"Economic data released in the past week showed a revised estimate for U.S. growth in the first quarter was higher than anticipated; new orders for manufactured durable goods were stronger than expected in May; sales of newly built homes that same month beat economists’ forecasts; consumer confidence jumped in June to a 17-month high based on a Conference Board survey; and that initial jobless claims in the week ending June 24 fell... U.S. inflation measured by the personal-consumption-expenditures price index softened to 3.8% in May on a 12-month basis, the slowest increase since April 2021, based on a government report Friday."
Also, the "recession canceled" remark wasn't based on the S&P. It's from the chief global economist at Economic Outlook Group LLC -- a quote from the analysis he sent to investors Thursday. (He followed his "recession canceled" remark by citing the larger economy's "impressive performance the first three months," and drops in "virtually every inflation metric.")
All the talk of a recession last year was always just bluster to justify layoffs and other anti-worker policies and actions. Anytime there’s that much unanimity in the press about the economic outlook whether it’s a coordinated move or just groupthink, you know it’s not going to happen.
The yield curve inversion has predicted the last 9 out of the 5 recessions.
Could it also be that the two-year yield is higher (than the 10-year yield) because people expect the fed to lower the FFR after a couple of years after inflation has reached their target?
It has a 100% success rate based on my observation. And if we're going to disagree on facts, I'm not sure the point in having any sort of further discussion.
> All the talk of a recession last year was always just bluster to justify layoffs
Or, a signal of the tail end of an undeclared recession.
If you compare unemployment rate to recessions, they usually begin before the unemployment spike. The unemployment spike then usually plateus around the end of the recession.
That’s actually a good point. I think the covid era is unique though because the “labor shortage” still hasn’t been worked through. A lot of people straight up died, retired early, became shutins, etc. and I’m very certain some sectors have not recovered. I think the recent market elation around AI is basically a last ditch hope/pray effort by Wall Street/C suite execs that something will magically show up and fill in the gaps. I see it at work and it’s cringe, they’re extremely reluctant to hire for desperately needed roles and are apparently hoping that AI will somehow show up and fix all of our problems.
I work in an role that oversees an operations team and a big part of the tech organization.
The ops guys lost 45% of headcount to retirement and turnover. Even with significantly increased pay, qualified candidates don’t exist. We’re trying to hire high school grads, community college kids, and separated veterans to pay to train, but any smart candidate is in demand. Automation and AI may reduce labor demand by about 20%, which isn’t enough.
We found in the high school recruiting that the state of affairs is so poor that you are basically looking for unicorns who undervalue themselves. The median high school grad in a large urban school is… pretty rough in terms of skills.
I work in $well_known_big_tech and have been denied trying to job switch (about 1 month ago). No interview, they reject my resume. I have over 5 years experience. Just my anecdote.
Yeah that’s my understanding and experience from watching our recruiting process. It all comes from the top level “strategy” sessions where they project a recession but fail to project for any amount of turnover.
turning off the money hose was a big adjustment for the whole market
participants needed to find a way to trade without guaranteed liquidity and they did
not all markets are in bull runs, the credit markets are still declining, housing market is still pulling back, commercial is still hanging by a thread
While I welcome optimism, it’s premature to declare strong top line S&P 500 performance as the end of economic uncertainty. Tech is the only sector with significant YTD gains: Brent Crude Oil, Regional Banks, Transportation, and Retail are all down YTD.
In the S&P 500, the “Magnificent 7” stocks (NVIDIA, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Tesla, and Amazon) are responsible for *85%* of YTD gains.
One of those things is not like the other - crude oil is a commodity, and it going down is a good thing (In addition to the Fed's current policy being "raise interest rates until prices stop rising," high energy prices are VERY bad.) That is not really an objection to your point overall, though.
Good call out. Edit - FWIW, energy sector stocks are also down YTD (certainly correlated with lower prices of an inelastic product).
I also realized the linked sourced from Coatue hasn’t been on HN and is a good source for independent discussion like this. Submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36565261
Right, because the market has never behaved irrationally.
We've got student loan payments resuming soon, a steady stream of commercial real estate mortgages that are refinancing at higher rates for the next year or two, a population who's wages are still on average lower than they were pre-pandemic after adjusting for inflation, supply chain whip-saws as supply/demand continues to over/undershoot in some sectors, the federal reserve saying another couple of hikes are in order this year, and the boomers continuing to age into mass-retirement.
You want to dollar cost average into the market fine, but I wouldn't take out any margin loans for at least the next year.
