@cohodk said:
So dcarr, you are upset because there are credit cards?
Have you really studied economic history from 1865-1914 and concluded that was a better time for the USA than any other, or from 1914-present?
Recessions were much more frequent, lasted longer and were much deeper. Yet you say that was better?
You are confusing the economic benefits of technological advancements with the actions of the Federal Reserve.
Any increases in standards of living that we have seen are due to technology, not the FED. In fact, standards of living would be much higher without the FED.
Lol. And you claim to be a historian ( of some sort). Lol. Yup, no technological advancements from 1865 to 1914. Only airplanes, national rail system, automobiles, electricity, telephones...just to name a few. And we wont even begin to count medical innovations.
What planet do you folks live on? Better living standards without the Fed? Haha. How can you think that one is dependent on the other? Such clouded and contemtuous thought processes. Unfathomable.
@cohodk said:
So dcarr, you are upset because there are credit cards?
Have you really studied economic history from 1865-1914 and concluded that was a better time for the USA than any other, or from 1914-present?
Recessions were much more frequent, lasted longer and were much deeper. Yet you say that was better?
You are confusing the economic benefits of technological advancements with the actions of the Federal Reserve.
Any increases in standards of living that we have seen are due to technology, not the FED. In fact, standards of living would be much higher without the FED.
Lol. And you claim to be a historian ( of some sort). Lol. Yup, no technological advancements from 1865 to 1914. Only airplanes, national rail system, automobiles, electricity, telephones...just to name a few. And we wont even begin to count medical innovations.
What planet do you folks live on? Better living standards without the Fed? Haha. How can you think that one is dependent on the other? Such clouded and contemtuous thought processes. Unfathomable.
The truth is hard to swallow - your reaction is typical.
Have you really studied economic history from 1865-1914 and concluded that was a better time for the USA than any other, or from 1914-present?
Recessions were much more frequent, lasted longer and were much deeper. Yet you say that was better?
It appears that we are in a global "everything bubble" that is built upon the crazy concept that debt = money, do you not agree?
Do you think that we're heading for a global debt-induced default? Based on today's interview with Michael Pento at USAWatchdog.com the low grade corporate debt is about to implode. Just what do you think will happen to pension funds that have been forced to load up on this stuff as part of their investment charters?
Comments? Remarks? Suggestions?
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said: Have you really studied economic history from 1865-1914 and concluded that was a better time for the USA than any other, or from 1914-present?
Recessions were much more frequent, lasted longer and were much deeper. Yet you say that was better?
It appears that we are in a global "everything bubble" that is built upon the crazy concept that debt = money, do you not agree?
Do you think that we're heading for a global debt-induced default? Based on today's interview with Michael Pento at USAWatchdog.com the low grade corporate debt is about to implode. Just what do you think will happen to pension funds that have been forced to load up on this stuff as part of their investment charters?
Comments? Remarks? Suggestions?
Global debt induced default? Obviously when debt cannot be serviced or is no longet accepted, then default is a probably outcome. I really dont believe anyone feels this is imminent or even likely in the next decade or two.
The default rate on junk bonds is presently at about 1.5%, which is well below historical norms and i really dont give a rats what Mr Pento (whomever he is) believes, which im sure is mutual.
Do you really know what is in these pension funds? Have you analyzed them? Do you really know what happens when a bond goes into default? Do you think bond holders usually get nothing?
You didn't comment on the nature of the $130 billion nightly repo turnover that is oversubscribed and the new $60 billion/month of new QE being issued. Clearly, something is not right in the bond market.
Listen to the interview and let me know if you can debunk it.
Pension funds? No, I haven't analyzed them, but I surmise that they are all geared and engineered to provide a known yield. If they contain high-risk bonds that go under, they won't be able to satisfy their promised benefits.
Yes, I do know what happens when a bond goes into default. Don't bond investors fall near the bottom of the totem pole in terms of creditors? Don't banks come first as secured creditors? Aren't investors near the bottom as unsecured creditors?
There's more debt and more leverage now in the bond markets now than in 2008. The risk of default is apparently much higher now, and personal debt to income levels now are worse on mortgage loans. The stock market is valued at 150% of the economy now, compared to 100% of the economy in 2008.
