The Stock Market thread

[flere-imsaho]

Every Republican Presidency for the past 45 years has ended with a recession.

[Edward64]

Russel 2000 (smaller companies) was up +3% earlier. It's now up +6%.

Dow up from 1,200 to 1,300. And ... DJT up +29%.

Markets are going to be crazy.

[Edward64]

In my Fidelity account to look at stuff.

There are some serious performance/response issues and error messages. I sure hope its just a bunch of other people like me vs some sort of hack attack. I've never seen it this bad before.

[Edward64]

Very nice day.

Dow +3.57%
S&P +2.53%
Nasdaq +2.95%
Russell 2000 +5.84%

DJT +5.94%
Tesla +14.75%
Bitcoin +9.12%

Lot's of paper wealth created today. I do think when reporting on a President's market performance, they should give stats that starts/ends on Inauguration day and also Election day.

[NobodyHere]

[PilotMan]

Meanwhile the 30yr jumped by about a sixth of a point in one day. So there's that too. That's the highest it's been since July. The Fed will cut rates tomorrow, but it's likely that interest rates continue to push higher.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

And the party keeps on going ...

Except for DJT, down -17.6%. Wonder if insiders are selling now ...

[Edward64]

Among other things in his press conference, Jerome said below. The markets strengthened a little, did not go down so think the markets likes Jerome (right now).

During a press conference Thursday afternoon, Powell said he would not step down from his position as Fed chief even if President-elect Donald Trump asked him to.

“No,” he said in response to a reporter’s question on whether or not he would leave if Trump asked him to resign.

Later on, another reporter asked Powell if the president had the power to fire or demote him from his position. The Fed chair responded that such an action was “not permitted under the law.”

Googled on it and found below wiki

The president may not have the legal authority to dismiss a chairman before the end of a term, although this assumption has never been tested in court.

It'll be a fun to see it play out if Trump pushes this.


Markets today. Been an impressive week so far.

Dow +0%
S&P +.74%
Nasdaq +1.51%
Russell 2000 -.31%

[Arles]

Honestly, I think Powell has done pretty well. I think he over raised rates a bit, but it was probably better to overdo it than under. We basically survived a pandemic that kept people house-bound, massive supply chain challenges, a war in the Ukraine and a high interest rate environment over a 4-5 year period with no real major economic or market impact.

[Edward64]

I agree. He's done a good job.

He screwed up with "transitory" inflation but can't fault the recovery. And heck, it was in 2021, in the middle of Covid so he gets a partial pass for that.

I don't know how many times I read/watched experts say he raised rates too quickly, that he didn't lower them quickly enough etc. and how we were going to plunge into a recession. But ultimately, Jerome was right (so far).

[flere-imsaho]

I think the real challenge here, going forward, is trying to figure out when the sugar rush from corporate tax cuts and other favorable business policies ends and is replaced by the inevitable recession created by mismanagement of the economy.

Speaking as someone who's nearing a retirement number in the next few years (variability due to currently unknown college costs) it's actually a thing. I don't want to retire next year and then see my portfolio shrink by 30% 2 years later.

[Swaggs]

Who knows if Trump will actually use tariffs like he campaigned on, but seeing a fair amount of companies building up goods and materials now (some up to a year's worth in construction), so I'd expect the market to stay promising early on. Mark Cuban says that build up will work for both foreign and domestic companies right now, but when tariffs hit it will depress markets and to expect US exports to also get hit with tariffs in response. Hoping Trump backs off the tariff plans and probably a decent chance he was just overpromising, but, if not, not looking forward to another depressed manufacturing market AND more disruption to supply chain.

[Ksyrup]

Don't count on it. From Politico:

Advisers close to President-elect Donald Trump have been in discussions with House Ways and Means Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) on a broad tax package that is partially paid for by tariffs approved by Congress, according to two people familiar with the conversations who were granted anonymity to describe the internal discussions. . . .