It isn’t irrational if the concerns you’ve mentioned makes the market think the fed will have to drop interest rates again sooner rather than later.
At this point the market is essentially a drug addict that just got a shot of Narcan and rather than atone for its sins, has gotten excited that it’s going to live long enough to get at least one more hit.
There’s no discipline, no long term, fundamental thinking. Everyone is (and has been for a few decades) just another ape from r/WallStreetBets, even if he or she is wearing a suit and goes to work in a fancy office tower.
Oh yeah, but the market's been predicting the fed will be "forced" to drop interest rates for about a year now, base solely on the taper tantrum from several years ago. Hasn't happened yet.
What the market seems to be conveniently ignoring is that a world where the Fed allows itself to be "forced" into lowering rates to near-zero again is a world where the Fed largely ceases to be relevant. So the Fed is, IMO, going to keep rates at least where they are if not higher if for no other reason than self-preservation. They'll have to see complete market capitulation before they'll consider lowering again.
Besides, one of their mandates is price stability. If they lower rates again, guess what happens? More inflation, and then they have to raise rates again because Congress certainly isn't capable of doing anything about it.
You conviniently left out all the good parts of the economy: unemployment is at all-time lows, inflation is down (but still not at 2%), consumer spending is at an all-time high.
We obviously could still have a recession in the future but (a) we're not in one right now and (b) the economy has done much, much better than people were expecting this time last year.
Employment numbers are skewed because of people who wouldn't normally work working more to make ends meet and debt keeping on rising and inflation slowing but still unsustainable.
Can you elaborate, maybe point to a data source on this? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. The prime age labor participation rate isn't out of line with historical trends: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300060
It's the percentage of people aged 25-54 (prime age) who are either employed or unemployed and looking for work. It's considered a good indicator of the health of the labor market.
How insufferable and/or out of touch and/or smartass does one have to be to pretend this qualifies as popularly accessible information? I cannot even imagine...
However, there are certain factors that can lead to individuals falling out of the official unemployment statistic:
Discouraged Workers: If individuals become discouraged and stop actively seeking employment, they may no longer be counted as part of the labor force or in the unemployment rate calculation.
Underemployed Workers: The unemployment rate may not fully capture those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time employment. These individuals are considered part of the employed category, even if their work hours are insufficient.
Marginally Attached and Particular Job Seekers: Some individuals may have searched for employment in the past but have not actively sought employment in the four weeks preceding the survey. They are classified as marginally attached to the labor force and are not considered part of the unemployed category.
Involuntary Part-Time Workers: People who are working part-time due to economic reasons, such as inability to find full-time work, are included in the employed category but may not be fully reflected in the unemployment rate.
Right, but none of them mentions 6 months. If you're going to use chatgpt at least give a cursory glance to see whether the response is applicable to the topic at hand. I already know that U3 excludes some jobless people, but I'm asking specifically about the 6 months part.
While for most people ends won't meet without working, making the ends meet in this context has a bit more specific meaning you glossed over. The difference is subtle but makes the whole difference.
I honestly cannot tell what the person to whom you're responding is saying. But if they suggesting people are working multiple jobs at a higher rate than the historical average, they would, in fact, be incorrect according to fed data: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS12026620
Unemployment is a lagging indicator for a recession, and credit card debt is also at an all time high.
Sure things could stay positive for a while longer, but there's a lot of headwinds on the horizon, more than I've seen in a while, and these headwinds are tangible, concrete, structural things we can put some numbers to, not just vague philosophical notions of "it can't go up forever" and "everything's overvalued". How big an impact it all makes and on what timescale we'll have to just wait and see, but I'm not leveraging up in this environment.
Yup I agree, there's always the possibility of things turning south. I guess I just have more subjective confidence in the American economy than it sounds like you do.
I'm no expert, nor am I a permabear. I could be wrong, but for me it's the difference between "water's warmer than usual, high probability of severe hurricane" a few years ago and "there's a category 4 a few dozen miles off the coast, we're hoping it doesn't directly hit a major population center" today. It's possible the thing turns away completely and heads out to sea, but I wouldn't bet on it
> Experts have predicted 22 out of the last 10 recessions…
The actual saying was a knock against stock traders:
> To prove that Wall Street is an early omen of movements still to come in GNP, commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions. That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions! And its mistakes were beauties.[20]
Europe: Germany - is already in the recession, but DAX is climbing on par with SP500 (or anything what climbs). Obviously, not a good indicator of a rationality in the market, esp. when greed indicators are at the top. Even Lagarde warned about swift market corrections, but market participants apparently think it all is a bluffing =)
Yeah, Europe is not as economically strong as the US. We still have sky high prices, stagnating wages, and a war on our doorstep. I read a lot of news of economic slowdown in German exports due to several factors.