Please debunk any of this if you know otherwise.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@cohodk said:
So dcarr, you are upset because there are credit cards?
Have you really studied economic history from 1865-1914 and concluded that was a better time for the USA than any other, or from 1914-present?
Recessions were much more frequent, lasted longer and were much deeper. Yet you say that was better?
You are confusing the economic benefits of technological advancements with the actions of the Federal Reserve.
Any increases in standards of living that we have seen are due to technology, not the FED. In fact, standards of living would be much higher without the FED.
Lol. And you claim to be a historian ( of some sort). Lol. Yup, no technological advancements from 1865 to 1914. Only airplanes, national rail system, automobiles, electricity, telephones...just to name a few. And we wont even begin to count medical innovations.
What planet do you folks live on? Better living standards without the Fed? Haha. How can you think that one is dependent on the other? Such clouded and contemtuous thought processes. Unfathomable.
The truth is hard to swallow - your reaction is typical.
And what we are taught. I learned my finance in 1982-1983 when classical finance was still being taught. I Aced every finance course I took in that Masters Program. Non of what I read now on the sites that I visit conflicts with what I learned then and what I know to be obviously true.
But thanks for your input.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said: I believe we are also a product of what we read.
And what we are taught. I learned my finance in 1982-1983 when classical finance was still being taught. I Aced every finance course I took in that Masters Program. Non of what I read now on the sites that I visit conflicts with what I learned then and what I know to be obviously true.
But thanks for your input.
Like I said...stop visiting those sites that dont know what they dont know.
Yes, they do. Each type of fund has specific limits and criteria that delineate what they can and cannot invest in, and to what extent. It's in every prospectus.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Like i mentioned previously, those in fear are easily manipulated.
What you interpret as fear is only someone stating their opinion about the current state of affairs. I have yet to hear anyone say, "I'm so afraid". You always seem to try and goad people into buying stocks - for reasons known only to yourself.
Some people disagree as to whether or not that's a smart thing to do. What you seem to always do - is almost humorous to the point of saying, "go ahead punk, I dare ya..."
Like I said, I have yet to see anyone here cringing in fear.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Pension funds? No, I haven't analyzed them, but I surmise that they are all geared and engineered to provide a known yield. If they contain high-risk bonds that go under, they won't be able to satisfy their promised benefits.
Maybe, maybe not. Lots of reorganization often occurs.
Yes, I do know what happens when a bond goes into default. Don't bond investors fall near the bottom of the totem pole in terms of creditors? Don't banks come first as secured creditors? Aren't investors near the bottom as unsecured creditors?
Depends on the structure of the bond, but usually not at the bottom of the totem pole.
There's more debt and more leverage now in the bond markets now than in 2008. The risk of default is apparently much higher now, and personal debt to income levels now are worse on mortgage loans. The stock market is valued at 150% of the economy now, compared to 100% of the economy in 2008.
Yes, of course there is more debt. There is also more income and more asset value. There will always be debt more as long as asset values increase and income is sufficient.
IE, a house in 1990 valued at 150k may have had a 120k mortgage and income of 50k to support payments. Today that same house is worth 300k and has a 240k mortgage with an 80k income supporting it. Look at that, more debt. Big deal. Its not a problem unless it cant be serviced and household debt servicing ability is much, much better than in 2008. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TDSP
And if you were a large company like Microsoft, why not take out debt at 3%? Its a no brainer. Yeah, they can buy back stock and boost its price which can also be used as a currency to buy other companies and technology. Whats so bad about this? Cheap financing. Classic.
Please debunk any of this if you know otherwise.
There you go. Debunked. My question to you....why dont you ever question this nonsense you read on these dumpster fire websites?
Heres a nice little report about historical default recovery rates and current default levels.
@derryb said:
Problem is the amount of debt instruments available. And one wonders what is sucking up the liquidity.
Negative interest rates.
Not sure I agree that negative interest rates are the reason. What is the benefit of a financial institution lending money for a negative interest rate to be penalized when you can get US Treasuries paying positive yield. Those US Treasuries are just as safe, if not safer than the Euro, Yen and Franc which are negative.
If it is the negative rates causing the liquidity issue, why is it just now becoming an issue? Negative rates have been available for a few years, so I don't see what has changed in the last few months to cause this.
