a thread called  Could ZCN be the best dividend ETF). Most recently here, I just posted some numbers (the 20 year return) and pointed out that stocks are only a couple % more return than fixed income. How is that loony? Those are the numbers of 20 year returns.

Yes I'll acknowledge 2% compounded over 20 years is ... a lot  And you are correct that with the suppressed interest rates in fixed income, stocks appear more attractive.

Don't worry about me going poor. If it happens, it won't be because I sat out of the stock market. I just calculated that my net worth has increased at an annualized rate of 8.7% in the last decade -- due to savings and investments.

I continue to think that many of you older investors see stocks through rose-coloured glasses, because you saw them perform so tremendously during your working years (1980s - now). Understandably, you really like stocks... but you just happened to live during the greatest stock bull run in US history. There are many periods in market history that did much worse, but you got lucky and didn't live during those periods.

As a result of you seeing stocks perform so well in the past decades, I think some of you are in denial about how the north american market has undergone fundamental changes that are not conducive to a good investment environment: extremely large bailouts, zero interest rates, dependence on stimulus, and persistent over-valuation due to central banks being 
hooked on blowing one bubble after the other. That's my opinion anyway.

I continue to think that a financial market that is utterly dependent on zero interest rates and central bank stimulus, and which has not undergone *any* fundamental changes after the most serious financial crisis in modern history, is a very sick and dangerous market... and one that is unlike the market you are used to from your early investing career. That's the way I see it.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

You folks may also want to consider that sometimes, younger minds can see situations in a new way, and see certain things with a fresh pair of eyes. Just consider the possibility. I'm not a dumb guy; I'm a well educated electrical engineer who does mathematical analysis for a living. My business and technical careers have both progressed faster than usual for someone my age.

In your posts, you make it sound like I dislike stocks just because I cannot handle the risks myself. It's more than that, though. I think the risk/reward equation has *changed* post 2008, and I've explained why I think the market is unlike the market you are used to (bailouts, zero interest rates, dependence on stimulus).

If this was the market of past decades, I would feel more comfortable. But it's not. It's different in many ways, including being the product of the greatest amount of monetary stimulus ever unleashed. In history!

It looks like many of you operate with the assumption that it's business as usual, and that these days are not too different from days in the 1990s. I think _that's loony_.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

godblsmnymkr said:


> while volume is a very important indicator, to be fair, during this lengthy bull market you have seen generally much bigger volume on down days then the up days.


 The rally from the 09 low volume has declined, while S&P traced out rising wedge on semi log scale. Sharp retrace to the 09 lows.


----------



## supperfly17 (Apr 18, 2012)

james4beach said:


> You folks may also want to consider that sometimes, younger minds can see situations in a new way, and see certain things with a fresh pair of eyes. Just consider the possibility. I'm not a dumb guy; I'm a well educated electrical engineer who does mathematical analysis for a living. My business and technical careers have both progressed faster than usual for someone my age.
> 
> In your posts, you make it sound like I dislike stocks just because I cannot handle the risks myself. It's more than that, though. I think the risk/reward equation has *changed* post 2008, and I've explained why I think the market is unlike the market you are used to (bailouts, zero interest rates, dependence on stimulus).
> 
> ...


I dont think its different this time James, or since 2008. Governments have always had their hands around the stock market, just read about the history of the stock market and government involvements. A really good book to read actually is "Stocks for the long run" its about 500 pages but really worth it. Nothing really different this time. 

If the stock market collapses, even gold will be worthless to you because someone is going to kill you for food/water once they find out you have gold or other monetary assets.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> If the stock market collapses, even gold will be worthless to you because someone is going to kill you for food/water once they find out you have gold or other monetary assets.


 I saud it many times .... in this case you won't need gold or cash, you will need non-perishable food and guns


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

supperfly17 said:


> I dont think its different this time James, or since 2008. Governments have always had their hands around the stock market


Yes government have always supported the stock market, but with varying degrees of success. Just look at the historic real returns of the US market. If the government was so capable of supporting the stock market, then why are there 20 year periods (I think even 30 year periods) with *no real return*?

Or the following specific example:

US market from 1966 to 1982... a 16 year period

In that period inflation ranged between 5% to 10%. The stock market had a significantly negative real return. Fixed income exceeded stock market returns yet again, as even bonds were yielding 6% to 10% by the latter years.

Using the argument from you folks, tell me: why didn't the stock market perform well?

You seem to believe the government always makes the stock market "win", so why didn't the government make the stock market "win" here? You keep telling me government support will always make the stock investor come out ahead.



