Recession or inflation? Which do Americans prefer?
Printable View
Recession or inflation? Which do Americans prefer?
Lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCarter
We’re fucked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Gotz
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
I don’t prefer it, but I think we’re going to get both for a bit.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
StagflationQuote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
I'm not interested enough to look but it seems like selling before Fed meetings is a thing.
I have some high risk mutual funds. Probably should have moved them.
at least someone around here understands whats going on as if this is all some great big real thingsQuote:
Originally Posted by Timberridge
all the office jocks will be getting hand jobs on fireisland next week and they will forget about all this crazy shit
but then when the days start cooling off and getting shorter well that'll be october and they'll be back in the office trying not to fuck shit up but they will
Stock market tanking is all a distraction for the upcoming indictment of Donald J. Trump. It's meant to distract and prevent people from hoarding and feeling too weak to start a violent rebellion.
eh?
Has anything in the last 5 years given you the impression that people plan well anymore?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hott Butt Mud
I'm doing few shares VOO every $10 drop. Planning to go bigger at $300 and maybe $250.Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlMega
Probably "rebalance" 401k to 100% S&P when around Aug 2019 or 2020 level. Will see if I'm that patient and paying attention.
Lee, were your XOM calls June 10, or later? Either way today was great, I was assigned Friday at $97. Was paid $106 for that, when it cratered today I sold a $97 June 17 put for $280. Either gonna be back in my shares I got out at $98.06 for $94.20 or keep the $280. If it goes below $94.20 I won’t care as I’d have been holding anyways.
Still watching CCL, seems a never ending series of people buying it on the Carnival cruising social media boards, all claiming it’s “on sale.” Been seeing an increasing number of complaints relating to short staffing and labor shortages and cost cutting measures to go along with that. Decided I’m not a buyer at any price, I don’t see them getting off the massive debt they’ve incurred.
I took about a 4% haircut today, led by my energy stocks. I’m still feeling pretty good about most of my holdings. I have a few in mind to double down on if I indeed keep the XOM put premium and re-allocation is necessary. Seems it feels like a good time to have some cash ready.
Even so. This is pretty unusual vol for june. Small chance the hand job could be canceled in July.Quote:
Originally Posted by fastfred
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Quarterly expiration this week has a hand in all this volatility.
Front end pricing in 3.75-4 by Feb. 10y and out may get to 350.
I think we will see- whether through actions this week or the language setting up July, fed isn’t going to make the same mistake they made with the “transitory” language. Big big rate hikes.
Still like longer bonds!
Saw a stat this morning. Total biotech funding down >60% year over year. IPOs dried up. Renewed talk of synergies. And accelerating those synergies.
https://media1.giphy.com/media/ToMjG...giphy.gif&ct=g
The best part is the PE shops already took the hopes and dreams based profit and left retail holding the flaming shit filled bagQuote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
Right now Fed funds futures implying 75 now and another 75 in July. 50 in sept 50 Nov.
Bob. My XOM was assigned on a 100 call I sold for $2. Bought at 35 so am not disappointed.
Covered RDBX today (yolo play).
Took my loss on TWTR and moved on. I feel Elon will renege.
For sure, his timing was awful.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Gasoline is .40c off it’s high and only .25c off it’s March high. Of course, it takes a while to reflect that.
$300 billion in oil subsidies from investors and nobody caresQuote:
Originally Posted by AdironRider
75 basis point hike today.
Target is to get FFR to 3.5% by EOY.
Are we going to pretend that a 3.5% FFR is going to fix 8.6% inflation?
Wait for the 9% rate before the next meeting...
Yes (but it’s not actually pretending):Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevo
Attachment 418938
https://twitter.com/markzandi/status...AQBFzdqlnXS4iQ
Estimate for underlying inflation is 2.3%.
Market forecast for inflation over next 5 years was 2.88%/yr average as of last night. Probably moves lower today.
