Stock Thread (5 Viewers)

[SFBayDuck]

Facebook also owns Instagram which I can assure you, the younger people are using.

Yes, this. Us Olds use FB, the millennials use IG, and WhatsApp is used by the rest of the world. There aren't many people in the world with a smartphone that aren't using one of their apps -almost 3 billion MAUs!

Doesn't mean Zuck can't screw it all up, of course.

 

[bcat01]

Facebook also owns Instagram which I can assure you, the younger people are using.

Yes, this. Us Olds use FB, the millennials use IG, and WhatsApp is used by the rest of the world. There aren't many people in the world with a smartphone that aren't using one of their apps -almost 3 billion MAUs!

Doesn't mean Zuck can't screw it all up, of course.

I have Facebook and my dog has Instagram.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I download so many pictures and video on there, it is ridiculous. I don't care if other people look at it or not- it is for me because I can go back for years and pull pics of the kids or video.

Man this is such an underrated part of that website. I get why people hate the company, I do too, but every day it is a virtual memory book. Sometimes I post stuff of my kid and I that i know nobody cares about but a year from now I’ll see it and laugh. Today I saw some funny non-important picture from 2019 and it made me laugh. It’s a time machine.

But are the younger people using it that way? Are they as involved as the Boomer/GenX folks like us? I don't think that they are. So I don't think they are replenishing their customer base. And the pivot to Meta may end up working but their older user base probably isn't very interested in that stuff and it's still years away. So even if they are great at "Meta" in ten years, it will likely be with a depleted user base that they will need to build back up based on Meta and not the picture/video time machine.
Tough sell for me.

FB monthly active users have grown every single quarter in their history except for one (and that one was a meager 200k decrease after the covid boom), so new users are coming from somewhere.

I would speculate that as people get older and start a family they care less about using Snapchat to send out booty calls that are automatically deleted in 24 hours and more about sharing family stuff, furthering their career through groups of people with similar professions/goals, selling stuff on the marketplace, etc. But that's just speculation I don't really know.

I use FB groups a ton for my businesses. And those groups are constantly growing. And those are exactly the kind of people that have the money and desire to spend on ad clicks.

Not saying you are wrong.... but how many of those are fake profiles? There are a TON of these. Again, it goes to the massive problem that they have in terms of business of spam. Bots or off shore or whatever it is they have substantial numbers on FB

Yeah I have no idea, and I don't know if their numbers somehow try to account for that. I guess the good news would be the revenue chart and the MAUs chart look very similar, which implies that there is some merit to the MAU numbers. Because if it were just bots, then revenue probably wouldn't have grown alongside of it since obviously the bots aren't spending any money.

 

[humpback]

Facebook down almost 75% from its highs..

Facebook is only a 3x now from its IPO. The value today goes back to October 2015.

And revenue is up 27x over that same time period.

ETA: "Same time period" being since IPO.

Now do their expenses.

I know I'm beating a dead horse in here, but the argument that something is cheap merely because it used to trade higher isn't very compelling at all. For starters, this is a very different company now than it was way back then, but more generally, you could make a very compelling case that many of these names never should have traded where they did. You can make an even more compelling case that the macro environment is substantially worse now than it was then, so even if anything close to those prices may have been justified in the past they no longer are.

Finally, when did 3X over ~10 years (more like ~4X from where it settled after the overpriced IPO) become terrible? It really seems like people don't realize just how unusually great the post financial crisis period had been for equities. Like once in a lifetime kind of great.

This doesn't mean that any particular stock or the market in general isn't going to go back to the moon, but I don't think most people fully appreciate this "golden era" that we just experienced. If you pull up the charts and cover up the parabolic peaks, I think most would be very happy with where we are. I'd certainly sign up right now for a similar return over the next decade, even after this massive re-pricing.

Their expenses really only took off in the last couple of quarters with the metaverse investments. EPS has skyrocketed even faster than revenue up until the last couple quarters. I'm not too worried about that. Either the Metaverse stuff will pay off and then, hey, great. Or it won't and they'll abandon it (like Google does with some huge investment every couple quarters) and go back to printing money the old fashioned way.

As to whether 3x over 10 years is a lot or not. In a vacuum? Sure. For a company that went from a recent IPO that people doubted could properly monetize their product to the 9th most profitable company in the world over that stretch? It's really not that much.

AMZN even after its recent hit over that same stretch has increased revenue by 8x and the stock price is up 1000%. Meta increased rev by 27x and stock price is up 300% after the latest drubbing. EPS of Meta went from negative all the way up to $3.9/share a few quarters ago. Back down now since the metaverse spending but again, from a fledgling IPO with hope to one of the top 10 most profitable companies in the world for that 300% gain.

Well those quarters count obviously (much more relevant than ones from several years ago), and the stock price really only cratered in the last couple of quarters as well.

I still don't think you are seeing my point- the stock was wildly overvalued at the IPO so any comparison to that time period needs to account for that. Some of that overvaluation was warranted based on future prospects, but you can't expect to reap the rewards again when it was built in prior- It needed to have massive growth in order to justify the lofty valuation it began with. That's the challenge with valuations in tech, so much of it is based on what's hopefully coming in the future, and a lot of that growth you're already paying for in advance.

Comparing it to other stocks isn't very compelling either. There's a lot more that goes into it besides revenue growth, but for the comparison to even be fair you have to assume both companies were similarly valued at the time. FB's P/S at IPO was over 15, Amazon's at that same time was under 2, so they weren't starting from anywhere near the same place.

I'm always hesitant to use specific names because people tend to lock onto them, so I want to be clear that I'm not saying Meta is overvalued and/or AMZN is not. Mostly just trying to point out that there are a number of things that factor into stock price, and while it's often hard to make an apples to apples comparison, it's important to at least try to account for those factors.

 

[McBokonon]

After all that, I'm now UP on my AMZN gamble due to the shares I purchased at 89 or so after hours yesterday.

Make no mistake - I'm ready to be hurt again.

 

[SFBayDuck]

After all that, I'm now UP on my AMZN gamble due to the shares I purchased at 89 or so after hours yesterday.

Make no mistake - I'm ready to be hurt again.

Same, I'm up 11% on that 1/2 position I took after hours, considering booking the quick win and looking for a lower price point ($95ish?) to re-enter. Which means I'm probably outsmarting myself since I'm a big dummy.

 

[Capella]

Yea that $90 price for Amazon yesterday was really tasty. Glad I jumped on that. Extremely rare W this year.

 

[humpback]

Facebook down almost 75% from its highs..

Facebook is only a 3x now from its IPO. The value today goes back to October 2015.

And revenue is up 27x over that same time period.

ETA: "Same time period" being since IPO.

Now do their expenses.

I know I'm beating a dead horse in here, but the argument that something is cheap merely because it used to trade higher isn't very compelling at all. For starters, this is a very different company now than it was way back then, but more generally, you could make a very compelling case that many of these names never should have traded where they did. You can make an even more compelling case that the macro environment is substantially worse now than it was then, so even if anything close to those prices may have been justified in the past they no longer are.

Finally, when did 3X over ~10 years (more like ~4X from where it settled after the overpriced IPO) become terrible? It really seems like people don't realize just how unusually great the post financial crisis period had been for equities. Like once in a lifetime kind of great.

This doesn't mean that any particular stock or the market in general isn't going to go back to the moon, but I don't think most people fully appreciate this "golden era" that we just experienced. If you pull up the charts and cover up the parabolic peaks, I think most would be very happy with where we are. I'd certainly sign up right now for a similar return over the next decade, even after this massive re-pricing.

You will probably see a similar return over the next 20 years.

1994-2007 was also a fantastic run. As good as this one in fact.

Bull markets end like it did this year and then they start again like this will….most likely heading into 2024.

Buy high quality, cash flow positive and good dividend paying companies sprinkled in with some good large/mega cap growth and fixed income is becoming highly attractive again.

It’s all cyclical.

That period was no where near as good as this one was.

Obviously there will be another bull market in the future, but are you saying the next 20 years will probably be similar to the run we just had? If so, while I hope you're right, it seems extremely unlikely. The loosest monetary policies of all time fueling the longest bull market of all time aren't cyclical.

