NAZ back to 5,000 and beyond?
renman95
Posts: 7,037 ✭✭✭✭✭
Original thread title: NASDAQ back to 5,000 or Gold $2,000?
Which will occur first? And why?
(It's been over 13 years since the NASDAQ reached 5,048 and 2 years since Gold hit $1,900.)
/////
Version 2.0
It's been 6 years since the Great Recession. Gold touched $810 in 2009. Gold has trended lower since 2011. So will will the trend continue and reach its 2009 low, a haircut of approximately 25% from here or will the NAZ, which has trended upwardly since, reach 6,360...a 25% increase?
July 24, 2015
Gold - 1085
NAZ - 5088
Which will occur first? And why?
(It's been over 13 years since the NASDAQ reached 5,048 and 2 years since Gold hit $1,900.)
/////
Version 2.0
It's been 6 years since the Great Recession. Gold touched $810 in 2009. Gold has trended lower since 2011. So will will the trend continue and reach its 2009 low, a haircut of approximately 25% from here or will the NAZ, which has trended upwardly since, reach 6,360...a 25% increase?
July 24, 2015
Gold - 1085
NAZ - 5088
0
Comments
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>this should be another good long one. Staking post #2 for future editing
But what is YOUR call?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>The Nasdaq composite cannot/will not hit 5000 before middle of 2016. >>
and so your answer to the OP's questions is exactly?? You are great at evasive answers.. ever think about being a politician or spokesperson...
<< <i>
<< <i>The Nasdaq composite cannot/will not hit 5000 before middle of 2016. >>
and so your answer to the OP's questions is exactly?? You are great at evasive answers.. ever think about being a politician or spokesperson...
I think im on record as stating my time period for gold pricing. Now im on record for nasdaq pricing. Ever think about being J6P?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Gold: 2000-1353= 647. 647/1353= +47.8%
Nasdaq: 5000-3943= 1057. 1057/3943= +26.8 %
I'll guess Nasdaq hits 5000 before gold hits $2000 (or even 1900) based on the distance from the targets.
Even taking into account "where they've been and when" I'll still go nasdaq.
(and still continue to invest in both gold and stocks)
edit: but I do not ever buy and hold "the stock market" or even index funds.
I like sector mutual funds and individual securities, tightly screened and swing traded around core positions that are built up over time
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>The Nasdaq composite cannot/will not hit 5000 before middle of 2016. >>
and so your answer to the OP's questions is exactly?? You are great at evasive answers.. ever think about being a politician or spokesperson...
I think im on record as stating my time period for gold pricing. Now im on record for nasdaq pricing. Ever think about being J6P?
You are killing me .... answered just like a politician.. "I think im on record"...lol
So just to be clear... you don"t know if and when [at least until after the middle of 2016] the NASDAQ will break 5000 and gold will not reach $2000 first...
I dont mind being J6P .. however I drink fine wine...
So I will state that neither will reach your targets within the next 2 years. Invest accordingly.
May I ask you the premise of your question as it seems everyone who has posted to this thread has given some reasoning except yourself. If you cannot answer or provide some reasoning to your own question why would you expect others to do so?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Equities will flourish on the next round of QE as will metals. The real question is which will have "staying" power. You already know my answer.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>What market influences are you suggesting? >>
Duh, 85 billion a month in new money to buy bonds and mortgages. QE1-4 and all the new money to pump equities. Artificially low interest rates. Hands off policy by federal regulators. Economic policy run by former Wall Streeters who will return to Wall Street and be replaced by more Wall Streeters. Change in accounting rules to hide losses on bank held assets, etc., etc., etc.
And just what is the purpose of the FOMC if not to influence markets?
You're right. . . no market manipulation and bankers don't run our economy.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
I understand your argument, but disagree in its entirety. There is nothing artificial. If the market wanted higher rates it would have them, just as the 10yr rallied from 1.7% to 3%. The FED didnt raise rates the market did.
It is true that the FED set the footing for many companies to refinance and increase profitability, but its quite inaccurate to say the FED is the sole reason for the stock market rally. Contrary PM bulls beliefs, the US economy is not dead.
There's really only one conspiracy when it comes to PMs and it will most likely be evident to all before two years pass
And if it isnt, then what?
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I'm saying markets are manipulated, it is the primary function of the FOMC. Let's be clear. Are you saying markets are not manipulated by FED and FOMC intervention? Simple question, Yes or No?
