NYSE

[HY Spread]

Tom Porcelli, RBC:



In plain language these tariffs are a terrible idea. In fact it is such a terrible idea that there was talk amongst the GOP today about pulling some of the President’s unilateral trade authority. But what we find even more disturbing is the Administration’s rationale behind these tariffs: national security and jobs. Let’s explore the first reason on practical grounds alone. Leaving aside the fact that the Pentagon has already come out against these tariffs (ironically on national security grounds), guess who are our biggest suppliers of steel and aluminum? Europe and Canada, respectively. So does the administration actually believe that our two strongest allies represent a national security threat? That is so hard to believe that it borders on absurd. And, for those thinking this has to do with China, in our view that is a political red-herring. China doesn’t even make it into the top 10 in terms of countries we import steel from and the vast majority of our imported aluminum comes from Canada (we import more than 4x as much from Canada as we do from China) . . .

short DAX

[Money]

Tom Porcelli, RBC:



In plain language these tariffs are a terrible idea. In fact it is such a terrible idea that there was talk amongst the GOP today about pulling some of the President’s unilateral trade authority. But what we find even more disturbing is the Administration’s rationale behind these tariffs: national security and jobs. Let’s explore the first reason on practical grounds alone. Leaving aside the fact that the Pentagon has already come out against these tariffs (ironically on national security grounds), guess who are our biggest suppliers of steel and aluminum? Europe and Canada, respectively. So does the administration actually believe that our two strongest allies represent a national security threat? That is so hard to believe that it borders on absurd. And, for those thinking this has to do with China, in our view that is a political red-herring. China doesn’t even make it into the top 10 in terms of countries we import steel from and the vast majority of our imported aluminum comes from Canada (we import more than 4x as much from Canada as we do from China) . . .

[Money]

Mickey Levy of Berenberg:

Impacts on the economy and inflation. The tariffs would raise the costs of imported aluminum and steel. Assuming the supplies of U.S.-sourced steel and aluminum are fairly inelastic in the short run, and incorporating disruptions and costs of transitions, business operating costs would rise and business production processes would be less efficient. Uncertainty will be added to business expansion plans. Certain industries, such as motor vehicles that are in the process of transforming the content of their products, will be disrupted.

In an environment of soft aggregate product demand, businesses would have little flexibility to raise product prices, and their margins would be squeezed. The impact on consumer prices and inflation would be minor. However, current macroeconomic conditions are favorable, and strengthening product demand would provide businesses flexibility to raise product prices. Nominal GDP, the broadest measure of current dollar spending and aggregate product demand, accelerated to 5% in the second half of 2017, up from an average of 3.7% in the prior five years, and that momentum is expected to be sustained. Accordingly, the impact of the higher tariffs would be shared by the real economy and inflation. While the impact on inflation would not be major, it would cut into real consumer purchasing power and add to price pressures at a time when markets are sensitive to inflationary expectations.

In response to the perceived negative impact of the tariffs — with the threats of retaliation in the headlines — the natural consequence is to put downward pressure on the U.S. dollar. With a lag, this would raise prices of non-energy imports. Effectively, this would partially mitigate the impact of the tariffs on U.S. multi-national firms but reduce the purchasing power of U.S. consumers. History of international trade policy shows that the nations that impose barriers to trade are hurt the most.

[Money]

A big issue with using indices in this way is not with mean reversion as a concept, but that the data set it uses to derive its mean has changed so frequently that it may not be producing a meaningful average to revert back to.

[...]

A different problem with index-based analysis is that it glosses over huge changes in the component parts of these benchmarks over time. This becomes particularly problematic for those who rely on historical average valuation multiples for an index to draw conclusions about today. Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton of the London Business School have shown how in 1900 over 60 per cent of the value of listed US equities was in rail. Today much of this value is accounted for by technology, which came into existence as a category relatively recently and has undergone huge evolution in the past decade.

At the same time returns on invested capital for the most profitable US-listed companies have exploded since the turn of the millennium. According to McKinsey, ROIC, excluding goodwill, for non-financial companies in the 90th percentile of profitability surged to above 80 per cent by the financial crisis, and further since. This compares to less than 25 per cent for this cohort in the 1970s.

