Page 93 of 106 FirstFirst ... 4383858687888990919293949596979899100101103 ... LastLast
Results 2,301 to 2,325 of 2642
  1. #2301
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    15-10-2015 @ 09:55 PM
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Hurrah, the economy is picking up! This must be great news for equity markets, right? Unfortunately, it is not. There is an increasing amount of research that indicates that the relationship between GDP growth and stock returns is not so harmonious. And yet, many investment decisions are still based solely on economic growth.

    A couple of years ago Morgan Stanley did some interesting research on this topic. Using the 'Triumph of the Optimists' database compiled by Dimson, Marsh & Staunton (2001), which contains over a hundred years of economic and market data for nineteen different countries, they concluded that the relationship between stock markets and GDP growth was predominantly negative. Their findings are irrespective of the time horizon over which this relationship is measured. Analysis of both shorter and longer intervals demonstrates that economic growth and equity returns are negatively correlated.

    In a similar study, using the same database, Goldman Sachs related GDP growth to actual returns. They calculated that, if you had invested only in those countries with the highest economic growth, your return would, on average, have been 3% per year lower than if you had invested in the countries with the poorest growth. Interestingly enough, if you only look at the emerging countries from the data sample, the 'slow growers' would have earned you as much as 5% more per year.

    Low growth, high return

    One of the best examples of this negative relationship between stock markets and GDP growth is China. Since 1992, China has outgrown the United States by a whopping 8% per year on average. But, it is the investor who put his money in the US stock market who actually made the best return. While lagging China by a mile in terms of economic progress, US equities outperformed Chinese stocks by roughly 8% per year. More evidence that the relationship between economic growth and equity returns is not a match made in heaven.

    Silly comparison. China is a not a free economy and has a fixed currency that is only directly convertable into 2 (now 3) other currencies.

    Until China goes to a floating exchange and becomes more welcoming to the west it's not worth touching. This could take a decade or more.

  2. #2302
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    FOWARD looking data. I see you have difficulty with English comprehension as well!

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    I see you chose to ignore when forward looking data is used

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    an economy has to grow and to grow an economy you need strong businesses. Strong businesses make large profits, pay dividends and most large businesses are listed on stock markets and will exhibit strong gains during good economic conditions.
    A more comprehensive look at this factor was conducted by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of the London Business School, whose work featured in a previous column. The profs

    take the records of 83 countries from 1972 to 2009 (the most comprehensive set available) and rank them by GDP growth over the previous five years. Investing each year in the countries with the highest economic growth over the preceding five years earned an annual return of 18.4%, but investing in the lowest-growth countries returned 25.1%.
    One might object that the professors are looking backwards while the market looks forward. But in a great 2005 paper, Jay Ritter of the University of Florida used the LBS data to look at more than a century of markets. He found that

    there is a cross-sectional correlation of minus 0.37 for the compounded real return on equities and the compounded growth rate of real per capita GDP for 16 countries over the 1900–2002 period.

    That's not a surprise at all. Buying shares after 5 strong years of eco growth would have you buying shares near a peak.

    Rather obvious.

    You want to be buying shares before the growth starts.

    That's just common sense investing.

    2009 is a perfect example. Eco tanking, shares hit rock bottom and started to rise expecting an improved eco going fwd.

    You buy before the eco turnaround not 5 years after

    I see you fail to understand how equities markets work.

    Bull markets in stocks typically last 3-5 years.

    Why the hell would you buy near the end of one?

    For the same reason you want to buy gold at the end of a bull market. You're a follower not a thinker.
    Don’t argue with idiots because they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.

  3. #2303
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    31-08-2023 @ 11:38 PM
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,512
    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    an economy has to grow and to grow an economy you need strong businesses. Strong businesses make large profits, pay dividends and most large businesses are listed on stock markets and will exhibit strong gains during good economic conditions.
    A more comprehensive look at this factor was conducted by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of the London Business School, whose work featured in a previous column. The profs

    take the records of 83 countries from 1972 to 2009 (the most comprehensive set available) and rank them by GDP growth over the previous five years. Investing each year in the countries with the highest economic growth over the preceding five years earned an annual return of 18.4%, but investing in the lowest-growth countries returned 25.1%.
    One might object that the professors are looking backwards while the market looks forward. But in a great 2005 paper, Jay Ritter of the University of Florida used the LBS data to look at more than a century of markets. He found that

    there is a cross-sectional correlation of minus 0.37 for the compounded real return on equities and the compounded growth rate of real per capita GDP for 16 countries over the 1900–2002 period.

