Boghies Account Talk

Sort by newest Sort by date
The pessimism is palatable

I have noticed that BirchTree’s far more aggressive allocation seems to hold the line almost as well as my overly conservative one. And, his has a whole lot more upside. I like the Sentiment Survey sentiment as well. The Seven Sentinals kida looks turny too. And squinting at the index lines kinda points to a transition.

Me thinks that tomorrow might be the day I migrate to my standard allocation. It might be a bit early, but I am starting to think the crappy crystal ball employment projection is baked into the cake. The other nice thing is that I won’t have to burn a very expensive September IFT to move to normal. Thus, I won’t be as tempted to make a massive move to aggressive if things start to boom. My August IFTs are cheap. Got two in the bank.

The knowledge that the ‘Black Swan’ will have his wings clipped may cause the market to boom. We shall see after Labor Day:)
 
Movin' On Out - Or Somewhere...

No Guts, No Glory...

This IFT is a free one and increases my risk exposure by a point and increases my expected returns by a point. And, clears the completely dead weight of 'G Fund' holdings...

My intent is to make my next move smoother. I might be a bit early (would have liked to see the SS turn smartly), but...
G: 0%
F: 31%
C: 42%
S: 14%
I: 13%​

'Risk' can be a nice thing. It is actually a standard deviation. It can be up or down. We have been mostly down, Seven Sentinals seems to be turning, the Sentiment Survey flipped, we had some buying, the big wigs will be in town, and most bad news is behind us for a while.

And, the third moon of Saturn is shrouded in a brown/grey haze. Most would call that Los Angeles smog heading south to San Diego. I think it's an omen.:p
 
I think the last upswing was just an attempt to lure more ppl into the market. I still expect sp500 to drop below 1k
 
DCGuy,

Those poor brokers need income too. I'm just here to help...

:cheesy:


Honestly, I want to be in a position to move to risk or out of risk without a major adjustment. Had two IFTs left. Kinda burning one...
 
Re: Just Gotta Say It...

Here are some August and September deficit/surplus numbers from recent history (in billions). Negative numbers are surpluses:

Aug-01 79,990, Sep-01 -35,501, Total 44,489
Aug-02 54,709, Sep-02 -42,388, Total 12,321
Aug-03 76,587, Sep-03 -23,402, Total 53,185
Aug-04 41,132, Sep-04 -24,611, Total 16,521
Aug-05 51,036, Sep-05 -35,234, Total 15,802
Aug-06 64,717, Sep-06 -56,167, Total 8,550
Aug-07 116,973, Sep-07 -112,866, Total 4,107
Aug-08 111,914, Sep-08 -45,734, Total 66,180
Aug-09 103,555, Sep-09 45,207, Total 148,762

All eight years of Big Spending Bush's Aug/Sep deficits added together are $221,155. President Obama needs an Aug/Sep 2010 deficit combo of $283,207 to match Bush's total Presidential deficit (96 months) in just 20 months.

I am confident he can accomplish this feat:toung:. His policies actually created a deficit in his very first September - an accomplishment that last occurred in Septeber 1991. Even Big Spendin' Bush couldn't accomplish this - even in the worst months of 2008. Amazing...

Our first installment of this great leap forward will mysteriously make this link work at 1400 EST on September 13.

I wonder what the market will make of this.

I wonder what the voters will think.

The Gubmint needs money.

Look forward to 2011.



Boghie said:
In 96 months of excessive spending and gubmint bloat President Bush and Congress amassed:

In a mere 18 months the Government of Responsibility has amassed:

That maps to $1.459 Trillion in average annual deficits.

Now that is Change I Can Believe In!!!

Actually, kinda embarrassing:o
Click to expand...
 
Its a Beautiful Day...

Looks like some of the volume is pricing in:

  1. Our flock of Congressional and Administration Black Swans getting their wings clipped. It is looking like saner heads will not long permit the bozos in charge (currently) to kill the golden goose with dumb tax code changes.
  2. And, based on an apparent money flow out of bonds we might be projecting inflation. We might even get stagflation. What a joy.
  3. Even with sanity coming we will get a couple of months of tax code joy. Imagine, we will ALL get a tax increase greater than our pay increase!!! We will ALL get to enjoy at least a few months of smaller take home pay!!!
How unexpected.

