Nah, it’s because purealpha is just becoming more frequent and more annoying. Other people are just better at ignoring him, and better at not concerning themselves that you are taking bad advice seriously.
Naw. My posts contain real analysis, and when followed up on, prove to be quite accurate.
But there is a huge cult of creepy negative posters on here who keep trolling my posts saying they “add no value”, when it’s their posts that add no value. These posters are exceptional at persistently ignoring reality --> that their “analyses” keep being wrong. This makes them angry, that reading Taleb or CFA didn’t make them a good investor, and they lash out.
Shrug, I would suggest they become better analysts!
Is there a pill I can take?
I may have gone overboard with the antagonism last evening. I try it on for size from time to time. I never like the way it fits. My apologies, Ghibli. :-/ I would like to make the point, however, that I think it is always a good idea to take seriously points of view that feel inflammatory. I certainly don’t always like what PA has to say but that is why I specifically tune in. Usually if something make you uncomfortable, it is because it is challenging something fundamental to your worldview. The cowardly thing to do is dismiss it. If it really was just irrelevant crap, you probably would not be very irritated by it. The very fact that it make you uncomfortable is evidence there is something you aren’t coming to terms with in your own understanding.
For example, ghibli’s challenging my effort in independent trading were abrasive to me since I know there is a lot I don’t yet know …and what if he is right. I am putting huge amount of time and effort into an endeavor that could turn out to be a wash. Through our arguments I have been forced to consider more carefully what I am up against. It is scary for me to face that reality, but felt good to do so after I was challenged to re tool my schema of what I have found to be true about trading in personal experience and what is probably stereotypical fallacy.
Back on topic (I say this phrase a lot); more bearish data since this thread began…
The IMF downgraded 2016 global growth for the fourth time (Brexit), we have two years of S&P500 earnings declines now, US valuations at 25X P/E (27X when normalizing for buyback manipulation), monetary policy exhausted, China ominously calling for urgent coordinated action at G20, Trump risk three months out which markets are completely ignoring…yet all-time SPX highs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-19/imf-scraps-forecast-for-global-growth-pickup-on-brexit-fallout http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-26/analyst-warns-of-a-restaurant-downturn-and-sees-harbinger-of-a-u-s-recession http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-24/china-seeks-intensified-coordination-but-u-s-is-playing-it-cool Same game again --> probability of upside, and of downside? Probable magnitude of up/down moves? Event dates? I already sold calls ES>2100 to get paid to put on the hedge. Now selling puts ES<2100 to get paid to take off the hedge. Nov8 is the event, good probability of down moves prior to that (large profit). Sideways market (small profit). Only lose scenario is “up up and away” markets, which results in zero $ loss. Shrug. Strategy! 
Well, when it’s nothing new and you’ve heard the carnival barkers before making the same errors, false assumptions and boasts, hard to imagine there is anything to learn. Those with something to teach never seem to boast. Those that boast never learn. I’m guilty. But at at least I have some ability of introspection. Time humbles most in this game. If you’re not humbled, you are either inexperienced or a sociopath. I try to only challenge things I know something about and recognize the very severe limits of my knowledge. If you don’t think that’s the case, rest assured, I continue to work on my game.
Folk wisdom, logic error, not mutually exclusive. In fact it is possible to boast and learn, my existence disproves your claim.
Is it really binary? Think thru other options, you might have left one out. Other logic errors here also, find them.
You just found your own error! Perception.
No further evidence needed.
Actually the only “evidence that is needed” is already above in time-stamped investment calls.
And more evidence illustrating ignorance. And he doesn’t even know why the comment is so silly.
fair enough 
…and I will admit my open mind gets me in almost as much trouble as it does open the door for insight and growth. meh!, I’ll keep it.
Welcome to the investments forum, where we discuss investment market happenings, and strategy.
You now have eight off-topic posts , zero posts on the topic of bear markets.
Robert Shiller ; US home prices weakening, US/JP stocks among most expensive in world (CAPE), Fed tried to raise rates but couldn’t go further, and likely won’t because “world economy is in a dangerous phase”, “central banks can sorta keep economies going, but only by pushing rates down to record levels”, the question is “how much longer will this go?”.
Good stuff, no biased analysis as we usually see in the financial media, just the facts and important questions…
This rally in stocks drives me nuts. Fairly high risk, low return world in which multiples certainly look inflated relative to growth expectations. Seriously, what is this 4-5 quarters of declining S&P earnings, which still don’t look great even adjusted for O&G companies? But the chart in this link explains it fairly well…
http://www.valuewalk.com/2016/07/if-you-cant-beat-em-join-em/
I’m struggling to find anything attractive on the US publics other than one off names here and there. Now looking into private businesses or select commercial real estate. Some of the UK REITs might be attractive if you can get comfortable with demographics and demand; discount to NAV looks enormous.
