Government and Federal Reserve subsidies. FactSet like Wall Street uses a blend of non-GAAP and GAAP accounting to make stocks appear more attractive. On a variety of metrics most correlated with future returns the stock market is hugely overvalued, which is virtually impossible without tech being a huge contributing factor in overvaluation. All one has to do is examine MSFT trading at a PE 50% lower a few short years ago. Most of the tech mega caps paying very little taxes on their huge profits, turning around to buyback their stock to benefit insider billionaires.
I feel like going to that cabin for the next month. I have a ski trip planned for the end of March, who knows if the fvcking world will still be here at that time.
I am ok, and yet still feeling apocalyptic. With every rise in the USD and fall in the EUR etc, things get “better” for me...and yet I feel terrible.
Well, I just finished playing with some pottery with two 10-year-old girls. My faith in the future is restored, I have never been so thoroughly dominated in my entire life 😁
If Belarus enters the fray, the answer is probably double down. That would like mean more casualties, nastier weapons, and higher probability of miscalculations.
Interesting, thanks for that. This got me wondering, so I've dug back a bit further in time and across a wide range of events, most of which had some potential for global importance. Here are post-event 1-month to 5-year change on S&P 500:
The overall averages for those events versus all data 1928 to 2020 are:
1-month +1.9% (events) versus +0.6% (overall)
6-month +5.3% versus +3.8%
1-year +11.3% versus +7.7%
2-year +13.3% versus +15.4%
5-year +37.1% versus +43.4%
If you look closer you might be able to find different trends for the more globally important events from that list (I leave that with the reader to decide what was more or less important). I won't try to do that, I've got bacon to bring home today... Anyway, it looks like the onset of global conflict gives a short-term small bump (first year anyway) to the markets followed by a longer term relative weakness (2 to 5 years).
Interesting, thanks for that. This got me wondering, so I've dug back a bit further in time and across a wide range of events, most of which had some potential for global importance. Here are post-event 1-month to 5-year change on S&P 500:
The overall averages for those events versus all data 1928 to 2020 are:
1-month +1.9% (events) versus +0.6% (overall)
6-month +5.3% versus +3.8%
1-year +11.3% versus +7.7%
2-year +13.3% versus +15.4%
5-year +37.1% versus +43.4%
If you look closer you might be able to find different trends for the more globally important events from that list (I leave that with the reader to decide what was more or less important). I won't try to do that, I've got bacon to bring home today... Anyway, it looks like the onset of global conflict gives a short-term small bump (first year anyway) to the markets followed by a longer term relative weakness (2 to 5 years).
Is data from 1928-1940 even relevant today? I don't even know how stocks were traded back then. You had to call a broker to place a trade? How many people owned stocks back then compared to today? I imagine only the rich were able to afford stocks back in the day. There were no 401ks, personal computers/phones etc.