[Money]

Какво базисно разбиране бе човек. Под корелация обикновено се разбира линейна корелация и точно за това става дума в статията на ФТ - много силно изразена линейна връзка.

Не при всеки сет от данни има корелация.

Няма нужда, става въпрос за базисно разбиране. Навлизане в такива теми за един инвеститор са от малка полза ...

[pipbel]

И тук "бабъл"...

https://www.advisorperspectives.com/...est-since-2000

[HY Spread]

Също така и автокорелация и многофакторни методи

Няма нужда, става въпрос за базисно разбиране. Навлизане в такива теми за един инвеститор са от малка полза ...

[stat counter]

Съветвам те да се запузнаеш по добре с термините корелация и коинтеграция. По принцип във всичко може да се намери корелация...

Също така и автокорелация и многофакторни методи

[Money]

Този анализ го оставям на ТА колегите, да доказват, че всичко е биология (и фази на Луната). Успех!

Дали корелацията работи , трябва да сам да се разровиш и анализираш а не да се уповаваш на авторитети. Трудно ще се намери история преди 1900 г . Според мен корелацията при консолидация и на малки времеви рамки не винаги работи. Но при по сериозни спадове е вярна. УСПЕХ

[HY Spread]

Пип, това ми се видя забавно. Според мене е по-скоро случайна корелация.



Ето примерно корелация между разходите за научни изследвания и смоубийствата в САЩ
http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

Съветвам те да се запузнаеш по добре с термините корелация и коинтеграция. По принцип във всичко може да се намери корелация...

[the architect]

боже боже направил дарение







Billionaire Steve Schwarzman, the CEO of private equity giant Blackstone (BX), thinks that oftentimes it’s not enough to just donate money to schools. Rather, he thinks donations can be much more meaningful if they target specific efforts.

[the architect]

мноу плямпате бе еврейски тролове ама тая година ще ви изрина
смешните ви еверйски ръстове сега са само прелюдия към ващо изриване

[Todor Sabev]

Интересно е това писание. Не че е ново това, че икономиката се задвижва ендогенно от очакванията на хората за бъдещето. Но това не е чиста биология. Има си доста рационални преценки, които хората правят на базата на “обективни” фактори.

Има и известна разлика между статията в ФТ и социономикса. В ФТ гледат растежа на броя на забременяванията YoY. Също така те са честни и казват, че не винаги корелацията работи.

Дали корелацията работи , трябва да сам да се разровиш и анализираш а не да се уповаваш на авторитети. Трудно ще се намери история преди 1900 г . Според мен корелацията при консолидация и на малки времеви рамки не винаги работи. Но при по сериозни спадове е вярна. УСПЕХ

[Money]

Интересно е това писание. Не че е ново това, че икономиката се задвижва ендогенно от очакванията на хората за бъдещето. Но това не е чиста биология. Има си доста рационални преценки, които хората правят на базата на “обективни” фактори.

Има и известна разлика между статията в ФТ и социономикса. В ФТ гледат растежа на броя на забременяванията YoY. Също така те са честни и казват, че не винаги корелацията работи.

Това се знае от 30 години. За тези , който не са запознати със социономическата теория на Роберт Пректър. DJI и демографското състояние на обществото.

https://www.socionomics.net/1999/09/...raphic-trends/

[Todor Sabev]

Economists urged to use fertility to predict recessions



Looking for evidence that a recession is coming? Count how many women are pregnant. That is the conclusion of new US research that suggests economists and investors should pay attention to fertility to understand when a slump is due.

A paper published on Monday by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that, ahead of the past three US recessions, the number of conceptions began to fall at least six months before the economy started to contract. While previous research has shown how birth rates track economic cycles, the NBER study is the first to show that fertility declines are a leading indicator for recessions.

https://www.ft.com/content/daf5dc40-...c-25c814761640

[ATTACH=CONFIG]n3304162[/ATTACH]

Това се знае от 30 години. За тези , който не са запознати със социономическата теория на Роберт Пректър. DJI и демографското състояние на обществото.

https://www.socionomics.net/1999/09/...raphic-trends/