    That's not a surprise at all. Buying shares after 5 strong years of eco growth would have you buying shares near a peak.

    Rather obvious.

    You want to be buying shares before the growth starts.

    That's just common sense investing.

    2009 is a perfect example. Eco tanking, shares hit rock bottom and started to rise expecting an improved eco going fwd.

    You buy before the eco turnaround not 5 years after
    ahhh 2009 is a perfect example eh ? On what planet did the economy start improving in 2009 ? The monetary spigots where turned on in 2009 which drove interest rates down and phony speculation through the roof.

    2009, the year the US economy improved

  4. #2304
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    15-10-2015 @ 09:55 PM
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by socal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    an economy has to grow and to grow an economy you need strong businesses. Strong businesses make large profits, pay dividends and most large businesses are listed on stock markets and will exhibit strong gains during good economic conditions.
    A more comprehensive look at this factor was conducted by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of the London Business School, whose work featured in a previous column. The profs

    take the records of 83 countries from 1972 to 2009 (the most comprehensive set available) and rank them by GDP growth over the previous five years. Investing each year in the countries with the highest economic growth over the preceding five years earned an annual return of 18.4%, but investing in the lowest-growth countries returned 25.1%.
    One might object that the professors are looking backwards while the market looks forward. But in a great 2005 paper, Jay Ritter of the University of Florida used the LBS data to look at more than a century of markets. He found that

    there is a cross-sectional correlation of minus 0.37 for the compounded real return on equities and the compounded growth rate of real per capita GDP for 16 countries over the 1900–2002 period.

    That's not a surprise at all. Buying shares after 5 strong years of eco growth would have you buying shares near a peak.

    Rather obvious.

    You want to be buying shares before the growth starts.

    That's just common sense investing.

    2009 is a perfect example. Eco tanking, shares hit rock bottom and started to rise expecting an improved eco going fwd.

    You buy before the eco turnaround not 5 years after
    ahhh 2009 is a perfect example eh ? On what planet did the economy start improving in 2009 ? The monetary spigots where turned on in 2009 which drove interest rates down and phony speculation through the roof.

    2009, the year the US economy improved

    Oh dear you are thick. The stock market moves 2 years ahead of the economy.

    No wonder you keep losing money

  5. #2305
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    Again, you focus on the simple illustrative example of china used whilst ignoring the main focus which are the studies by Morgan Stanley and Goldmans.

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Hurrah, the economy is picking up! This must be great news for equity markets, right? Unfortunately, it is not. There is an increasing amount of research that indicates that the relationship between GDP growth and stock returns is not so harmonious. And yet, many investment decisions are still based solely on economic growth.

    A couple of years ago Morgan Stanley did some interesting research on this topic. Using the 'Triumph of the Optimists' database compiled by Dimson, Marsh & Staunton (2001), which contains over a hundred years of economic and market data for nineteen different countries, they concluded that the relationship between stock markets and GDP growth was predominantly negative. Their findings are irrespective of the time horizon over which this relationship is measured. Analysis of both shorter and longer intervals demonstrates that economic growth and equity returns are negatively correlated.

    In a similar study, using the same database, Goldman Sachs related GDP growth to actual returns. They calculated that, if you had invested only in those countries with the highest economic growth, your return would, on average, have been 3% per year lower than if you had invested in the countries with the poorest growth. Interestingly enough, if you only look at the emerging countries from the data sample, the 'slow growers' would have earned you as much as 5% more per year.

    Low growth, high return

    One of the best examples of this negative relationship between stock markets and GDP growth is China. Since 1992, China has outgrown the United States by a whopping 8% per year on average. But, it is the investor who put his money in the US stock market who actually made the best return. While lagging China by a mile in terms of economic progress, US equities outperformed Chinese stocks by roughly 8% per year. More evidence that the relationship between economic growth and equity returns is not a match made in heaven.

    Silly comparison. China is a not a free economy and has a fixed currency that is only directly convertable into 2 (now 3) other currencies.

    Until China goes to a floating exchange and becomes more welcoming to the west it's not worth touching. This could take a decade or more.

  6. #2306
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    15-10-2015 @ 09:55 PM
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    FOWARD looking data. I see you have difficulty with English comprehension as well!