 

[Todem]

Facebook down almost 75% from its highs..

Facebook is only a 3x now from its IPO. The value today goes back to October 2015.

And revenue is up 27x over that same time period.

ETA: "Same time period" being since IPO.

Now do their expenses.

I know I'm beating a dead horse in here, but the argument that something is cheap merely because it used to trade higher isn't very compelling at all. For starters, this is a very different company now than it was way back then, but more generally, you could make a very compelling case that many of these names never should have traded where they did. You can make an even more compelling case that the macro environment is substantially worse now than it was then, so even if anything close to those prices may have been justified in the past they no longer are.

Finally, when did 3X over ~10 years (more like ~4X from where it settled after the overpriced IPO) become terrible? It really seems like people don't realize just how unusually great the post financial crisis period had been for equities. Like once in a lifetime kind of great.

This doesn't mean that any particular stock or the market in general isn't going to go back to the moon, but I don't think most people fully appreciate this "golden era" that we just experienced. If you pull up the charts and cover up the parabolic peaks, I think most would be very happy with where we are. I'd certainly sign up right now for a similar return over the next decade, even after this massive re-pricing.

You will probably see a similar return over the next 20 years.

1994-2007 was also a fantastic run. As good as this one in fact.

Bull markets end like it did this year and then they start again like this will….most likely heading into 2024.

Buy high quality, cash flow positive and good dividend paying companies sprinkled in with some good large/mega cap growth and fixed income is becoming highly attractive again.

It’s all cyclical.

That period was no where near as good as this one was.

Obviously there will be another bull market in the future, but are you saying the next 20 years will probably be similar to the run we just had? If so, while I hope you're right, it seems extremely unlikely. The loosest monetary policies of all time fueling the longest bull market of all time aren't cyclical.

Easy come easy go.

I don’t look to hit homeruns. My returns from 1994-2007 were as good on average as 2008-2022.

For some maybe it was better….but the collapse in high multiple stocks has been staggering and plenty of people are crushed right now who had no clue what they were doing.

And yes it’s all cyclical. All of it. While things may be different in circumstances…..bulls and bears like the economy is cyclical. And yes, who says the next 20 years can’t be as good? Who knows what the future holds?

As far as monetary policy….we will have easing coming in 2024. Not to zero….but they will cut again at some point when all this is behind us.

Rinse and repeat.

 

[KGB]

Twitter going private. I bet he goes public again $

 

[skol asylum]

Anybody think the S&P is going anywhere but up at this point? Irritated that I listened to my Fidelity newsletter advisor dude and pulled most of my money out right at the end of September thinking we had a ways to go yet based on upcoming additional rate hikes and corresponding market reactions. Missed out on almost the entire October run up.

 

[kevzilla]

I had a Kevin Hart-like problem of moving money between accounts, so I didn't catch the dip on AMZN. really. Still lowered my cost basis by 20%. I should cut bait on QS too, although the stump of capital I would be sparing may not be worth it.

 

[SFBayDuck]

I had a Kevin Hart-like problem of moving money between accounts, so I didn't catch the dip on AMZN. really. Still lowered my cost basis by 20%. I should cut bait on QS too, although the stump of capital I would be sparing may not be worth it.

@Todem , you still holding on QS and BLDP?

 

[Todem]

I had a Kevin Hart-like problem of moving money between accounts, so I didn't catch the dip on AMZN. really. Still lowered my cost basis by 20%. I should cut bait on QS too, although the stump of capital I would be sparing may not be worth it.

@Todem , you still holding on QS and BLDP?

We are….lotto tickets basically.

 

[KGB]

So, Here me out...

AAPL is at about $150 / share today.

I'm not an investor, im a gambler. But I love Apple.

Its a no brainer at this price. I think they either get into crypto, or an apple car. Either way, they become the biggest company in the world. either one. im sure they are smarter than I am, so they must.





Are they the biggest already?

 

[KGB]

So, Here me out...

AAPL is at about $150 / share today.

I'm not an investor, im a gambler. But I love Apple.

Its a no brainer at this price. I think they either get into crypto, or an apple car. Either way, they become the biggest company in the world. either one. im sure they are smarter than I am, so they must.





Are they the biggest already?

for whats its worth. i moved into crypto. but if apple gets into crypto, im all in on that mug

 

[McBokonon]

So, Here me out...

AAPL is at about $150 / share today.

I'm not an investor, im a gambler. But I love Apple.

Its a no brainer at this price. I think they either get into crypto, or an apple car. Either way, they become the biggest company in the world. either one. im sure they are smarter than I am, so they must.





Are they the biggest already?

Don’t own it so haven’t kept up with conference calls or anything, but I’ve seen plausible speculation that the current CarPlay might be further developed into a more robust car operating system overall, which has some real potential. As far as manufacturing the cars themselves or getting into crypto, I think both of those would be stupid for them to do outside of maybe letting them convert Apple Cash into crypto or something, but meh.

 

[JB Breakfast Club]

GME might want to get freaky on Halloween...

 

[McBokonon]

GME might want to get freaky on Halloween...

Looks like the meme stocks are marching today.

 

[humpback]

Facebook down almost 75% from its highs..

Facebook is only a 3x now from its IPO. The value today goes back to October 2015.

And revenue is up 27x over that same time period.

ETA: "Same time period" being since IPO.

Now do their expenses.

I know I'm beating a dead horse in here, but the argument that something is cheap merely because it used to trade higher isn't very compelling at all. For starters, this is a very different company now than it was way back then, but more generally, you could make a very compelling case that many of these names never should have traded where they did. You can make an even more compelling case that the macro environment is substantially worse now than it was then, so even if anything close to those prices may have been justified in the past they no longer are.

Finally, when did 3X over ~10 years (more like ~4X from where it settled after the overpriced IPO) become terrible? It really seems like people don't realize just how unusually great the post financial crisis period had been for equities. Like once in a lifetime kind of great.

This doesn't mean that any particular stock or the market in general isn't going to go back to the moon, but I don't think most people fully appreciate this "golden era" that we just experienced. If you pull up the charts and cover up the parabolic peaks, I think most would be very happy with where we are. I'd certainly sign up right now for a similar return over the next decade, even after this massive re-pricing.

You will probably see a similar return over the next 20 years.

1994-2007 was also a fantastic run. As good as this one in fact.

Bull markets end like it did this year and then they start again like this will….most likely heading into 2024.

Buy high quality, cash flow positive and good dividend paying companies sprinkled in with some good large/mega cap growth and fixed income is becoming highly attractive again.

It’s all cyclical.

That period was no where near as good as this one was.

Obviously there will be another bull market in the future, but are you saying the next 20 years will probably be similar to the run we just had? If so, while I hope you're right, it seems extremely unlikely. The loosest monetary policies of all time fueling the longest bull market of all time aren't cyclical.

Easy come easy go.

I don’t look to hit homeruns. My returns from 1994-2007 were as good on average as 2009-2021.

For some maybe it was better….but the collapse in high multiple stocks has been staggering and plenty of people are crushed right now who had no clue what they were doing.

And yes it’s all cyclical. All of it. While things may be different in circumstances…..bulls and bears like the economy is cyclical. And yes who says the next 20 years can’t be as good? Who who knows what the future holds.

As far as monetary policy….we will have easing coming in 2024. Not to zero….but they will cut again at some point when all this is behind us.

Rinse and repeat.

With all due respect, your returns are completely irrelevant here- there are people who cleaned up during the first 3 quarters of this year, but that doesn't make it a great environment for investors. The fact of the matter is that the broader stock market (and thus the vast majority of investors) did significantly better from 2009-2021 than from 1994-2007. Like, multiples better. Has nothing to do with hitting homeruns either, simple indexing blew it out of the water.

Everything is cyclical? Uh, okay, but all cycles are not the same, that's what we're discussing. Considering we had the most accommodative policies in history, not only in the US but globally, which fueled the longest bull market in history, it stands to reason that the next "cycle" won't have the same results without the never before seen backdrop.

Obviously no one knows what the next 20 years holds, but just saying "who says it can't be as good" isn't very persuasive. Who says it can't be the worst 20 years in history?