I also don't have any constructive ideas what could be causing the repo market to act the way it is right now.
@TwoSides2aCoin said:
Liquidity is gone, when greed is factored in. Selfish pigs in charge.
there were a couple of lines in two different articles a bit ago.
one had a trader fretting over making a trade when trying to borrow while the secondary repo rates were around 9%. poor baby. luckily the trader did not make thee trade up there and the repo rates came back down.
another had a quote from someone saying they didn't feel like loaning money via secondary repo to some hedge fund.
@derryb said:
Problem is the amount of debt instruments available. And one wonders what is sucking up the liquidity.
Negative interest rates.
Not sure I agree that negative interest rates are the reason. What is the benefit of a financial institution lending money for a negative interest rate to be penalized when you can get US Treasuries paying positive yield. Those US Treasuries are just as safe, if not safer than the Euro, Yen and Franc which are negative.
The only financial institutions issuing negative debt are central banks of a few European countries. There are very few bonds with a negative coupon rate. But, yes, the fact that investors can get a higher yield in the US is the largely responsible for the stagnant global economy and dis-inflationary forces.
If it is the negative rates causing the liquidity issue, why is it just now becoming an issue? Negative rates have been available for a few years, so I don't see what has changed in the last few months to cause this.
The problem was the amount of debt that yielded a negative rate and the rate at which it increased in recent months. The were issues between the Fed funds rates, the rate the Fed pays on excess reserves, and a tremendous rush into sovereign debt.
I also don't have any constructive ideas what could be causing the repo market to act the way it is right now.
@cohodk said:
The(re) were issues between the Fed funds rates, the rate the Fed pays on excess reserves, and a tremendous rush into sovereign debt.
The market adjusted the rate higher and once again the FED interfered with what the market conditions dictated. If the economy is not so fragile, as some here would want you to believe, why must the FED continually treat it as such? No one here knows the strength or weakness of the economy at any point in time better than the FED knows. Let the FED's actions (and its lies) show you the true state of the economy. Listen to what the FED does, not to what it says.
The FED has the resources to read/evaluate the economy. It's how and when they deploy tools to steer/control it that keeps their behavior in question. The FED knows how bad the economy actually is, and they likely know they are responsible for most of it.
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
Was a mess in 2015 and is better then expected now. I like the long term trade deals and build up of military as the debt is still climbing. I believe it’s the best case scenario considering what the alternative would of been. All the noise in DC is theater so that makes me a little nervous because we never have 100% truths due to political fraud across the board.
@ARCO said:
My assessment: you can look at what is right in front of you, or you can try to read all of the tea leaves and "expert" opinions and then mentally create an economic picture that others have crafted for you.
We are in the greatest, most expansive, most prosperous time in the history of the world. Is there a lot of debt? Yes. Are there trade imbalances? Yes. Is there this that and the other? Yes. Will there be economic pain, suffering and loss for many in the near present and near future?" Yes.
The fact remains - we are in the most prosperous time in the history of the world. What you do with it is up to you. Don't make excuses, find scapegoats, use rationales. Work to earn, save diligently, invest wisely and be kind and generous with others. You will prosper. I promise that.
Well said. Totally Agree.
Like to add I am at 3% debt to income and think the best thing anyone can do personally is simple live below your means. Make that happen now and you won’t suffer as much later 😎
The economy is doing OK, the very slow growth is being sustained by low interest rates. Stock market is booming, Alan Greenspan must be thinking "irrational exuberance."
I don't think charters force them into anything.
Yes, they do. Each type of fund has specific limits and criteria that delineate what they can and cannot invest in, and to what extent. It's in every prospectus.
the key words are "force" "into"
Yes, the fund managers are required to stay within percentage limits for each type of asset, and they are required to only invest in the types of assets delineated for each particular fund. For example, the manager of a fixed income fund is simply not allowed to include growth stocks in the fund portfolio. Therefore, he is forced into fixed income securities and not into growth stocks.
of course there is more debt. There is also more income and more asset value. There will always be debt more as long as asset values increase and income is sufficient.
And you didn't read my statement. More debt, fine. More income and asset value, fine. But what you didn't acknowledge is that there is much more leverage (debt as a percentage of income) than in 2008.
There will always be debt more as long as asset values increase and income is sufficient.