Even worse, Q2 2016 will be the seventh quarterly decline. S&P500 earnings peaked in 2014 Q2 @ $103.12 as-reported (per S&P). I notice the financial media are constantly misstating the length and depth of the decline.
We’ve seen it all before, dotcom and subprime both went on and on, before one day people were like “oh shit, reality!!”. 
Recession data is a basic thing we can study…
After the great depression, there were 13 recessions in 79yrs, so once every 6yrs on average. Only four times an economic run went longer than 6yrs, the longest being 10yrs (ended by the 2000 recession, and the big dotcom bubble burst).
We’re at 7yrs right now since “the great recession” ended June 2009. Personally, I bought puts expiring at 9.5yrs. We don’t know when the next one comes, but it’s reasonable to believe it comes eventually, and that the probability grows each year it is delayed. Unless of course you believe that central bank manipulators can stop the business cycle.
Agreed; a few family offices share similar sentiment with some moving more to the sidelines anticipating that we are towards the end of the cycle. Question is what’s the catalyst that finally causes a recession?
US households aren’t particularly overlevered so that’s an unlikely spot.
US corporates seem like they’ve built up sizeable debt since the recession with much of it just going towards share repurchases and dividends, which goes back to investors that are forced to then reinvest -> a circular. I suspect this will or already has impacted future earnings as capital is not being invested in the business adequately (Barclays had a good note on this). As we discussed, corp. earnings don’t look great, but as along as rates are low, equities will remain elevated given higher potential returns.
Europe could serve as a catalyst should we see NPLs increase and some major EU banks fail: http://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-one-reason-brexit-makes-sense/
There’s general overcapacity: see dry bulk, oil, inventories, etc -> why inflation is stubbornly low (ex property rents), but so far it’s not been enough to drive a recession.
China’s rapid debt expansion could certainly trigger it and it seemed like it could’ve happened late last year. Longer-term, I think China is fine, but so much debt all at once just cannot be spent efficiently. The govt. seems to have a lot of capacity to keep this going for awhile though. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-05-17/chinas-debt-bomb-no-one-really-knows-payload
Other externalities include: terrorism and political upsets. Longer-term issues; demographic changes (declining birth rates is a big problem) and rising entitlements with no hope of actually paying them.
All told, this results in the low-growth, low yield, high-risk world we live in. Maybe just hurry up and wait in cash/equivalents for now.
I don’t actually think too much about specifically what, since that gets into “crystal ball” type stuff I can’t model. We know a recession comes eventually and so we can get more bearish/defensive as the situation grows more negative. Agree with all points above.
Personally, I think a lot about what the Fed has done. Hard to see this bubble-pumping and the eventual bear market, not being related. The larger the bubble (dotcom, subprime) the bigger the pop. It’s a long way down already, and valuations just move higher.
I guess the “brilliant idea” was to pump up asset prices, because consumers would have a lot of money, and they would spend it. But that didn’t happen, see GDP growth rates, instead more income inequality. If tomorrow the consumer sees the world as being more risky (Trump/Brexit/MiddleEast) and says “screw this, we are going defensive”…that could trigger a recession. In a recession the people holding crazy expensive US stocks are suddenly like “oh crap, we are holding at 26x P/E at the start of a recession, it might be a decade before we break even”. They power sell, and now everyone has less money, which does fuel less spending. The fed can’t do much in a recession, so does it last longer than normal? Again, who knows!?
But the Fed-thing creeps me out in general (and Abe, Draghi). Textbook bubble stuff, and always “it will be different this time”.
US 2016 GDP – 0.8% Q1, 1.2% Q2. Inventories are actually negative.
Greenspan “concerned about stagflation” (Milton Friedman called stagflation “too much money chasing too little stuff”).
This article was really quite good, exactly what we were talking about above, the table shows last 12 bull runs. Now we are in year 8, everyone is crowding into everything, making “safe” assets hardly safe. But I’m not sure it if ends with a bang, or with stagnation.
“We may see a good year eight, and maybe a year nine, in this bull market,” Stovall figures. “Bull markets don’t end when a lot of people are cautious. They end when everyone is fully invested and there is no money to propel it further.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-29/are-those-safe-haven-assets-safe-anymore