Stock market is a "fully-fledged epic bubble" and will burst
Discussion
loafer123 said:
number2 said:
Yup, fools gold.
'Every little bit helps' should stay with whichever supermarket coined the phrase. 'Some little bits cost a lot of money for eff all, and would be better spent elsewhere' might be a better turn of phrase
.
And yet, if private enterprise wants to pay for it, why do you care?'Every little bit helps' should stay with whichever supermarket coined the phrase. 'Some little bits cost a lot of money for eff all, and would be better spent elsewhere' might be a better turn of phrase
. The local negative impacts should be considered, especially as fracking will do naff all to benefit anyone except the private enterprise. A lose-lose for those impacted.
rossub said:
So nationalise fracking and keep the gas for ourselves. Taxpayer takes the risk of it not working out. Desperate times….
Desperate times don't call for bugger all had some time next decade as a solution though. Desperate times calls for releasing all European utilities to form a legal buyers cartel of NS gas.
You can't tax the profits from the producers but what you can do is recognise that they can't sell their NS gas to anyone but European utilities so bend them over on the pricing so that excess profit isn't made in the first instance.
Brutal capitalism is the solution to a problem being caused by normal capitalism.
A 5 year legalising of a gas buying cartel where the max paid is £100. Problem solved immediately.
BobToc said:
The EU only buys about a fifth of Norwegian’s gas. I’m not sure it’s such an easy route.
It's EU buying that's pushed the price to £600. In order to set a price the U.K. and Norwegian utilities couldn't do it alone. It needs to include all utilities within the basic supply radius. Germany and Italy are more screwed than we are as they don't just have a price issue but a supply issue.
Because the price has slammed up on this demand issue rather than an actual supply issue and because you can't ship any volume of NS gas a buyers cartel can actually set the spot price in this market.
Looks like Jacob Rees Mogg started to kick off government property sell-off
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-comm...
Just for my prior posts about loss-making universities and their real estate assets in prime locations, I think we will start to see some major transactions by REITS.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-comm...
Just for my prior posts about loss-making universities and their real estate assets in prime locations, I think we will start to see some major transactions by REITS.
The Warnings Were There About FAANG Stocks
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2022/...
"The spectacular underperformance of the FAANGs this year came as no surprise to investors familiar with the history of growth stock bubbles. As happened in the lead up to the dot com and Nifty 50 bubbles, P/E ratios increased without any material justification.
"It is an all-too-human failing for investors to fall prey to “recency bias” – the tendency to give too much weight to recent experience, believe that “this time it’s different,” and there is a “new normal.” That leads to ignoring long-term historical evidence, which many investors are sadly unaware of. Recency bias and the lack of historical knowledge lead to the mistakes of both overconfidence and treating the unlikely as impossible"
"Thanks to the research team at Dimensional, one can see how stocks have historically performed before they became one of the 10 largest by market cap and compare that to how they performed after joining that list. The data covers the period 1927-2021. In the five and 10 years before joining the top 10, stocks that entered that list outperformed the market by 10.0% and 19.3%, respectively. However, in the five and 10 years after joining the list, they went on to underperform by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively."
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/faangs-...
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2022/...
"The spectacular underperformance of the FAANGs this year came as no surprise to investors familiar with the history of growth stock bubbles. As happened in the lead up to the dot com and Nifty 50 bubbles, P/E ratios increased without any material justification.
"It is an all-too-human failing for investors to fall prey to “recency bias” – the tendency to give too much weight to recent experience, believe that “this time it’s different,” and there is a “new normal.” That leads to ignoring long-term historical evidence, which many investors are sadly unaware of. Recency bias and the lack of historical knowledge lead to the mistakes of both overconfidence and treating the unlikely as impossible"
"Thanks to the research team at Dimensional, one can see how stocks have historically performed before they became one of the 10 largest by market cap and compare that to how they performed after joining that list. The data covers the period 1927-2021. In the five and 10 years before joining the top 10, stocks that entered that list outperformed the market by 10.0% and 19.3%, respectively. However, in the five and 10 years after joining the list, they went on to underperform by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively."
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/faangs-...
ooid said:
Looks like Jacob Rees Mogg started to kick off government property sell-off
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-comm...
Just for my prior posts about loss-making universities and their real estate assets in prime locations, I think we will start to see some major transactions by REITS.
Laudable and the right thing to do.https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-comm...
Just for my prior posts about loss-making universities and their real estate assets in prime locations, I think we will start to see some major transactions by REITS.
Except this has been the strategy for over 20 years.
The government just never actually delivers on giving up floorspace - much of Victoria Street has been below 30% occupancy for years - and actually selling assets in Westminster.
Derek Chevalier said:
The Warnings Were There About FAANG Stocks
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2022/...
"The spectacular underperformance of the FAANGs this year came as no surprise to investors familiar with the history of growth stock bubbles. As happened in the lead up to the dot com and Nifty 50 bubbles, P/E ratios increased without any material justification.
"It is an all-too-human failing for investors to fall prey to “recency bias” – the tendency to give too much weight to recent experience, believe that “this time it’s different,” and there is a “new normal.” That leads to ignoring long-term historical evidence, which many investors are sadly unaware of. Recency bias and the lack of historical knowledge lead to the mistakes of both overconfidence and treating the unlikely as impossible"
"Thanks to the research team at Dimensional, one can see how stocks have historically performed before they became one of the 10 largest by market cap and compare that to how they performed after joining that list. The data covers the period 1927-2021. In the five and 10 years before joining the top 10, stocks that entered that list outperformed the market by 10.0% and 19.3%, respectively. However, in the five and 10 years after joining the list, they went on to underperform by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively."
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/faangs-...
FAANG is probably due a reset.https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2022/...
"The spectacular underperformance of the FAANGs this year came as no surprise to investors familiar with the history of growth stock bubbles. As happened in the lead up to the dot com and Nifty 50 bubbles, P/E ratios increased without any material justification.
"It is an all-too-human failing for investors to fall prey to “recency bias” – the tendency to give too much weight to recent experience, believe that “this time it’s different,” and there is a “new normal.” That leads to ignoring long-term historical evidence, which many investors are sadly unaware of. Recency bias and the lack of historical knowledge lead to the mistakes of both overconfidence and treating the unlikely as impossible"
"Thanks to the research team at Dimensional, one can see how stocks have historically performed before they became one of the 10 largest by market cap and compare that to how they performed after joining that list. The data covers the period 1927-2021. In the five and 10 years before joining the top 10, stocks that entered that list outperformed the market by 10.0% and 19.3%, respectively. However, in the five and 10 years after joining the list, they went on to underperform by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively."
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/faangs-...
Netflix for example has performed terribly recently, whilst Google and Amazon have grown. There are probably new constituents that didn't exist when FAANG was invented.
sideways sid said:
FAANG is probably due a reset.
Netflix for example has performed terribly recently, whilst Google and Amazon have grown. There are probably new constituents that didn't exist when FAANG was invented.
Netflix is interesting. To me it looks like its at a very good value to buy in now. They have culled out the free muliti share accounts and further growth from its current price looks good. Netflix for example has performed terribly recently, whilst Google and Amazon have grown. There are probably new constituents that didn't exist when FAANG was invented.
Derek Chevalier said:
The Warnings Were There About FAANG Stocks
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2022/...
"The spectacular underperformance of the FAANGs this year came as no surprise to investors familiar with the history of growth stock bubbles. As happened in the lead up to the dot com and Nifty 50 bubbles, P/E ratios increased without any material justification.
"It is an all-too-human failing for investors to fall prey to “recency bias” – the tendency to give too much weight to recent experience, believe that “this time it’s different,” and there is a “new normal.” That leads to ignoring long-term historical evidence, which many investors are sadly unaware of. Recency bias and the lack of historical knowledge lead to the mistakes of both overconfidence and treating the unlikely as impossible"
"Thanks to the research team at Dimensional, one can see how stocks have historically performed before they became one of the 10 largest by market cap and compare that to how they performed after joining that list. The data covers the period 1927-2021. In the five and 10 years before joining the top 10, stocks that entered that list outperformed the market by 10.0% and 19.3%, respectively. However, in the five and 10 years after joining the list, they went on to underperform by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively."
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/faangs-...
All hindsight analysis? https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2022/...
"The spectacular underperformance of the FAANGs this year came as no surprise to investors familiar with the history of growth stock bubbles. As happened in the lead up to the dot com and Nifty 50 bubbles, P/E ratios increased without any material justification.
"It is an all-too-human failing for investors to fall prey to “recency bias” – the tendency to give too much weight to recent experience, believe that “this time it’s different,” and there is a “new normal.” That leads to ignoring long-term historical evidence, which many investors are sadly unaware of. Recency bias and the lack of historical knowledge lead to the mistakes of both overconfidence and treating the unlikely as impossible"
"Thanks to the research team at Dimensional, one can see how stocks have historically performed before they became one of the 10 largest by market cap and compare that to how they performed after joining that list. The data covers the period 1927-2021. In the five and 10 years before joining the top 10, stocks that entered that list outperformed the market by 10.0% and 19.3%, respectively. However, in the five and 10 years after joining the list, they went on to underperform by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively."
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/faangs-...
dingg said:
Derek Chevalier said:
The Warnings Were There About FAANG Stocks
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2022/...
"The spectacular underperformance of the FAANGs this year came as no surprise to investors familiar with the history of growth stock bubbles. As happened in the lead up to the dot com and Nifty 50 bubbles, P/E ratios increased without any material justification.
"It is an all-too-human failing for investors to fall prey to “recency bias” – the tendency to give too much weight to recent experience, believe that “this time it’s different,” and there is a “new normal.” That leads to ignoring long-term historical evidence, which many investors are sadly unaware of. Recency bias and the lack of historical knowledge lead to the mistakes of both overconfidence and treating the unlikely as impossible"
"Thanks to the research team at Dimensional, one can see how stocks have historically performed before they became one of the 10 largest by market cap and compare that to how they performed after joining that list. The data covers the period 1927-2021. In the five and 10 years before joining the top 10, stocks that entered that list outperformed the market by 10.0% and 19.3%, respectively. However, in the five and 10 years after joining the list, they went on to underperform by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively."
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/faangs-...
All hindsight analysis? https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2022/...
"The spectacular underperformance of the FAANGs this year came as no surprise to investors familiar with the history of growth stock bubbles. As happened in the lead up to the dot com and Nifty 50 bubbles, P/E ratios increased without any material justification.
"It is an all-too-human failing for investors to fall prey to “recency bias” – the tendency to give too much weight to recent experience, believe that “this time it’s different,” and there is a “new normal.” That leads to ignoring long-term historical evidence, which many investors are sadly unaware of. Recency bias and the lack of historical knowledge lead to the mistakes of both overconfidence and treating the unlikely as impossible"
"Thanks to the research team at Dimensional, one can see how stocks have historically performed before they became one of the 10 largest by market cap and compare that to how they performed after joining that list. The data covers the period 1927-2021. In the five and 10 years before joining the top 10, stocks that entered that list outperformed the market by 10.0% and 19.3%, respectively. However, in the five and 10 years after joining the list, they went on to underperform by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively."
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/faangs-...
https://us.dimensional.com/funds
Poor long term performance and in their worst year in many they tripled their net earnings to over $2B (2021 vs 2020) touting emerging market funds which lost their shirt. I find it curious that some tout this 'asset manager' as being all things great whilst calling out Fundsmith and others yet the 'others' consistently outperform them. A 5%(p.a) 10 year return for any Growth Fund is terrible.
I also find it disingenuous to pen articles questioning FAANG when they invested in exactly that for a decade and held it all the way up/down. FAANG is a complete misnomer today cf even a couple of years ago.
dingg said:
Derek Chevalier said:
The Warnings Were There About FAANG Stocks
https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2022/...
"The spectacular underperformance of the FAANGs this year came as no surprise to investors familiar with the history of growth stock bubbles. As happened in the lead up to the dot com and Nifty 50 bubbles, P/E ratios increased without any material justification.
"It is an all-too-human failing for investors to fall prey to “recency bias” – the tendency to give too much weight to recent experience, believe that “this time it’s different,” and there is a “new normal.” That leads to ignoring long-term historical evidence, which many investors are sadly unaware of. Recency bias and the lack of historical knowledge lead to the mistakes of both overconfidence and treating the unlikely as impossible"
"Thanks to the research team at Dimensional, one can see how stocks have historically performed before they became one of the 10 largest by market cap and compare that to how they performed after joining that list. The data covers the period 1927-2021. In the five and 10 years before joining the top 10, stocks that entered that list outperformed the market by 10.0% and 19.3%, respectively. However, in the five and 10 years after joining the list, they went on to underperform by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively."
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/faangs-...
All hindsight analysis? https://www.advisorperspectives.com/articles/2022/...
"The spectacular underperformance of the FAANGs this year came as no surprise to investors familiar with the history of growth stock bubbles. As happened in the lead up to the dot com and Nifty 50 bubbles, P/E ratios increased without any material justification.
"It is an all-too-human failing for investors to fall prey to “recency bias” – the tendency to give too much weight to recent experience, believe that “this time it’s different,” and there is a “new normal.” That leads to ignoring long-term historical evidence, which many investors are sadly unaware of. Recency bias and the lack of historical knowledge lead to the mistakes of both overconfidence and treating the unlikely as impossible"
"Thanks to the research team at Dimensional, one can see how stocks have historically performed before they became one of the 10 largest by market cap and compare that to how they performed after joining that list. The data covers the period 1927-2021. In the five and 10 years before joining the top 10, stocks that entered that list outperformed the market by 10.0% and 19.3%, respectively. However, in the five and 10 years after joining the list, they went on to underperform by 1.1% and 1.5%, respectively."
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/faangs-...
Swedroe has written about it for years. The last decade has been almost unprecedented in terms of the disparity between growth and value.
https://www.evidenceinvestor.com/is-small-cap-valu...
"While it is true that earnings of large growth stocks have grown faster than earnings of small-cap value stocks — Avantis estimated that large growth earnings grew by approximately 194 percent between January 2010 and July 2021 versus an earnings increase of 177 percent for small value stocks — the differential was less than 2 percent per year."
Dimensional (and many others) have huge amounts of historical data including many examples of previous bubbles. The big difficulty is knowing when they will unwind.
Of course, there was always the chance that it was going to be "different this time"
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/when-it...
but you are betting against history
https://www.dimensional.com/us-en/insights/when-it...
"On average, value stocks have outperformed growth stocks by 4.1% annually in the US since 1927, as Exhibit 1 shows."
Valuations matter, eventually.
Looking at Exhibit 1, it says precisely zero. Without the underlying data. Using vague definitions of value and growth...relative premiums. Dimension seem great at producing research but they can't seem to perform better than any other asset manager and in many cases far worse.
Investors are better served realising the undeniable fact that comparing today to 1920's or even 1970s is a waste of time and anyone who does it is merely trying to support a bias.
It is true that if you look at the last 100 years, value outperformed growth and this line is trotted out by those that have an agenda. What matters is relative performance over the 'investors' time horizon. No different to posting 'the lost decade' and being very particular about the exact month to choose.
Over the past several decades growth has outperformed value (despite the terms being nuanced). A blended approach may be best?
Investors are better served realising the undeniable fact that comparing today to 1920's or even 1970s is a waste of time and anyone who does it is merely trying to support a bias.
It is true that if you look at the last 100 years, value outperformed growth and this line is trotted out by those that have an agenda. What matters is relative performance over the 'investors' time horizon. No different to posting 'the lost decade' and being very particular about the exact month to choose.
Over the past several decades growth has outperformed value (despite the terms being nuanced). A blended approach may be best?
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff