I think eventually, ARK and Cathie will be proven to have been correct about the future. I'm not sure the funds will be around to see it, though.
Gotcha.My main thing with them is that they are rather small. Like 10% the size of the bigger players.
There have also been (admittedly unsubstantiated) rumours of options and orders being delayed compared to others.
And supposedly they have random outages when there's large volume.
One other main thing - I don't know if they have a support line yet.
Many are soured on them due to them having some shady practices during the GameStop fiasco as well. They were shutting down trade when no one else was, freezing accounts in the middle of the day, etc.Gotcha.
I mostly do ETFs, but want to get into stock picking on top of that (long term), especially with this seemingly coming bear market. Get some deals lol.
I'm building a small portfolio at the moment.
I've been using the Cash app so far. But it's kinda limited. TDAmericatrade looks more fully featured.Many are soured on them due to them having some shady practices during the GameStop fiasco as well. They were shutting down trade when no one else was, freezing accounts in the middle of the day, etc.
Vanguard, Fidelity, Charles Schwab, and TD Ameritrade are generally the biggest/best. Most have adapted to the low cost of entry and have good fund options. I'm in Charles Schwab for my taxable account and Fidelity for my company 401k/HSA/Roth. I like both a lot.I've been using the Cash app so far. But it's kinda limited. TDAmericatrade looks more fully featured.
I do have Vanguard for my Roth, so I may just go there.Vanguard, Fidelity, Charles Schwab, and TD Ameritrade are generally the biggest/best. Most have adapted to the low cost of entry and have good fund options. I'm in Charles Schwab for my taxable account and Fidelity for my company 401k/HSA/Roth.
I do have Vanguard for my Roth, so I may just go there.
My issue with these older firms, is that their UIs do leave a lot to be desired. I use Vanguard and have used Fidelity with another job, so I know. Can't speak on Schwab.
I'm not surprised why Robinhood, Stash, and the like have eaten their lunch with the younger set.
I'm annoyed at Costco's gains today. I wish the market freaked out more on that stock. I'm hoping for a dip to send it below $400 and then average down from there instead of waiting for $380.
Almost -30% in AH. FB down 8% in AH because of it.Wow, Snap warns on Q2 and changed guidance. They just gave guidance a month ago so shit must have changed super fast. Down 20% in AH.
Definitely. All the gains today might be wiped out tomorrow and then some.Yeah I just edited. Google is down 4% as well. Guess there going to be more pain this week.
Down 30%. These numbers are insane.SNAP had already missed their earnings and had posted bad guidance and now they've downgraded that already downgraded guidance? Woof
I didn't go to validate this yet, but I read that this is down more than their actual earnings miss from Q1... Wtf..SNAP had already missed their earnings and had posted bad guidance and now they've downgraded that already downgraded guidance? Woof
Somehow you have to pay for the assets with cash flows generated in the real economy. One person's asset is another draw on somebody else's future income. So the incomes and the assets have to align at some point.
Now that could take a very long time, but the last decade was extreme. It was one of the most extreme periods of assets doing well relative to the nominal cash flows today. The Fed's trying to deal with the aftermath of that. The aftermath of that is we got a tremendous amount of paper wealth. We got a tremendous amount of demand relative to the ability of the economy to supply it. And now the Fed has two choices. If you said, what is it going to take to get inflation back to target?
You know, and it's not, I don't want to give the sense of false precision, but if we said, well, how much do you have to drop demand and change the labor market to get it? You're looking at a short-term interest rate of five, five and a half percent and a recession, a deep recession, and a crash probably in financial markets down 35, 40%. If you choose to go that direction.
I don't think the Fed will do that. I think the Fed will instead watch as growth starts -- one of the things you were saying, Tracy, in the intro that I quibble with a little bit, is I think growth is slowing right now. Now it's just starting to show up, but I think you're going to see negative growth in the next year or two -- real growth, now different than nominal growth. And so this gets complicated and nominal growth will be high and real growth will be slow, and that's going to be a dilemma.
So the second point that's making stocks really bad in this inflation period, this period over the last four months, it's the lack of liquidity. The Fed had been providing tremendous liquidity up until this calendar year.
You see how many stocks needed that liquidity because they needed new buyers. And right now we'd calculate about 40% of the US equity market can only survive essentially with new buyers entering the market because they're not cashflow generating themselves. And that's near a historic high, that's like basically right in line with '99, 2000. And it exists because, because the Fed produced liquidity for so long, you had declining, real rates, high levels of liquidity. You get the reverse. And you're seeing that squeeze the stocks that need that liquidity are getting hit the hardest. And that's happening quite quickly. You also see that to some extent you need constantly new buyers in the crypto space as well. And just the removal of macro liquidity is starting to affect the entities everywhere that need the liquidity the most.