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>so, in order for you to consider a market manipulated it now has to be entirely manipulated. You're starting to sound like a politician.
I'm saying markets are manipulated, it is the primary function of the FOMC. Let's be clear. Are you saying markets are not manipulated by FED and FOMC intervention? Simple question, Yes or No? >>
I'll go out on a limb-ski, the markets are manipulated. Period. When the Fed keeps overnight rates near zero for years, does a buyback of $85B per month, say they aren't printing (but are digitizing under oath)....then companies benefit in this parallel universe. To me, that means their profits are bogus. It looks good on paper but they aren't real. If left to their own accord, subject to a free market, would probably fail or be flat for years. This ongoing corporate bailout has been arrogantly rubbed in our faces financed by our tax money.
So I predict NASDAQ 5000 again before we see gold at $2000. I think at this stage of the cycle funny money rules before real money will.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>but it is ludicrous (and insulting to our intelligence) to suggest that Fed policy (or any other single factor) is the sole influence of a specific stock's price performance up or down. >>
>>
Baley.....took the words right out of my line of thought. Unfortunately, you will not convince our in house conspiracy advocates.
It is very amusing the logic (or lack thereof) that some members use to promote their ideas and attack other members, it is as if these folks have studied and are practicing fallacious reasoning. For example, suggesting that folks who dispute conspiracy theories and "only gold" philosophies therefore "have heroes in DC" or "love stacks of greenbacks". These conclusions DO NOT follow, and seem intended to insult other people rather than reason effectively.
From Wiki:
"People often make mistakes when reasoning syllogistically.[10]
For instance, from the premises some A are B, some B are C, people tend to come to a definitive conclusion that therefore some A are C.[11][12] However, this does not follow according to the rules of classical logic. For instance, while some cats (A) are black things (B), and some black things (B) are televisions (C), it does not follow from the parameters that some cats (A) are televisions (C). This is because first, the mood of the syllogism invoked (i.e. III-3) is illicit, and second, the supposition of the middle term is variable between that of the middle term in the major premise, and that of the middle term in the minor premise (not all "some" cats are by necessity of logic the same "some black things").
Determining the validity of a syllogism involves determining the distribution of each term in each statement, meaning whether all members of that term are accounted for.
In simple syllogistic patterns, the fallacies of invalid patterns are:
Undistributed middle: Neither of the premises accounts for all members of the middle term, which consequently fails to link the major and minor term.
Illicit treatment of the major term: The conclusion implicates all members of the major term (P — meaning the proposition is negative); however, the major premise does not account for them all (i.e., P is either an affirmative predicate or a particular subject there).
Illicit treatment of the minor term: Same as above, but for the minor term (S — meaning the proposition is universal) and minor premise (where S is either a particular subject or an affirmative predicate).
Exclusive premises: Both premises are negative, meaning no link is established between the major and minor terms.
Affirmative conclusion from a negative premise: If either premise is negative, the conclusion must also be.
Negative conclusion from affirmative premises: If both premises are affirmative, the conclusion must also be.
Existential fallacy: This is a more controversial one. If both premises are universal, i.e. "All" or "No" statements, one school of thought says they do not imply the existence of any members of the terms. In this case, the conclusion cannot be existential; i.e. beginning with "Some". Another school of thought says that affirmative statements (universal or particular) do imply the subject's existence, but negatives do not. A third school of thought says that the any type of proposition may or may not involve the subject's existence, and though this may condition the conclusion, it does not affect the form of the syllogism"
In this particular case, we can state that some markets are manipulated some of the time,
but it does not follow that all markets are manipulated (by forces outside the market) all of the time.
(and repetition of the statement that they are does not make it any more true)
edit to add an example: True or False: All of the books I've written were Pulitzer Prize winners.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>but it is ludicrous (and insulting to our intelligence) to suggest that Fed policy (or any other single factor) is the sole influence of a specific stock's price performance up or down. >>
<< <i>Baley.....took the words right out of my line of thought. Unfortunately, you will not convince our in house conspiracy advocates. >>
I don't recall ever seeing the term "sole influence" used in these forums when describing the impact of FED policy on market price performance. Changing what has been said to attack what has been actually said is nothing short of distraction. If disagreeing opinions were read more carefully and studied at face value they might no longer be disagreeing opinions.