> If the stock market collapses, even gold will be worthless to you because someone is going to kill you for food/water once they find out you have gold or other monetary assets.


This statement is actually a reflection of how seriously you take stocks, or in other words, how dependent _you_ are on stocks. You think that poor stock returns are the end of the world. It's not. Poor stock returns, for as long as 25 year stretches, occurred several times before. The world didn't end.

Businesses and society continues. Shiller showed this in his research: corporate earnings and GDP rise very steady over the long term. The stock market does not; it can go very long stretches without real increases.

I still think you guys take the stock market too seriously, and put far too much faith in it. Just go back and look at US market history and ask yourself, what if you were unlucky enough to have your investing years coincide with one of the numerous 20-30 year "negative real return" periods?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

godblsmnymkr said:


> while volume is a very important indicator, to be fair, during this lengthy bull market you have seen generally much bigger volume on down days then the up days.


Oh yeah, what is your method of keeping track during the bull market? do you have a running total of up volume vs down volume for since 2009? Or is that just your over all impression?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Moneytoo said:


> Yep, the futures are mostly red: http://www.investing.com/indices/indices-futures
> 
> Are you shorting the market?  I still didn't get around to try it, keep catching the falling knives (have another limit order for a ~10% U.S. stock market drop as I not always have the time to act fast during the day...)


I have a small # of puts on a us index. Will keep them for the time being. The market is sensitive to negative news items, whereas in a bull market it typically shrugs off negative news. Also down volume is very high compared to volume on up days. Art Cashin said overseas clients were redeeming mutual fund units to raise cash for other purposes and mutual funds had to dump a lot of stock to give them the cash. Looking at the charts, that did a lot of damage. I'd like to see very high volume on up days to change my mind about market weakness. Bull markets usually end when us unemployment is low. They got that. The fed wants to raise rates as soon as they feel comfortable. Higher rates will compete with stocks for investors money, and make doing business more expensive for companies that need to borrow. Other large economies are struggling. If the market shrugged that stuff off, and moved up top new highs I'd think different. but it isn't. There is some angst in there. The recent rebound looks to me like traders trading a dead cat bounce. If S&P falls below 1867, we will know it is a dead cat bounce. In the meantime, it looks like one due to low volume on days when market goes up. 
There is however, no way to prove my perspective, so use your own judgment. Keep a personal journal of what you bought and sold and why you did it. It can help in developing your own decision making. 

I don't short. I buy puts on index's stateside. If you do it, do it small just for fun and experience. If you buy puts on a S&P index, do it when the S&P falls below it's last low of August 25 - but only if is a small enough position that it won't break you. Plus, don't do it because someone said to, develop a personal reason why you think it is viable in order to develop independence from the diversity of opinion. If you don't have a personal reason why you think the market will fall further, don't do it, or do a ridiculously low amount just for the experience. Sometimes risking small amounts helps the learning experience.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> This statement is actually a reflection of how seriously you take stocks, or in other words, how dependent you are on stocks. You think that poor stock returns are the end of the world. It's not. Poor stock returns, for as long as 25 year stretches, occurred several times before. The world didn't end.


We're not talking about "poor" return, but about collapse....
Not only we are, but whole North America takes is very seriously.... it's not like 30-50 years ago, now majority have equities in RRSP. 401k , pension funds and so on ... if so many registered plans gonna collapse, government should significantly increase GIS and similar and where government gonna find money? james do you really think that if couples of "big 5" Canadian banks will collapse, nothing serious will happen?!


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

gibor that's a very good point, all the RRSPs and 401(k)s are a new thing. Now every working person has stock market exposure, unlike 40 years ago.


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

james4beach said:


> gibor that's a very good point, all the RRSPs and 401(k)s are a new thing. Now every working person has stock market exposure, unlike 40 years ago.


Exactly. At my work i was talking to many co-workers and very big % has exposure or to MF or to ETF or to stocks and majority in RRSP and TFSA, except this everyone has GRRSP where also everyone invest in stocks.... imagine now that markets collapsed and all equities got crushed .... practically everyone will apply to GIS when retired.... 
P.S. btw, our company already in losses (and we're working for MF/SEGs companies), so together with stocks, our company will collapse, banks and asset management companies (and this is Ontario core) will start huge layoffs...and who gonna pay EI and other benefits?! 
Can you imagine what will be with crime level? I just know what happened with Russia when people became poor.... 
So, imho, our and US government will do everything to prevent market from collapse....better to though $$$ into markets, than spend even more to support suddenly poor and angry population...
P.S. I've read comparissons with Japan... kinda their market many many years in decline.... don't think we can compare Japan and NA... first of all they have very different mentality, secondly - not too many middle calss Japanese were invested at all...
P.P.S. Another comparrisson with great depression 1929-33 ....but tell me how many people were invested in market than and now!


