1. Yeah but we didn't know if the jobs data was going to be good or not -
2. if it was bad and that was combined with virus data, it would have been a bloodbath.
Sure but they're not moving in equal measure are they?
Stay-at-home tech is miles above everything else and it's miles above everything else because of the virus data.
Post edited.
I'm pretty firm on the divergence remaining until we see a vaccine.
Do not let a local lockdown reimposed hide the whole economies being restarted...ohh dear, a city in the UK is licked again..well what is the economic size of a city or even Victoria vs whole countries restarting.My argument is very simple: Just looking at the market as a whole does not tell the whole story. There's a massive divergence between sectors and we should therefore be betting on the right sectors (and then the right companies within those sectors), not the entire sp500, if we want to make the most money. To do that, we need to understand the reason for the divergence, and what's going to happen RE: that reason.
Put simply, the more virus we get, the more divergence we get. And there's plenty more virus coming.
I'm interested to hear why you don't think the divergence will remain - even now we're seeing the reimposition of lockdowns in hotspots and that is not going to go away. If anything, it's going to get worse as the virus spreads more.
My argument is very simple: Just looking at the market as a whole does not tell the whole story. There's a massive divergence between sectors and we should therefore be betting on the right sectors (and then the right companies within those sectors), not the entire sp500, if we want to make the most money. To do that, we need to understand the reason for the divergence, and what's going to happen RE: that reason.
My argument is very simple: Just looking at the market as a whole does not tell the whole story. There's a massive divergence between sectors and we should therefore be betting on the right sectors (and then the right companies within those sectors), not the entire sp500, if we want to make the most money. To do that, we need to understand the reason for the divergence, and what's going to happen RE: that reason.
Put simply, the more virus we get, the more divergence we get. And there's plenty more virus coming.
I'm interested to hear why you don't think the divergence will remain - even now we're seeing the reimposition of lockdowns in hotspots and that is not going to go away. If anything, it's going to get worse as the virus spreads more.
is akin to i invest in Tesla as they have a licence to distribute time travel machines.they apparently have a contract to produce/distribute the vaccine whenever we discover it
I made very sure to qualify my statement by saying "apparently" and that I haven't looked into it frog. I was by no means stating the pfizer stuff with any kind of certainty and made very sure to state that I wasn't. I literally just saw it in passing somewhere and that's it. Don't be prickly.Nearly tought about sending this as Pm
There is a difference between conviction and facts:
Please ask anyone with a bit of background in virology and the sentence:
is akin to i invest in Tesla as they have a licence to distribute time travel machines.
Not kidding, that is what i. mentioned in a lot of other threads about the effect of propaganda and the myth of a vaccine, it is so widespread that gov will need to release one even if it is 0pc efficient.
I took the pain to cut and paste an example of surgical 3 ply masks you can order and get delivered in less than a week.there is no mask penury in July 2020.you pay, you get them.probably actually an overproduction
The rest of the post, fair, your opinion and we can agree or not but please do not spread knowingly false or twisted information.there is enough real data to make you point: seasonality...as we can see now in Melbourne plays a role etc etc
1. My argument is very simple: Just looking at the market as a whole does not tell the whole story.
2. There's a massive divergence between sectors and we should therefore be betting on the right sectors (and then the right companies within those sectors), not the entire sp500, if we want to make the most money.
3. To do that, we need to understand the reason for the divergence, and what's going to happen RE: that reason.
4. Put simply, the more virus we get, the more divergence we get. And there's plenty more virus coming.
5. I'm interested to hear why you don't think the divergence will remain -
6. even now we're seeing the reimposition of lockdowns in hotspots and that is not going to go away. If anything, it's going to get worse as the virus spreads more.
1. Agreed.
2. There are significant divergences between the over-all market and sectors. We do need to try and understand why. In part (a) it is the way the indices are constructed. The Dow is based upon the dollar price of the stock, therefore high priced stocks exert greater influence. The S&P500 on market capitalisations. The NASDAQ is very tech. heavy. Therefore when a sector (or importantly single stock) is outperforming (for any reason) the index that it is contained in can be influenced disproportionally by that sector/stock. Currently then we have QQQ on fire because of the heavy concentration of tech.
4. The US is not going to go lockdown. They will go as Sweden did: every-man for himself. There are a number of reasons for this (in no particular order);
(i) Shutting the economy the size of the US is massively damaging: because they 'cannot, they will not';
(ii) It is an election year (shuttering is unpopular);
(iii) There are Constitutional issues. This hasn't been overly discussed, but Yanks are highly litigatious;
(iv) Much of the (highly profitable) business can operate with 'social distancing', work from home, etc;
(v) There is a Cold War developing with China, which means outsourced supply chains could be repatriated;
(vi) Hopes of a vaccine;
(vii) Other.