Anecdotally, got laid off in early spring, still trying to land a decent job, but despite the so called labor shortage all I get is shit offers for 2018 money. While I'm sure this benefits some, the fact that the stock market is now up, is little comfort to me.
The original post was about the US stock market, but I guess should have still clarified that I was talking about a US recession. I don't follow the Europe economy as closely
> You conviniently left out all the good parts of the economy: unemployment is at all-time lows, inflation is down (but still not at 2%), consumer spending is at an all-time high.
On the ground here we were at 3 typical incomes to make basic bills in Jan 2022. As of this month we're solidly at 4 incomes to meet those same bills. Most of that jump occurred this year.
Do you mind clarifying - do you mean 4 incomes for the same number of people? i.e. are you or people you know taking multiple jobs, is that what "4 incomes" means?
> do you mean 4 incomes for the same number of people?
Yes.
> are you or people you know taking multiple jobs
That would work too, providing there enough hours in the week to work 4 full time jobs. One person earning 4x a typical income would also be able support themselves.
That's a very unusual metric to use for this purpose. Essentially the "mode" of the income distribution. I'm not saying you're wrong to use it, it's just a little strange. The mode of most distributions doesn't tell you much about the distribution as a whole, which might be just fine in this case.
OTOH, the median is the number for which half the households in the country earn more and half earn less, and whatever the merits of the mode might be, I still think that's a fairly significant value too.
I applaud the focus. I am just not sure that the mode is the best way to do that. There is something compelling about "the income that the most people make". But I think "the income that is right in the middle of what everyone makes" has a slight edge for me in this respect. Anyway, it's a good thing to focus on, regardless of the metric chosen.
After another day, I think I realize my issue with using the mode.
The actual mode is going to be a single number, not a range, and it will correspond to very few people's incomes. To be usable in the way you mean, you need to add a range to it, and the size of that range is up for debate (mode +/- 1000? 2000? 10,000 ? etc)
The rate of pay available to the most possible people is minimum wage. Its covers 100% of (legal) jobs. So, are you saying your expenses are 4x minimum wage?
Well, people are in a much better negotiation position when their next option is some minimum wage undesirable work, instead of no work at all and being unable to survive.
“Unemployment” is people who are trying to find work divided by themselves + people working. If everyone is living a life of leisure, it will still be low.
Yes, unemployment is a good statistic in that case because it only measures those who are trying and failing to find a job, not those who don’t want or need one.
Not at all. Recessions are corrections. The overall effect is beneficial. They cannot be avoided, only delayed. Environmental issues often drive recessions which at some level is what we are seeing now. Dealing with recessions and environmental issues should lead to improved circumstances.
> You conviniently left out all the good parts of the economy: unemployment is at all-time lows, inflation is down (but still not at 2%), consumer spending is at an all-time high.
Ah yes, the fruits of Bidenomics!
Real wages are stagnant so everyone has to pick up additional work to deal with inflation. In a backdrop of inflation, these are essentialy a drop in wages: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
Inflation is down: sure, from a face-ripping to a merely painful number. More importantly, it took several revisions to the CPI calculation and the lowest SPR levels in decades to make it happen. Also conveniently ignored, food CPI is still at a crushing 6.7% annual rate. If you remove food and energy, CPI inflation is at 5.3%. See: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/
Consumer spending is all-time high: indeed. Sky-high! It becomes quite nefarious when you think about the above: inflation of very important things is still high, but wages are not keeping up. How is the American consumer trying to stay afloat? Household debt. That is credit cards and other forms of personal debt has hit an all time high: https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc
I understand that Biden is trying to paint this as a success, but it's just cherry-picking statistics that hide the disaster the Democrats have created. It's like the Weimar Republic celebrating that the stock market is at all time high and unemployment is 0%.
yeah, but old debt has due date, and as gov doesn't have interest to reduce debt, they will need to take another debt to pay old debt.
Maybe refinancing is not right word here.
It’s annoying that the WSJ and others have political axes grind in constantly predicting doom and gloom. They’ve seriously been predicting recession around the corner for 3 years.
Interest rates surprises suck. But the market purges the shit companies and adjusts. The economy was doing fine back in 2005 when rates were high too.
