Posted on 09/23/2013 3:55:27 AM PDT by expat_panama
In some stock markets, the Mark Twain effect is the phenomenon of stock returns in October being lower than in other months. The name comes from the following quotation in Mark Twain's Pudd'nhead Wilson: "October. This is one of the peculiarly dangerous months to speculate in stocks. The others are July, January, September, April, November, May, March, June, December, August, and February."
The 1929, 1987 and 2008 stock market crashes roughly occurred in October.
Well the Fed is sure trying to set us up for a hard fall with all their fear mongering. They may well get their wish since they know who to call to SELL.
...economic activity has been expanding at a moderate pace. Some indicators of labor market conditions have shown further improvement in recent months, but the unemployment rate remains elevated. Household spending and business fixed investment advanced, and the housing sector has been strengthening, but mortgage rates have risen further and fiscal policy is restraining economic growth...
--and while it's a lot more boring than what we get from the press, it's hard to argue with.
Thank you!
I've had lumber on a watchlist, that was one plus WY, BCC, and WOOD, also could include PGEM an IPO. BCC is an IPO, too. There have to be several more; those are just ones I found. My lists are a mess as some are on commodities, other, etc. WOOD is an etf, haven't done any of those yet, don't particularly want to.
I just didn't feel like any of these would be good for me. Enviro's, regulators (that really sucks, does sound like Gibson or politically motivated) and maybe that's why HD had been doing so well. Already cut and milled, some finished products. But they're in a channel and doubtful they'll breakout again soon.
My actual loss was about $330; I'm not happy about it but I didn't wake up this morning thinking about it. I have to get to an appt so can't spend too much time on stocks today. Some good prices but if they're that good, they can wait. Been doing too much mental stuff and feel dull.
Am praying for JimRob and his surgery. That's a tough one to go through, really tough.
Thanks for the headsup on JimRob, he’s in my prayers too now. Not to worry about LL, it’s at $108 now, back where I first bought it so it looks like I’m back w/ a net gain.
Not sure why so many people say a $100+/share stock is expensive. Like, if all the numbers are good then I buy the same total value by just getting fewer shares. I’m remembering I once bot a stock over $1k & I got two of ‘em and later sold one when I was phasing out. Only time I watch price is I don’t buy one below $11 because they can’t be bought on margin so it means fewer buyers (= higher volatility).
Happy weekend to you!
Vol, like fire, can be a useful servant or a cruel master. You just got to be on the right side of vol. Sub-dollar or $thousand/shr stock makes no difference to me. I want mo and vol to be with me.
Look:
Anyone watch CNBC?
If so.........would someone explain to me why they talk about JC Penney for 20 minutes every hour? And they’ve done that all week long! Why? Who Cares about JC Penney? What’s the big deal? Is there anyway to contact them and tell them to “make it stop”?
What deflation? .1% (annualized) could be a rounding error and is most certainly within the margin of error.
What I'd like to understand is why so many people oppose the fight against deflation, calling it a 'wallstreet bailout' that's 'funding Obama's spending' and that we're falling into Germany's 1922 hyperinflation.
I don't believe we're going to experience hyperinflation, not with the money velocity we've got currently. As conservatives we recognize that when government interferes in the market it causes/creates problems. Why do we think the Fed is any different? So far its policies have punished savers and the prudent, while rewarding spendthrifts and lenders. How is that a pro-market, pro-commerce stance?
American history proves that deflation isn't a permanent characteristic of free markets. Where is the 'deflation trap'?
Thanks for that. I don’t know how, (since I own some REITS), but I’d entirely forgotten JCP is an important anchor tenant at a lot of the malls.
Guess I forgot because I haven’t been to a mall in over 13 years.
Not sure what your source is for an allowable margin of error, but the point is that the Fed's target is 2% (from here)--
The Committee judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent, as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve's statutory mandate.
--and their missing the +2.0% inflation and ending up with -0.1% deflation is actually a hell of a flop. It's especially bad after all the work they've been doing to undo the harm from that half-year of deflation back in '08 that plunged to -6%. It was a deflation followed by a double-digit unemployment that we've never quite recovered from. Of course, nobody can be forced to like the Fed's 2% target, just as nobody has to agree that deflation stops economic activity. Everyone can look at the facts; most end up seeing it that way the rest can disagree.
As conservatives we recognize that when government interferes in the market it causes/creates problems. Why do we think the Fed is any different?
Probably a lot of conservatives see congress complying with constitutional requirement to regulate the value of money.
I presume you pinged me regarding our previous postings on the efficacy of the Fed. Given that a single month reported deflation is so small it annualized out to .1%, what’s the big deal? If it were the inflation number (+.1%) we’d not even discuss it.
My question is where was the Fed in 2007 and before or did the economy start in 2008?
We agree on free trade, but you don’t believe in free markets. What I see is a fallible group of people running the money supply to the benefit of themselves and their sponsoring banks and institutions - namely their friends in high places. Keep in mind the very same brain trust that got us into this mess is still “managing” the economy.
We can laugh at North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and all the socialists and central planners, but somehow you give a pass to the Central Bank. Why? You can see the insanity of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the ICC, the NLRB, etc., but not the central planners of the Federal Reserve?
Really, 12 people running the financial sector of the economy seems like a good idea to a conservative? Is there an alternative? That’s my point.
These guys got us here. I don’t think they’re smarter than you or I. Punishing the prudent and savers to the benefit of big banks and finance companies isn’t my idea of a free market. I think you’re very sharp, but like a lot of MBAs I know it seems like you just regurgitate what you’ve been taught - a little inflation is a good thing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.