CarmelV Cracksmokers…..We’re baaaack….

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]

And again: If the Fed would have been smart a year or two ago, they’d have started buying infrastructure development bonds rather than gov’t bonds and MBS. Infrastructure improvements provide lasting value rather than blowing bubbles.[/quote]

That wouldn’t have changed the market much. Muni bonds are priced based on treasury yields.

[spdrun]

And you’re conveniently leaving out that FB closed at $50.20

Up, what, 2% after supposedly blowout earnings. *yawn* This is basically within the normal daily variation for a lot of stocks, nothing to write home about.

Shoulda sold after hours when the cauldron was still a-bubblin’.

[Coronita]

[quote=spdrun]

And you’re conveniently leaving out that FB closed at $50.20

Up, what, 2% after supposedly blowout earnings. *yawn* This is basically within the normal daily variation for a lot of stocks, nothing to write home about.

Shoulda sold after hours when the cauldron was still a-bubblin’.[/quote]

Well considering it’s a down day, I would consider that a good thing.

[spdrun]

Taken in context of earnings, it’s terrible.

[Coronita]

[quote=spdrun]Taken in context of earnings, it’s terrible.[/quote]

Bubble stocks don’t trade on fundamentals you know… It trades on hype..

Just saying….

[spdrun]

And I’m arguing that the sheen is wearing off and rationality is returning, Fed or no Fed… hype is gone — people looked at earnings briefly, then saw the forward guidance and sold off.

And again, I’m arguing that it would have been a hell of a lot smarter for the Fed to invest in infrastructure as directly as possible — at least having new, clean, working infrastructure will buoy the economy a LONG time after new stock or property bubbles dissipate.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flu][quote=spdrun]Taken in context of earnings, it’s terrible.[/quote]

Bubble stocks don’t trade on fundamentals you know… It trades on hype..

Just saying….[/quote]

I think you’re both wrong. The stock movement was consistent with what they reported, because they reported much more than just historical earnings. And it’s no longer a “hype” stock. They’re a real operating company with operating profits. FB is priced with potential growth figured in. It may never reach those targets, but the targets are not unreasonable. As opposed to TSLA, which is trading solely based on hope right now, not computed future earnings.

[Coronita]

[quote=spdrun]And I’m arguing that the sheen is wearing off and rationality is returning, Fed or no Fed… hype is gone — people looked at earnings briefly, then saw the forward guidance and sold off.

And again, I’m arguing that it would have been a hell of a lot smarter for the Fed to invest in infrastructure as directly as possible — at least having new, clean, working infrastructure will buoy the economy a LONG time after new stock or property bubbles dissipate.[/quote]

Well ok… Um…Who are you arguing with?

I’m not suggesting that the markets are going to keep going up. I thought I was pretty clear I’m taking the stance I have no idea what the Fed or the markets going to do at this point, and short of having some stuff in index funds and sitting on cash, for me it’s been a crapshoot lately.

But i do enjoy wasting your time on the days that I’m not busy, just for the sake of wasting your time….I can’t wait until I retire soon and really have nothing better to do…

[Coronita]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=flu][quote=spdrun]Taken in context of earnings, it’s terrible.[/quote]

Bubble stocks don’t trade on fundamentals you know… It trades on hype..

Just saying….[/quote]

I think you’re both wrong. The stock movement was consistent with what they reported, because they reported much more than just historical earnings. And it’s no longer a “hype” stock. They’re a real operating company with operating profits. FB is priced with potential growth figured in. It may never reach those targets, but the targets are not unreasonable. As opposed to TSLA, which is trading solely based on hope right now, not computed future earnings.[/quote]

You know as well as I do that I have no idea what I’m talking about. I just enjoy wasting people’s time on this thread….

heh heh.

[flyer]

[quote=flu][quote=SK in CV][quote=flu][quote=spdrun]Taken in context of earnings, it’s terrible.[/quote]

Bubble stocks don’t trade on fundamentals you know… It trades on hype..

Just saying….[/quote]

I think you’re both wrong. The stock movement was consistent with what they reported, because they reported much more than just historical earnings. And it’s no longer a “hype” stock. They’re a real operating company with operating profits. FB is priced with potential growth figured in. It may never reach those targets, but the targets are not unreasonable. As opposed to TSLA, which is trading solely based on hope right now, not computed future earnings.[/quote]

You know as well as I do that I have no idea what I’m talking about. I just enjoy wasting people’s time on this thread….

heh heh.[/quote]

I don’t think most of what’s said on this site is a waste of time. I enjoy reading everyone’s posts–even yours, flu:)

To me, it’s interesting to know what others are doing and thinking. I still have time to fly, work on real estate and movie deals, keep the family happy, etc., etc.–so keep those posts coming!

[Coronita]

[quote=flyer][quote=flu][quote=SK in CV][quote=flu][quote=spdrun]Taken in context of earnings, it’s terrible.[/quote]

Bubble stocks don’t trade on fundamentals you know… It trades on hype..

Just saying….[/quote]

I think you’re both wrong. The stock movement was consistent with what they reported, because they reported much more than just historical earnings. And it’s no longer a “hype” stock. They’re a real operating company with operating profits. FB is priced with potential growth figured in. It may never reach those targets, but the targets are not unreasonable. As opposed to TSLA, which is trading solely based on hope right now, not computed future earnings.[/quote]

You know as well as I do that I have no idea what I’m talking about. I just enjoy wasting people’s time on this thread….

heh heh.[/quote]

I don’t think most of what’s said on this site is a waste of time. I enjoy reading everyone’s posts–even yours, flu:)

To me, it’s interesting to know what others are doing and thinking. I still have time to fly, work on real estate and movie deals, keep the family happy, etc., etc.–so keep those posts coming![/quote]

Lol. Markets are up again today. My head is dizzy….

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun] it would have been a hell of a lot smarter for the Fed to invest in infrastructure as directly as possible — at least having new, clean, working infrastructure will buoy the economy a LONG time after new stock or property bubbles dissipate.[/quote]
Agree. But investing in infrastructure would be the Feds, not the Fed.

[spdrun]

No, I actually meant the “Fed” — correct me if I’m wrong, but as the bank of last resort, they can buy any bonds including STATE-issued infrastructure bonds.

The “Feds” are broken, so why not have the “Fed” take over their (shirked) responsibility? If they’re buying Federal treasury bonds, they can as well buy state-issued bonds instead.

[SK in CV]

[quote=spdrun]No, I actually meant the “Fed” — correct me if I’m wrong, but as the bank of last resort, they can buy any bonds including STATE-issued infrastructure bonds.

[/quote]

Are you aware of any state or municipal infrastructure bonds that have gone unfunded? Any instances of bonds being approved for issuance, and issuers cancelled because they couldn’t sell the bonds (effectively, couldn’t borrow the money), or because the interest rate was too high? If not, how would the fed buying bonds on the secondary market change anything?

[spdrun]

No, but if you push muni and state yields (read: borrowing rates) down preferentially, you’d be allowing the entities to borrow more money for infrastructure development at a given repayment cost.

[Author]

Posts