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

Pluto said:


> Keep a personal journal of what you bought and sold and why you did it. It can help in developing your own decision making.


I have a very sharp memory, and it's only being a year and a half (with mostly long term buys, hence not many sells), so I remember every position: how many shares, for how much and in what account (without looking in my records) I do however keep a few watchlists and email myself, CC-ing my husband (as a witness ) when I have an iffy buy or sell idea (i.e. not ready to actually do it), and then check it once in a while, updating if it'd be or good or bad idea. One thing for sure: I buy too soon with real money - and most positions that I wanted to buy but didn't, I'd have to sell pretty soon to make a profit (they go up sharply and then drop) So for the first few weeks or months I regret not buying, but then can see that I wouldn't have sold near top before it dropped. Sticking to indexing and long term buy&holding until I can master both buying and selling...



> Plus, don't do it because someone said to, develop a personal reason why you think it is viable in order to develop independence from the diversity of opinion. If you don't have a personal reason why you think the market will fall further, don't do it...


Yep, that's the thing - I'm still overall bullish on the market, and don't believe we'll see a repeat of 2008. Maybe a few more v-bottoms, maybe a deeper correction - but I think by the end of October or sooner it'll be over. So not ready to short (even for fun ), but would love to buy more index ETFs and some stocks "at a discount" for long term. So transferring more cash in September, entering limit orders - and sticking to our asset allocation (as it's easy to get overloaded on Canadian stocks when they "go on sale" as you say )

Thanks again, glad you're back!


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> ... I'm not sure why you see me as ultra bearish, and not sure why you use words like loony.


Part of it might be the strong statement and slow movement to detail ... I know it took me a long time plus asking a different question to get to understanding that due to over-pricing, the preference was to pick non-dividend payers instead of an outright avoidance.




supperfly17 said:


> I dont think its different this time James, or since 2008. Governments have always had their hands around the stock market, just read about the history of the stock market and government involvements. A really good book to read actually is "Stocks for the long run" its about 500 pages but really worth it. Nothing really different this time ...


I think it is different as the gov't hasn't had their hand in to such an extreme and nowhere near as long ... just my 2 cent.




james4beach said:


> ... If the government was so capable of supporting the stock market, then why are there 20 year periods (I think even 30 year periods) with *no real return*? ...
> 
> Just go back and look at US market history and ask yourself, what if you were unlucky enough to have your investing years coincide with one of the numerous 20-30 year "negative real return" periods?


This seems overblown.

Do you really believe that of something over 195 million Americans at the time, everyone was picking bonds?
Or that there were no Canadians or Europeans putting money into the US market?

Perhaps more importantly, of those with money to invest who were in the market - they went to their employers, asked for the next twenty years of pay and then put one lump sum that they let ride?

Most I know in accumulation as putting in bits and pieces as it becomes available so to me, it does not seem likely the resulting portfolios matched the "no real return" of the index.


It's a good point to make but it is not necessarily what individual results were.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

james4beach said:


> gibor that's a very good point, all the RRSPs and 401(k)s are a new thing.


Not according to my aunt who mentioned she's had an RRSP since they were started ... * in 1957.*
The chosen start date of 1966 is nine years after the RRSP came into being.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registered_Retirement_Savings_Plan

The 401K came into being in 1978 so there's a twelve year gap.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/401(k)




james4beach said:


> Now every working person has stock market exposure, unlike 40 years ago.


I would think it would pretty much be everyone considering the number of pensions companies offered.
Add to that the gov't programs such as CPP.

If that isn't enough, you can add in Gov't actions such as the Ontario Gov't buying 25% of Suncor in 1981.


Now I expect people have a lot more direct exposure with trading prices dropping from $200 a trade down to $5 or so.


It likely needs more research as in the US, the first mutual fund was created in 1924, where the first no-load MF was created in 1928.


> The 1960s saw the rise of aggressive growth funds, with more than 100 new funds established and billions of dollars in new asset inflows.
> Hundreds of new funds were launched throughout the 1960s until the bear market of 1969 cooled the public appetite for mutual funds.


http://www.investopedia.com/articles/mutualfund/05/mfhistory.asp


Interestingly, the first index fund was created in 1971.


It probably doesn't compare with today but does bring into the question the idea that few had exposure.