The discussions come as Republicans are gearing up to pass a massive tax bill, which would include $4.6 trillion of expiring Trump tax cuts and potentially several other tax proposals floated by Trump on the campaign trail. They include Trump’s ideas to remove “tax on tips” and eliminate taxes on Social Security, among many others. . . . the conversations signal that congressional Republicans could be open to imposing tariffs on Trump’s behalf via legislation.

[JPhillips]

And just like clockwork the deficit doesn't matter anymore.

[Edward64]

... and eliminate taxes on Social Security

I know good chance this is not practical and only adds to the deficit & shortfall crisis with social security, but I'll be honest and say this really appeals to me. I would be happy to get this pork (when I hit 67).

I promise I'll spend the money and put it back into the economy.

[Swaggs]

The no tax on tips stuff just seems crazy and unfair, but it occurs to me that, as the economy becomes more and more cashless, a lot of service workers that work for tips and had not been reporting cash (ie: not paying taxes on it) were probably feeling it more over the past 10-15 years since I am sure the majority of transactions are now done on credit or cash app.

[BYU 14]

If applied, the SSN tax cut will hasten the depletion of the fund, most likely in the next decade.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I know good chance this is not practical and only adds to the deficit & shortfall crisis with social security, but I'll be honest and say this really appeals to me. I would be happy to get this pork (when I hit 67).

You admit it'll add to the shortfall, and have expressed grave concern elsewhere about the program's depletion, but you still think you'll get it when you hit 67? What kind of moron are you?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

You admit it'll add to the shortfall, and have expressed grave concern elsewhere about the program's depletion,

True

but you still think you'll get it when you hit 67? What kind of moron are you?

Nope. Just said it appeals to me but know "good chance its not practical". Reading comprehension.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by Edward64

And the party keeps on going ...

Except for DJT, down -17.6%. Wonder if insiders are selling now ...

And now up 17%, go figure.

[Edward64]

Well, frak.

In hindsight, it was obvious that Telsa, Bitcoin, DJT would take off with a Trump win. I know I wouldn't have bought them pre Nov 5, but should have bought the morning of Nov 6.

Wallowing in missed opportunities but blow is soften a little because the broader market also made money (just not as much). I shoulda-coulda-woulda ...

[Arles]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

I think the real challenge here, going forward, is trying to figure out when the sugar rush from corporate tax cuts and other favorable business policies ends and is replaced by the inevitable recession created by mismanagement of the economy.

Speaking as someone who's nearing a retirement number in the next few years (variability due to currently unknown college costs) it's actually a thing. I don't want to retire next year and then see my portfolio shrink by 30% 2 years later.

I would definitely reduce your exposure to stocks if you are retiring in the next 5 years. Look for high yield bond funds (BulletShares has some good ones paying 6-8% in coupons/dividends) and more fixed-income investments.

As to the tariffs, the US actually collected more in tariff tax revenue from Biden ($144 billion) than Trump ($89 million) as he kept and extended most of his from Trump's first term. Trump is planning to add more but it's not like there's this massive increase coming in the next 6 months.

[GrantDawg]

Comparing small targeted tariffs to tariffs large enough to replace income and payroll taxes as Trump has floated out there is like comparing a lizard to Godzilka.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Arles]

The initial estimates were that the US will get close to $250-$300 billion in tariff revenue in Trump's term using what Biden had setup. Trump's changes would reach a maximum of $550 billion by the end of his term, but I doubt he goes through with all of his "promises". Again, I don't think this is going to be as impactful as people think. Plus, if Trump goes through with the tax breaks he proposed (esp corp and small business ones), the tariff impact will be mostly offset by those.

[GrantDawg]

Idk where you are getting those numbers. A universal 10% tariff on all foreign goods is about $2 trillion dollars. That is not counting the 60% tariff on everything from China. It is a massive sales tax, but worse than a sales tax because the cost will be largely hidden in the price of goods. Not only would there be an increase in the cost of goods, but there will also be affects of retaliatory tariffs that will hurt and even shut down some businesses. https://taxfoundation.org/blog/trump...nue-estimates/

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[Lathum]

Not only will it be a sales tax, but a massively regressive one. Batteries cost the same whether you make 50K or 500K

[Arles]

I don't know for everyone, but for us the process is this:
1. Let's say we pay a tariff of $10 for a good
2. We are able to reduce our cost by $8-12 due to corp tax cuts and writeoffs allowed under the tariff system.
3. We keep our same price due to the tax savings to stay competitive globally.