Right. We agree on that much. The question is whether or not the income is sufficient. If you paid attention to my earlier post, this is what I consider to be a problem for the economy and the financial system, to wit:
There's more debt and more leverage now in the bond markets now than in 2008. The risk of default is apparently much higher now, and personal debt to income levels now are worse on mortgage loans. The stock market is valued at 150% of the economy now, compared to 100% of the economy in 2008.
You're welcome. Merry Christmas.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
@jmski52 said: I don't think charters force them into anything.
Yes, they do. Each type of fund has specific limits and criteria that delineate what they can and cannot invest in, and to what extent. It's in every prospectus.
the key words are "force" "into"
Yes, the fund managers are required to stay within percentage limits for each type of asset, and they are required to only invest in the types of assets delineated for each particular fund. For example, the manager of a fixed income fund is simply not allowed to include growth stocks in the fund portfolio. Therefore, he is forced into fixed income securities and not into growth stocks.
Not pension funds, which was your original contention. Of course infividual funds have different investment objectives. Prudence would lend toward diversification. Would you go to a cardiologist for a root canal? Would you go to a fixed income fund for growth stocks?
of course there is more debt. There is also more income and more asset value. There will always be debt more as long as asset values increase and income is sufficient.
And you didn't read my statement. More debt, fine. More income and asset value, fine. But what you didn't acknowledge is that there is much more leverage (debt as a percentage of income) than in 2008.
Individuals have less leverage than in 2008. Fact.
There will always be debt more as long as asset values increase and income is sufficient.
Right. We agree on that much. The question is whether or not the income is sufficient. If you paid attention to my earlier post, this is what I consider to be a problem for the economy and the financial system, to wit:
There's more debt and more leverage now in the bond markets now than in 2008. The risk of default is apparently much higher now, and personal debt to income levels now are worse on mortgage loans. The stock market is valued at 150% of the economy now, compared to 100% of the economy in 2008.
I guess buying stocks in 2010 was a good idea. Rebalance and relative valuations should always be considered.
Comments
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
Funny how that works, isnt it.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Lol. And you claim to be a historian ( of some sort). Lol. Yup, no technological advancements from 1865 to 1914. Only airplanes, national rail system, automobiles, electricity, telephones...just to name a few. And we wont even begin to count medical innovations.
What planet do you folks live on? Better living standards without the Fed? Haha. How can you think that one is dependent on the other? Such clouded and contemtuous thought processes. Unfathomable.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
The truth is hard to swallow - your reaction is typical.
Have you really studied economic history from 1865-1914 and concluded that was a better time for the USA than any other, or from 1914-present?
Recessions were much more frequent, lasted longer and were much deeper. Yet you say that was better?
It appears that we are in a global "everything bubble" that is built upon the crazy concept that debt = money, do you not agree?
Do you think that we're heading for a global debt-induced default? Based on today's interview with Michael Pento at USAWatchdog.com the low grade corporate debt is about to implode. Just what do you think will happen to pension funds that have been forced to load up on this stuff as part of their investment charters?
Comments? Remarks? Suggestions?
I knew it would happen.
Global debt induced default? Obviously when debt cannot be serviced or is no longet accepted, then default is a probably outcome. I really dont believe anyone feels this is imminent or even likely in the next decade or two.
The default rate on junk bonds is presently at about 1.5%, which is well below historical norms and i really dont give a rats what Mr Pento (whomever he is) believes, which im sure is mutual.
Do you really know what is in these pension funds? Have you analyzed them? Do you really know what happens when a bond goes into default? Do you think bond holders usually get nothing?
We have already seen a large pension plan reorganize. The world didnt end.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/ge-unveils-pension-plan-changes-aimed-at-paring-deficit-debt-load-11570447318
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I don't think charters force them into anything.
You didn't comment on the nature of the $130 billion nightly repo turnover that is oversubscribed and the new $60 billion/month of new QE being issued. Clearly, something is not right in the bond market.
Listen to the interview and let me know if you can debunk it.
Pension funds? No, I haven't analyzed them, but I surmise that they are all geared and engineered to provide a known yield. If they contain high-risk bonds that go under, they won't be able to satisfy their promised benefits.