So let's ignore the distraction and get back to the question at hand. Are markets manipulated by FED and FOMC intervention? Simple question, Yes or No?
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>So let's ignore the distraction and get back to the question at hand. Are markets manipulated by FED and FOMC intervention? Simple question, Yes or No? >>
I'll answer that one yes or no, once you answer this one, simple YES or NO:
Have you finally, after all these years, stopped your incessant molesting of poodles? Simple question, is it Yes or No?
Just kidding, of course to illustrate a point about some questions not being yes or no, and the requirement to strictly define all the term in the question.
Aw, hell, here it is: Yes, the FED and FOMC "manipulate" the markets by intervention. So does the day to day weather, the seasons, competition among market participants, advertising, celebrity activities/endorsements, business cycles, new technology making old technology obsolete, and I could go on and on.
But Yes derry, the Fed has an influence. Consider the straw man knocked down?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
"Well, he's a friend of them long haired, hippy-type, pinko f_ags!
I betchya he's even got a commie flag
tacked up on the wall inside of his garage."
"He's a snake in the grass, I tell ya guys.
He may look dumb but that's just a disguise,
He's a mastermind in the ways of espionage"
They all started lookin real suspicious at him
And he jumped up and said "Now just wait a minute Jim!
You know he's lying I been living here all of my life!"
"I'm a faithful follower of Brother John Birch
And I belong to the Antioch Baptist Church.
And I ain't even got a garage, you can call home and ask my wife!"
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>How about, "I know I am on record".
So I will state that neither will reach your targets within the next 2 years. Invest accordingly.
May I ask you the premise of your question as it seems everyone who has posted to this thread has given some reasoning except yourself. If you cannot answer or provide some reasoning to your own question why would you expect others to do so? >>
First thing ... If you read you will see these are not MY Targets. The question and target was possed by the OP.
Second...I'm interested in Precious metals as they make up a percentage of my investment portfolio. I don't personally predict metals targets but do believe they will as my other investment provide me a return. I've read many posts here over the years and have benefited financially based on that information...be it positive or negative on metals prices. Hope that clears up any question you had regarding my "reasoning"
<< <i>so, in order for you to consider a market manipulated it now has to be entirely manipulated. You're starting to sound like a politician.
I'm saying markets are manipulated, it is the primary function of the FOMC. Let's be clear. Are you saying markets are not manipulated by FED and FOMC intervention? Simple question, Yes or No? >>
"You're starting to sound like a politician"
But that was my observation and statement Derry!
"This time is different."
“If you look at it, relative to the other nine macro sectors, technology is fairly cheap,” he says, noting that, save for a handful of super hot winners, the majority of tech names, particularly big old players like IBM (IBM), are still cheap.
“Surely there are some individual companies that are really richly multipled,” he says, “but when you look at it as a group, in terms of price-to-sales, P/E ratios, there’s tons of cash on the balance sheets, and they’ll benefit from a pick-up in Europe.”
And then there's Cramer. On his Mad Money he pushed GLD and GOLD sighting double bottoms in the POG and an upside to $1425.
<< <i>The question was "Are markets manipulated by FED and FOMC intervention?" Let's not water it down by calling it "influence." By manipulation, I am asking if FED and FOMC actions are designed to manipulate market prices. Yes or No? >>
In a word.....yes.
downtrend.
Whether the Fed is helping stocks rise is irrelevant. Stocks have been going up and a lot of money is being
made. S&P is up over 26% so far this year + dividends. You can make money so the reason does not matter.
Here we are again today with the Dow Jones Ind and S&P 500 making new all time highs. NASDAQ making a
13 year high.
<< <i>So you are saying that the rally in the stock market is due entirely to FED money printing and not increased productivity, strengthened balanced sheets, increased profitability, increased competitiveness, ect?
I understand your argument, but disagree in its entirety. There is nothing artificial. If the market wanted higher rates it would have them, just as the 10yr rallied from 1.7% to 3%. The FED didnt raise rates the market did.