You have to take the tax cuts into account when looking at tariffs. There's really no situation where we would go "Hey, there are new tariffs so the price of a silicon wafer is going up $10 across the board". The market won't accept that as many global customers can still buy cheap from China or do what we do to "avoid" some of the tariffs.

[GrantDawg]

What? I have never heard of a company that took a tax cut and then reduced the price of agood. Prices of goods are based on the cost of said good. So if the product costs the company 10% more, they are going to charge 10% more to the consumer. Then they will happily give the benefits of the tax cut to the shareholders. Consumers will be paying for that tax cut, which is the point.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Not only will it be a sales tax, but a massively regressive one.

Feature, not a bug of course.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

I don't know for everyone, but for us the process is this:
1. Let's say we pay a tariff of $10 for a good
2. We are able to reduce our cost by $8-12 due to corp tax cuts and writeoffs allowed under the tariff system.
3. We keep our same price due to the tax savings to stay competitive globally.

You have to take the tax cuts into account when looking at tariffs. There's really no situation where we would go "Hey, there are new tariffs so the price of a silicon wafer is going up $10 across the board". The market won't accept that as many global customers can still buy cheap from China or do what we do to "avoid" some of the tariffs.

What tax cut is saving you that much? And this is just debunked trickle down economic theory.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

What? I have never heard of a company that took a tax cut and then reduced the price of agood. Prices of goods are based on the cost of said good. So if the product costs the company 10% more, they are going to charge 10% more to the consumer. Then they will happily give the benefits of the tax cut to the shareholders. Consumers will be paying for that tax cut, which is the point.

Sent from my SM-S916U using Tapatalk

I think it really depends. Most of the tariffs are on things like steel & manufacturing that is also done in the US. In order to stay competitive on the world market, a US company can't just rely on the tariff for selling globally as the consumers can still purchase from China in places like Europe and Asia. Now, for US customers, the tariffs make items that were seriously under-priced due to China more competitive with US-made prices.

Now, if tariffs are ever setup for extremely cheap goods from China (ie, some toys, clothing, etc), those cheap prices may rise a bit in the US. Still, places like the Philippines and Taiwan will still offer similar prices to China without the big tariffs. US created food, cars, etc won't be impacted. People are acting like tariffs are going increase everything they buy. Now, it may cost more for a foreign EV vehicle (esp from China), but tariffs have been on things like steel, EV, EV batteries and some medical devices for close to 10 years and no one saw big price increases on their daily life.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

What tax cut is saving you that much? And this is just debunked trickle down economic theory.

The goal of tariffs is to allow US businesses to be more competitive in the US and the tax policy for them to be more competitive globally. China basically completely subsidizes their companies to seriously undercut the US and Europe on things like EVs, certain manufacturing and raw materials like Steel and solar. Without tariffs, China is able to make US manufacturing non-profitable by basically allowing their companies to produce products at a massive loss.

This could cause to become completely reliant on China to supply us for things like raw materials (steel, etc), electric vehicles, medical devices and other key items we require. At that point, we have lost a lot of our autonomy not due to the market, but due to China paying to put US companies out of business. If you think that's OK, maybe it is in a global market. But I understand why the US government wouldn't want that to be the case.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

I think it really depends. Most of the tariffs are on things like steel & manufacturing that is also done in the US. In order to stay competitive on the world market, a US company can't just rely on the tariff for selling globally as the consumers can still purchase from China in places like Europe and Asia. Now, for US customers, the tariffs make items that were seriously under-priced due to China more competitive with US-made prices.

