Charles Schwab??

[Anonymous]

guess bernake has not proven himself as of yet. I don’t claim to know what is going on the with currency market. was just suggesting a general trend based on the derivatives market for currency and federal funds futures. I am not convinced but a contrarian position in this market is not out of question.

Second, investing in other currencies CD is risky. Interest rate parity (theory that amounts to something like arbitrage is impossible in a free market) suggests that the interest rate of a foreign currency is only higher than the interest rate for a domestic currency if the domestic currency is undervalued by the difference between the two rates. The fundamental concept in laymens terms is “there is no fundamental advantage to borrowing or lending in one currency over another.” This is of course theory and clearly you can make money (because unlike theory there are many other factors involved) but in many cases you can also lose money. Theory does often hold in the long term but definitely not in the short term. Guess a class on capital markets is in order if you intend to invest in foreign CDs anyways. good luck

[Anonymous]

Here is the article I mentioned: article

Here is the SP 500 P/E valuation over time (using 12 months trailing:
sp500-pe

Here is the SP 500 “corrected” P/E valuation over time (using the past 10 years earnings): sp500-pe-corr

[Anonymous]

Here is the article I mentioned: article

Here is the SP 500 P/E valuation over time (using 12 months trailing:
sp500-pe

Here is the SP 500 “corrected” P/E valuation over time (using the past 10 years earnings): sp500-pe-corr

[Anonymous]

Here is the article I mentioned: article

Here is the SP 500 P/E valuation over time (using 12 months trailing:
sp500-pe

Here is the SP 500 “corrected” P/E valuation over time (using the past 10 years earnings): sp500-pe-corr

[Anonymous]

Here is the article I mentioned: article

Here is the SP 500 P/E valuation over time (using 12 months trailing:
sp500-pe

Here is the SP 500 “corrected” P/E valuation over time (using the past 10 years earnings): sp500-pe-corr

[Anonymous]

Here is the article I mentioned: article

Here is the SP 500 P/E valuation over time (using 12 months trailing:
sp500-pe

Here is the SP 500 “corrected” P/E valuation over time (using the past 10 years earnings): sp500-pe-corr

[Rich Toscano]

I wrote the article you refer to.

[quote=vkailas]The go on to say we are currently very safely in an expensive valuation so you probably should not invest considering that only rarely when in a expensive valuation do investors get good returns. [/quote]

That’s not what the article says at all… that fact that you come away with that conclusion indicates that you didn’t read it very carefully. (Further proof is found below).

[quote=vkailas]These kind of articles or common in a down market.[/quote]

If you view the articles page on the pca site, you will see that we were putting up bearish articles in early 2007 well before the market peaked. So your implicit accusation that we wait until a down market to put up such articles is incorrect.

[quote=vkailas]Trying to scare investors even more.[/quote]

We truly believe that the market is overvalued, we invest accordingly, and we try to educate people as such. The accusation that we are trying to scare people (with the implication that we don’t even believe what we are writing) is very insulting.

[quote=vkailas]The article however glances over the fact that their valuation is an average of the past 10 years of earnings. And while it’s historically rare to have good returns in markets with similar average valuations over the past 10 years, the tech bubble we experienced is also rare with astronomical valuations that made no sense and lower earnings that other past booms. Using an average of all these lower earnings over the past 10 years leads to a average expensive valuation. [/quote]

The valuation is based on the past 10 years’ earnings, not on the past 10 years’ valuations, so the above is incorrect.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I wrote the article you refer to.

[quote=vkailas]The go on to say we are currently very safely in an expensive valuation so you probably should not invest considering that only rarely when in a expensive valuation do investors get good returns. [/quote]

That’s not what the article says at all… that fact that you come away with that conclusion indicates that you didn’t read it very carefully. (Further proof is found below).

[quote=vkailas]These kind of articles or common in a down market.[/quote]

If you view the articles page on the pca site, you will see that we were putting up bearish articles in early 2007 well before the market peaked. So your implicit accusation that we wait until a down market to put up such articles is incorrect.

[quote=vkailas]Trying to scare investors even more.[/quote]

We truly believe that the market is overvalued, we invest accordingly, and we try to educate people as such. The accusation that we are trying to scare people (with the implication that we don’t even believe what we are writing) is very insulting.

[quote=vkailas]The article however glances over the fact that their valuation is an average of the past 10 years of earnings. And while it’s historically rare to have good returns in markets with similar average valuations over the past 10 years, the tech bubble we experienced is also rare with astronomical valuations that made no sense and lower earnings that other past booms. Using an average of all these lower earnings over the past 10 years leads to a average expensive valuation. [/quote]

The valuation is based on the past 10 years’ earnings, not on the past 10 years’ valuations, so the above is incorrect.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I wrote the article you refer to.