Anyway, I've given my reasoning for why I wouldn't expect the next 20 years to be similar to this insane run, and I think it's a more compelling case than "who says it can't be?" lol.

 

[Todem]

Facebook down almost 75% from its highs..

Facebook is only a 3x now from its IPO. The value today goes back to October 2015.

And revenue is up 27x over that same time period.

ETA: "Same time period" being since IPO.

Now do their expenses.

I know I'm beating a dead horse in here, but the argument that something is cheap merely because it used to trade higher isn't very compelling at all. For starters, this is a very different company now than it was way back then, but more generally, you could make a very compelling case that many of these names never should have traded where they did. You can make an even more compelling case that the macro environment is substantially worse now than it was then, so even if anything close to those prices may have been justified in the past they no longer are.

Finally, when did 3X over ~10 years (more like ~4X from where it settled after the overpriced IPO) become terrible? It really seems like people don't realize just how unusually great the post financial crisis period had been for equities. Like once in a lifetime kind of great.

This doesn't mean that any particular stock or the market in general isn't going to go back to the moon, but I don't think most people fully appreciate this "golden era" that we just experienced. If you pull up the charts and cover up the parabolic peaks, I think most would be very happy with where we are. I'd certainly sign up right now for a similar return over the next decade, even after this massive re-pricing.

You will probably see a similar return over the next 20 years.

1994-2007 was also a fantastic run. As good as this one in fact.

Bull markets end like it did this year and then they start again like this will….most likely heading into 2024.

Buy high quality, cash flow positive and good dividend paying companies sprinkled in with some good large/mega cap growth and fixed income is becoming highly attractive again.

It’s all cyclical.

That period was no where near as good as this one was.

Obviously there will be another bull market in the future, but are you saying the next 20 years will probably be similar to the run we just had? If so, while I hope you're right, it seems extremely unlikely. The loosest monetary policies of all time fueling the longest bull market of all time aren't cyclical.

Easy come easy go.

I don’t look to hit homeruns. My returns from 1994-2007 were as good on average as 2009-2021.

For some maybe it was better….but the collapse in high multiple stocks has been staggering and plenty of people are crushed right now who had no clue what they were doing.

And yes it’s all cyclical. All of it. While things may be different in circumstances…..bulls and bears like the economy is cyclical. And yes who says the next 20 years can’t be as good? Who who knows what the future holds.

As far as monetary policy….we will have easing coming in 2024. Not to zero….but they will cut again at some point when all this is behind us.

Rinse and repeat.

With all due respect, your returns are completely irrelevant here- there are people who cleaned up during the first 3 quarters of this year, but that doesn't make it a great environment for investors. The fact of the matter is that the broader stock market (and thus the vast majority of investors) did significantly better from 2009-2021 than from 1994-2007. Like, multiples better. Has nothing to do with hitting homeruns either, simple indexing blew it out of the water.

Everything is cyclical? Uh, okay, but all cycles are not the same, that's what we're discussing. Considering we had the most accommodative policies in history, not only in the US but globally, which fueled the longest bull market in history, it stands to reason that the next "cycle" won't have the same results without the never before seen backdrop.

Obviously no one knows what the next 20 years holds, but just saying "who says it can't be as good" isn't very persuasive. Who says it can't be the worst 20 years in history?

Anyway, I've given my reasoning for why I wouldn't expect the next 20 years to be similar to this insane run, and I think it's a more compelling case than "who says it can't be?" lol.

1994 thru 2007
Avg annual return of the S&P 500 = 12%

This includes the Russian meltdown of 1998, 9/11 and the tech bubble bursting in 2002.

2008 thru October 2022 AVG annual return of the S&P 500 11.42%

This includes the Great Recession, the Greece meltdown, taper tantrum and Fed pivot of 2018.

I will give you November and December of this year that the S&P will recover some more.

But in not so many words…..piss off.

I know exactly what the markets have been doing since 1987 when I first invested my own money at 17 years of age. And have been ever since.

And the only returns that do matter are those of your own. No body cares about my returns? All we do is talk about each other's returns in here.

So once again my returns….and by that matter the returns of the S&P 500 that you said you can index between 1994-2007 were better than the past 14 years of the most accommodating monetary policy in our history.

The markets are cyclical. Returns are cyclical…..and I know my business.
Carry on.


1994 - 1.32
1995 - 37.58
1996 - 22.96
1997 - 33.36
1998 - 28.58
1999 - 21.04
2000 - (9.10)
2001 - (11.89)
2002 - (22.10)
2003 - 28.68
2004 - 10.88
2005 - 4.91
2006 - 15.79
2007 - 5.49

AVG Annual 12% (rounded up from 11.96)

2008 - (37.00)
2009 - 26.46
2010 - 15.06
2011 - 2.11
2012 - 16.00
2013 - 32.39
2014 - 13.69
2015 - 1.38
2016 - 11.96
2017 - 21.83
2018 - (4.38)
2019 - 31.49
2020 - 28.71
2021 - 28.71
2022 - (17.09)

Avg Annual = 11.42%

Blows them away......really? Get your facts straight.

I edited my post as well that you quoted.....let’s include 2008 in the equation....because you know it did happen and is part of the equation. Taking all that into consideration......1994 thru 2007 was just as good as 2008 thru 2022.

Facts for people who invested wisely, never panic, never try to time the market and don’t look to hit homers with every single investment.

Do you know what that also proves? And what I already have known......you don’t need accommodative policy for the markets to work. 1994 thru 2007 proves that. And don’t forget the Fed cut rates heavy in 2002, 2003 and 2004 and started raising them again in 2005 I believe. So while we have been low for longer.....people should have the utmost confidence that the stock market will still provide the very best opportunity at good returns over a 10,15 and 20 year time horizon regardless of what the Fed does.

CYCLICAL!!

 

[humpback]

Facebook down almost 75% from its highs..

Facebook is only a 3x now from its IPO. The value today goes back to October 2015.

And revenue is up 27x over that same time period.

ETA: "Same time period" being since IPO.

Now do their expenses.

I know I'm beating a dead horse in here, but the argument that something is cheap merely because it used to trade higher isn't very compelling at all. For starters, this is a very different company now than it was way back then, but more generally, you could make a very compelling case that many of these names never should have traded where they did. You can make an even more compelling case that the macro environment is substantially worse now than it was then, so even if anything close to those prices may have been justified in the past they no longer are.

Finally, when did 3X over ~10 years (more like ~4X from where it settled after the overpriced IPO) become terrible? It really seems like people don't realize just how unusually great the post financial crisis period had been for equities. Like once in a lifetime kind of great.

This doesn't mean that any particular stock or the market in general isn't going to go back to the moon, but I don't think most people fully appreciate this "golden era" that we just experienced. If you pull up the charts and cover up the parabolic peaks, I think most would be very happy with where we are. I'd certainly sign up right now for a similar return over the next decade, even after this massive re-pricing.

You will probably see a similar return over the next 20 years.

1994-2007 was also a fantastic run. As good as this one in fact.

Bull markets end like it did this year and then they start again like this will….most likely heading into 2024.

Buy high quality, cash flow positive and good dividend paying companies sprinkled in with some good large/mega cap growth and fixed income is becoming highly attractive again.

It’s all cyclical.

That period was no where near as good as this one was.

Obviously there will be another bull market in the future, but are you saying the next 20 years will probably be similar to the run we just had? If so, while I hope you're right, it seems extremely unlikely. The loosest monetary policies of all time fueling the longest bull market of all time aren't cyclical.

Easy come easy go.

I don’t look to hit homeruns. My returns from 1994-2007 were as good on average as 2009-2021.

For some maybe it was better….but the collapse in high multiple stocks has been staggering and plenty of people are crushed right now who had no clue what they were doing.

And yes it’s all cyclical. All of it. While things may be different in circumstances…..bulls and bears like the economy is cyclical. And yes who says the next 20 years can’t be as good? Who who knows what the future holds.

As far as monetary policy….we will have easing coming in 2024. Not to zero….but they will cut again at some point when all this is behind us.

Rinse and repeat.