Yes, I do know what happens when a bond goes into default. Don't bond investors fall near the bottom of the totem pole in terms of creditors? Don't banks come first as secured creditors? Aren't investors near the bottom as unsecured creditors?
There's more debt and more leverage now in the bond markets now than in 2008. The risk of default is apparently much higher now, and personal debt to income levels now are worse on mortgage loans. The stock market is valued at 150% of the economy now, compared to 100% of the economy in 2008.
Please debunk any of this if you know otherwise.
I knew it would happen.
They say we are what we eat. Well, I believe we are also a product of what we read.
If you continually read this..
...then you become accustomed to it an view it as acceptable.
Conversely, if you read this....
...then it most likely becomes your viewpoint.
We have a choice, wallow with pigs, or fly with eagles.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Obviously as you seemed to be choked up.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I believe we are also a product of what we read.
And what we are taught. I learned my finance in 1982-1983 when classical finance was still being taught. I Aced every finance course I took in that Masters Program. Non of what I read now on the sites that I visit conflicts with what I learned then and what I know to be obviously true.
But thanks for your input.
I knew it would happen.
Like I said...stop visiting those sites that dont know what they dont know.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Like I said...stop visiting those sites that dont know what they dont know.
Since you haven't read any of those interviews, I would likewise contend that you don't know what you don't know.
I knew it would happen.
oversimplified
You guys provide for a good enough synopsis. And I actually do read many of them. Like i mentioned previously, those in fear are easily manipulated.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Its a PM forum.
LOL Just kidding. Maybe. HAHA
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
The truth is hard to swallow - your reaction is typical.
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
I don't think charters force them into anything.
Yes, they do. Each type of fund has specific limits and criteria that delineate what they can and cannot invest in, and to what extent. It's in every prospectus.
I knew it would happen.
the key words are "force" "into"
Like i mentioned previously, those in fear are easily manipulated.
What you interpret as fear is only someone stating their opinion about the current state of affairs. I have yet to hear anyone say, "I'm so afraid". You always seem to try and goad people into buying stocks - for reasons known only to yourself.
Some people disagree as to whether or not that's a smart thing to do. What you seem to always do - is almost humorous to the point of saying, "go ahead punk, I dare ya..."
Like I said, I have yet to see anyone here cringing in fear.
I knew it would happen.
Yup. Providing facts to counter ill-formed opinion. You're right. I do it all the time.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Maybe, maybe not. Lots of reorganization often occurs.
Depends on the structure of the bond, but usually not at the bottom of the totem pole.
Yes, of course there is more debt. There is also more income and more asset value. There will always be debt more as long as asset values increase and income is sufficient.
IE, a house in 1990 valued at 150k may have had a 120k mortgage and income of 50k to support payments. Today that same house is worth 300k and has a 240k mortgage with an 80k income supporting it. Look at that, more debt. Big deal. Its not a problem unless it cant be serviced and household debt servicing ability is much, much better than in 2008. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TDSP
And if you were a large company like Microsoft, why not take out debt at 3%? Its a no brainer. Yeah, they can buy back stock and boost its price which can also be used as a currency to buy other companies and technology. Whats so bad about this? Cheap financing. Classic.
There you go. Debunked. My question to you....why dont you ever question this nonsense you read on these dumpster fire websites?
Heres a nice little report about historical default recovery rates and current default levels.
https://www.researchpool.com/download/?report_id=1751185&show_pdf_data=true
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Problem is the amount of debt instruments available. And one wonders what is sucking up the liquidity.
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
Negative interest rates.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
Not sure I agree that negative interest rates are the reason. What is the benefit of a financial institution lending money for a negative interest rate to be penalized when you can get US Treasuries paying positive yield. Those US Treasuries are just as safe, if not safer than the Euro, Yen and Franc which are negative.
If it is the negative rates causing the liquidity issue, why is it just now becoming an issue? Negative rates have been available for a few years, so I don't see what has changed in the last few months to cause this.
I also don't have any constructive ideas what could be causing the repo market to act the way it is right now.
That chart looks like a smiley face.
Liquidity is gone, when greed is factored in. Selfish pigs in charge.
