Why are the markets seeing a sharp increase today, post-Trump election? All the pre-election stories argued that a Trump victory would cause market crashes.
Printable View
Why are the markets seeing a sharp increase today, post-Trump election? All the pre-election stories argued that a Trump victory would cause market crashes.
The pre election stories had hil winning too. I actually think the tone he took in the acceptance speech had a lot to do w it. The market crash thing centered around the isolationism and walls going up on trade. On the other hand a few industries would benefit from a lack of regulation (pharma biotech and financials).
Read a story that the futures tumult was mostly due to the thought it was going to be so close as to necessitate weeks of recounts and uncertainty.
Makes sense, hadn't thought of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock Landers
The smart money hadn't priced in a Trump victory, hence they did not short the market. So the smart money didn't want to tank the market until they had lined up their trades to profit off of the next asinine Trump debacle. But who knows, maybe he will actually get NAFTA repealed, or amended. Maybe jobs will come back to America. buy coal stocks, cause Trump will mine the shit out of that
Trading algorithms said sell trump win and that feeds on itself till it's played out. Just like Brexit. fTSE opened steady. Sideways action in the range of Friday's close.
Wall Street has Trump by the balls he promised to repeal ACA and Dodd-Frank. JPM could go to $100.
Nasdaq dipped as much as 3% this am. Being that it's been leading all major indices in strength, that money will either rotate or exit equities.
I've sold everything outside small twtr leftover. Drumpf may be the biggest scapegoat in American political history as the Fed no longer has a political interest in supporting the S&P.
Maybe s&p pops to 2200 before crashing, or maybe it just sells off sooner, not sure. If enough fiscal outlays hit the middle class it could be good long term, but it's a big challenge ahead adjusting from asset based growth to organic, labor driven growth (the elusive and fed ignored aggregate demand).
$INDU all time high. Growth stocks get crushed with low growth Trump.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bromontana
Just wondering if anyone knows if Trump has any money in the market. He always talked about RE, RE, RE. Never heard him say much about the stock market. he might no care if the markets collapse.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
"It's a big fat bubble folks"Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadman
Treasure selloff accelerating
30% of the growth index is health care. What would have happened to that piece had Clinton/Warren landed in/near the White House? It's not a big growth environment already anyway- not sure trump is the cause (or will be)
He doesn't have any "money" does he?Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadman
Just bogus valuations on properties which is name is glued to.
The money would have stayed in the pockets of consumers, corporate bank accounts or not spent by the government from money they took from 1 and 2, care wouldn't have been much different, and ergo there would be less waste and maybe money would be redeployed to more productive economic uses?Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock Landers
twtr is all that matters now
and defense stocks of course
This is the stock market thread not polyass. If dems take the WH pharma and biotech risk increases.Quote:
Originally Posted by dunfree
I'd fade that. Who wants to go near twitter when it is populated by people like Trump. CNN and MSNBC will have to go far more entertainment to stay in business for the same reason.Quote:
Originally Posted by digitaldeath
The big pharma and biotech risk of the last couple years of a dem in the whitehouse was fraud - Valeant and Theranos. And public outrage/indignation - Epipen and shrkeli - if the Dems don't have whitehouse power, or real power they'll continue the public floggings so that risk continues. Looking at the false growth story behind VRX and how they were squeezing money doesn't take any politics to see that wouldn't be sustainable for another 4 or 8 years or to question the whole industry growth line whomever inhabits the white house.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock Landers
TWTR needs to fix it's fake user/troll problem.
Well, somehow I'm up over 20% since Monday night. Biotech fucking loves trump I guess.
Dumb question but why did Muni funds like PML tank today? You would think that in uncertain times a nice 6% dividend would be attractive. Or is there suddenly a big risk in default that I am not seeing? Nothing makes sense anymore. It is all algos churning things around and the rest of us just fumbling around in the dark.
This is what it feels like to me.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsquared
Bond rates act in correlated response. A tax free bond will require a higher yield to compete with a taxable bond of the same duration equivalency. PML is also a leveraged fund that uses borrowed money and does not price at NAV.Quote:
Originally Posted by mcsquared
Edit: Algos don't trade illiquid securities like PML. I own PCK and PCQ.
I'd also add that if and when rates stabilize securities like PML can outperform based on yield.
Yea the PML is levered. A lot of managers are buying muni's as a tsy proxy to increase yield. When tsy yields go up they don't need the proxy and it sells off. Also...typically muni's have a bit of longer duration which hurts.
Like 4m said, all of this...levered.
As for pharma- it's a lot more than skreli and theranos and vrx. Biogen, regeneron, Amgen, celgene, on and on...and those are just the big caps. The threat is that there's almost a cap or some sort of regulation in drug pricing. Sort of like...regulation in electricity pricing. Or whatever utility. Of course it wouldn't get that bad but there's a reason these drug companies producing cash, reinvesting into the next drug, are at high multiples. Mess with their ability to price, produce cash, reinvest...and it's a big issue.
Fraud isn't a biotech/pharma problem exclusively. I'm not even sure fraud is valeant's biggest problem...the debt load and lack of growth is a bigger problem. Shkreli and theranos are non factors (theranos isn't even public). This happened back in the 90s as well
VRX's problem is their growth story was bullshit, so they had to fake it.
And yeah - most of those company's are fat and lazy and they aren't reinvesting, that's expensive hard work. They are ripe for the picking. Been there, done that, worked with several of those. Do your due dilligence, expert. It's motherfucking polyass if you think they are going to rape you - the American public - forever to pay for their bloated fat ass bullshit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brock Landers
The one thing I can't get a grip on is how we are better off with the trade deals we have in place. When we run trade deficits sending large quantities of cash somewhere else it has ti have a negative impact on our economy. The flip side is we can buy more "stuff" due to lower prices of imported goods. But with NAFTA there has been a huge increase in our balance of payments with Mexico. Surprisingly before NAFTA we actually ran a trade surplus with Mexico. NAFTA took effect on January 1, 1994. Here are some balance of trade numbers with Mexico:
1992 + $5.4 billion
1995 - $16 billion
2015 - $62 billion
We have not had a trade surplus with Mexico since the implementation of NAFTA.
For me the move of the Oreo cookie factory from Chicago to Mexico last spring was the last straw. (joking)
I can't get used to the salsa-flavored oreos.