It is true that the FED set the footing for many companies to refinance and increase profitability, but its quite inaccurate to say the FED is the sole reason for the stock market rally. Contrary PM bulls beliefs, the US economy is not dead >>
Yes. It's all due to FED money printing and controlling interest rates with $900 TRILL in otc interest rate swaps. Rates cannot rise appreciably until those blow up. And if that starts to happen, those guys will issue another $100 TRILL worth to stem the tide....just like they did in 2011. It's as artificial as you can get. The USEconomy is not dead, but it has been kept on life support with several years of QE and FED asset buying. This is still a counter cyclical bounce (2009-2014?) in a secular bear market (2000-2017?). I would not expect the fundamental business conditions to improve all that much under that scenario. It certainly didn't from 1973-1978. The FED is well aware that 60 and 120 year cycles were due to bottom in the 2012-2014 time frame. Their QE has already postponed the start of it. But, getting past 2014-2015 is going to be a lot tougher. Eventually, this 13 yr expanding stock market wedge has to blow up. I don't think anyone has found a new way to circumvent a 120 yr cycle by never-ending QE. The auto-bots are responsible for 70% of the SM volume. One would think the FED&Co. is directly responsible for supplying 70% of the "juice." For P/E multiples and other paper evaluation tools. 13 year completed wedges don't end well....ever. Much shorter wedges ended badly in 1973 and 2000. This one will be epic(urean).
From Alt-Market.com:
...the black hole generated by the derivatives implosion cannot be filled (debts still exist in the quadrillions of dollars), and the Fed will have to print endlessly in order to slow the deterioration of the the banking sector. We know that none of the currency flows created by the Fed are trickling down to main street, which is why credit remains mostly frozen, real unemployment counting U-6 measurements remains at around 25%, food stamp recipients have risen to around 50 million, and the only sales boosts to property markets are those caused by big banks buying bankrupt houses and then reissuing them as rentals.......so this is how economic recovery is built?
<< <i>
The FED is well aware that 60 and 120 year cycles were due to bottom in the 2012-2014 time frame. ... I don't think anyone has found a new way to circumvent a 120 yr cycle . >>
120 year cycle? How many of these are we counting back, in this analysis?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
Suddenly the fabricated PE's of 20 that are generated in cahoots with Wall Street will look foolish and the markets will tank. High volume, no margin paper Tigers like Amazon and Tesla will go poof like a warm fart on a tepid January morning.
Though the Fed is pounding out Dollars to keep this flaccid economy erect, he has failed to keep the 10 year rate under 2%. He acknowledged as much several months ago when he was asked why the 10 year rates were rising in the face of massive fed buying. He admitted that he was bewildered. sort of like Greenspan voicing surprise at the housing collapse a few years after his tenure ended. He explained that like everyone else, he did not think that the price of houses could go down. Yeesh, this was the most important person in the world of economics.
The collapse of our economy along with our currency, at least as measured by precious metals will no doubt come out of Asia, most likely Japan.
With a population 1/3 of the US, their debt of $14T nearly equals ours. That is about $250K per Japanese wage earner. Prime Minister Abe is frantically printing Yen to monetize as much of the debt as he can with "free" currency. Though Japans 10 year rates remain remarkably low at 70 basis points or so, the end will come soon.
Japans birth rate has been nil since the Kobe earthquake and stock market crash 23 years ago. Japans population is quickly aging and Japanese bonds which are the major retirement instrument for many citizens are being liquidated to cover elder care.
Japan holds a Trillion and a half of our paper and will in the not too distant future be forced to liquidate positions to satisfy their own obligations.
Yellen will of course print up a maddening amount of greenbacks to try to buy the barrage of notes and bonds on the market, but at the that point it will be too late as inflation will be soaring.
My bet is Gold $2000.
<< <i>
<< <i> The FED is well aware that 60 and 120 year cycles were due to bottom in the 2012-2014 time frame. ... I don't think anyone has found a new way to circumvent a 120 yr cycle . >>
120 year cycle? How many of these are we counting back, in this analysis? >>
The nation has only experienced 2 prior ones....1774 and 1894. For those periods, this was a major shakeup in economic winter. Howe's 4th turning is somewhat based on these cycles.
If you count 60 year cycles there are 5 of them....last in 1954. But it's the bottoming of ALL the yearly cycles in approx 2014 that make it quite different (120 yr, 60 yr, 40 yr, 30 yr, 20 yr, 12 yr, 10 yr, 8yr, 6 yr, 4 yr).
Basically, we've run out of mini-cycle peaks to boost the economy. 2012 marked the top of the final 4 year cycle. I'll bet gold $2,000 only because I don't think we'll ever get back to Bubbleville of Naz 5,000 on this current
4-5 yr stock market cycle. If we match the length of the last two 4-5 yr cycles this current one has approx 2-4 months left. The fact that the other stock indicies are all time "unadjusted" highs while the Naz is not, that's a
large negative divergence.
easier to make money yet almost everyone is complaining.