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    I see you chose to ignore when forward looking data is used

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post

    A more comprehensive look at this factor was conducted by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of the London Business School, whose work featured in a previous column. The profs

    take the records of 83 countries from 1972 to 2009 (the most comprehensive set available) and rank them by GDP growth over the previous five years. Investing each year in the countries with the highest economic growth over the preceding five years earned an annual return of 18.4%, but investing in the lowest-growth countries returned 25.1%.
    One might object that the professors are looking backwards while the market looks forward. But in a great 2005 paper, Jay Ritter of the University of Florida used the LBS data to look at more than a century of markets. He found that

    there is a cross-sectional correlation of minus 0.37 for the compounded real return on equities and the compounded growth rate of real per capita GDP for 16 countries over the 1900–2002 period.

    That's not a surprise at all. Buying shares after 5 strong years of eco growth would have you buying shares near a peak.

    Rather obvious.

    You want to be buying shares before the growth starts.

    That's just common sense investing.

    2009 is a perfect example. Eco tanking, shares hit rock bottom and started to rise expecting an improved eco going fwd.

    You buy before the eco turnaround not 5 years after

    I see you fail to understand how equities markets work.

    Bull markets in stocks typically last 3-5 years.

    Why the hell would you buy near the end of one?

    For the same reason you want to buy gold at the end of a bull market. You're a follower not a thinker.

    That's the best you can do? Shitty insults like that.

    Must be angry about the gold price tanking

  7. #2307
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    15-10-2015 @ 09:55 PM
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Again, you focus on the simple illustrative example of china used whilst ignoring the main focus which are the studies by Morgan Stanley and Goldmans.

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Hurrah, the economy is picking up! This must be great news for equity markets, right? Unfortunately, it is not. There is an increasing amount of research that indicates that the relationship between GDP growth and stock returns is not so harmonious. And yet, many investment decisions are still based solely on economic growth.

    A couple of years ago Morgan Stanley did some interesting research on this topic. Using the 'Triumph of the Optimists' database compiled by Dimson, Marsh & Staunton (2001), which contains over a hundred years of economic and market data for nineteen different countries, they concluded that the relationship between stock markets and GDP growth was predominantly negative. Their findings are irrespective of the time horizon over which this relationship is measured. Analysis of both shorter and longer intervals demonstrates that economic growth and equity returns are negatively correlated.

    In a similar study, using the same database, Goldman Sachs related GDP growth to actual returns. They calculated that, if you had invested only in those countries with the highest economic growth, your return would, on average, have been 3% per year lower than if you had invested in the countries with the poorest growth. Interestingly enough, if you only look at the emerging countries from the data sample, the 'slow growers' would have earned you as much as 5% more per year.

    Low growth, high return

    One of the best examples of this negative relationship between stock markets and GDP growth is China. Since 1992, China has outgrown the United States by a whopping 8% per year on average. But, it is the investor who put his money in the US stock market who actually made the best return. While lagging China by a mile in terms of economic progress, US equities outperformed Chinese stocks by roughly 8% per year. More evidence that the relationship between economic growth and equity returns is not a match made in heaven.

    Silly comparison. China is a not a free economy and has a fixed currency that is only directly convertable into 2 (now 3) other currencies.

    Until China goes to a floating exchange and becomes more welcoming to the west it's not worth touching. This could take a decade or more.

    The comparison includes China but you want to ignore relevant facts. It's no wonder you and Socal lose money.

  8. #2308
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    31-08-2023 @ 11:38 PM
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    10,512
    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    I see you chose to ignore when forward looking data is used

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    an economy has to grow and to grow an economy you need strong businesses. Strong businesses make large profits, pay dividends and most large businesses are listed on stock markets and will exhibit strong gains during good economic conditions.
    A more comprehensive look at this factor was conducted by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of the London Business School, whose work featured in a previous column. The profs

    take the records of 83 countries from 1972 to 2009 (the most comprehensive set available) and rank them by GDP growth over the previous five years. Investing each year in the countries with the highest economic growth over the preceding five years earned an annual return of 18.4%, but investing in the lowest-growth countries returned 25.1%.
    One might object that the professors are looking backwards while the market looks forward. But in a great 2005 paper, Jay Ritter of the University of Florida used the LBS data to look at more than a century of markets. He found that

    there is a cross-sectional correlation of minus 0.37 for the compounded real return on equities and the compounded growth rate of real per capita GDP for 16 countries over the 1900–2002 period.