With all due respect, your returns are completely irrelevant here- there are people who cleaned up during the first 3 quarters of this year, but that doesn't make it a great environment for investors. The fact of the matter is that the broader stock market (and thus the vast majority of investors) did significantly better from 2009-2021 than from 1994-2007. Like, multiples better. Has nothing to do with hitting homeruns either, simple indexing blew it out of the water.

Everything is cyclical? Uh, okay, but all cycles are not the same, that's what we're discussing. Considering we had the most accommodative policies in history, not only in the US but globally, which fueled the longest bull market in history, it stands to reason that the next "cycle" won't have the same results without the never before seen backdrop.

Obviously no one knows what the next 20 years holds, but just saying "who says it can't be as good" isn't very persuasive. Who says it can't be the worst 20 years in history?

Anyway, I've given my reasoning for why I wouldn't expect the next 20 years to be similar to this insane run, and I think it's a more compelling case than "who says it can't be?" lol.

1994 thru 2007
Avg annual return of the S&P 500 = 12%

This includes the Russian meltdown of 1998, 9/11 and the tech bubble bursting in 2002.

2008 thru October 2022 AVG annual return of the S&P 500 11.42%

This includes the Great Recession, the Greece meltdown, taper tantrum and Fed pivot of 2018.

I will give you November and December of this year that the S&P will recover some more.

But in not so many words…..piss off.

I know exactly what the markets have been doing since 1987 when I first invested my own money at 17 years of age. And have been ever since.

And the only returns that do matter are those of your own. No body cares about my returns? All we do is talk about each other's returns in here.

So once again my returns….and by that matter the returns of the S&P 500 that you said you can index between 1994-2007 were better than the past 14 years of the most accommodating monetary policy in our history.

The markets are cyclical. Returns are cyclical…..and I know my business.
Carry on.


1994 - 1.32
1995 - 37.58
1996 - 22.96
1997 - 33.36
1998 - 28.58
1999 - 21.04
2000 - (9.10)
2001 - (11.89)
2002 - (22.10)
2003 - 28.68
2004 - 10.88
2005 - 4.91
2006 - 15.79
2007 - 5.49

AVG Annual 12% (rounded up from 11.96)

2008 - (37.00)
2009 - 26.46
2010 - 15.06
2011 - 2.11
2012 - 16.00
2013 - 32.39
2014 - 13.69
2015 - 1.38
2016 - 11.96
2017 - 21.83
2018 - (4.38)
2019 - 31.49
2020 - 28.71
2021 - 28.71
2022 - (17.09)

Avg Annual = 11.42%

Blows them away......really? Get your facts straight.

I edited my post as well that you quoted.....let’s include 2008 in the equation....because you know it did happen and is part of the equation. Taking all that into consideration......1994 thru 2007 was just as good as 2008 thru 2022.

Facts for people who invested wisely, never panic, never try to time the market and don’t look to hit homers with every single investment.

Do you know what that also proves? And what I already have known......you don’t need accommodative policy for the markets to work. 1994 thru 2007 proves that. And don’t forget the Fed cut rates heavy in 2002, 2003 and 2004 and started raising them again in 2005 I believe. So while we have been low for longer.....people should have the utmost confidence that the stock market will still provide the very best opportunity at good returns over a 10,15 and 20 year time horizon regardless of what the Fed does.

CYCLICAL!!

You added 2 terrible years to try and balance it out, and I'm supposed to get my facts straight. Why don't we add 2008 to your period and see how it looks?

It's cyclical, and why can't it? Sage advice there.

Piss off eh? Stay classy.

 

[Todem]

Facebook down almost 75% from its highs..

Facebook is only a 3x now from its IPO. The value today goes back to October 2015.

And revenue is up 27x over that same time period.

ETA: "Same time period" being since IPO.

Now do their expenses.

I know I'm beating a dead horse in here, but the argument that something is cheap merely because it used to trade higher isn't very compelling at all. For starters, this is a very different company now than it was way back then, but more generally, you could make a very compelling case that many of these names never should have traded where they did. You can make an even more compelling case that the macro environment is substantially worse now than it was then, so even if anything close to those prices may have been justified in the past they no longer are.

Finally, when did 3X over ~10 years (more like ~4X from where it settled after the overpriced IPO) become terrible? It really seems like people don't realize just how unusually great the post financial crisis period had been for equities. Like once in a lifetime kind of great.

This doesn't mean that any particular stock or the market in general isn't going to go back to the moon, but I don't think most people fully appreciate this "golden era" that we just experienced. If you pull up the charts and cover up the parabolic peaks, I think most would be very happy with where we are. I'd certainly sign up right now for a similar return over the next decade, even after this massive re-pricing.

You will probably see a similar return over the next 20 years.

1994-2007 was also a fantastic run. As good as this one in fact.

Bull markets end like it did this year and then they start again like this will….most likely heading into 2024.

Buy high quality, cash flow positive and good dividend paying companies sprinkled in with some good large/mega cap growth and fixed income is becoming highly attractive again.

It’s all cyclical.

That period was no where near as good as this one was.

Obviously there will be another bull market in the future, but are you saying the next 20 years will probably be similar to the run we just had? If so, while I hope you're right, it seems extremely unlikely. The loosest monetary policies of all time fueling the longest bull market of all time aren't cyclical.

Easy come easy go.

I don’t look to hit homeruns. My returns from 1994-2007 were as good on average as 2009-2021.

For some maybe it was better….but the collapse in high multiple stocks has been staggering and plenty of people are crushed right now who had no clue what they were doing.

And yes it’s all cyclical. All of it. While things may be different in circumstances…..bulls and bears like the economy is cyclical. And yes who says the next 20 years can’t be as good? Who who knows what the future holds.

As far as monetary policy….we will have easing coming in 2024. Not to zero….but they will cut again at some point when all this is behind us.

Rinse and repeat.

With all due respect, your returns are completely irrelevant here- there are people who cleaned up during the first 3 quarters of this year, but that doesn't make it a great environment for investors. The fact of the matter is that the broader stock market (and thus the vast majority of investors) did significantly better from 2009-2021 than from 1994-2007. Like, multiples better. Has nothing to do with hitting homeruns either, simple indexing blew it out of the water.

Everything is cyclical? Uh, okay, but all cycles are not the same, that's what we're discussing. Considering we had the most accommodative policies in history, not only in the US but globally, which fueled the longest bull market in history, it stands to reason that the next "cycle" won't have the same results without the never before seen backdrop.

Obviously no one knows what the next 20 years holds, but just saying "who says it can't be as good" isn't very persuasive. Who says it can't be the worst 20 years in history?

Anyway, I've given my reasoning for why I wouldn't expect the next 20 years to be similar to this insane run, and I think it's a more compelling case than "who says it can't be?" lol.

1994 thru 2007
Avg annual return of the S&P 500 = 12%

This includes the Russian meltdown of 1998, 9/11 and the tech bubble bursting in 2002.

2008 thru October 2022 AVG annual return of the S&P 500 11.42%

This includes the Great Recession, the Greece meltdown, taper tantrum and Fed pivot of 2018.

I will give you November and December of this year that the S&P will recover some more.

But in not so many words…..piss off.

I know exactly what the markets have been doing since 1987 when I first invested my own money at 17 years of age. And have been ever since.

And the only returns that do matter are those of your own. No body cares about my returns? All we do is talk about each other's returns in here.

So once again my returns….and by that matter the returns of the S&P 500 that you said you can index between 1994-2007 were better than the past 14 years of the most accommodating monetary policy in our history.

The markets are cyclical. Returns are cyclical…..and I know my business.
Carry on.


1994 - 1.32
1995 - 37.58
1996 - 22.96
1997 - 33.36
1998 - 28.58
1999 - 21.04
2000 - (9.10)
2001 - (11.89)
2002 - (22.10)
2003 - 28.68
2004 - 10.88
2005 - 4.91
2006 - 15.79
2007 - 5.49

AVG Annual 12% (rounded up from 11.96)

2008 - (37.00)
2009 - 26.46
2010 - 15.06
2011 - 2.11
2012 - 16.00
2013 - 32.39
2014 - 13.69
2015 - 1.38
2016 - 11.96
2017 - 21.83
2018 - (4.38)
2019 - 31.49
2020 - 28.71
2021 - 28.71
2022 - (17.09)

Avg Annual = 11.42%

Blows them away......really? Get your facts straight.

