Skip navigation

S&P Now negative since Bush took office (7yrs ago)

or Register to post new content in the forum

52 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Jan 22, 2008 12:41 am
Broker7:

none the less…this was the worst administration in any of our lifetimes…not my opinion, just the fact.



You must be quite young...In my lifetime, LBJ sent me to Vietnam, Richard Nixon was hounded out of office, I don't even want to think about Jimmy Carter and I'll certainly take the present administration over William Jefferson Clinton's.
Jan 22, 2008 12:47 am
josephjones107:

He does not care about having a balanced budget; consequently, the national debt has balooned to over 9 trillion.


The only time budget was balanced was when he took office and instead of paying off some of the national debt, he gave out rebate checks.

  And the budget was balanced during Clinton's tenure? Puleaze! Conveniently, the media and Clinton never included Social Security, when spouting-off about the balanced budget. Yeah, and my house is paid-off...if you don't count the mortgage.   Yeah, the Dems want to balance the budget...with higher taxes! Bush lowered taxes, but blew it by not controlling spending. Both Bernanke and Greenspan blew it by refusing to recognize that the politicians were playing games with how the economic measurements were reported; thus, failing to keep inflation under control. Now, the Fed is running out of levers to pull and the Bush/Congressional "stimulus" is being greeted by a decidedly cool reception by both US and foreign markets.     
Jan 22, 2008 2:22 am

I don’t think the markets are down because they are disappointed with the stimulus plan. (media tends to pick one thing and run with it)



I think the markets are spooked at the seriuousness of the mortgage meltdown and the fact that the Fed/US gov. seems a bit panicked at the situation.

Jan 22, 2008 2:40 am
doberman:

Yeah, the Dems want to balance the budget…with higher taxes! Bush lowered taxes, but blew it by not controlling spending.

  Amen and Amen.   Clients called this evening are taking the potential meltdown tomorrow in stride and thanking me for the call.  Most clients have plenty of cash to take care of this year's distributions so they feel they can wait this thing out.  A couple of them asked me to deploy some excess cash and one asked me to reduce her distribution until this thing is over.   Again, if you're not talking to your better clients, you'd better start in the morning.
Jan 22, 2008 5:18 am

[quote=ExPropTrader]

[quote=joedabrkr]

[quote=Broker7]none the less…this was the worst administration in any of our lifetimes…not my opinion, just the fact.[/quote]

I gather that means you weren’t alive during either the Carter or Ford administrations?
[/quote]

Watchit Joe…I have fond memories of the peanut-eater, and his beer loving brother, Reagan’s still my hero though, we shoulda made that man king.
[/quote]

Billy was good for plenty of laughs, but I’m talking about what his brother did(or didn’t) for our country.

He’s been a great retired president and elder statesman, but hardly distinguished himself at the White House, IMHO.

Jan 23, 2008 3:39 pm
josephjones107:

I don’t think the markets are down because they are disappointed with the stimulus plan. (media tends to pick one thing and run with it)

I think the markets are spooked at the seriuousness of the mortgage meltdown and the fact that the Fed/US gov. seems a bit panicked at the situation.

    Market's down because we are spooked by the mortgage meltdown?  Thats a part of it.  There is more to it than that.  The feds make an unprecidented 3/4 point emergency (out of meeting) rate cut, which should have sent the market skyward.  And another .5% is already priced into the market for next weeks FOMC.  These rate cuts will provide liquidity.  LIQUIDITY is not the issue..liquidity is what got us in this subprime and credit problems in the first place.  Plus, there are very few borrower in todays consumer market.   Just keep an eye on the solvency of banks..not just here..but all aroung the globe.  This has no comparison to 2000-02!    
Jan 23, 2008 5:30 pm
Philo Kvetch:

[quote=Broker7] none the less…this was the worst administration in any of our lifetimes…not my opinion, just the fact.[/quote]

You must be quite young…In my lifetime, LBJ sent me to Vietnam, Richard Nixon was hounded out of office, I don’t even want to think about Jimmy Carter and I’ll certainly take the present administration over William Jefferson Clinton’s.