    That's not a surprise at all. Buying shares after 5 strong years of eco growth would have you buying shares near a peak.

    Rather obvious.

    You want to be buying shares before the growth starts.

    That's just common sense investing.

    2009 is a perfect example. Eco tanking, shares hit rock bottom and started to rise expecting an improved eco going fwd.

    You buy before the eco turnaround not 5 years after

    I see you fail to understand how equities markets work.

    Bull markets in stocks typically last 3-5 years.

    Why the hell would you buy near the end of one?

    For the same reason you want to buy gold at the end of a bull market. You're a follower not a thinker.
    Can you please tell me when you think the 33 year bull market in US treasury debt will end. Just give me a guess..

    This bull market is older then I am by a few years. Is it older then you are ?

    And you know what happend the last time this bubble burst ? Gold went from $33 an oz to $850, a 2300% rise. So this $1000 to $2000 gold market is just a side show to the real thing. Its like when gold traded from $35 to $65.


  9. #2309
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    I see a pattern here, you just ignore anything which contradicts your POV?

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    FOWARD looking data. I see you have difficulty with English comprehension as well!

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    I see you chose to ignore when forward looking data is used

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post


    That's not a surprise at all. Buying shares after 5 strong years of eco growth would have you buying shares near a peak.

    Rather obvious.

    You want to be buying shares before the growth starts.

    That's just common sense investing.

    2009 is a perfect example. Eco tanking, shares hit rock bottom and started to rise expecting an improved eco going fwd.

    You buy before the eco turnaround not 5 years after

    I see you fail to understand how equities markets work.

    Bull markets in stocks typically last 3-5 years.

    Why the hell would you buy near the end of one?

    For the same reason you want to buy gold at the end of a bull market. You're a follower not a thinker.

    That's the best you can do? Shitty insults like that.

    Must be angry about the gold price tanking

  10. #2310
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    Why do you think I am angry about the price of gold going down? Strange assumption.

  11. #2311
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    15-10-2015 @ 09:55 PM
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    I see a pattern here, you just ignore anything which contradicts your POV?

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    FOWARD looking data. I see you have difficulty with English comprehension as well!

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    I see you chose to ignore when forward looking data is used

    I see you fail to understand how equities markets work.

    Bull markets in stocks typically last 3-5 years.

    Why the hell would you buy near the end of one?

    For the same reason you want to buy gold at the end of a bull market. You're a follower not a thinker.

    That's the best you can do? Shitty insults like that.

    Must be angry about the gold price tanking
    You're the one who quotes a study involving China then wants to ignore the relevant facts

    Fucking hilarious that you can't work out that a country that doesn't have a free market and a tradable exchange struggles to achieve stock market growth.

    And you wonder why stocks go up and down.

    Fucking comedy gold!!!!!!

  12. #2312
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    The studies do not focus on china at all, bizarre comparison!

    How do you know I lose money? Do you share the crystal ball buttercup uses admiral butterfly?

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Again, you focus on the simple illustrative example of china used whilst ignoring the main focus which are the studies by Morgan Stanley and Goldmans.

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    Hurrah, the economy is picking up! This must be great news for equity markets, right? Unfortunately, it is not. There is an increasing amount of research that indicates that the relationship between GDP growth and stock returns is not so harmonious. And yet, many investment decisions are still based solely on economic growth.

    A couple of years ago Morgan Stanley did some interesting research on this topic. Using the 'Triumph of the Optimists' database compiled by Dimson, Marsh & Staunton (2001), which contains over a hundred years of economic and market data for nineteen different countries, they concluded that the relationship between stock markets and GDP growth was predominantly negative. Their findings are irrespective of the time horizon over which this relationship is measured. Analysis of both shorter and longer intervals demonstrates that economic growth and equity returns are negatively correlated.

    In a similar study, using the same database, Goldman Sachs related GDP growth to actual returns. They calculated that, if you had invested only in those countries with the highest economic growth, your return would, on average, have been 3% per year lower than if you had invested in the countries with the poorest growth. Interestingly enough, if you only look at the emerging countries from the data sample, the 'slow growers' would have earned you as much as 5% more per year.