I edited my post as well that you quoted.....let’s include 2008 in the equation....because you know it did happen and is part of the equation. Taking all that into consideration......1994 thru 2007 was just as good as 2008 thru 2022.

Facts for people who invested wisely, never panic, never try to time the market and don’t look to hit homers with every single investment.

Do you know what that also proves? And what I already have known......you don’t need accommodative policy for the markets to work. 1994 thru 2007 proves that. And don’t forget the Fed cut rates heavy in 2002, 2003 and 2004 and started raising them again in 2005 I believe. So while we have been low for longer.....people should have the utmost confidence that the stock market will still provide the very best opportunity at good returns over a 10,15 and 20 year time horizon regardless of what the Fed does.

CYCLICAL!!

You added 2 terrible years to try and balance it out, and I'm supposed to get my facts straight. Why don't we add 2008 to your period and see how it looks?

It's cyclical, and why can't it? Sage advice there.

Piss off eh? Stay classy.

Again……I have three straight negative years that surpasses 2008.

You just keep banging whatever drum it is yer banging.

Good luck.

 

[Bogart]

DWAC meeting on Nov. 3 regarding the potential extension for the potential merger. Someone online said the math works out where the best stock price for the PIPE investors is around $16.50/share. Ironically, for the last month, the price has landed between $16-18/share.

Liquidation could happen on the 3rd, but I'm guessing that Patrick Orlando and friends will just put up another $3 million to get past the election and the new year.

 

[Sand]

2020 - 28.71
2021 - 28.71

This is what stands out. How in the world did you get a precision double tap here?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

So I was digging into TSLA just for fun, since I still have a small handful of it left that I kept as a trophy from a swing trade I did with it last year.

I hear all the time about how it's worth all the other car makers combined, it couldn't justify that valuation even if ever car sold was a Tesla, etc. But holy cow their profit margins are INSANE. They only sell 13% as many cars as Toyota but they generate 80% of the total profits of Toyota.

They have generated $3+ billion in net profits in 2 of the last 3 quarters. Ford has generated $3+ billion in net profits in only 2 quarters over the last TEN YEARS.

And they're doing that while growing like a weed.

Are they still getting most of that from government credits? It seems like that's a much smaller percentage of the revenue at this point but it's hard to get hard numbers on 2022 credits.

 

[stbugs]

So I was digging into TSLA just for fun, since I still have a small handful of it left that I kept as a trophy from a swing trade I did with it last year.

I hear all the time about how it's worth all the other car makers combined, it couldn't justify that valuation even if ever car sold was a Tesla, etc. But holy cow their profit margins are INSANE. They only sell 13% as many cars as Toyota but they generate 80% of the total profits of Toyota.

They have generated $3+ billion in net profits in 2 of the last 3 quarters. Ford has generated $3+ billion in net profits in only 2 quarters over the last TEN YEARS.

And they're doing that while growing like a weed.

Are they still getting most of that from government credits? It seems like that's a much smaller percentage of the revenue at this point but it's hard to get hard numbers on 2022 credits.

I think the biggest issue for Tesla is the competition. I’ll be honest, their cars don’t really make me feel like man they’re beautiful. That cybertruck is legitimately ghastly. They’ve got a cult like following in some cases but I think we are a couple years from having a 1000 mile battery (and beyond) which almost negates the super charger network except for the longest road trips. Once EVs spread enough, which they will like LCD TVs when everyone makes them, even the longest road trips won’t need super chargers because you can “fill up” at Aunt Marge’s.

I don’t think Tesla has been successful enough at expanding their footprint enough that they’ll have any type of moat. Maybe I’m wrong but outside of it being an EV, I’ve never said damn I want a Tesla based on looks. That margin might be something that works against them because other car makers will have a lot more room on EVs to lower prices and squeeze Tesla’s margins. Right now they really have no competition outside of China.

 

[McBokonon]

Tech Services Firm CDW Smashes First-Quarter Sales, Earnings Goals

The Lincolnshire, Ill.-based company earned an adjusted $2.20 a share on sales of $5.95 billion in the March quarter. Analysts polled by FactSet expected CDW earnings of $2.01 a share on sales of $5.67 billion. On a year-over-year basis, CDW earnings rose 27% while sales climbed 23%.

Darn, I know you are big on them. I’ve been thinking about adding them based on your comments but didn’t realize they had earnings. It’s been down 15% since the peak. I doubt it runs crazy just because of the overall market but I could use a few more less volatile companies.

CDW reported today, beat on earnings, slight miss on revenue. Doesn’t trade much in the premarket but it looks flat to down slightly so far. And they’re hiking their dividend 18%.

The Lincolnshire, Ill.-based company earned an adjusted $2.60 a share on sales of $6.22 billion in the September quarter. Analysts polled by FactSet expected CDW earnings of $2.52 a share on sales of $6.24 billion. On a year-over-year basis, CDW earnings rose 22% while sales climbed 17%.

They just keep trucking.

 

[stbugs]

Tech Services Firm CDW Smashes First-Quarter Sales, Earnings Goals

The Lincolnshire, Ill.-based company earned an adjusted $2.20 a share on sales of $5.95 billion in the March quarter. Analysts polled by FactSet expected CDW earnings of $2.01 a share on sales of $5.67 billion. On a year-over-year basis, CDW earnings rose 27% while sales climbed 23%.

Darn, I know you are big on them. I’ve been thinking about adding them based on your comments but didn’t realize they had earnings. It’s been down 15% since the peak. I doubt it runs crazy just because of the overall market but I could use a few more less volatile companies.

CDW reported today, beat on earnings, slight miss on revenue. Doesn’t trade much in the premarket but it looks flat to down slightly so far. And they’re hiking their dividend 18%.

The Lincolnshire, Ill.-based company earned an adjusted $2.60 a share on sales of $6.22 billion in the September quarter. Analysts polled by FactSet expected CDW earnings of $2.52 a share on sales of $6.24 billion. On a year-over-year basis, CDW earnings rose 22% while sales climbed 17%.

They just keep trucking.

Looks like they are down 4% pre-market. Did they forecast some caution. I’d think they might get caught in some budget concerns next year. I’ve seen some belt tightening and I don’t think they’ll be unscathed. I personally haven’t bought anything new in a while. I’ve got enough bounce back candidates lol.

 

[D-Day]

So I was digging into TSLA just for fun, since I still have a small handful of it left that I kept as a trophy from a swing trade I did with it last year.

I hear all the time about how it's worth all the other car makers combined, it couldn't justify that valuation even if ever car sold was a Tesla, etc. But holy cow their profit margins are INSANE. They only sell 13% as many cars as Toyota but they generate 80% of the total profits of Toyota.

They have generated $3+ billion in net profits in 2 of the last 3 quarters. Ford has generated $3+ billion in net profits in only 2 quarters over the last TEN YEARS.

And they're doing that while growing like a weed.

Are they still getting most of that from government credits? It seems like that's a much smaller percentage of the revenue at this point but it's hard to get hard numbers on 2022 credits.

I think the biggest issue for Tesla is the competition. I’ll be honest, their cars don’t really make me feel like man they’re beautiful. That cybertruck is legitimately ghastly. They’ve got a cult like following in some cases but I think we are a couple years from having a 1000 mile battery (and beyond) which almost negates the super charger network except for the longest road trips. Once EVs spread enough, which they will like LCD TVs when everyone makes them, even the longest road trips won’t need super chargers because you can “fill up” at Aunt Marge’s.

I don’t think Tesla has been successful enough at expanding their footprint enough that they’ll have any type of moat. Maybe I’m wrong but outside of it being an EV, I’ve never said damn I want a Tesla based on looks. That margin might be something that works against them because other car makers will have a lot more room on EVs to lower prices and squeeze Tesla’s margins. Right now they really have no competition outside of China.

