- Joined
- 28 April 2020
- Posts
- 93
- Reactions
- 151
Hi Duc
Where does the above table (sector funds) come from?
cheers
Where does the above table (sector funds) come from?
cheers
Hi Duc
Where does the above table (sector funds) come from?
cheers
So let us examine the evidence:
View attachment 107045
The value in March 1971 (before Nixon defaulted in August) was 121.38. It then dropped into 1980. Currently we are sitting at 93.06.
View attachment 107041
The PPI index rose from 1970 through 1980 increasing production costs. Currently we are near the lows of the last 10 years, thus the purchasing power of the dollar is higher for productive businesses.
View attachment 107042
Unemployment is an issue today. For that 1970-1980 period, apart from that spike in 1975/1976, not so much.
View attachment 107046 View attachment 107047
CPI pretty steady upward path. The issue for business is the spread between PPI (costs) and CPI (selling price). When the spread favours businesses, profits are higher.
Now the US has moved to a more services based economy over the decades. Therefore when unemployment is high, there is no pressure on wage rates, which are the input costs similar to PPI. Add to that the collapse of Trade Unionism and there is even less wage pressure. During the 1970-1980 period COLAs added to the stagflationary pressure through wage hikes and active strong Union action.
Look at history of US hourly rates:
View attachment 107051
In 10yrs rose $0.45 cents
View attachment 107048
Next 10yrs saw a rise of $1.50
View attachment 107049
1980 to 1990 they rose $0.70
The evidence suggests that the US is nowhere near the 'stagflation' of the 1970-1980 period.
jog on
duc
Examine what you like Old Sport; the fact is that basic food prices are inflated.
Again, no attention to detail: CPI food prices are elevated:
View attachment 107144
Whereas PPI are not:
View attachment 107143
The market loves CPI inflation, hates PPI inflation. PPI is 'stagflationary', not CPI, which was the point of my previous post.
jog on
duc
Not sure what you're trying to highlight.
CPI and PPI are different metrics used for different aspects of economic activity monitoring:
"The producer price index is often used to calculate real growth by adjusting inflated revenue sources, and the consumer price index is often applied to calculate changes in the cost of living by adjusting revenue and expense sources."
(https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/08/ppi-vs-cpi.asp#:~:text=The CPI includes imports; the PPI does not.,these factors do not directly benefit the producer.)
This thread is about tracking the stockmarket, specifically the S&P500. What will it do?
Inflation I agree is a major issue for the market. It is inflation for the MARKET not the consumer. No-one cares overmuch about the consumer (as long as he spends). So PPI:
View attachment 107145
So our farmer is not doing so great currently. However the stages of production bringing that product to the consumer are clearly doing better because of CPI inflation.
View attachment 107146
The inter-relationship twixt food commodities and S&P500 over the last 6yrs. Massively disinflationary.
jog on
duc
Disposable income (DPI) has decreased over the decades:
Looking more closely over this year, CPI data indicates significant inflationary pressures have emerged in basic cost of living for food, housing and medical:
(https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/fed-wants-inflation-their-actions-are-deflationary)
As for PPI; energy has become cheap for farmers and wholesale producers, which would make up a major operational cost.
CPI is where we should be looking because that is reflective of the supply and demand pricing in the retail market.
PPI is currently a non-issue because of course the US is not the only Fiat inflating:
View attachment 107173 View attachment 107174 View attachment 107175 View attachment 107176 View attachment 107177 View attachment 107178 View attachment 107179
Currently, relative to other Fiat money, the US dollar sits pretty much in the middle of its historical range. In other words, there is no loss of purchasing power worth discussing.
The gold bugs, Schiff et al. fail to realise one significant issue, which is:
View attachment 107182
The actual cash creation is still (relatively) minor.
View attachment 107180 View attachment 107183
The actual Balance Sheet of the Fed. is not contributing to circulation currently:
View attachment 107181
Which is still in the toilet.
A significant number of variables will need to change before there is any significant inflation, against which the Fed. must lean.
jog on
duc
Chronos-Plutus,
3. There is no way the FED will be able to reduce/unwind their balance sheet, because much of the assets are toxic and nobody will buy them.
3. Of course they can. They unwound after 2008/2009. It takes time, but for a Central Bank, it can be done.
jog on
duc
The FED after 2008/2009 trimmed like ~25% of the trillions in Mortgage Backed Security junk, however they failed because the assets are largely toxic; that is why the FED had to buy this junk in the first place.
View attachment 107233
These toxic assets, in the trillions, will need to be written off. This write-off will shake financial markets to the core. So yes, the FED can fully unwind the balance sheet, but not without writing off the trillions in toxic assets, which will likely cause another financial crisis of some kind.
The FED is currently holding ~$1.9 trillion in Mortgage Backed Securities:
View attachment 107234
Should we ask Jolly Old Jay what returns the FED is currently receiving from the $1.9 trillion in Mortgage Backed Securities on their balance sheet , which have the comforting guarantee of being backed by Fannie and Freddie
Fannie & Freddie had implied, although not statutory backing from government. The Fed. needs no such guarantee. Essentially you have the relationship backwards.
jog on
duc
Same old, same old:
View attachment 107281
There is no 'free' lunch on Wall St. Order flow manipulation is as old as the hills. Market Makers love having access to that data, as, although they can move stocks where they want (short term) it is nice to know exactly how strong the position is that you will trade against.
jog on
duc
Hello and welcome to Aussie Stock Forums!
To gain full access you must register. Registration is free and takes only a few seconds to complete.
Already a member? Log in here.