T_R wrote:The stock market was just winding back from its position. A Clinton win was largely costed in. I dont see what's so surprising.
What is remarkable that the markets are reacting negatively to a Republican win. The markets generally prefer a Republican win in the USA, but I think it says a lot, that the markets see this as a negative.
Correct ... as usual it is a knee jerk reaction ... markets atm will amplify any "negative" news .. a lot of that is due to automated trading but at the end of the day it amounts to an over-reaction.
It's a perfectly rational winding back of an exposure.
Dow Jones futures was down near 1000 points, traded during the day above 300 point and finishes the days trading closing near record highs up near 260 points.
Not sure what reverse knee jerk reaction will happen on the ASX today.
Note to self ... never take perfectly rational advice from this guy
As has been the case in the past 5 years investors in stock markets are a gold mine for brokers.
Yes, I guess from a very simplistic point of view you could see it that way.
Look at what was bought and what was sold. Take just a moment to educate yourself and this makes perfect sense.
Not really sure what you're trying to take from a weighted average of selected stocks, other than broad trends.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
T_R wrote:Also, has anyone heard from Schifty? I assume he's in Guantanamo?
I've got a missed call from him this morning
Message bank was something about his one phone call, send help or something
I was busy though so wasn't paying attention
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
T_R wrote:The stock market was just winding back from its position. A Clinton win was largely costed in. I dont see what's so surprising.
What is remarkable that the markets are reacting negatively to a Republican win. The markets generally prefer a Republican win in the USA, but I think it says a lot, that the markets see this as a negative.
Correct ... as usual it is a knee jerk reaction ... markets atm will amplify any "negative" news .. a lot of that is due to automated trading but at the end of the day it amounts to an over-reaction.
It's a perfectly rational winding back of an exposure.
T_R wrote:The stock market was just winding back from its position. A Clinton win was largely costed in. I dont see what's so surprising.
Im not sure if you have the capacity to understand this, but yesterday there was a broad repositioning of stock investments. It almost precisely mirrored the currency shock days in the early stages of the GFC.
I honestly do not understand what you are struggling with.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
T_R wrote:Im not sure if you have the capacity to understand this, but yesterday there was a broad repositioning of stock investments. It almost precisely mirrored the currency shock days in the early stages of the GFC.
I honestly do not understand what you are struggling with.
Quite frankly you are not understanding your original err err "perfectly rational winding back of an exposure".. well it looks like less than 24 hours later that "winding back" and "exposure" was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction.
T_R wrote:Im not sure if you have the capacity to understand this, but yesterday there was a broad repositioning of stock investments. It almost precisely mirrored the currency shock days in the early stages of the GFC.
I honestly do not understand what you are struggling with.
Quite frankly you are not understanding your original err err "perfectly rational winding back of an exposure".. well it looks like less than 24 hours later that "winding back" and "exposure" was nothing more than a knee jerk reaction.
Ok. Last try.
It wasn't knee jerk, it was a repositioning of exposure. For example, mining stocks are rolling now on suggestions of increased infrastructure spending, while trade exposed Latin American funds have taken a kicking.
If that's over your head, look at gold price movements during the day as a proxy to defensives. Gold mining stock movements will show you even more.
It's pretty basic stuff.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Not bad for a bloke who put his hat in the ring for the single purpose of increasing his media exposure.
It's absolutely insane that a person who actually couldn't give a **** about becoming the President, and did everything humanly possible to actually avoid getting elected by rational people, actually ended up as the boss of the western universe.
This is the sort of crazy stuff that only happens on the Simpsons. It's going to be a very interesting 4 years.
greeneyed wrote:It what happens when you say bullying and bigotry is OK. Trump leads by example.
True. Look at the rise of xenophobia and racism in Australia as a result of our government's bullying of asylum seekers. If the government believes it's ok to lock up and abuse children, it's not surprising that some Australians go around ripping the hijabs from the heads of 10 year old girls and telling them to '**** off back to where they came from'
I thought it was remarkable with the initial rise of Hanson that it was suddenly became acceptable to randomly tell Asian people to **** off. It happened semi-regularly, and not just in my own home like usual.
Dont doubt that there are people out there who are validated by those who 'lead' us.
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Just saw a theory being shared that the GOP didn't want Trump so they plan on frustrating him till he resigns so they can have Pence in charge who they wanted all along. Kinda makes sense if you ignore how pig headed Trump is.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
He refused to disavow him multiple times, and only in the wake of heavy criticism did he decide to reject the endorsement
Call me crazy but I'd like the most powerful man on earth to be the type who doesn't need a tsunami of criticism to hit before he disavows the **** KKK
But you obviously have lower standards for elected officials than I do
Manbush wrote:Just saw a theory being shared that the GOP didn't want Trump so they plan on frustrating him till he resigns so they can have Pence in charge who they wanted all along. Kinda makes sense if you ignore how pig headed Trump is.
He won't resign.. it will just be a massive stalemate and he will do what he can by executive order
Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
**** and I'd just put all my money into Mexican ladder shares
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.