Now, if tariffs are ever setup for extremely cheap goods from China (ie, some toys, clothing, etc), those cheap prices may rise a bit in the US. Still, places like the Philippines and Taiwan will still offer similar prices to China without the big tariffs. US created food, cars, etc won't be impacted. People are acting like tariffs are going increase everything they buy. Now, it may cost more for a foreign EV vehicle (esp from China), but tariffs have been on things like steel, EV, EV batteries and some medical devices for close to 10 years and no one saw big price increases on their daily life.

If those places could put out the products with competitive prices to China, why aren't they now? Prices are going up whether it is the full 60% on the Chinese tariffs, or the 40-50% it is going to cost to make those goods somewhere else. Either way, doesn't help the lower income people when almost everything in Walmart has increased 40-60%.

The tariffs you are mentioning are already factor in to the economy, and I am not, nor are most people, saying all tariffs are bad. Targeted tariffs are useful in many cases, but yes we are paying more for steel because of tariffs. Now add that tariff to everything imported. I don't know how you can reason that is not going to be felt, especially to the lowest incomes that largely buy only cheap Chinese goods.

[Arles]

What things at Walmart are going up 50% due to tariffs?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

The goal of tariffs is to allow US businesses to be more competitive in the US and the tax policy for them to be more competitive globally. China basically completely subsidizes their companies to seriously undercut the US and Europe on things like EVs, certain manufacturing and raw materials like Steel and solar. Without tariffs, China is able to make US manufacturing non-profitable by basically allowing their companies to produce products at a massive loss.

The U.S. does this too. We constantly subsidize and bailout the auto industry. Almost every new plant or infrastructure improvement comes out of our tax dollars. The difference is in China the companies use that money to re-invest into the companies and in the United States the extra money is used for stock buybacks.

Ford made $5.5 billion in profit last year. GM reported $12 billion. Chrysler/Stellantis reported almost $20 billion in profits. Heck, GM has bought back $16 billion in shares in the past year. Stellantis has spent over $3 billion this year alone.

Seems like these companies have some wiggle room to lower prices or maybe innovate on their own. It's not the dying industry you are making it out to be. And if you aren't a shareholder or top executive in one of these companies, how does it benefit you in any way? How does having to pay $30k more for an EV because you banned all low price competition help your average American?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

What things at Walmart are going up 50% due to tariffs?

I don't know what went up 50% at Walmart but companies like Shein and Temu are direct results of our terrible tariff policy.

[Arles]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

The U.S. does this too. We constantly subsidize and bailout the auto industry. Almost every new plant or infrastructure improvement comes out of our tax dollars. The difference is in China the companies use that money to re-invest into the companies and in the United States the extra money is used for stock buybacks.

Ford made $5.5 billion in profit last year. GM reported $12 billion. Chrysler/Stellantis reported almost $20 billion in profits. Heck, GM has bought back $16 billion in shares in the past year. Stellantis has spent over $3 billion this year alone.

Seems like these companies have some wiggle room to lower prices or maybe innovate on their own. It's not the dying industry you are making it out to be. And if you aren't a shareholder or top executive in one of these companies, how does it benefit you in any way?

Part of the purpose of a government is ensure their main industries stay solvent and profitable.

How does having to pay $30k more for an EV because you banned all low price competition help your average American?

If the US is serious about moving away from gas-power cars, it needs to make sure it has an infrastructure for EVs like it currently does for normal cars. Allowing China to corner the market on those could seriously impact the left's plan to all electric in the not too distant future.

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by Arles

What things at Walmart are going up 50% due to tariffs?

Everything from China, which is most of the store.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Arles

Part of the purpose of a government is ensure their main industries stay solvent and profitable.

So basically what you're complaining that China is doing. The US auto industry is extremely solvent and profitable. I don't know how many billions in profit is needed before my tax dollars don't have to subsidize their stock buybacks.

Originally Posted by Arles

If the US is serious about moving away from gas-power cars, it needs to make sure it has an infrastructure for EVs like it currently does for normal cars. Allowing China to corner the market on those could seriously impact the left's plan to all electric in the not too distant future.

