For the market to be at an all time high, somebody is making money. The good news is that most capital exists in pension funds which are effectively owned by “the people” so most 401ks should be doing well.
I think you shouldn’t forget December last year, which was a pretty clear warning shot. The last 6 months of gains could be reversed very quickly.
By market, I assume you mostly mean assets and particularly equities. All of the Fed's moves so far have /arguably/ been against the equities markets.
Considering that, it is quite strange that every time there is "bad" news, the market rallies. But that's probably just a symptom of the very bullish market we've been in. The market usually rallies on "good" news as well...
YOY the crb commodity index is down as well as the metal index. Gold is even only up a little since beginning of 2018.
All of this would be the opposite of the fed was pumping too much liquidity into the system or controlling interest rates at all.
Moreover, it’s inequitable. The economic instability is what allow upward mobility. The Fed’s stability goal equates to a goal of preserving entrenched wealth from competitive pressures.
A lot of money is pouring into the US because it is relatively stable. Helps that US companies have favorable tariff policy, economic policy and a competitive landscape.
I think it’s wrong to say these stock market gains have been enjoyed by “the people” when the richest 10% enjoyed the lion’s share of them.
1. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wealth_inequality_in_the_Uni...
The rate of return (%) has been better for pension funds, IRA, 401ks invested in market wide index funds than the wealthy that have invested in active hedge funds. (This has been very true historically, especially net of fees.)
So it's fair to say that the wealthy have seen worse returns compared to the public. And that the public has seen the "lion share" of market growth.
I would disagree. Most of the bankers where I worked last were happy with Trump winning.
That’s ludicrous. If you know anything about the politics and culture of the NYC finance crowd you know it’s super pro-Trump through and through.
He is — literally — one of them.
“Employees of the 17 largest bank holding companies and their subsidiaries have been sending her $10 for every $1 they contributed to Trump, according to a Reuters analysis.”
http://money.com/money/4554617/hillary-clinton-wall-street-b...
This is the most vile dark pattern I have seen in recent times.
On loading this page, there is an auto-playing, muted video. When you press its pause button, it is unmuted and keeps playing. Only when you press the pause button AGAIN does it actually stop playing.
At some point when implementing that feature someone said "Sure, I'm OK with that". What went wrong there?
nothing out of the ordinary, probably some team had to increase some company wide KPI of engagement, and likely every team has their own spin on it.
it was ab tested and provided statistically significant increase on video engagement, which was likely defined as "people interacting with the player", in the end you see a chart with engagement growing due to experiment x,y,z.. and everybody is happy and convinced they are doing the right thing.
I always thought that was incompetence and not malice, but maybe apparent interface glitches are a significant profit center.
> “Part of the problem is that it’s too late to hedge interest-rate volatility, there’s not currency volatility to hedge. Speculators need volatility to hedge and enter the market.”
Sounds like a good thing to me.
> New rules limited lenders’ ability and willingness to make principal bets with their own money
Anyone know what regulation this is referring to?
One of Steve Mnuchin's stated goals was to reduce the domination of the 5 mega-banks and help bring back a healthy market of smaller banks that got squeezed out by new rules added after the financial crisis. Rules that were designed with the bigger banks in mind. So I wonder how the smaller players are doing.
This, of course, is an incredibly stupid rule. There’s not really a big difference between market making and proprietary trading in the first place.
Market making is offering public liquidity as part of a market function. They are designated market participants with rules and responsibilities.
They are not the same.
Maybe people are starting to realize that changing portfolios all the time without a computer making the calculations is not the best way to make money (quite the opposite)
I wonder how much of this is a short term blip, and how much is the new normal, and if it is the new normal, where does it all end up, is buying and holding going to get more expensive, or will the active investing core maintain the same cost structure, but just shrink. Will we be seeing more Lehman Bros, or more Deutsche Banks?
Why do we need the banks for the trading anyway? Aren't there ways to handle it with technology rather than paying whatever fees the cartels want?
Maybe I am a little bit cynical in general about this stuff.
There is a vast amount of technology involved, but someone sets the strategy and that person takes home millions if it works. They are supported by thousands of other workers who also, in total, take home millions.
Small correction: way more money is made by actually buying and selling than by taking a commission on someone else’s trade. These roles are called “dealer” vs “broker”.
Sell the rallies as long as we are below ES ~8,000 / NQ ~3,000. Would be interesting to see MSFT, for instance, take a 70%-75% haircut in the next X years. [SPX 666 <- 10 years | 3,000 -> ??]
This is not investment advice.