I don't think we will see 1000 mile battery packs for cars for quite some time. Even if they could make them, it would be a waste of recourses based upon the average daily needs of vehicle owners. I would think that if battery capacity increases from ~400 miles to 800 miles, the car companies would just cut the pack size in half. Now if there was a strategy of keeping range around 300 miles, then producing and providing rental vehicles with 1000 mile range, that might be worthwhile.

As an investment, versus legacy auto makers (Ford, GM), there is no way their margins will be better than Tesla's. If they could, they would already be better with ICE vehicles. Tesla has the room to lower prices to increase demand if needed.

 

[McBokonon]

Tech Services Firm CDW Smashes First-Quarter Sales, Earnings Goals

The Lincolnshire, Ill.-based company earned an adjusted $2.20 a share on sales of $5.95 billion in the March quarter. Analysts polled by FactSet expected CDW earnings of $2.01 a share on sales of $5.67 billion. On a year-over-year basis, CDW earnings rose 27% while sales climbed 23%.

Darn, I know you are big on them. I’ve been thinking about adding them based on your comments but didn’t realize they had earnings. It’s been down 15% since the peak. I doubt it runs crazy just because of the overall market but I could use a few more less volatile companies.

CDW reported today, beat on earnings, slight miss on revenue. Doesn’t trade much in the premarket but it looks flat to down slightly so far. And they’re hiking their dividend 18%.

The Lincolnshire, Ill.-based company earned an adjusted $2.60 a share on sales of $6.22 billion in the September quarter. Analysts polled by FactSet expected CDW earnings of $2.52 a share on sales of $6.24 billion. On a year-over-year basis, CDW earnings rose 22% while sales climbed 17%.

They just keep trucking.

Looks like they are down 4% pre-market. Did they forecast some caution. I’d think they might get caught in some budget concerns next year. I’ve seen some belt tightening and I don’t think they’ll be unscathed. I personally haven’t bought anything new in a while. I’ve got enough bounce back candidates lol.

Haven’t read the transcript yet. Yeah, they’re not immune to macro pressures. Still, they clearly know how to make sure the earnings happen and are confident enough for the divvy hike. In 2020 they only raised it 2 cents because they’re prudent when they need to be.

They’re actually up around 5% over the last 6 months, clearly investors are selling PM to stop that runaway train.

 

[Todem]

2020 - 28.71
2021 - 28.71

This is what stands out. How in the world did you get a precision double tap here?

Whoops!!!!!

2020 - 16.26
2021 - 26.71

Which makes 2008-2022 (thru October) 10.88% Avg Annual compared to 1994 thru 2007 at 12% Avg Annual

Thanks for that catch. Fat thumbs.

October proved once again.......time in the market vs timing the market. Imagine you bailed in September (like many retail investors tend to do when things are very ugly) and missed the entire Dow Rally in October (the best October in the DOW since 1976). You can’t afford to miss those kinds of days, months etc in your long term investment strategy.

We have been saying we will have a strong rally here in 4th quarter. I still stand by that. It started last month and most likely will kick into high gear after the mid-terms. Today will be a Fed Speak day where the market will try in vain to decipher Powells press conference. If they get any whiff of a slowing down of the rate hikes......buckle up. If they don’t we may see a retrace of 3-5% to the downside.....then after the mid terms we buckle up in anticipation of a Red Wave in the congress and a 50/50 shot of either the Red Wave getting the senate back or the Democrats hanging on......either outcome the market will like IMO. SO short term tailwinds.....that have really not much to do with the macro environment. Who cares....what matters is, if this all lines up like I am anticipating, this will give long term investors a chance to tax harvest some losers at lesser losses, add to more defensive positions and also reposition into more fixed income again (we exited fixed income at the end of 2021 for the most part) as part of a more balanced portfolio heading into what will be a highly sideways 2023 for most of the year. My focus will be on dividend’s and overall portfolio yield.

I feel the next cyclical bull market will begin sometime in 4th quarter 2023. That is the projection. Also the Fed very well may start their interest rate pivot end of 2023 or 1st quarter 2024 and get target rates back down to the 2-2.5% range by years end 2024. After todays consensus .75 basis point hike (imagine if they only go .50 basis points today) they will be at a more restrictive interest rate environment. Which BTW.....markets did fine in that environment as 1994 thru 2007 proved (that was my main point). Too many retail investors have been lulled into believing without zero interest rates the stock market can’t work. Well stocks with no earnings or positive cashflow will have a much higher degree of difficulty working......but the master list (Large Cap core and value as well as growth ) will keep chugging along, recalibrate to the new monetary policy and we move forward for the next 10-15-20 years.

 

[humpback]

Facebook down almost 75% from its highs..

Facebook is only a 3x now from its IPO. The value today goes back to October 2015.

And revenue is up 27x over that same time period.

ETA: "Same time period" being since IPO.

Now do their expenses.

I know I'm beating a dead horse in here, but the argument that something is cheap merely because it used to trade higher isn't very compelling at all. For starters, this is a very different company now than it was way back then, but more generally, you could make a very compelling case that many of these names never should have traded where they did. You can make an even more compelling case that the macro environment is substantially worse now than it was then, so even if anything close to those prices may have been justified in the past they no longer are.

Finally, when did 3X over ~10 years (more like ~4X from where it settled after the overpriced IPO) become terrible? It really seems like people don't realize just how unusually great the post financial crisis period had been for equities. Like once in a lifetime kind of great.

This doesn't mean that any particular stock or the market in general isn't going to go back to the moon, but I don't think most people fully appreciate this "golden era" that we just experienced. If you pull up the charts and cover up the parabolic peaks, I think most would be very happy with where we are. I'd certainly sign up right now for a similar return over the next decade, even after this massive re-pricing.

You will probably see a similar return over the next 20 years.

1994-2007 was also a fantastic run. As good as this one in fact.

Bull markets end like it did this year and then they start again like this will….most likely heading into 2024.

Buy high quality, cash flow positive and good dividend paying companies sprinkled in with some good large/mega cap growth and fixed income is becoming highly attractive again.

It’s all cyclical.

That period was no where near as good as this one was.

Obviously there will be another bull market in the future, but are you saying the next 20 years will probably be similar to the run we just had? If so, while I hope you're right, it seems extremely unlikely. The loosest monetary policies of all time fueling the longest bull market of all time aren't cyclical.

Easy come easy go.

I don’t look to hit homeruns. My returns from 1994-2007 were as good on average as 2009-2021.

For some maybe it was better….but the collapse in high multiple stocks has been staggering and plenty of people are crushed right now who had no clue what they were doing.

And yes it’s all cyclical. All of it. While things may be different in circumstances…..bulls and bears like the economy is cyclical. And yes who says the next 20 years can’t be as good? Who who knows what the future holds.

As far as monetary policy….we will have easing coming in 2024. Not to zero….but they will cut again at some point when all this is behind us.

Rinse and repeat.

With all due respect, your returns are completely irrelevant here- there are people who cleaned up during the first 3 quarters of this year, but that doesn't make it a great environment for investors. The fact of the matter is that the broader stock market (and thus the vast majority of investors) did significantly better from 2009-2021 than from 1994-2007. Like, multiples better. Has nothing to do with hitting homeruns either, simple indexing blew it out of the water.

Everything is cyclical? Uh, okay, but all cycles are not the same, that's what we're discussing. Considering we had the most accommodative policies in history, not only in the US but globally, which fueled the longest bull market in history, it stands to reason that the next "cycle" won't have the same results without the never before seen backdrop.

Obviously no one knows what the next 20 years holds, but just saying "who says it can't be as good" isn't very persuasive. Who says it can't be the worst 20 years in history?

Anyway, I've given my reasoning for why I wouldn't expect the next 20 years to be similar to this insane run, and I think it's a more compelling case than "who says it can't be?" lol.

1994 thru 2007
Avg annual return of the S&P 500 = 12%

This includes the Russian meltdown of 1998, 9/11 and the tech bubble bursting in 2002.

2008 thru October 2022 AVG annual return of the S&P 500 11.42%

This includes the Great Recession, the Greece meltdown, taper tantrum and Fed pivot of 2018.

I will give you November and December of this year that the S&P will recover some more.

But in not so many words…..piss off.