If the US is serious about moving away from gas-powered cars it needs to make them affordable enough for Americans to purchase. That won't happen because the profit margins are smaller on cheap EVs and not what the suits here want (also the reason we mostly push SUVs and trucks). The tariff you support here is literally making EVs much more expensive. An inflationary tariff you might say.

You can build all the charging stations you want, but it still comes down to the fact that only a small subset of people in this country can afford $70,000 cars. This is just welfare for the upper middle class and Elon Musk.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Arles

Part of the purpose of a government is ensure their main industries stay solvent and profitable.

IMO it's to ensure select (strategic) industries say solvent and profitable. Personally, I don't care if gas combustion car companies survive, but do care about EVs.

If the US is serious about moving away from gas-power cars, it needs to make sure it has an infrastructure for EVs like it currently does for normal cars. Allowing China to corner the market on those could seriously impact the left's plan to all electric in the not too distant future.

Agree. Best way to greatly reduce our (and allies) dependence on ME oil.

The other aspect of tariffs is to hurt China's economy. May or may not work, but better than letting China dominate in some areas. I'm okay with that too.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

The other aspect of tariffs is to hurt China's economy. May or may not work, but better than letting China dominate in some areas. I'm okay with that too.

Why do people give a shit if China's economy does well?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Why do people give a shit if China's economy does well?

Geopolitics?

Why don't you think it matters?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Geopolitics?

Why don't you think it matters?

Geopolitics isn't an answer. Why does it bother you if China has a good economy?

It doesn't matter to me because it has no impact on my life. It's just sinophobia for the sake of it. I don't wish ill will on others who are just trying to get by.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Geopolitics isn't an answer. Why does it bother you if China has a good economy?

Of course geopolitics matter. I believe we are already in a non-shooting war with China

Just using simple terms, the geopolitical world consists of X (friends & influence, wealth, prestige etc. whatever) is not a zero sum game, but it doesn't have enough X to spread around to keep everyone happy. There will always be some countries that will successfully get more X and other countries that will get less; or the pie gets bigger, but not fast/big enough.

I want to live in a country with more X because that provides for better chances at a bunch of benefits like more personal opportunities, more wealth, more safety, shinier new toys etc. ... including first in line for a vaccine when there is a world-wide epidemic.

It doesn't matter to me because it has no impact on my life.

I don't agree with your "if it doesn't impact me" criteria.

I don't disagree it doesn't directly impact your life. But it impacts United States and indirectly the 350M+ so it's bigger than you. See above.

It's just sinophobia for the sake of it. I don't wish ill will on others who are just trying to get by.

I guess similar to your antisemitism. You're supposedly anti-Israel government and wish for more agreeable policies, I'm anti-China government and wish the same.

You're anti-Israel because of the supposed "genocide/ethnic cleansing", I'm the same with the Uyghurs. Why aren't you as passionate about the Uyghurs (and the Uyghurs can't shoot back much), why give the Chinese government a pass? And arguably, the Chinese government has suppressed more people (e.g. her citizens) than anyone else in the world.

See below link for some key words that have caused you concern previously ...

Uyghurs - Wikipedia

Since 2014, the Chinese government has been accused by various organizations, such as Human Rights Watch of subjecting Uyghurs living in Xinjiang to widespread persecution, including forced sterilization and forced labor.Scholars[who?] estimate that at least one million Uyghurs have been arbitrarily detained in the Xinjiang internment camps since 2017
:
Various scholars, human rights organizations and governments consider abuses perpetrated against the Uyghurs to amount to crimes against humanity, or even genocide.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Of course geopolitics matter. I believe we are already in a non-shooting war with China.

WTF are you talking about? They're one of our biggest trade partners. Our economies are completely intertwined. They own like a trillion dollars of our debt. They own land and major companies here. Some of the largest American companies would cease to exist without them. They could crash our economy overnight if they wanted to. Never seen a war like that before.