So whether the virus increases or not, the US is not going to shut-down in the same way as NZ did. Some industries will suffer, cease to exist even, but those are the ones you avoid.
6. Nobody cares.
2 - This is what I've been saying the whole time? Take tech out, and to be more specific, what I'm calling stay-at-home tech, and you see a wildly different picture.
4 - No, but we're seeing significant lockdown(s) in a lot of places and lockdowns based on industry/sector as well. Just look at Australia for example: K.O'ing victoria alone is what, 25% of the population? This is not insignificant. And the U.S has virus basically everywhere.
6 - Absolutely false. If nobody cared about the virus, nobody's behaviour would have changed. People are avoiding things like the doctor etc for a reason. They are shopping on amazon or ebay or whatever and not going into bricks & mortar stores for a reason. Companies are telling employees not to come in to the office unless they have to for a reason. I.e anyTHING which can be done from a distance, is. Lifting the lockdowns is not changing this behaviour - it's only allowing the people that couldn't work from home to *maybe* go back to work. Offices are empty and remaining so. However, I'll humour your assertion that nobody cares to make a bigger point:
7. Let's for a moment assume that all lockdowns are lifted and everyone everywhere are just idiots with their health and *everybody* gets coronavirus. You think that millions of people either dying and/or being off work sick for weeks is not going to be a HUGE cost all on its own?
8. This is the reason why companies which can allow/enable their employees to work from home are doing so: Employees off sick costs money. In this case, a LOT of money.
9. Either the costs will come from lockdowns/people avoiding human contact, or the costs will come from the sickness that comes as a result of not having the lockdowns/avoiding human contact and thus contracting the virus. There is a cost to be paid one way or another. What I am saying is that it CANNOT be avoided.
10. As a result, what we see is capital diverting into all the various things which enable people to keep their distance.
It's no more complex than that.
2. When I say Tech. I'm more referring to MSFT, AAPL, AMZN. These are huge companies that can (and do) move the needle in the indices.
4. I don't look at Australia. The US is different.
6. I'm not referring to Joe Bloggs in the street. I'm referring to the financial markets. The markets just don't care.
7. The markets are not looking at today or tomorrow: they are looking at 2021/2022 earnings.
8. Where they work is largely immaterial. Productivity is the issue.
9. The market just doesn't care.
10. To date, there is an element of truth to that. Going forward, unlikely.
jog on
duc
2. Agreed. But again, tech and stay-at-home tech are different things.
4. I know, I was just using it as an example. What do you think happens when all of california gets locked down for example? But let's assume that doesn't happen: Getting sick costs money. LOTS of money. You really want to claim that millions of people off work sick (or dead) is not going to effect markets?
6. You think that joe bloggs' behaviour doesn't (to at least some extent) dictate markets? Seriously? You think that, oh I don't know, the fact that doctors' surgeries are now ghost towns doesn't have anything to do with why pharmaceuticals are in the toilet?
7. The markets are looking at all time horizons. Why do you think we have the volatility we do?
8. Rubbish. Where you work DICTATES your productivity because if you work in close contact with people, you get the virus. You get the virus, you can't work.
9. Further rubbish. You're saying that the market doesn't care about lockdowns or millions of people off work sick (or dead). That's essentially your entire thesis. It's nuts.
10. There is a lot more than an element of truth to it and you know it. Do I really need to start posting graphs of zoom, docusign, ebay, amazon, microsoft etc over the past couple of months and then compare them to, well, almost everything else? You're not stupid, you know the divergence is there and you know it's massive and you know why it's there and you know why it's massive: The markets DO care about the virus and its very simple but very significant consequences.
11. If you want to talk about why things are going to change from here on out, I'm all ears. I'm actually very interested to hear your thoughts. But you've been absolutely, categorically, disprovably wrong up until this point.
12. My thesis for the week going forward is the same as it has been: More virus dictated mess, more buying/holding of stay-at-home tech and virtually nothing else. I'll be opening up more positions soon now that the jobs data is out of the way (friday's employment data delayed the slump we would have otherwise seen) and the only news from here on out aside from the political bickering about the next stimulus package is going to be more virus data and more lockdowns.
13. The only difference is that we're now over the hill of summer so we're going to start to see the seasonality changes we always see on top of the change we've seen from the virus as well.
14. The only thing that can/will reverse this trajectory is some kind of vaccine news. This IS the new normal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?