    Low growth, high return

    One of the best examples of this negative relationship between stock markets and GDP growth is China. Since 1992, China has outgrown the United States by a whopping 8% per year on average. But, it is the investor who put his money in the US stock market who actually made the best return. While lagging China by a mile in terms of economic progress, US equities outperformed Chinese stocks by roughly 8% per year. More evidence that the relationship between economic growth and equity returns is not a match made in heaven.

    Silly comparison. China is a not a free economy and has a fixed currency that is only directly convertable into 2 (now 3) other currencies.

    Until China goes to a floating exchange and becomes more welcoming to the west it's not worth touching. This could take a decade or more.

    The comparison includes China but you want to ignore relevant facts. It's no wonder you and Socal lose money.

  13. #2313
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    15-10-2015 @ 09:55 PM
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by socal View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    I see you chose to ignore when forward looking data is used

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post

    A more comprehensive look at this factor was conducted by Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of the London Business School, whose work featured in a previous column. The profs

    take the records of 83 countries from 1972 to 2009 (the most comprehensive set available) and rank them by GDP growth over the previous five years. Investing each year in the countries with the highest economic growth over the preceding five years earned an annual return of 18.4%, but investing in the lowest-growth countries returned 25.1%.
    One might object that the professors are looking backwards while the market looks forward. But in a great 2005 paper, Jay Ritter of the University of Florida used the LBS data to look at more than a century of markets. He found that

    there is a cross-sectional correlation of minus 0.37 for the compounded real return on equities and the compounded growth rate of real per capita GDP for 16 countries over the 1900–2002 period.

    That's not a surprise at all. Buying shares after 5 strong years of eco growth would have you buying shares near a peak.

    Rather obvious.

    You want to be buying shares before the growth starts.

    That's just common sense investing.

    2009 is a perfect example. Eco tanking, shares hit rock bottom and started to rise expecting an improved eco going fwd.

    You buy before the eco turnaround not 5 years after

    I see you fail to understand how equities markets work.

    Bull markets in stocks typically last 3-5 years.

    Why the hell would you buy near the end of one?

    For the same reason you want to buy gold at the end of a bull market. You're a follower not a thinker.
    Can you please tell me when you think the 33 year bull market in US treasury debt will end. Just give me a guess..

    This bull market is older then I am by a few years. Is it older then you are ?

    And you know what happend the last time this bubble burst ? Gold went from $33 an oz to $850, a 2300% rise. So this $1000 to $2000 gold market is just a side show to the real thing. Its like when gold traded from $35 to $65.


    After inflation that's hardly a bull market at all.

    And just because a bull market lasts 30 yrs in chang prices doesn't mean the price of goats will rise for 30 years.

    You fail to understand how 99.9% of markets work.

    But keep punching away spruiking gold for the next 5 years and losing money. It's going to be hilarious.

  14. #2314
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    The comedy gold you provide is that you do not understand those research pieces are not about China. Comprehension issue again I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    I see a pattern here, you just ignore anything which contradicts your POV?

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    FOWARD looking data. I see you have difficulty with English comprehension as well!

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post


    I see you fail to understand how equities markets work.

    Bull markets in stocks typically last 3-5 years.

    Why the hell would you buy near the end of one?

    For the same reason you want to buy gold at the end of a bull market. You're a follower not a thinker.

    That's the best you can do? Shitty insults like that.

    Must be angry about the gold price tanking
    You're the one who quotes a study involving China then wants to ignore the relevant facts

    Fucking hilarious that you can't work out that a country that doesn't have a free market and a tradable exchange struggles to achieve stock market growth.

    And you wonder why stocks go up and down.

    Fucking comedy gold!!!!!!

  15. #2315
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    15-10-2015 @ 09:55 PM
    Posts
    854
    "Gold went from $33 an oz to $850, a 2300% rise"

    So now you're predicting a 2300% rise hahahaha

    Earlier you predicted gold would fall to $100/oz


    Fucking hilarious the bs you come up with

    If it rises you're right
    If it falls you're right



    What a douchebag!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  16. #2316
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    15-10-2015 @ 09:55 PM
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    The comedy gold you provide is that you do not understand those research pieces are not about China. Comprehension issue again I think.

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    I see a pattern here, you just ignore anything which contradicts your POV?

    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    FOWARD looking data. I see you have difficulty with English comprehension as well!

    That's the best you can do? Shitty insults like that.

    Must be angry about the gold price tanking
    You're the one who quotes a study involving China then wants to ignore the relevant facts

    Fucking hilarious that you can't work out that a country that doesn't have a free market and a tradable exchange struggles to achieve stock market growth.