Margin is always a bad idea in my opinion. You can loose money in the stock market with out margin but no more than you paid. DCA makes sense to thee average investor. Unless you feel the market is insanely overvalued, keeping auto invest on makes sense. We have not retested most highs and if you had DCA you bought while things trended down in 2022 and bought in 2023 as it came up and are in a good position.
Perhaps a change in employment statistics? If a large cohort retires in a narrow window of time then numbers may spike until they all age out of the usual range.
Inflation has also hoovered up nominal wage gains into fat corporate profits more or less confiscating all of that money. Consumers are about to come under a lot of stress.
And interest rates aren't coming down any time soon, I just posted an article from a pair of Fed economists that predict rates being held high until 2026 (I expect we hit a recession which hurries that up, but nothing is going to hurry that up short of a recession).
> You want to dollar cost average into the market fine, but I wouldn't take out any margin loans for at least the next year.
Six months ago I borrowed 3 years of my gross income (principal and interest, not margin) to buy more low cost index funds. The loan period is 10 years which was the max available. I fully intend to pay it off over 10 years, no faster. Wish me luck!
Anyone have any idea what one of the better index funds is to invest in? Doing some research and trying to follow the general Buffett Rule as it were and I can’t seem to determine what is legitimately going to track the S&P 500 and what claims to but actually doesn’t
The simplest is following the Bogle three fund method VTSAX / VTIAX and VBTLX from vanguard that have a low fee split to your liking. I weight towards us stocks and very little in bonds. If you just did this over the last few years you portfolio would be up now , might have been down last October but over all doing ok. I auto invest in these and then go into single stocks I think are under valued. The books by Peter Lynch were easy and fun reads about investing although you can also get the main points watching a few of his videos on cspan for good information on trading that’s relevant today.
Either VOO or IVV (ETFs that track the S&P 500 Index) would make a great choice to buy and hold. Both are managed by reputable companies, have $300B+ in assets under management, and have low expense ratios of 0.03%.
Other than RSUs, I'm 100% bonds for the last year, and no desire to bother with it. Yeah I'm probably missing out. Or maybe not. My brain just can't handle caring about it anymore.
This Peter Lynch talk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf_f8GV0yYM is one of the best videos on the stock market I have seen. It’s from the 90s and is relevant today. I like how it goes into how there is always something to worry about like a recession , the difficultly of predicting the market and how even with one of the most successful funds from the 80s every time the market went down his fund went down.
> Sonders said she sees the U.S. as having experienced “rolling” recessions in different segments – such as housing or manufacturing – as opposed to the entire economy being swept up in a full-blown downturn. “The recession versus no recession debate” is missing the current nuances of this cycle, in her view.
If we reach 2025 and there's no 2000 style recession, this is the most likely cause. The recession is happening industry-by-industry and at different speeds. Some are sharp and fast (commodities), some are slow (commercial real estate), some happened early (tech), some happened late or haven't even happened yet (hospitality).
It also makes sense from a first principles standpoint: If everyone saw it coming due to covid, different industries will react differently, but every industry would definitely act. The difference between now vs '08 and 2000 is information availability, both from the obviousness of the catalyzing event and how ubiquitous financial information has become in the past 15 years.
Even as recently as 2008 it was considerably harder to find and act on economic data vs today. Most companies of any size can discover and act on economic data based on how they see fit. Given this, it's not shocking that tech acted first given they have immediate pricing effects and have information-driven cultures. Compare that to CRE where contracts span decades, and pricing is opaque by design.
116 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 190 ms ] threadChange my mind?
"Economic data released in the past week showed a revised estimate for U.S. growth in the first quarter was higher than anticipated; new orders for manufactured durable goods were stronger than expected in May; sales of newly built homes that same month beat economists’ forecasts; consumer confidence jumped in June to a 17-month high based on a Conference Board survey; and that initial jobless claims in the week ending June 24 fell... U.S. inflation measured by the personal-consumption-expenditures price index softened to 3.8% in May on a 12-month basis, the slowest increase since April 2021, based on a government report Friday."
Also, the "recession canceled" remark wasn't based on the S&P. It's from the chief global economist at Economic Outlook Group LLC -- a quote from the analysis he sent to investors Thursday. (He followed his "recession canceled" remark by citing the larger economy's "impressive performance the first three months," and drops in "virtually every inflation metric.")
Could it also be that the two-year yield is higher (than the 10-year yield) because people expect the fed to lower the FFR after a couple of years after inflation has reached their target?
This is a weak argument and the evidence does not support it: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/T10Y2Y
Or, a signal of the tail end of an undeclared recession.