Like I get it's an issue politicians use to get some of the dumbest people in this country to vote for them. But it's not a war and raising the price of socks by 20% isn't going to have you living like a king anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Edward64

See below link for some key words that have caused you concern previously ...

Uyghurs - Wikipedia

Are my tax dollars paying for that?

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

WTF are you talking about? They're one of our biggest trade partners. Our economies are completely intertwined. They own like a trillion dollars of our debt. They own land and major companies here. Some of the largest American companies would cease to exist without them. They could crash our economy overnight if they wanted to. Never seen a war like that before.

As I said, geopolitics. Yes, we are in a non-military war (all the stuff under X) with China.

And therefore, the move to de-globalize with China and be more selective in increasing trade and relationship with other countries, spread our investments around. They could crash our economy overnight but they would crash their own if they moved too quickly. Same for us, we could crash their economy by defaulting (which we don't want to do).

Like I get it's an issue politicians use to get some of the dumbest people in this country to vote for them. But it's not a war and raising the price of socks by 20% isn't going to have you living like a king anytime soon.

Not just socks. Expand your horizon some, think ahead and broader. Intellectual capital, AI, rare earth metals, influence in Asia and Africa etc.

Are my tax dollars paying for that?

Your dollars, supporting the Chinese government regime certainly is paying for it.

[RainMaker]

I also fill up my car with gas which means I financially support everything Saudi Arabia does.

And you can't "de-globalize" with China. They're the second largest economy in the world and the largest for manufacturing. Globalization is not something you can put back in the bottle. Like I said, our economy and all our major industries are fully intertwined with China. Apple is as much a Chinese company as it is an American company.

You'd have to blow up the entire economy over some vague "geopolitics" argument that you can't even define a single benefit from. It's just a 6th grade understanding of economics.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I also fill up my car with gas which means I financially support everything Saudi Arabia does.

Not everything, but our oil dependency enables SA. So increase EVs, reduce dependence on ME oil, and we reduce (won't ever eliminate completely) supporting SA.

Same as with China.

And you can't "de-globalize" with China. They're the second largest economy in the world and the largest for manufacturing. Globalization is not something you can put back in the bottle. Like I said, our economy and all our major industries are fully intertwined with China. Apple is as much a Chinese company as it is an American company.

True, it won't be 100%. But we can definitely dent what we were doing with China and that's what happening now. So, the more we can delink the strategic stuff from China, the better.

Apple is moving away from China (delinking). They are betting on India and that's a smart move. There is no doubt our major corporations, in pursuit of cheap labor and profits, has gone too deep with China. Trump started the move away, Joe continued and that's good.

You'd have to blow up the entire economy over some vague "geopolitics" argument that you can't even define a single benefit from. It's just a 6th grade understanding of economics.

I have defined benefits from being on the winning side of the geopolitical war. You're just an isolationist and don't understand its bigger than you, bigger than how it impacts you directly etc.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Not everything, but our oil dependency enables SA. So increase EVs, reduce dependence on ME oil, and we reduce (won't ever eliminate completely) supporting SA.

Tariffs are why we don't have an increase in EVs. The literal thing you're defending.

Originally Posted by Edward64

Apple is moving away from China (delinking). They are betting on India and that's a smart move. There is no doubt our major corporations, in pursuit of cheap labor and profits, has gone too deep with China. Trump started the move away, Joe continued and that's good.

China is 20% of their revenue and a bigger share of their profits. The CEO of Apple just announced investing more in China. They're moving some manufacturing to India and Brazil (I guess they don't count in the game geopolitics for some reason) but that's mainly for costs as China shifts to a more consumer led economy.

And again, there is no "delinking" in a global economy. Apple and other American companies are owned by people from throughout the world. China has ownership stakes in all these companies and there is no way to prevent that.

Originally Posted by Edward64

You're just an isolationist and don't understand its bigger than you, bigger than how it impacts you directly etc.

Do you know what the word isolationist means? I'm literally calling for the opposite here. You're the one who wants to wall off our economy like an old communist country.

[GrantDawg]

It is actually a little fun to watch these two go at it.