Attachment 418949
https://twitter.com/treatdevourer/st...AQBFzdqlnXS4iQ
Keep in mind we were paint a 7 handle for months before the russian invasion and embargo....Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Market likes the 75bp
Yeah. So before the war, the mix of factors would have been different. Take off the 3.5% from the war, add a couple to Covid (re-opening, spending the stimulus money) and you’re there. The point is that those things aren’t going to keep contributing in the future as they have in the past.Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot
For example, the war caused a massive jump in energy costs - do we expect the same percentage jump again next year, or do we think they level off? If they level off, no contribution to inflation going forward.
Which market?Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/stock...114947098.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Meh. Seems like a nothingburger if you zoom out just the tinniest bit:Quote:
Originally Posted by summit
Attachment 418955
It's possible that energy stays elevated for quite some time is it not? OPEC isn't meeting their production targets and global demand keeps going up.Quote:
Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong
Yes. But to have sustained inflation it can’t just stay at the current elevated level, it needs to jump again. And that seems very unlikely to me. If it just stays at the same price for the next year, then that would actually be helping pull inflation down below the Fed’s 2% target.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoooR
The point of the breakdown I posted is that much of the current inflation is due to factors that contributed one time ‘jumps’ in prices, but they aren’t likely to contribute any more of those jumps going forward.
Is that chart based on any peer reviewed analysis in an economic journal? I'm not durrrr stimulus caused all the inflation, but it WAS a signifigant amount of cash and I personally know a lot of people that bought things they woudln't have. Including a buisness owner who bought a fucking house because of the PPP money.
It depends on the timing of the stimulus. The last round of stimulus was probably overkill and contributed somewhat to today's higher inflation rates.
In addition to the inflationary causes listed in the post(s) above, the Fed's inaction and misapplication of its forward guidance is a big contributor along with its FAIT "flexible average inflation targeting” policy.
Supply side inflation is not the Feds fault. Demand side inflation is. The Fed should have began tightening much earlier when ten months ago demand driven spending or nominal Gross Domestic Product (NGDP) was already exceeding the historic trend.
Not peer reviewed, but it was posted by the chief economist for Moody’s Analytic’s, which probably has some of the most sophisticated macro-economic modeling around.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoooR
The issue for the Fed is that they’re trying to steer where inflation is heading in the future, but any policy changes they make have a long lag before they take effect in the market - like over a year.
Until fairly recently the market forecast for inflation looked fine, especially if you allow that the Fed may be planning to allow a period of inflation a little above the 2% target to make up for the time it had been below that target:
Attachment 418958
It wasn’t until last October that the inflation outlook started moving above 2.5%, and even then it came back down a fair amount. It wasn’t until the war started that it really spiked, but there’s nothing the Fed is capable of doing to prepare for a situation like that.
^ Yeah, that's the issue with the Feds FAIT "flexible average inflation targeting” policy. If instead of making policy based on inflation forecasts, the Fed focused on NGDP it would have started tightening much sooner after demand or NGDP rose rapidly to around 5% early last fall.
Inflation targeting is a vague policy because it doesn't clearly define how much future inflation to allow to make up for past below trend inflation.
True about NGDP exceeding historical trend, but consumers were spending down their ‘excess savings’ created by the stimulus, and when they ran out then that would remove a lot of the inflationary pressure without any Fed intervention.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
I don’t really buy that.Quote:
Originally Posted by MultiVerse
An explicit 2% target just means you don’t make up for past mistakes. If anything then targeting a 2% average over a period of time would help stabilize things (if the market believes the Fed is actually going to commit to hitting that average).
Old way, if you missed the mark, future inflation is only expected to get back to target. New way if you miss, the market should expect you to overcompensate in the future, which should affect market expectations more than the old system (again, assuming the market thinks the Fed is credible in it’s targets).
Edit: You changed your post on me.
Yeah, I do find the idea of NGDP targeting promising. So while I think FAIT is probably better than the previous straight 2% target regardless of past performance, I think NGDP could be better still. But I guess a central bank needs to try it to know for sure.