Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

LHUCKS

Members
  • Posts

    37,345
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by LHUCKS

  1. chick I'm dating... 1) "Obvi" = obvious 2) "Totes" = totally
  2. this article basically saying what my guys were saying when I created this thread several months ago... My link
  3. So you're 100% in oil? I applaud your intelligent use of diversification.technically 50% in oil...so getting out of the market has been a net gain for me.Will likely hand pick stocks frome here on out and stay away from funds/indeces.
  4. So you're 100% in oil? I applaud your intelligent use of diversification.http://live.wsj.com/video/cuban-on-investing-diversification-is-for-idiots/233AE43E-9DA3-40A3-8F6B-9DC23DD82BEF.html#!233AE43E-9DA3-40A3-8F6B-9DC23DD82BEF
  5. 13,021.82 right now.Got into oil earlier this week(see stock thread)...safer than stock.
  6. That number isn't going to get better for a long time.Only if Nate Silver is right...as of yesterday. I'm reading Nate Silver's book, and it's got some interesting things to say about the unemployment rate following the recession caused by the collapse of the financial markets following the housing bubble's burst.First, unlike most recessions, where recovery generally comes relatively quickly, recessions caused by financial crises generally have a much slower recovery (like 4-6 years); and based on the experiences of other countries, the unemployment rate never truly recovers to pre-crisis levels. Second, future unemployment rates are very hard to predict in general; and the effect of a stimulus is also very hard to know (either as a prediction or even in hindsight). So the Obama administration's infamous graph showing what would happen to the unemployment rate with and without the stimulus was kind of a silly exercise. It predicted that unemployment would peak at about 8% with a stimulus, and would peak at about 9% without a stimulus. In fact, it peaked at just over 10% with a stimulus. As a best guess, the prediction in the graph wasn't unreasonable. But it should have come with a big asterisk next to it saying, "This is just a wild guess. Anything between 6% and 10% over the next six years, with or without a stimulus, is well within expectations." (That wouldn't have been as persuasive to Congress, however, in selling the stimulus.) In any case, we've hovered between 8% and 10% since the recession hit. We're back down closer to 8% now, perhaps headed toward 7% or even 6% over the next couple years. But we probably won't get down to pre-crisis, sub-5% levels in the foreseeable future. But, really, nobody knows. Really
  7. My link Turns out my guys may have known what they were talking about.
  8. employment will be stagnant at best until the fiscal matters are addressed...and that's not even taking into account geo-political factors. Times will not be getting easier, you don't put a bandaid on a gunshot wound.
  9. I think that's a relatively rosey prognostication. The QE measures are slowly effecting our credit rating which will continue to deleteriously effect the economy. The agencies are watching, and while the armchair economists in this forum blow them off, another credit rating dip for this country will have real consequences.The fact that the Fed decided to implement QE3 is an indication that things are NOT rosey. A doctor doesn't put a patient on drugs when the patient is healthy.If QE3 is effective, it will dull the pain for a while. if it's not, we're f'd and you are right.I meant that your post was relatively rosey, not that your market outlook was...I think we're mostly on the same page.My point is that the market is f'd either way...the QE measueres have a "Drag down" effect on the markets.Even if the cliff is successfully avoided, we've got Iran/Middle East and Europe. Investing in the market now is like drafting a 38 year old runningback in the first round, all risk, no reward.
  10. I think that's a relatively rosey prognostication. The QE measures are slowly effecting our credit rating which will continue to deleteriously effect the economy. The agencies are watching, and while the armchair economists in this forum blow them off, another credit rating dip for this country will have real consequences...just like it did the first time, although a second blow to rating would likely be more severe.
  11. 500 minimum, and you're calling it a "panic thread", not me.Fade me if you don't believe me, see how that works out for you. So far you've lost percentage points of your savings...oops.
  12. I would be surprised if the market hit is less than 500 points(very very conservative call) based on the information I get from our analysts and strategists. Conservative corporations tend to guard against the worse so I could be getting a skewed perspective. We'll see, all eyes are on D.C.I may push my time horizon on this from 4 months(original post) to six months.There are just way too many SIGNFICANT red flags out there.Again, ALL the smart guys I know that are economists for a living got out over a month ago. Actions speak louder than words when it comes to money matters.
  13. My link Of course, my notification to this forum was several weeks prior to the articles that have been coming out the past few days. :gamechanger:
  14. oopsThat 66 point drop over the last 2+ months has been pretty devastating.You start this Monday, you might have something going. You bump this today, just more idiocy.It's pretty much impossible to call a top. His advice was sound then and is sound now. If you are heavily in stocks you are going to get destroyed very soon.Nice to have some objectivity in this thread.
  15. oopsThat 66 point drop over the last 2+ months has been pretty devastating.You start this Monday, you might have something going. You bump this today, just more idiocy.oh, we're just getting started big guy.
  16. whenever you're ready to give the recap, ace.
×
  • Create New...