Exactly this again, a great example of where you'd have to have an incredibly smart machine learning system to recognize the difference between this downturn and the 2008 downturn or the 2000 or the Covid downturn or whatever, where there is a huge difference in downturns when policy makers are unconstrained. So if you take even 2008, as devastating as that was policy makers, because inflation was low, they could print as much money and spend as much money as they were willing to do. Like there wasn't a constraint, basically there's three constraints on policy makers. If you look through history, they can always create nominal growth. If they don't have an inflation problem, if they don't have a currency problem and they don't have a bubbles problem. And so you take a 2008 or the Covi thing and you see how it works, right? They did it a lot more effectively in Covid, which is print the money, spend the money, and you can offset anything.
But if you look at history and you look at when policy makers are constrained, it's when it's inflationary, therefore you can't use that printing and spending and you have a much more difficult thing. So basically you could buy, you'd want to buy dips when the central bank is able to essentially be that shock absorber. But when inflation is stubbornly high into weakening assets, you can't, the Fed's not going to be there.
In fact, they want the asset prices to fall to a certain degree. And even if they fall more than they want them to, they're weighing the inflation picture against that. So all of a sudden you've got a much bigger dip possibility before you get relief from policy makers. And in fact, the dip has to become disinflationary in order to do that. And so that's why the drawdowns and the loss in real terms in the 1970s and early eighties was so much worse than most of those other drawdowns in terms of the duration over which it lasted. And you see that across economies, that when policy makers are constrained by inflation or currency, you know, it can take out it, it can lead to lost decades.
Now, secularly, as you're describing, there's this big trend of de-globalization that one of the lessons that US corporations or European corporations have taken is wow, we need a much more reliable secure supply chain and we need to build that. And that's building for resiliency rather than building for efficiency. And that's part of the inflation story. If you take the last 30 years, everything in the global economy was built for efficiency, almost nothing was built for resiliency. And it was part of the disinflation story that now you're going the opposite direction. You've got to build semiconductors in your own economy. You've got to get energy from sources that you can rely on.
[…]
And this is part of the reason that you'll actually have demand for capital expenditures, even if the economy starts to turn down. So that's going to create pressure on nominal GDP, even if profits are starting to decline, normally capital expenditures go up and down with profits, but you've got to rebuild an economy. And this is where you have the impact of stranded assets that all of this capacity to export to the world in China and all of the Capex that went there, it's got to get replaced over time and that's costly without creating wealth in a sense because it's offsetting stranded assets and that's going to be a big phenomenon that is an inflationary phenomenon because it's going to create higher nominal GDP, but without, let's say creating new wealth, it's offsetting lost wealth.
And so those are the, that's the cost of de-globalization. And we've had this wind at our back for so long that people even forget, it's a wind in a sense. And now you've got the wind in your face as you go through the process of unwinding the incredible efficiency of the global economy over the last 30 years and building something more resilient. And we don't think that's going to stop. There's the pressures between the US and China are such that you're almost certainly on a path to two largely separated economies. They'll have an interface in trade and other things, but they won't be so tightly linked as they have been. And that's, that's a very big deal.
Now you get some benefits too, because certainly from a social cohesion perspective, all of a sudden kind of the losers of globalization get the benefit. That's the higher wages. So a lot of this discussion is focused on the negatives to the financial markets, which the financial markets benefited massively from globalization. The average worker in the United States did not, and now the reversal will do the same. It's kind of the de-financialization of the US, which arguably is good for a social good, but is a very difficult environment for assets, just offsetting the incredibly great environment assets have had.
On asset bubbles and what it would take to close the gap between prices and actual productive capacity:
On liquidity:
On the so-called Fed put:
On the inflationary effects of the trend toward de-globalization:
On US-China decoupling:
On the social upsides to de-globalization and decline of neoliberalism:
What so mediocre tech companies having bad quarters are going to cause the market to bleed too now?
Jesus Christ
What so mediocre tech companies having bad quarters are going to cause the market to bleed too now?
Jesus Christ
Does the stock market ever go up? I keep hearing tale of this mythical 7% gains...
I'm all long term and not a trader, but seriously what the fuck.
The amount of manipulation that occurs in the stock market is insane. There's NO sensible reason that SNAP should be down 40% from that guidance update. That's too vague of information.
Because this I'm now having to buy more AMZN and GOOG 🤦🏿♂️
The S&P500 literally just returned 27% in 2021.Does the stock market ever go up? I keep hearing tale of this mythical 7% gains...