With summar teeth. Some are missing.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
there were a couple of lines in two different articles a bit ago.
one had a trader fretting over making a trade when trying to borrow while the secondary repo rates were around 9%. poor baby. luckily the trader did not make thee trade up there and the repo rates came back down.
another had a quote from someone saying they didn't feel like loaning money via secondary repo to some hedge fund.
Gangbusters
The only financial institutions issuing negative debt are central banks of a few European countries. There are very few bonds with a negative coupon rate. But, yes, the fact that investors can get a higher yield in the US is the largely responsible for the stagnant global economy and dis-inflationary forces.
The problem was the amount of debt that yielded a negative rate and the rate at which it increased in recent months. The were issues between the Fed funds rates, the rate the Fed pays on excess reserves, and a tremendous rush into sovereign debt.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
The market adjusted the rate higher and once again the FED interfered with what the market conditions dictated. If the economy is not so fragile, as some here would want you to believe, why must the FED continually treat it as such? No one here knows the strength or weakness of the economy at any point in time better than the FED knows. Let the FED's actions (and its lies) show you the true state of the economy. Listen to what the FED does, not to what it says.
The FED has the resources to read/evaluate the economy. It's how and when they deploy tools to steer/control it that keeps their behavior in question. The FED knows how bad the economy actually is, and they likely know they are responsible for most of it.
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
You didnt read a word i wrote.
This is not an economic problem.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
leave it to the FED to make it one.
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
Was a mess in 2015 and is better then expected now. I like the long term trade deals and build up of military as the debt is still climbing. I believe it’s the best case scenario considering what the alternative would of been. All the noise in DC is theater so that makes me a little nervous because we never have 100% truths due to political fraud across the board.
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Well said. Totally Agree.
Like to add I am at 3% debt to income and think the best thing anyone can do personally is simple live below your means. Make that happen now and you won’t suffer as much later 😎
Best place to buy !
Bronze Associate member
Invest like Warren Buffet, Live like Jimmy Buffet.
100% Positive BST transactions
Hedge funds (stocks and bonds) are collapsing
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
Proof that even a dumpster fire can be sensational. Lol
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I LOVE the Fed!
Eat like Vegas Buffet
Deficits suddenly matter
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
I hope we are proud of our elected representatives for they have proven to be good at something.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I kinda expected you to apologize for them.
The government is incapable of ever managing the economy. That is why communism collapsed. It is now socialism’s turn - Martin Armstrong
Im sorry. Lol
Knowledge is the enemy of fear
I'm for that!
The economy is doing OK, the very slow growth is being sustained by low interest rates. Stock market is booming, Alan Greenspan must be thinking "irrational exuberance."
People employed
I give away money. I collect money.
I don’t love money . I do love the Lord God.
I don't think charters force them into anything.
Yes, they do. Each type of fund has specific limits and criteria that delineate what they can and cannot invest in, and to what extent. It's in every prospectus.
the key words are "force" "into"
Yes, the fund managers are required to stay within percentage limits for each type of asset, and they are required to only invest in the types of assets delineated for each particular fund. For example, the manager of a fixed income fund is simply not allowed to include growth stocks in the fund portfolio. Therefore, he is forced into fixed income securities and not into growth stocks.
of course there is more debt. There is also more income and more asset value. There will always be debt more as long as asset values increase and income is sufficient.
And you didn't read my statement. More debt, fine. More income and asset value, fine. But what you didn't acknowledge is that there is much more leverage (debt as a percentage of income) than in 2008.
There will always be debt more as long as asset values increase and income is sufficient.
Right. We agree on that much. The question is whether or not the income is sufficient. If you paid attention to my earlier post, this is what I consider to be a problem for the economy and the financial system, to wit:
There's more debt and more leverage now in the bond markets now than in 2008. The risk of default is apparently much higher now, and personal debt to income levels now are worse on mortgage loans. The stock market is valued at 150% of the economy now, compared to 100% of the economy in 2008.
You're welcome. Merry Christmas.
I knew it would happen.
Not pension funds, which was your original contention. Of course infividual funds have different investment objectives. Prudence would lend toward diversification. Would you go to a cardiologist for a root canal? Would you go to a fixed income fund for growth stocks?
Individuals have less leverage than in 2008. Fact.
I guess buying stocks in 2010 was a good idea. Rebalance and relative valuations should always be considered.
Merry Christmas.
Knowledge is the enemy of fear