Never would have guessed.

In all actuality we have to wait till all da'Boyz get back from their summer mansions before we can note the trends. Next week is the big story. This is all tax code stuff – and, hence politics.
 
But all those tax code changes are supposed to end this year. Renewing them, therefore is the tax code change.
 
Silverbird,

This Congress and this President can act to make the tax code match their 2008 election year promises. They could have done so for the past 18 months. All it takes is a few moves of a pen...

The market is now pricing in a complete electorial failure for the current goobers. They are pricing in President Obama being forced to accept the current tax code.

I, personally, think President Obama will be more pig headed than Clinton. He will veto the sanity that is now lifting all boats. But, that will be then. Right now I'll ride the wave.
 
Birchtree said:
Maybe the fool will resort to his past history and vote present.
Click to expand...

Nice thought, Birch, nice thought.

But by doing what he does best - vote present by not voting - he will implement a 'pocket veto'.

We are in a world of hurt. But not now, not now:)
 
IF he votes "present" (does nothing) and it's in the bill he's handed after a lull, it passes. By that arguement, you want him to vote present!

I personally don't think it will get to the President, it's already September. All October will be pre-election panic. It'll be stuck just like the Government in just like our Federal budget stuck in Continuing Irresolution. If tax reform doesn't get passed by Congress by Turkey Day the Tax booklets for 2010 will already be roasted to be served up in December.
 
Michael Ramirez, Weekend at Bernies!!!

ramirez-bernies.jpg
 
 
CRWS,

First of all, I would like to congratulate the Obama Administration on posting the information. Once you get comfortable with the site you can data mine to your heart’s content. You hear whining from the vast right wing conspiracy about the accuracy of the data - and that is good; keeps everyone honest. But, the data is there and it is accessible. Considering the complexity they did a very good job.

Now...

My problem with the stimulus is that it was a valiant effort using 1930s concepts.
  • 36% went to tax benefits. That was the $400 per person Bushesque style benny. Never liked them. I took mine and paid down debt. It didn't help the current economy one bit. And, since it wasn't permanent I considered it to be 'Bread and Circus' money. Even though it was ‘free’ money I would have preferred it not to be borrowed and ‘spent’.
  • 28% went to entitlements. Those were welfare and unemployment benefits. Maybe worthy, but did little to nothing to stimulate economic growth.
The rest went to Contracts, Grants, and Loans (36%). This had a chance to affect the economy short and long term if it reached the private sector.

However...

  • If you look at California 85% of the economic stimulus was in the form of grants to government entities.
  • 92% of the jobs were created via grants – which again went to the public sector (government).
Here is a breakdown of the grants to California:
  • 42% Department of Education. California must restructure its bloated, inefficient, bureaucratic General Motors style education system. This money has largely been spent – in one year. Have we noted any increase in the capability of the students that just graduated? Just asking. All this did was kick the can down the road.
  • 20% Department of Transportation. In California, this is where the bulk of any stimulus should have been spent. I see car pool lanes and proposed choo-choos. And guess what folks, road maintenance and building doesn’t require a bunch of shovel ready employs shoveling dirt, concrete, and asphalt anymore. When they contract the work out the labor is lean and mean and temporary. Choo choos and car pool lanes have little, no, or negative impact on productivity. The largest spending was $225 million for public transportation in Los Angeles. On the positive side, the next five programs were general purpose freeway spending – maintenance, not new. Then choo choos in San Francisco. In the end, hopefully some of this borrowed money ended up in the city coffers. We have a good mayor who will fill potholes with it.
  • 15% Department of Energy. I wish they followed the 1930s model here. The biggest grant went to a hometown company. San Diego Gas and Electric got $28 million to create (or sustain) less than 3 jobs to implement a smart metering program. In the 1930s dams were built to power the growth of California. That created good construction jobs for quite some time and directly generated long term economic growth. In 2009/2010 we fund programs (smart metering, green energy) that our big energy companies were on the hook for. Were they just waiting for government bloat to fund these mandates? Tell me how a smart metering program in San Diego (the residents of which use less electrical energy than anyone in the nation – but, as a result, pay some of the highest rates) will create long term economic and jobs growth.
  • 10% Health and Human Services. Welfare and recreation centers. Keepin’ part time city employees employed. Probably has some value – they seem mean and lean. And, in this downturn I am certain California needed help supporting its welfare load. But, given the 18 months of lifeline provided has California done the necessary things to wind down some of the bloat in these programs. Nope. Are we still funding welfare programs created in a time of plenty? Yep. And, are we still funding non-emergency benefits for citizens of other countries. Oh, yes we most certainly are!!! The stimulus should have bought time. Instead we just doled out the slop for another couples years. This is like the garbage sent to the Department of Education.