I know exactly what the markets have been doing since 1987 when I first invested my own money at 17 years of age. And have been ever since.

And the only returns that do matter are those of your own. No body cares about my returns? All we do is talk about each other's returns in here.

So once again my returns….and by that matter the returns of the S&P 500 that you said you can index between 1994-2007 were better than the past 14 years of the most accommodating monetary policy in our history.

The markets are cyclical. Returns are cyclical…..and I know my business.
Carry on.


1994 - 1.32
1995 - 37.58
1996 - 22.96
1997 - 33.36
1998 - 28.58
1999 - 21.04
2000 - (9.10)
2001 - (11.89)
2002 - (22.10)
2003 - 28.68
2004 - 10.88
2005 - 4.91
2006 - 15.79
2007 - 5.49

AVG Annual 12% (rounded up from 11.96)

2008 - (37.00)
2009 - 26.46
2010 - 15.06
2011 - 2.11
2012 - 16.00
2013 - 32.39
2014 - 13.69
2015 - 1.38
2016 - 11.96
2017 - 21.83
2018 - (4.38)
2019 - 31.49
2020 - 28.71
2021 - 28.71
2022 - (17.09)

Avg Annual = 11.42%

Blows them away......really? Get your facts straight.

I edited my post as well that you quoted.....let’s include 2008 in the equation....because you know it did happen and is part of the equation. Taking all that into consideration......1994 thru 2007 was just as good as 2008 thru 2022.

Facts for people who invested wisely, never panic, never try to time the market and don’t look to hit homers with every single investment.

Do you know what that also proves? And what I already have known......you don’t need accommodative policy for the markets to work. 1994 thru 2007 proves that. And don’t forget the Fed cut rates heavy in 2002, 2003 and 2004 and started raising them again in 2005 I believe. So while we have been low for longer.....people should have the utmost confidence that the stock market will still provide the very best opportunity at good returns over a 10,15 and 20 year time horizon regardless of what the Fed does.

CYCLICAL!!

You added 2 terrible years to try and balance it out, and I'm supposed to get my facts straight. Why don't we add 2008 to your period and see how it looks?

It's cyclical, and why can't it? Sage advice there.

Piss off eh? Stay classy.

Again……I have three straight negative years that surpasses 2008.

You just keep banging whatever drum it is yer banging.

Good luck.

I'll try one more time in hopes you were just having a bad day.

Remember, this began with you replying to a post of mine where you said that another period was just as good as this one. So yes, the period YOU chose includes those 3 down years, that's because it's (parts of) 3 different cycles you picked. When you add them together they still don't come close to the one I'm talking about, and when you look at tech stocks (which many in here focus on) the difference is even more staggering. And no, our returns aren't relevant in this conversation, as you said the only thing that matters is your own returns, and the vast majority are going to be much more correlated to the broader stock market returns than any individual's. The indices should be the benchmark, not your or my returns.

You can't just add 2 terrible years in 2008 and 2022, those aren't part of the ZIRP/QE cycle (2008 led to those policies beginning and 2022 is primarily due to them ending/reversing). This really shouldn't be controversial, we just finished the longest bull market in history which coincided with the loosest monetary policies in history. Sure, there's a chance that's the new normal and we'll having even more negative real rates with even larger amounts of QE and money printing in the next cycle, but unprecedented things becoming routine, while not impossible, doesn't seem likely.

That doesn't mean the market isn't going to do fine or be the best place for your money especially in the long term, it very likely will. It just means it's probably not going to be as good as the 2009-2021 period was since that was abnormally good.

The larger points in my original post you quoted were that talking about stocks simply based on how far down from their highs they are isn't a very compelling way to value things, and even after the massive sell off many names have still done extremely well over the longer term. Yes, being down 75% from the (inflated) highs hurts, but still having a triple in ~10 years is pretty damn great. The ~10 bagger that it was isn't "normal" and really shouldn't be the expectation IMO.

Cheers.

 

[stbugs]

So I was digging into TSLA just for fun, since I still have a small handful of it left that I kept as a trophy from a swing trade I did with it last year.

I hear all the time about how it's worth all the other car makers combined, it couldn't justify that valuation even if ever car sold was a Tesla, etc. But holy cow their profit margins are INSANE. They only sell 13% as many cars as Toyota but they generate 80% of the total profits of Toyota.

They have generated $3+ billion in net profits in 2 of the last 3 quarters. Ford has generated $3+ billion in net profits in only 2 quarters over the last TEN YEARS.

And they're doing that while growing like a weed.

Are they still getting most of that from government credits? It seems like that's a much smaller percentage of the revenue at this point but it's hard to get hard numbers on 2022 credits.

I think the biggest issue for Tesla is the competition. I’ll be honest, their cars don’t really make me feel like man they’re beautiful. That cybertruck is legitimately ghastly. They’ve got a cult like following in some cases but I think we are a couple years from having a 1000 mile battery (and beyond) which almost negates the super charger network except for the longest road trips. Once EVs spread enough, which they will like LCD TVs when everyone makes them, even the longest road trips won’t need super chargers because you can “fill up” at Aunt Marge’s.

I don’t think Tesla has been successful enough at expanding their footprint enough that they’ll have any type of moat. Maybe I’m wrong but outside of it being an EV, I’ve never said damn I want a Tesla based on looks. That margin might be something that works against them because other car makers will have a lot more room on EVs to lower prices and squeeze Tesla’s margins. Right now they really have no competition outside of China.

I don't think we will see 1000 mile battery packs for cars for quite some time. Even if they could make them, it would be a waste of recourses based upon the average daily needs of vehicle owners. I would think that if battery capacity increases from ~400 miles to 800 miles, the car companies would just cut the pack size in half. Now if there was a strategy of keeping range around 300 miles, then producing and providing rental vehicles with 1000 mile range, that might be worthwhile.

As an investment, versus legacy auto makers (Ford, GM), there is no way their margins will be better than Tesla's. If they could, they would already be better with ICE vehicles. Tesla has the room to lower prices to increase demand if needed.

I disagree. Why would let’s say Ford not go to market with a 1000 mile battery if they have it? It’s a very large part of an EV’s buying decision and honestly, I think it would change the mass adoption. I live in Charlotte and a 1000 mile battery means I get to Orlando, Washington DC or University of Alabama/Nashville and back. That’s a game change for the masses.

Also, you do realize that making an ICE car isn’t the same as an EV, right? The margin difference isn’t because GM manufacturers their cars by hand. EVs simplify a ton of things and the manufacturing/parts needed is less. That’s the biggest reason for the margin difference. As we switch over to EVs, we’ll see auto manufacturers margins go up but longer term likely their sales numbers going down as EVs should last longer, especially if the number of accidents goes down too.

 

[Buckna]

So I was digging into TSLA just for fun, since I still have a small handful of it left that I kept as a trophy from a swing trade I did with it last year.

I hear all the time about how it's worth all the other car makers combined, it couldn't justify that valuation even if ever car sold was a Tesla, etc. But holy cow their profit margins are INSANE. They only sell 13% as many cars as Toyota but they generate 80% of the total profits of Toyota.

They have generated $3+ billion in net profits in 2 of the last 3 quarters. Ford has generated $3+ billion in net profits in only 2 quarters over the last TEN YEARS.

And they're doing that while growing like a weed.

Are they still getting most of that from government credits? It seems like that's a much smaller percentage of the revenue at this point but it's hard to get hard numbers on 2022 credits.

I think the biggest issue for Tesla is the competition. I’ll be honest, their cars don’t really make me feel like man they’re beautiful. That cybertruck is legitimately ghastly. They’ve got a cult like following in some cases but I think we are a couple years from having a 1000 mile battery (and beyond) which almost negates the super charger network except for the longest road trips. Once EVs spread enough, which they will like LCD TVs when everyone makes them, even the longest road trips won’t need super chargers because you can “fill up” at Aunt Marge’s.

I don’t think Tesla has been successful enough at expanding their footprint enough that they’ll have any type of moat. Maybe I’m wrong but outside of it being an EV, I’ve never said damn I want a Tesla based on looks. That margin might be something that works against them because other car makers will have a lot more room on EVs to lower prices and squeeze Tesla’s margins. Right now they really have no competition outside of China.