If you compare unemployment rate to recessions, they usually begin before the unemployment spike. The unemployment spike then usually plateus around the end of the recession.
The ops guys lost 45% of headcount to retirement and turnover. Even with significantly increased pay, qualified candidates don’t exist. We’re trying to hire high school grads, community college kids, and separated veterans to pay to train, but any smart candidate is in demand. Automation and AI may reduce labor demand by about 20%, which isn’t enough.
We found in the high school recruiting that the state of affairs is so poor that you are basically looking for unicorns who undervalue themselves. The median high school grad in a large urban school is… pretty rough in terms of skills.
participants needed to find a way to trade without guaranteed liquidity and they did
not all markets are in bull runs, the credit markets are still declining, housing market is still pulling back, commercial is still hanging by a thread
In the S&P 500, the “Magnificent 7” stocks (NVIDIA, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Meta, Tesla, and Amazon) are responsible for *85%* of YTD gains.
Coatue’s East Meets West macro view from June 30 is the source for the above, and it contains a number of great insights: https://www.coatue.com/blog/company-update/coatues-2023-emw-...
I also realized the linked sourced from Coatue hasn’t been on HN and is a good source for independent discussion like this. Submitted: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36565261
Unless you happen to believe that climate change is real, and market-based pressure is useful in its mitigation.
We've got student loan payments resuming soon, a steady stream of commercial real estate mortgages that are refinancing at higher rates for the next year or two, a population who's wages are still on average lower than they were pre-pandemic after adjusting for inflation, supply chain whip-saws as supply/demand continues to over/undershoot in some sectors, the federal reserve saying another couple of hikes are in order this year, and the boomers continuing to age into mass-retirement.
You want to dollar cost average into the market fine, but I wouldn't take out any margin loans for at least the next year.
At this point the market is essentially a drug addict that just got a shot of Narcan and rather than atone for its sins, has gotten excited that it’s going to live long enough to get at least one more hit.
There’s no discipline, no long term, fundamental thinking. Everyone is (and has been for a few decades) just another ape from r/WallStreetBets, even if he or she is wearing a suit and goes to work in a fancy office tower.
What the market seems to be conveniently ignoring is that a world where the Fed allows itself to be "forced" into lowering rates to near-zero again is a world where the Fed largely ceases to be relevant. So the Fed is, IMO, going to keep rates at least where they are if not higher if for no other reason than self-preservation. They'll have to see complete market capitulation before they'll consider lowering again.
Besides, one of their mandates is price stability. If they lower rates again, guess what happens? More inflation, and then they have to raise rates again because Congress certainly isn't capable of doing anything about it.
We obviously could still have a recession in the future but (a) we're not in one right now and (b) the economy has done much, much better than people were expecting this time last year.
Under the hood these numbers are not good.
Edit: Also wanted to throw this in: Average weekly hours of all employees https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/AWHAETP
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t15.htm
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/u6rate
https://www.bls.gov/charts/employment-situation/civilian-lab...
Source? The BLS definition for U3 (ie. the figure that's referenced when people talk about "unemployment") doesn't say anything about 6 months.
However, there are certain factors that can lead to individuals falling out of the official unemployment statistic:
Discouraged Workers: If individuals become discouraged and stop actively seeking employment, they may no longer be counted as part of the labor force or in the unemployment rate calculation.
Underemployed Workers: The unemployment rate may not fully capture those who are working part-time but would prefer full-time employment. These individuals are considered part of the employed category, even if their work hours are insufficient.
Marginally Attached and Particular Job Seekers: Some individuals may have searched for employment in the past but have not actively sought employment in the four weeks preceding the survey. They are classified as marginally attached to the labor force and are not considered part of the unemployed category.
Involuntary Part-Time Workers: People who are working part-time due to economic reasons, such as inability to find full-time work, are included in the employed category but may not be fully reflected in the unemployment rate.
Sure things could stay positive for a while longer, but there's a lot of headwinds on the horizon, more than I've seen in a while, and these headwinds are tangible, concrete, structural things we can put some numbers to, not just vague philosophical notions of "it can't go up forever" and "everything's overvalued". How big an impact it all makes and on what timescale we'll have to just wait and see, but I'm not leveraging up in this environment.
The actual saying was a knock against stock traders:
> To prove that Wall Street is an early omen of movements still to come in GNP, commentators quote economic studies alleging that market downturns predicted four out of the last five recessions. That is an understatement. Wall Street indexes predicted nine out of the last five recessions! And its mistakes were beauties.[20]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Samuelson#Aphorisms_and_q...