Complaining about Obama (I did not vote for him but he has been great for investors)
and complaining about the Fed, which has revitalized the economy.
<< <i> The fact that the other stock indicies are all time "unadjusted" highs while the Naz is not, that's a large negative divergence. >>
Not really...both markets are up about 100% since their lows of 2009. Nasdaq would have to climb about another 20% or so to surpass it's high that was achieved in 2000.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>I'm not seeing a reviatlized economy. I do see one that continues on life support. Christmas retail numbers will likely confirm this. >>
Sort of the stagflation of the late 70's except the feds downplay the flation part.
Homes up 12%, air travel up 10%, UPS/DHL rates up 5%, food up what, 10%. Healthcare and education costs have certainly not declined while fuel prices are stable yty, yet somehow, magically the CPI is stubbornly up only 1.5% year to year.
I get the scheme. Drive up the market so folks want to spend their paper gains, and when they cash in, collect the cg taxes.
Pretend that their is no inflation so you can hose the SSI beneficiaries and keep the cost of that program down. Same time you can assure the retirees that it is ok to get 0% on their bank deposits as they are really (heh heh) not losing anything to inflation.
Yeesh.
$2000 Gold.
Pretend that their is no inflation so you can hose the SSI beneficiaries and keep the cost of that program down. Same time you can assure the retirees that it is ok to get 0% on their bank deposits as they are really (heh heh) not losing anything to inflation.
Bingo! It's always been a tax skimming operation, especially in a rising market. Just wait till the rest of the taxes kick in.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Drive up the market so folks want to spend their paper gains, and when they cash in, collect the cg taxes.
Pretend that their is no inflation so you can hose the SSI beneficiaries and keep the cost of that program down. Same time you can assure the retirees that it is ok to get 0% on their bank deposits as they are really (heh heh) not losing anything to inflation.
Bingo! It's always been a tax skimming operation, especially in a rising market. Just wait till the rest of the taxes kick in. >>
And, our current money velocity enviornment is destroying tax revenues. The more money changes hands the more times it is counted as "income" and taxed as such. Theoretically a single dollar can create vast amounts of tax revenue as it flows through the economy. MV is a great measurement of this. From the moment a dollar bill is put into service it can be a money machine for tax policy. Current stagnant money movement is a big threat to the funding of the "state." For this reason MV is at the top of the "to do" list for those attempting to control the economy.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
But I don't see 2000 gold for many years.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
<< <i>Ok, after much thought I am going to say gold to 2000 first. This only because I think there is a giid chance that the Nasdaq goes to 4995 and fails, just as silver failed at its prior all time high.
But I don't see 2000 gold for many years. >>
I believe a quicker 2000 gold will be the result of economic problems. Your delayed 2000 gold will be the result of a healthy growing economy that raises all boats. So, what it really boils down to is "will economic conditions worsen or improve?"
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey
<< <i>
<< <i>Ok, after much thought I am going to say gold to 2000 first. This only because I think there is a giid chance that the Nasdaq goes to 4995 and fails, just as silver failed at its prior all time high.
But I don't see 2000 gold for many years. >>
I believe a quicker 2000 gold will be the result of economic problems. Your delayed 2000 gold will be the result of a healthy growing economy that raises all boats. So, what it really boils down to is "will economic conditions worsen or improve?" >>
Depends where the huge pool of liquidity ends up. US money supply has risen from $1T to $4T since late 2007. That is a staggering amount of fuel that can make any asset class soar. It takes a lot less energy to drive the smaller PM's market as it does the much more substantial equities, debt and housing markets.
DC and the Wall Streeter's are pushing housing and equities, but that type of manipulation ultimately fails. Tough to tell when the house of cards collapses, but this time it will feature soaring interest rates and PM prices, as opposed to 2008 when those two groups declined.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>DC and the Wall Streeter's are pushing housing and equities, but that type of manipulation ultimately fails. Tough to tell when the house of cards collapses, but this time it will feature soaring interest rates and PM prices, as opposed to 2008 when those two groups declined. >>
Welcome to the dark side.
"Interest rates, the price of money, are the most important market. And, perversely, they’re the market that’s most manipulated by the Fed." - Doug Casey