[quote=vkailas]The go on to say we are currently very safely in an expensive valuation so you probably should not invest considering that only rarely when in a expensive valuation do investors get good returns. [/quote]

That’s not what the article says at all… that fact that you come away with that conclusion indicates that you didn’t read it very carefully. (Further proof is found below).

[quote=vkailas]These kind of articles or common in a down market.[/quote]

If you view the articles page on the pca site, you will see that we were putting up bearish articles in early 2007 well before the market peaked. So your implicit accusation that we wait until a down market to put up such articles is incorrect.

[quote=vkailas]Trying to scare investors even more.[/quote]

We truly believe that the market is overvalued, we invest accordingly, and we try to educate people as such. The accusation that we are trying to scare people (with the implication that we don’t even believe what we are writing) is very insulting.

[quote=vkailas]The article however glances over the fact that their valuation is an average of the past 10 years of earnings. And while it’s historically rare to have good returns in markets with similar average valuations over the past 10 years, the tech bubble we experienced is also rare with astronomical valuations that made no sense and lower earnings that other past booms. Using an average of all these lower earnings over the past 10 years leads to a average expensive valuation. [/quote]

The valuation is based on the past 10 years’ earnings, not on the past 10 years’ valuations, so the above is incorrect.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I wrote the article you refer to.

[quote=vkailas]The go on to say we are currently very safely in an expensive valuation so you probably should not invest considering that only rarely when in a expensive valuation do investors get good returns. [/quote]

That’s not what the article says at all… that fact that you come away with that conclusion indicates that you didn’t read it very carefully. (Further proof is found below).

[quote=vkailas]These kind of articles or common in a down market.[/quote]

If you view the articles page on the pca site, you will see that we were putting up bearish articles in early 2007 well before the market peaked. So your implicit accusation that we wait until a down market to put up such articles is incorrect.

[quote=vkailas]Trying to scare investors even more.[/quote]

We truly believe that the market is overvalued, we invest accordingly, and we try to educate people as such. The accusation that we are trying to scare people (with the implication that we don’t even believe what we are writing) is very insulting.

[quote=vkailas]The article however glances over the fact that their valuation is an average of the past 10 years of earnings. And while it’s historically rare to have good returns in markets with similar average valuations over the past 10 years, the tech bubble we experienced is also rare with astronomical valuations that made no sense and lower earnings that other past booms. Using an average of all these lower earnings over the past 10 years leads to a average expensive valuation. [/quote]

The valuation is based on the past 10 years’ earnings, not on the past 10 years’ valuations, so the above is incorrect.

Rich

[Rich Toscano]

I wrote the article you refer to.

[quote=vkailas]The go on to say we are currently very safely in an expensive valuation so you probably should not invest considering that only rarely when in a expensive valuation do investors get good returns. [/quote]

That’s not what the article says at all… that fact that you come away with that conclusion indicates that you didn’t read it very carefully. (Further proof is found below).

[quote=vkailas]These kind of articles or common in a down market.[/quote]

If you view the articles page on the pca site, you will see that we were putting up bearish articles in early 2007 well before the market peaked. So your implicit accusation that we wait until a down market to put up such articles is incorrect.

[quote=vkailas]Trying to scare investors even more.[/quote]

We truly believe that the market is overvalued, we invest accordingly, and we try to educate people as such. The accusation that we are trying to scare people (with the implication that we don’t even believe what we are writing) is very insulting.

[quote=vkailas]The article however glances over the fact that their valuation is an average of the past 10 years of earnings. And while it’s historically rare to have good returns in markets with similar average valuations over the past 10 years, the tech bubble we experienced is also rare with astronomical valuations that made no sense and lower earnings that other past booms. Using an average of all these lower earnings over the past 10 years leads to a average expensive valuation. [/quote]

The valuation is based on the past 10 years’ earnings, not on the past 10 years’ valuations, so the above is incorrect.

Rich

[Anonymous]

Thanks for clarifications. I was wondering if you would be so kinds as to voice your opinion for the aforementioned topic of this thread. The woman has a sizable amount of money she wants to keep safe for a 2-3 years.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I am still learning and thanks for your insights.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for clarifications. I was wondering if you would be so kinds as to voice your opinion for the aforementioned topic of this thread. The woman has a sizable amount of money she wants to keep safe for a 2-3 years.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I am still learning and thanks for your insights.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for clarifications. I was wondering if you would be so kinds as to voice your opinion for the aforementioned topic of this thread. The woman has a sizable amount of money she wants to keep safe for a 2-3 years.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I am still learning and thanks for your insights.

[Anonymous]

Thanks for clarifications. I was wondering if you would be so kinds as to voice your opinion for the aforementioned topic of this thread. The woman has a sizable amount of money she wants to keep safe for a 2-3 years.

Sorry for my misunderstanding. I am still learning and thanks for your insights.

[Author]

Posts