Trump’s stock market rally is very good, but still lags Obama and Clinton

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

4 minutes ago, OriZ said:

No credit to Obama. And We've been in bubble territory with Obama already...Trump didn't enter it, just kept it there, and is oddly proud of it. Perplexing.

In what way is the "Trump bubble" the same as the "Obama bubble"? If one believes this bubble has been 3 years, I'm surprised they stopped at 3 and didn't say 10. Of course, I'm thinking of two distinct elements in these bubbles, one where I probably agree with you, and one where I don't.

Edited December 29, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

9 hours ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Okay send me 10 grand and I will give you 1% return 

But if you turn that ten grand into 100k thats a hugely increase

If you turn 40 billion into 41 billion.  Not so much huh

 

Hellen keller could see it 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

8 hours ago, OriZ said:

I actually agree that Trump's net worth growth is far from impressive.

All we know is his percentage growth . Meaningless 

[90DayFinancier 910]

27 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

All we know is his percentage growth . Meaningless 

Over 27 years? Meaningless?  The man is barely keeping up with inflation.

[Voice of Reason 10,298]

30 minutes ago, 90DayFinancier said:

Over 27 years? Meaningless?  The man is barely keeping up with inflation.

I wish I had barely kept up like he has.  Richest president in history.

 

What’s YOUR net worth again??

[OriZ 3,157]

10 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

In what way is the "Trump bubble" the same as the "Obama bubble"? If one believes this bubble has been 3 years, I'm surprised they stopped at 3 and didn't say 10. Of course, I'm thinking of two distinct elements in these bubbles, one where I probably agree with you, and one where I don't.

Not 10...but closer to 6

[OriZ 3,157]

2 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

All we know is his percentage growth . Meaningless 

How is percentage meaningless? It's literally the most meaningful way to gauge performance. Sheer $ amount means jack. If my dad gave me what his dad gave him id already be richer than him lol

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

How is percentage meaningless? It's literally the most meaningful way to gauge performance. Sheer $ amount means jack. If my dad gave me what his dad gave him id already be richer than him lol

It isn't that meaningful. Why people started with a certain year is meaningful. Why they conflate cash flow to % change in net worth is meaningful, public investment analogies to private companies. I, and businesses I run, can still be more valuable yet have a net loss in certain years on my taxes. You can also tell who read Art of the Deal and knows how Trump operates and those who didn't.

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

1 hour ago, OriZ said:

How is percentage meaningless? It's literally the most meaningful way to gauge performance. Sheer $ amount means jack. If my dad gave me what his dad gave him id already be richer than him lol

Becuse you are measuring his increase in net worth not dollars invested in a fund , in which all amounts invested rise the same percentage. 

 

Also if his net worth was "say" 35 billion and it went up to 45 billion thats only a little under 30% but a whopping 10 billion dollars.  Now if he was woth 1 million and it went up 30%  , same percentage increase vastly different numbers. Very simple concept actually. 

[Nature Boy 2.0 8,370]

46 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

It isn't that meaningful. Why people started with a certain year is meaningful. Why they conflate cash flow to % change in net worth is meaningful, public investment analogies to private companies. I, and businesses I run, can still be more valuable yet have a net loss in certain years on my taxes. You can also tell who read Art of the Deal and knows how Trump operates and those who didn't.

I would much rather have a 30% increase in his net worth thana 1000% increase in  mine lol 

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

23 minutes ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

I would much rather have a 30% increase in his net worth thana 1000% increase in  mine lol 

There was a reason the NYT made sure they got returns from the NYC real estate crash, where these numbers begin. From a cash flow perspective Trump did well, but from a net worth perspective, Trump was able to utilize laws allowing him to write-off losses/depreciation associated. The premise of this smear is to try and pin Trump in a "one or the other" category. Either he's exaggerating his wealth because look at these net worth figures, or he's actually doing well and hiding it through his efforts to reduce tax liability and thus a criminal and we should get all his tax returns. The point, like the thread, is self-deluding by lefties, because orange man bad.

 

OriZ on the other hand, actually initiated what I thought could be a good discussion on bubbles and how we perceive real economic growth, but doesn't seem to want to pursue it. I follow more of a classical school of (economic) thought, so I'm not a fan of the cheap money policies, or government managed economies which clearly are done to reinforce corruption (which the rich, like Trump, benefit most from).

Edited December 29, 2019 by Burnt Reynolds

[TBoneTX 45,293]

Five out of four people are bad at math, and I'm at least one of 'em.

[90DayFinancier 910]

3 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Five out of four people are bad at math, and I'm at least one of 'em.

Why was the accountant so excited that he completed a jigsaw puzzle in only 59 weeks? Because on the box it said 8-12 Years.

[OriZ 3,157]

9 hours ago, Nature Boy 2.0 said:

Becuse you are measuring his increase in net worth not dollars invested in a fund , in which all amounts invested rise the same percentage. 

 

Also if his net worth was "say" 35 billion and it went up to 45 billion thats only a little under 30% but a whopping 10 billion dollars.  Now if he was woth 1 million and it went up 30%  , same percentage increase vastly different numbers. Very simple concept actually. 

Right, it's 10 billion dollars but doesn't show any incredible skill. Give me that same 35 billion and I guarantee you it won't even be 6 months before that's 45 billion. So I'm truly not sure why we're supposed to be impressed.

[OriZ 3,157]

8 hours ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

There was a reason the NYT made sure they got returns from the NYC real estate crash, where these numbers begin. From a cash flow perspective Trump did well, but from a net worth perspective, Trump was able to utilize laws allowing him to write-off losses/depreciation associated. The premise of this smear is to try and pin Trump in a "one or the other" category. Either he's exaggerating his wealth because look at these net worth figures, or he's actually doing well and hiding it through his efforts to reduce tax liability and thus a criminal and we should get all his tax returns. The point, like the thread, is self-deluding by lefties, because orange man bad.

 

OriZ on the other hand, actually initiated what I thought could be a good discussion on bubbles and how we perceive real economic growth, but doesn't seem to want to pursue it. I follow more of a classical school of (economic) thought, so I'm not a fan of the cheap money policies, or government managed economies which clearly are done to reinforce corruption (which the rich, like Trump, benefit most from).

Ah, well...the reason I don't want to pursue it is because I've pursued it here and elsewhere so many times already, and my life has gotten so busy, that it's really just not something I can devote my time to anymore. However in a nutshell, from a valuation perspective, I think it's pretty safe to consider this market 120-150% overvalued.

 

I also highly recommend you read Hussman's latest market comment here: https://www.hussmanfunds.com/comment/mc191230/

 

Valuations are important and they matter; just not in the short term. The dot com bubble actually lasted around 5 years before it burst. This one's been going on 6+. We'll see when it ends but it won't be pretty.