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

gibor said:


> Exactly.
> 
> At my work i was talking to many co-workers and very big % has exposure or to MF or to ETF or to stocks and majority in RRSP and TFSA, except this everyone has GRRSP where also everyone invest in stocks....


Add in the pensions (DC, DB and GRRSP matching). 

Then there's those dabbling with day trading, those who have done a SM with their house ... the foreign investors who wanted to participate in oil/mining (I had a guy complaining to me in 2001 about his junior oil picks that tanked where mine were being bought out for a premium).




gibor said:


> ... imagine now that markets collapsed and all equities got crushed .... practically everyone will apply to GIS when retired....
> So, imho, our and US government will do everything to prevent market from collapse....better to though $$$ into markets, than spend even more to support suddenly poor and angry population...


I believe that as bad as politicians/civil servants can be ... they recognise this.


Cheers


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> I believe that as bad as politicians/civil servants can be ... they recognise this.


absolutely ... always own what the politicians own ... they don't own gold, they own royal bank


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

fatcat said:


> absolutely ... always own what the politicians own ... they don't own gold, they own royal bank


Not sure about that: our gold bullion ETF held up much better than royal bank (trying to sell some, waiting for a better price... )


----------



## godblsmnymkr (Jul 15, 2015)

Pluto said:


> Oh yeah, what is your method of keeping track during the bull market? do you have a running total of up volume vs down volume for since 2009? Or is that just your over all impression?


look at the size of the red volume candles vs the green candles?


----------



## gibor365 (Apr 1, 2011)

> Add in the pensions (DC, DB and GRRSP matching).


 I mentioned GRRSP and pension funds .... for example my wife has DCPP and future payments related on performance of the invested pool of money.... and obviously they mostly invested in the same stock, retail investor is invested. Also CPP is knvested into same stocks...


> Not according to my aunt who mentioned she's had an RRSP since they were started ... in 1957.


 yes, but what % than had RRSP?! and what % of this % invested in equities?! I didn't live than in Canada and have no idea, but imho, who invested than - invested mostly into GIC


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

Moneytoo said:


> Yep, that's the thing - I'm still overall bullish on the market, and don't believe we'll see a repeat of 2008. Maybe a few more v-bottoms, maybe a deeper correction - but I think by the end of October or sooner it'll be over. So not ready to short (even for fun ), but would love to buy more index ETFs and some stocks "at a discount" for long term. So transferring more cash in September, entering limit orders - and sticking to our asset allocation (as it's easy to get overloaded on Canadian stocks when they "go on sale" as you say )
> 
> Thanks again, glad you're back!


I was always here. Just had nothing to say that would not be like a broken record. I don't know if it will be like 2008 or not, but I'm not buying yet. The only thing I have is oil stocks bought earlier this year cause they were pretty much already beaten up.

(When your overall bullishness vanishes, it will be closer to a good time to buy.)


----------



## Moneytoo (Mar 26, 2014)

Pluto said:


> (When your overall bullishness vanishes, it will be closer to a good time to buy.)


Just saw this article: Five reasons to become even more defensive in your investing... sigh

"But it’s not _one_ danger signal—it’s many, flashing all at once. Taken together, these signals offer a very strong argument for caution being the prudent course right now.

Yes, there are still pockets of opportunity — and these may well increase, if volatility increases in the weeks to come. But they require deep digging, and some serious due diligence. Currently, [high-net-worth] HNW individuals are more interested in specialized, deep value opportunities than in the broader market. Following their lead seems the wise thing to do."

(Didn't buy today )


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

gibor said:


> I mentioned GRRSP and pension funds ....


True ... though with the entries spread across a couple of posts and "pensions" covering both private plus CPP/QPP, I thought it was worth consolidating.




gibor said:


> .. yes, but what % than had RRSP?! and what % of this % invested in equities?!
> I didn't live than in Canada and have no idea, but imho, who invested than - invested mostly into GIC


Good questions .... I'm not sure where I'll be able to dig up some answers. 

All I know for sure is that with the RRSP starting nine years earlier - I'm confident the numbers aren't 0 for both. 
If they were zero ... that would mean the rich didn't recognise the value ... :biggrin:

Then too, if an autoworker's wife can recognise the value of an RRSP, I'd expect those who could afford advisors saw similar value and invested in equities.


GICs, bonds, higher paying interest accounts ... not to mention higher stock transaction costs are definitely going to shrink the participation in equities.


BTW ... RRSPs pre-date CPP and possibly QPP by eight years or so.



Cheers


----------