So, CRWS, I am not a fan of either the size of Porkulus or the way it was spent. I knew it couldn’t be spent on one new freeway because there would be an endangered fly in the path. I knew we would not build one reliable power source because it would create greenhouse gasses. I knew we would not borrow the 18 months bought for our education bureaucracy to restructure because the unions and administrators think they are the greatest things since sliced bread. In short, I absolutely knew that the Libs thought the economic problem was a short term blip that could be bypassed via two years of debt financing.
Guess what, the Libs were wrong. And the problem was made significantly worse. We had – and have – a debt crunch. We have to pay down our debt. Sorry, pain all around. Time to trim, time to pay.

Adding another $50 Billion is neither buying time nor trimming the structural spending bloat.

We’ve had 21% structural federal spending growth in two years.

Cut that growth out and our deficit is cut in half.

Do that and I’ll talk about taxes.

Hope, Change.

P.S. I think this proposal is a ‘stalking horse’. The blue dog Democrats will either vote against it or stop the bill cold. Then they can get back to their districts and talk up their fiscal hawkiness – and then, hopefully, get back to Congress and reselect Nancy Pelosi to the Speaker’s position.
 
Boghie said:
CRWS,

So, CRWS, I am not a fan of either the size of Porkulus or the way it was spent. I knew it couldn’t be spent on one new freeway because there would be an endangered fly in the path. I knew we would not build one reliable power source because it would create greenhouse gasses. I knew we would not borrow the 18 months bought for our education bureaucracy to restructure because the unions and administrators think they are the greatest things since sliced bread. In short, I absolutely knew that the Libs thought the economic problem was a short term blip that could be bypassed via two years of debt financing.
Guess what, the Libs were wrong. And the problem was made significantly worse. We had – and have – a debt crunch. We have to pay down our debt. Sorry, pain all around. Time to trim, time to pay.

Adding another $50 Billion is neither buying time nor trimming the structural spending bloat.

We’ve had 21% structural federal spending growth in two years.

Cut that growth out and our deficit is cut in half.

Do that and I’ll talk about taxes.

Hope, Change.

P.S. I think this proposal is a ‘stalking horse’. The blue dog Democrats will either vote against it or stop the bill cold. Then they can get back to their districts and talk up their fiscal hawkiness – and then, hopefully, get back to Congress and reselect Nancy Pelosi to the Speaker’s position.
Click to expand...

Seems to me the spending is state directed, based on Gov't criteria. Correct me if I'm wrong...
You may find reading the Bill quite fascinating- so much that never has been revealed by the MSM... sad to say.
From the Bill itself, some clips:

SEC. 502. ECONOMIC STIMULUS LENDING PROGRAM FOR SMALL
BUSINESSES. (a) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to permit
the Small Business Administration to guarantee up to 90 percent
of qualifying small business loans made by eligible lenders.
(b) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:
(1) The term ‘‘Administrator’’ means the Administrator of
the Small Business Administration.
(2) The term ‘‘qualifying small business loan’’ means any
loan to a small business concern pursuant to section 7(a) of
the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 636) or title V of the Small
Business Investment Act of 1958 (15 U.S.C. 695 and following)
except for such loans made under section 7(a)(31).
(3) The term ‘‘small business concern’’ has the same
meaning as provided by section 3 of the Small Business Act
(15 U.S.C. 632).
(c) QUALIFIED BORROWERS.—
(1) ALIENS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES.—
A loan guarantee may not be made under this section for
a loan made to a concern if an individual who is an alien
unlawfully present in the United States—
H. R. 1—39
(A) has an ownership interest in that concern; or
(B) has an ownership interest in another concern that
itself has an ownership interest in that concern.
(2) FIRMS IN VIOLATION OF IMMIGRATION LAWS.—No loan
guarantee may be made under this section for a loan to any
entity found, based on a determination by the Secretary of
Homeland Security or the Attorney General to have engaged
in a pattern or practice of hiring, recruiting or referring for
a fee, for employment in the United States an alien knowing
the person is an unauthorized alien.
(d) CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS.—Prior to the approval of
any loan guarantee under this section, the Administrator may verify
the applicant’s criminal background, or lack thereof, through the
best available means, including, if possible, use of the National
Crime Information Center computer system at the Federal Bureau
of Investigation.

H. R. 1—31
SEC. 406. RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION
LOAN GUARANTEE PROGRAM. (a) AMENDMENT.—Title XVII
of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16511 et seq.) is
amended by adding the following at the end:
‘‘SEC. 1705. TEMPORARY PROGRAM FOR RAPID DEPLOYMENT OF
RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION
PROJECTS.
‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 1703, the Secretary
may make guarantees under this section only for the following
categories of projects that commence construction not later than
September 30, 2011:
‘‘(1) Renewable energy systems, including incremental
hydropower, that generate electricity or thermal energy, and
facilities that manufacture related components.
‘‘(2) Electric power transmission systems, including
upgrading and reconductoring projects.
‘‘(3) Leading edge biofuel projects that will use technologies
performing at the pilot or demonstration scale that the Secretary
determines are likely to become commercial technologies
and will produce transportation fuels that substantially reduce
life-cycle greenhouse gas emissions compared to other transportation
fuels.
‘‘(b) FACTORS RELATING TO ELECTRIC POWER TRANSMISSION SYSTEMS.—
In determining to make guarantees to projects described
in subsection (a)(2), the Secretary may consider the following factors:
‘‘(1) The viability of the project without guarantees.
‘‘(2) The availability of other Federal and State incentives.
‘‘(3) The importance of the project in meeting reliability
needs.
‘‘(4) The effect of the project in meeting a State or region’s
environment (including climate change) and energy goals.
‘‘(c) WAGE RATE REQUIREMENTS.—The Secretary shall require
that each recipient of support under this section provide reasonable
assurance that all laborers and mechanics employed in the performance
of the project for which the assistance is provided, including
those employed by contractors or subcontractors, will be paid wages
at rates not less than those prevailing on similar work in the
locality as determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance
with subchapter IV of chapter 31 of part A of subtitle II of title
40, United States Code (commonly referred to as the ‘Davis-Bacon
Act’).
‘‘(d) LIMITATION.—Funding under this section for projects
described in subsection (a)(3) shall not exceed $500,000,000.
‘‘(e) SUNSET.—The authority to enter into guarantees under
this section shall expire on September 30, 2011.’
 
I'm in a panic.:toung:

I stand to lose about 0.25% of my value today:nuts:

I just can't handle the loses anymore...

Run away, run away:o
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

V
Valleymd blog (the international question)
Replies
2
Views
237
tsptalk
tsptalk
TommyIV
March Contest In Progress
Replies
5
Views
230
rangerray
rangerray
TommyIV
  • Article Article
TSP Talk AutoTracker Insights: An S-fund Preference
Replies
1
Views
454
tsptalk
tsptalk
TommyIV
  • Article Article
TSP Talk AutoTracker Insights: TSP Investors Lock in Gains
Replies
1
Views
541
tsptalk
tsptalk
TommyIV
  • Article Article
G-Fund Allocations on the Rise in TSP Talk AutoTracker
Replies
0
Views
475
TommyIV
TommyIV
Back
Top