  I'm not talking about my lifetime..I said any of our lifetime..let us say the last century.  That is current national sentiment, further unravelling to come soon.
Jan 23, 2008 6:27 pm
Broker7:

[quote=Philo Kvetch] [quote=Broker7] none the less…this was the worst administration in any of our lifetimes…not my opinion, just the fact.[/quote]

You must be quite young…In my lifetime, LBJ sent me to Vietnam, Richard Nixon was hounded out of office, I don’t even want to think about Jimmy Carter and I’ll certainly take the present administration over William Jefferson Clinton’s.

  I'm not talking about my lifetime..I said any of our lifetime..let us say the last century.  That is current national sentiment, further unravelling to come soon.[/quote]   Since I qualify under "our lifetime", my statement stands.    Since you want to expand your statement of opinion (note: not fact) to include the past century, you're trying to say that the admnistration of GWB was worse than that of Herbert Hoover (1929-1933), which includes the crash and the start of the Great Depression?    I'd suggest to you that you take a hard look at history before making sweeping statements that are patently false and trying to pass them off as 'fact'.
Jan 23, 2008 7:15 pm

This is nothing like 2000 - 2002. It’s much more like 1987 - 1988. Check out the August to August returns of the S&P that year. Then go make some money for your clients.

Jan 23, 2008 8:28 pm
Ashland:

This is nothing like 2000 - 2002. It’s much more like 1987 - 1988. Check out the August to August returns of the S&P that year. Then go make some money for your clients.





down 14.64%, what is your point?
Jan 23, 2008 8:36 pm

Sorry, that was meant to be 1989. 3 months down. About 21 months to the next new high. The time to start buying is when you feel you’re at least half way down or more. Which may be now.

Jan 23, 2008 8:38 pm

In the general scheme of things, this might ultimately be viewed as little more than a correction.

Jan 23, 2008 9:10 pm

It should retest…

Jan 23, 2008 10:09 pm

Anytime anchors on CNBC sound scared, buy as much as you possibly can

When they sound excited, sell.

Jan 29, 2008 4:32 pm

[quote=Spaceman Spiff] Exactly. Had you invested in something like CAIBX or CWGIX you’d have averaged well over 10% sine 1/20/2001.



I don’t remember the chapter in my Series 7, 63, 24, AAMS studies or any of the CE classes that I’ve had to do over the last 10 years that have said it is the president’s job to control the stock market. Maybe the Fed. More often than not, it’s the general public that decides when the stock market goes up and down. [/quote]





CAIBX only has 70% of it’s assets in equities. Only 54% of it’s assets are in the US. This is a good example of why/how American funds has been beating their benchmarks. Invest in asset classes that aren’t in the benchmark and invest in countries that aren’t in the benchmark. I’m surprised they’re able to get away with that.
Jan 29, 2008 4:48 pm

Here’s the goal of CAIBX:  “The investment seeks a level of current income that exceeds the average yield on U.S. stocks generally and a growing stream of income over the years; growth of capital is a secondary consideration.”

  I see no reason why that means that they need to invest in US equities.   After all, it is a world allocation fund.   Why would they invest in all US equities if they feel that the best way to achieve their goal is to invest in something else?
Jan 29, 2008 4:56 pm

[quote=anonymous] Here’s the goal of CAIBX: “The investment seeks a level of current income that exceeds the average yield on U.S. stocks generally and a growing stream of income over the years; growth of capital is a secondary consideration.”



I see no reason why that means that they need to invest in US equities. After all, it is a world allocation fund. Why would they invest in all US equities if they feel that the best way to achieve their goal is to invest in something else?[/quote]





Then their benchmark should not be against the S&P. It should be against MSCI World (which has had much better returns than CAIBX)



5 year

MSCI World 16.12%

CAIBX       13.78%
Jan 29, 2008 5:00 pm

You really need to blend that benchmark with a world bond benchmark before you beat on CAIBX.  You said yourself that they are about 30% bonds and cash…it’s hardly fair to benchmark them against a 100% stock index.

Jan 29, 2008 5:02 pm

Hey where did all the “sky is falling” crowd go?  I haven’t heard much from you lately…

Jan 29, 2008 5:16 pm

American funds doesnt seem to have many boundries with what they are doing. This is much different than most of their competitors. It becomes very difficult to stay properly allocated with them.



At EDJ they won’t count the % of cash and % international, in these types of funds. There is alot of this going on, and it’s kind of dangerous as clients aren’t really allocated the way they think they are.