I don't think we will see 1000 mile battery packs for cars for quite some time. Even if they could make them, it would be a waste of recourses based upon the average daily needs of vehicle owners. I would think that if battery capacity increases from ~400 miles to 800 miles, the car companies would just cut the pack size in half. Now if there was a strategy of keeping range around 300 miles, then producing and providing rental vehicles with 1000 mile range, that might be worthwhile.

As an investment, versus legacy auto makers (Ford, GM), there is no way their margins will be better than Tesla's. If they could, they would already be better with ICE vehicles. Tesla has the room to lower prices to increase demand if needed.

I disagree. Why would let’s say Ford not go to market with a 1000 mile battery if they have it? It’s a very large part of an EV’s buying decision and honestly, I think it would change the mass adoption. I live in Charlotte and a 1000 mile battery means I get to Orlando, Washington DC or University of Alabama/Nashville and back. That’s a game change for the masses.

Also, you do realize that making an ICE car isn’t the same as an EV, right? The margin difference isn’t because GM manufacturers their cars by hand. EVs simplify a ton of things and the manufacturing/parts needed is less. That’s the biggest reason for the margin difference. As we switch over to EVs, we’ll see auto manufacturers margins go up but longer term likely their sales numbers going down as EVs should last longer, especially if the number of accidents goes down too.

I would guess the Fords, GM’s, etc. have a lot of legacy cost issues too. Obvious things like pension liabilities, higher union labor costs, older capital equipment and bloated bureaucracy as some examples off the top of my head. Plus they make a much larger variety of vehicles (maybe they all need to slim that down and focus more) which increases costs as well while Tesla has only 4 models total in production I believe? I can think of at least 10 or so different Toyota models just off the top of my head.

 

[ghostguy123]

Anyone buying more Amazon/Google? Or are these gonna drop another 20% first.

 

[ChiefD]

Anyone else having a rough day in the stock market?

 

[skol asylum]

I know my timing is probably exactly wrong but I couldn't stand watching the market go up anymore and wishing for a drop so I could re-enter in my 401k after going almost all cash right at the end of September and missing out on the October run up. Went 100% stock funds which will now drop another 10 percent or so making me wish I had waited before getting back in. Should have never made that move end of Sept. Buy high sell low.

 

[stbugs]

So I was digging into TSLA just for fun, since I still have a small handful of it left that I kept as a trophy from a swing trade I did with it last year.

I hear all the time about how it's worth all the other car makers combined, it couldn't justify that valuation even if ever car sold was a Tesla, etc. But holy cow their profit margins are INSANE. They only sell 13% as many cars as Toyota but they generate 80% of the total profits of Toyota.

They have generated $3+ billion in net profits in 2 of the last 3 quarters. Ford has generated $3+ billion in net profits in only 2 quarters over the last TEN YEARS.

And they're doing that while growing like a weed.

Are they still getting most of that from government credits? It seems like that's a much smaller percentage of the revenue at this point but it's hard to get hard numbers on 2022 credits.

I think the biggest issue for Tesla is the competition. I’ll be honest, their cars don’t really make me feel like man they’re beautiful. That cybertruck is legitimately ghastly. They’ve got a cult like following in some cases but I think we are a couple years from having a 1000 mile battery (and beyond) which almost negates the super charger network except for the longest road trips. Once EVs spread enough, which they will like LCD TVs when everyone makes them, even the longest road trips won’t need super chargers because you can “fill up” at Aunt Marge’s.

I don’t think Tesla has been successful enough at expanding their footprint enough that they’ll have any type of moat. Maybe I’m wrong but outside of it being an EV, I’ve never said damn I want a Tesla based on looks. That margin might be something that works against them because other car makers will have a lot more room on EVs to lower prices and squeeze Tesla’s margins. Right now they really have no competition outside of China.

I don't think we will see 1000 mile battery packs for cars for quite some time. Even if they could make them, it would be a waste of recourses based upon the average daily needs of vehicle owners. I would think that if battery capacity increases from ~400 miles to 800 miles, the car companies would just cut the pack size in half. Now if there was a strategy of keeping range around 300 miles, then producing and providing rental vehicles with 1000 mile range, that might be worthwhile.

As an investment, versus legacy auto makers (Ford, GM), there is no way their margins will be better than Tesla's. If they could, they would already be better with ICE vehicles. Tesla has the room to lower prices to increase demand if needed.

I disagree. Why would let’s say Ford not go to market with a 1000 mile battery if they have it? It’s a very large part of an EV’s buying decision and honestly, I think it would change the mass adoption. I live in Charlotte and a 1000 mile battery means I get to Orlando, Washington DC or University of Alabama/Nashville and back. That’s a game change for the masses.

Also, you do realize that making an ICE car isn’t the same as an EV, right? The margin difference isn’t because GM manufacturers their cars by hand. EVs simplify a ton of things and the manufacturing/parts needed is less. That’s the biggest reason for the margin difference. As we switch over to EVs, we’ll see auto manufacturers margins go up but longer term likely their sales numbers going down as EVs should last longer, especially if the number of accidents goes down too.

I would guess the Fords, GM’s, etc. have a lot of legacy cost issues too. Obvious things like pension liabilities, higher union labor costs, older capital equipment and bloated bureaucracy as some examples off the top of my head. Plus they make a much larger variety of vehicles (maybe they all need to slim that down and focus more) which increases costs as well while Tesla has only 4 models total in production I believe? I can think of at least 10 or so different Toyota models just off the top of my head.

Agree on all of that and I’ll bet that Tesla will start running into some of those issues, but the biggest pet of the margin is the fact that the gross profit per car is better because of the slimmed down manufacturing. Just think about the frunk. In an ICE car that’s full of car parts and labor that doesn’t exist in an EV.

 

[ghostguy123]

What was that quick spike all about?

 

[FreeBaGeL]

What was that quick spike all about?

Fed hike announced as 0.75 again.

 

[McBokonon]

What was that quick spike all about?

Fed hike announced as 0.75 again.

If he means a spike up, it’s because they slipped in a little dovish language.

 

[skol asylum]

What was that quick spike all about?

Fed hike announced as 0.75 again.

If he means a spike up, it’s because they slipped in a little dovish language.

Did they do it with Prince's When Doves Cry playing in the background?

 

[Todem]

What was that quick spike all about?

Fed hike announced as 0.75 again.

If he means a spike up, it’s because they slipped in a little dovish language.

Powell is blowing it…… lol. Makes a dovish statement then a hawkish statement….lol.

Watching the markets react to his press conference is entertaining.

 

[ghostguy123]

Musta been a misclick by a huge hedge fund or something

 

[beef]

Powell is so bad at talking and his face just looks like old people f'ing. Instant and market killer.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I know my timing is probably exactly wrong but I couldn't stand watching the market go up anymore and wishing for a drop so I could re-enter in my 401k after going almost all cash right at the end of September and missing out on the October run up. Went 100% stock funds which will now drop another 10 percent or so making me wish I had waited before getting back in. Should have never made that move end of Sept. Buy high sell low.

You do know there are a variety of percentages between 0-100

 

[ChiefD]

his face just looks like old people f'ing

I have GOT to remember this line for down the road.

 

[skol asylum]

I know my timing is probably exactly wrong but I couldn't stand watching the market go up anymore and wishing for a drop so I could re-enter in my 401k after going almost all cash right at the end of September and missing out on the October run up. Went 100% stock funds which will now drop another 10 percent or so making me wish I had waited before getting back in. Should have never made that move end of Sept. Buy high sell low.

You do know there are a variety of percentages between 0-100

There are? Huh.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I know my timing is probably exactly wrong but I couldn't stand watching the market go up anymore and wishing for a drop so I could re-enter in my 401k after going almost all cash right at the end of September and missing out on the October run up. Went 100% stock funds which will now drop another 10 percent or so making me wish I had waited before getting back in. Should have never made that move end of Sept. Buy high sell low.

You do know there are a variety of percentages between 0-100

There are? Huh.

If you get anxiety at completely out of the market or completely in, how about trying a % where you can stick it out and not really care whether the market goes up or down? Just a thought.