Anecdotally, got laid off in early spring, still trying to land a decent job, but despite the so called labor shortage all I get is shit offers for 2018 money. While I'm sure this benefits some, the fact that the stock market is now up, is little comfort to me.
On the ground here we were at 3 typical incomes to make basic bills in Jan 2022. As of this month we're solidly at 4 incomes to meet those same bills. Most of that jump occurred this year.
Yes.
> are you or people you know taking multiple jobs
That would work too, providing there enough hours in the week to work 4 full time jobs. One person earning 4x a typical income would also be able support themselves.
US household median income is about $71k/year. You're saying you need $280k to meet basic bills?
Perhaps by "typical" you meant something closer to "near minimum" ?
OTOH, the median is the number for which half the households in the country earn more and half earn less, and whatever the merits of the mode might be, I still think that's a fairly significant value too.
I'm not pitting it against BoL Statistics metrics. I use it to better communicate how the largest swath of the public experiences the economy.
The actual mode is going to be a single number, not a range, and it will correspond to very few people's incomes. To be usable in the way you mean, you need to add a range to it, and the size of that range is up for debate (mode +/- 1000? 2000? 10,000 ? etc)
I get that. However, that income doesn't reflect the largest bracket of the working population.
It isn't because so few employers pay that. The most available rate of pay would be closer to 10 or maybe 12 an hour.
Higher interest rates can be planned for already has a location in the tax code.
I’m staring to see that the recent recovery funding was a cash infusion to mask the rate increase from the 2008 recovery.
It is a great opportunity to reset expectations.
I think it's more nuanced in the types of employment and pay. But I'm also sure I don't even know where to go to get that data.
Isn't that the sign of a good economy then?
Ah yes, the fruits of Bidenomics!
Real wages are stagnant so everyone has to pick up additional work to deal with inflation. In a backdrop of inflation, these are essentialy a drop in wages: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf
Inflation is down: sure, from a face-ripping to a merely painful number. More importantly, it took several revisions to the CPI calculation and the lowest SPR levels in decades to make it happen. Also conveniently ignored, food CPI is still at a crushing 6.7% annual rate. If you remove food and energy, CPI inflation is at 5.3%. See: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/
Consumer spending is all-time high: indeed. Sky-high! It becomes quite nefarious when you think about the above: inflation of very important things is still high, but wages are not keeping up. How is the American consumer trying to stay afloat? Household debt. That is credit cards and other forms of personal debt has hit an all time high: https://www.newyorkfed.org/microeconomics/hhdc
I understand that Biden is trying to paint this as a success, but it's just cherry-picking statistics that hide the disaster the Democrats have created. It's like the Weimar Republic celebrating that the stock market is at all time high and unemployment is 0%.
Interest rates surprises suck. But the market purges the shit companies and adjusts. The economy was doing fine back in 2005 when rates were high too.
So I hear you, but one must learn stonkz go up…even if you don’t like it.
And interest rates aren't coming down any time soon, I just posted an article from a pair of Fed economists that predict rates being held high until 2026 (I expect we hit a recession which hurries that up, but nothing is going to hurry that up short of a recession).
Six months ago I borrowed 3 years of my gross income (principal and interest, not margin) to buy more low cost index funds. The loan period is 10 years which was the max available. I fully intend to pay it off over 10 years, no faster. Wish me luck!
Most of the listed companies are global after all.
I prefer Vanguard because it's a private company that is not beholden to shareholders. (disclaimer: I don't own any equity or work for Vanguard).
Some people buy video games, some people fancy car hobbies, I like buying stocks.
Stock prices are the measure, and the measure is manipulated.
If we reach 2025 and there's no 2000 style recession, this is the most likely cause. The recession is happening industry-by-industry and at different speeds. Some are sharp and fast (commodities), some are slow (commercial real estate), some happened early (tech), some happened late or haven't even happened yet (hospitality).
It also makes sense from a first principles standpoint: If everyone saw it coming due to covid, different industries will react differently, but every industry would definitely act. The difference between now vs '08 and 2000 is information availability, both from the obviousness of the catalyzing event and how ubiquitous financial information has become in the past 15 years.
Even as recently as 2008 it was considerably harder to find and act on economic data vs today. Most companies of any size can discover and act on economic data based on how they see fit. Given this, it's not shocking that tech acted first given they have immediate pricing effects and have information-driven cultures. Compare that to CRE where contracts span decades, and pricing is opaque by design.