There are web sites that make money. Arguably, when their topic is publicly-traded stocks, not necessarily economics, accuracy should be the only thing anyone pays for. However, chances are that your most popular market bloggers and media personalities are wrong with regularity. Despite what could be most helpful recent commentary on the S&P 500 index (VOO), caution is merited toward a new predictive product such as The Boom & Bust Signal, especially if there is a fervent mob endorsement of it.
If you are simply trying to pick individual stocks that beat the index there is a chance of success. One of the market’s voices is a proponent of an ‘All your eggs in one basket approach such that you watch that basket very carefully.’ Strangely, and despite all the mantras about diversity, it makes sense. Nearly all funds do not beat the index. Yet when one knows something specific, and better than others, there can be an opportunity that becomes evident.
Different techniques that follow from that may involve inverse correlation or short selling. A rationale would be the mitigation of risk. Consistent with observations about financial media entities, some institutions continue to pay for persons who strategically bet against markets. They, in turn, can be wrong on behalf of their clients and then outright deceptive when communicating insight through media.
Meanwhile the S&P 500 gains. Thus, a constantly-held short position, with conviction about an impending market crash, can be costly. The lower a security’s price declines, if it drops at all, the attractiveness and upside to prospective investors improves.
So, what we’d aim to do here, if an individual stock drops by double digit percentage(s) in days, is to collect any profits. There could be a tendency to talk trash. However, even if you think the company is worth $0, or have some sort of hostility toward parties who support its capitalization, acting further could easily be a mistake. If you won the lottery, would you put all your winnings toward a media announcement in order to quote Emo Philips: “It’s a tax for the mathematically incompetent?”
Anyhow, one can easily be consumed when attempting to follow individual business sectors and the various firms that operate within them. After attention to myriad detail, only background focus may have been allocated to the state of the actual market. After all, since the 2016 election, Democrat economists have been saying it is going to crash. At least one other Democrat, Warren Buffett, is willing to go on record about not “Pay[ing] any attention to what economists say, frankly.”
That brings us back to a recent alert, issued by economists at The Boom & Bust Signal, during a complimentary trial subscription, that the S&P 500 has “moved into a zone of risk asymmetry where there is a higher probability for the asset class to correct and lose value.” Per the service’s guidance, though this is not their clearest signal, it is prudent to consider reducing exposure to the US stock market.
So far this week, shares have been trading lower. Are subscribers concerned with accuracy? Popularity might in fact be all that is needed for an online subscription business. Or they could be right!
*The author owns shares of VOO
If you are simply trying to pick individual stocks that beat the index there is a chance of success. One of the market’s voices is a proponent of an ‘All your eggs in one basket approach such that you watch that basket very carefully.’ Strangely, and despite all the mantras about diversity, it makes sense. Nearly all funds do not beat the index. Yet when one knows something specific, and better than others, there can be an opportunity that becomes evident.
Different techniques that follow from that may involve inverse correlation or short selling. A rationale would be the mitigation of risk. Consistent with observations about financial media entities, some institutions continue to pay for persons who strategically bet against markets. They, in turn, can be wrong on behalf of their clients and then outright deceptive when communicating insight through media.
Meanwhile the S&P 500 gains. Thus, a constantly-held short position, with conviction about an impending market crash, can be costly. The lower a security’s price declines, if it drops at all, the attractiveness and upside to prospective investors improves.
So, what we’d aim to do here, if an individual stock drops by double digit percentage(s) in days, is to collect any profits. There could be a tendency to talk trash. However, even if you think the company is worth $0, or have some sort of hostility toward parties who support its capitalization, acting further could easily be a mistake. If you won the lottery, would you put all your winnings toward a media announcement in order to quote Emo Philips: “It’s a tax for the mathematically incompetent?”
Anyhow, one can easily be consumed when attempting to follow individual business sectors and the various firms that operate within them. After attention to myriad detail, only background focus may have been allocated to the state of the actual market. After all, since the 2016 election, Democrat economists have been saying it is going to crash. At least one other Democrat, Warren Buffett, is willing to go on record about not “Pay[ing] any attention to what economists say, frankly.”
That brings us back to a recent alert, issued by economists at The Boom & Bust Signal, during a complimentary trial subscription, that the S&P 500 has “moved into a zone of risk asymmetry where there is a higher probability for the asset class to correct and lose value.” Per the service’s guidance, though this is not their clearest signal, it is prudent to consider reducing exposure to the US stock market.
So far this week, shares have been trading lower. Are subscribers concerned with accuracy? Popularity might in fact be all that is needed for an online subscription business. Or they could be right!
*The author owns shares of VOO