    And you wonder why stocks go up and down.

    Fucking comedy gold!!!!!!
    You never made it to uni did you?

    A study involving China doesn't involve China

    Thanks for the laughs chump.

  17. #2317
    I'm in Jail
    Butterfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    12-06-2021 @ 11:13 PM
    Posts
    39,832
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888
    Why are you mixing up yield for the new acquirer with that of the seller? Totally separate yield calculations.
    again you are confusing total returns and holding period returns with a yield, it's hopeless

  18. #2318
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    ^ if you can't understand that those studies are not about china I would think a course in basic English is necessary before you even mention university. More likely you do know that china is not the relevant point of those two research papers but are too embarrassed to admit you goofed.

  19. #2319
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    15-10-2015 @ 09:55 PM
    Posts
    854
    You can't explain anything to draco - he fails to understand basic concepts. He'd fail year 10 economics. Same with Socal - he's a nutter.

  20. #2320
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    15-10-2015 @ 09:55 PM
    Posts
    854
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    ^ if you can't understand that those studies are not about china I would think a course in basic English is necessary before you even mention university. More likely you do know that china is not the relevant point of those two research papers but are too embarrassed to admit you goofed.

    Dear oh dear, your quoted study included China

    Go back and finish school you muppet.

  21. #2321
    I am in Jail

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Last Online
    15-10-2015 @ 09:55 PM
    Posts
    854
    "One of the best examples of this negative relationship between stock markets and GDP growth is China. Since 1992, China has outgrown the United States by a whopping 8% per year on average. But, it is the investor who put his money in the US stock market who actually made the best return. While lagging China by a mile in terms of economic progress, US equities outperformed Chinese stocks by roughly 8% per year. More evidence that the relationship between economic growth and equity returns is not a match made in heaven."

    LOL

  22. #2322
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by Butterfly View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888
    Why are you mixing up yield for the new acquirer with that of the seller? Totally separate yield calculations.
    again you are confusing total returns and holding period returns with a yield, it's hopeless
    Fking hell buttercup, it has nothing to do with total returns, or holding period returns. You stated yield is always positive when that quite clearly not always the case. Yes you are quite clearly hopeless at even the basics!

  23. #2323
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888 View Post
    ^ if you can't understand that those studies are not about china I would think a course in basic English is necessary before you even mention university. More likely you do know that china is not the relevant point of those two research papers but are too embarrassed to admit you goofed.

    Dear oh dear, your quoted study included China

    Go back and finish school you muppet.
    Read the quote again and maybe you will understand. Even if one of the inputs into the research was china would that invalidate the entire research?

  24. #2324
    Thailand Expat
    draco888's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Online
    13-02-2016 @ 06:01 PM
    Posts
    2,084
    Quote Originally Posted by waradmiral View Post
    "One of the best examples of this negative relationship between stock markets and GDP growth is China. Since 1992, China has outgrown the United States by a whopping 8% per year on average. But, it is the investor who put his money in the US stock market who actually made the best return. While lagging China by a mile in terms of economic progress, US equities outperformed Chinese stocks by roughly 8% per year. More evidence that the relationship between economic growth and equity returns is not a match made in heaven."

    LOL
    That forms no part of either research piece. Must have been hard work with you in the classroom!

  25. #2325
    I'm in Jail
    Butterfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Last Online
    12-06-2021 @ 11:13 PM
    Posts
    39,832
    Quote Originally Posted by draco888
    stock Market returns and GDP growth
    GDP growth measures are full of lags and leads measurement problems, while stock market returns are real time, so anyone trying to draw correlations between those 2, even though they are often done in modern risk models, is asking for weak correlations.

    why not compare moon cycles with those of market returns ? I bet the correlations would be higher

    stock market returns are leading indicators on earnings expectations, therefore their correlation with the actual business cycles will be strong when those expectations materialize. Again it all depends on the market regime we are in, so the correlations will vary because of it, though they do exist. There is also the issue of time frame. Is it relevant to draw correlations on 50 years when those cycles interact with different amplitudes ? or are the last 5 years more relevant ?

    What is interesting is not the leading effect, but how it is perceived in the real world for the last 5 years. The real world is following the market these days, not the other way around.

Page 93 of 106 FirstFirst ... 4383858687888990919293949596979899100101103 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •