DCguy
Member
sorry, but some explaination will be appreciated.
I'm 100%G att and used all ifts.
I'll have to wait till June.
:worried:
-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
20% Off Annual Premium Subscriptions!*
Ends Jan 18... Click Here For More Information
* For new or current subscribers -
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
Corepuncher's Account Talk
- Thread starter Corepuncher
- Start date
I'm 100%G att and used all ifts.
I'll have to wait till June.
:worried:
steveg
Member
I can answer for CP, for now, until he has time to post. He feels, as I do, that the "green shoots" talk is nonsense. There's nothing, really, to support the premise that we are on our way back...in fact, there are several more "shoes to fall," so to speak. As I (we) see it, continued job losses will fuel continued loan delinquency, which as CP mentioned in a prior post -- mortgage delinquencies for Q1 are ALREADY at the "most severe" level that the "stress tests" allowed for. This, plus the fact that the banks begged, pleaded and persuaded the capitalization needs revealed by the tests to be re-worked significantly in their favor (i.e. reduced by multi-BILLIONS in most cases) proves that the whole thing is a S*H*A*M sham -- a sham that, when reality hits (with respect to delinquencies, and the TRUE valuation of the assets that the bank holds), it will be much uglier than currently assumed by those talking about "green shoots" (barring, of course, any further "gaming of the system" by the current administration -- which, of course, only delays the inevitable blow-up).
But, I'll let CP elaborate if he wishes. Bottom line? CP and I both are on the same page, in that these "green shoots" have come up way too early, as it's not yet spring -- but instead simply a mild winter weather pattern. They are about to get eliminated -- by a hard freeze, as a strong cold front plows through...
Steve
Steve
But, I'll let CP elaborate if he wishes. Bottom line? CP and I both are on the same page, in that these "green shoots" have come up way too early, as it's not yet spring -- but instead simply a mild winter weather pattern. They are about to get eliminated -- by a hard freeze, as a strong cold front plows through...
Steve
Steve
steveg
Member
Birch --
You ignored my point though. Can you please comment directly on the point I'm making? And again, that point is -- if Fannie reports Q1 delinquencies, and they were, as of 3-31-09, ALREADY at the level assumed in the stress tests to be the "most severe" scenario, and since we have had roughly 4 MILLION more people become unemployed since then (assuming a very conservative 600K per week for the 7 weeks since 3-31) -- which will likely be, therefore, a few MILLION families not able to pay their mortgages at some point in the future, HOW IN THE WORLD ARE WE RECOVERING? THINK about that. 4 MILLION initial jobless claims filed since 3-31, and on that date we ALREADY had the number of mortgage delinquencies assumed in the stress tests to be a "worst case" scenario. Can you explain how these "green shoots" are going to do anything but die a quick death -- just looking at the coming mortgage loan defaults? And that is just one -- ONE aspect of the situation we find ourselves in. Can you directly address this, Birch?
Steve
You ignored my point though. Can you please comment directly on the point I'm making? And again, that point is -- if Fannie reports Q1 delinquencies, and they were, as of 3-31-09, ALREADY at the level assumed in the stress tests to be the "most severe" scenario, and since we have had roughly 4 MILLION more people become unemployed since then (assuming a very conservative 600K per week for the 7 weeks since 3-31) -- which will likely be, therefore, a few MILLION families not able to pay their mortgages at some point in the future, HOW IN THE WORLD ARE WE RECOVERING? THINK about that. 4 MILLION initial jobless claims filed since 3-31, and on that date we ALREADY had the number of mortgage delinquencies assumed in the stress tests to be a "worst case" scenario. Can you explain how these "green shoots" are going to do anything but die a quick death -- just looking at the coming mortgage loan defaults? And that is just one -- ONE aspect of the situation we find ourselves in. Can you directly address this, Birch?
Steve
350zCommTech
Well-known member
I'll keep it short and to the point.
RETAIL SALES
RETAIL SALES
Uptrend
Well-known member
Green Shoots?? LOL Corepuncher, a picture is worth a thousand words! What a sham! As a percent of the downtrend, the green shoot reversal is so small, it reminds me of a bump on the road, you feel it and it's gone. The glass ceiling is about to break - recommend short positions.
JTH
Well-known member
Give us a break guys, everyone knows that green shoots crap is yesterday's news and was nothing more than a mere ploy to keep the dumb money invested, so the smart money could pull out. :cheesy:
Real story - I had a piece of garlic in the refrigerator's butter box, in a brown bag. It's been there at least a month. I wanted to grill me up some garlic but when I pulled it out, it literally had two green shoots sticking out of it.
Now ask yourself how does a piece of garlic grow in a dark refrigerator? The answer is who cares, I ate it anyways green shoots and all...
Real story - I had a piece of garlic in the refrigerator's butter box, in a brown bag. It's been there at least a month. I wanted to grill me up some garlic but when I pulled it out, it literally had two green shoots sticking out of it.
Now ask yourself how does a piece of garlic grow in a dark refrigerator? The answer is who cares, I ate it anyways green shoots and all...
Corepuncher
Well-known member
It was the Bank and Govnt's plan the whole time to pump the market as much as possible, release the "stress test" and then unload share offerings into these bloated levels. What a sham. Believe me, it will not go unnoticed by our foreign friends.
The other day when initial jobless claims came out, I heard some of the dumbest commentary I have ever heard on CNBC. Some of them were saying "Oh, it's up 30K only because of auto dealers." Uh..SO WHAT? First of all, 30K out of 630K is within the noise and anyone who tries to draw any conclusions from that is a fool. Second, just because you can identify where the rise in claims came from does not mean they are "lesser" all of a sudden. Jobless claims are jobless claims, PERIOD! Of note, the continuing claims, which has hit a record high for many weeks in a row, went up about 200K, the most I've seen in a long time.
It all starts with jobs...our economy that is. As long as we are LOSING jobs every month, and it doesn't even matter what the 2nd derivative is...we could be losing 100K instead of 600K...it still is a negative on consumer spending, and increases loan defaults, which screws the banks further.
Our government is doing a nice job of "kicking the can" down the road...hoping that "green shoots" take root before more bombs go off. Unfortunately, they are going to be disappointed. I don't know when the next wave down will come, but I bet it is 6-9 months out. Until then, we may chop around 750-950.
I have a friend who works at BAC and everyone he works with knows it all is a sham. He is concerned BAC goes to 7 or so soon because they will have to issue TONS of shares to raise capital. Who in their right mind is going to give them billions? That one group in Singapore, owned like 3.8% of BAC and LIQUIDATED IT ALL! DONE!
The only way I can think of that this economy will recover...at least tempoarily, is if the govnt prints a ton of money, and GIVES it to banks and then ORDERS them to loan it out at near ZERO interest so that businesses can expand and hire jobs. Of course, our bond market would probably crash if we continued to do that and then rates would skyrocket, and the USA would go broke. :nuts:
The other day when initial jobless claims came out, I heard some of the dumbest commentary I have ever heard on CNBC. Some of them were saying "Oh, it's up 30K only because of auto dealers." Uh..SO WHAT? First of all, 30K out of 630K is within the noise and anyone who tries to draw any conclusions from that is a fool. Second, just because you can identify where the rise in claims came from does not mean they are "lesser" all of a sudden. Jobless claims are jobless claims, PERIOD! Of note, the continuing claims, which has hit a record high for many weeks in a row, went up about 200K, the most I've seen in a long time.
It all starts with jobs...our economy that is. As long as we are LOSING jobs every month, and it doesn't even matter what the 2nd derivative is...we could be losing 100K instead of 600K...it still is a negative on consumer spending, and increases loan defaults, which screws the banks further.
Our government is doing a nice job of "kicking the can" down the road...hoping that "green shoots" take root before more bombs go off. Unfortunately, they are going to be disappointed. I don't know when the next wave down will come, but I bet it is 6-9 months out. Until then, we may chop around 750-950.
I have a friend who works at BAC and everyone he works with knows it all is a sham. He is concerned BAC goes to 7 or so soon because they will have to issue TONS of shares to raise capital. Who in their right mind is going to give them billions? That one group in Singapore, owned like 3.8% of BAC and LIQUIDATED IT ALL! DONE!
The only way I can think of that this economy will recover...at least tempoarily, is if the govnt prints a ton of money, and GIVES it to banks and then ORDERS them to loan it out at near ZERO interest so that businesses can expand and hire jobs. Of course, our bond market would probably crash if we continued to do that and then rates would skyrocket, and the USA would go broke. :nuts:
Birchtree
Well-known member
We are forgetting that we have 75% more people employed now than in 1982 - four million unemployed is not a large number by any standard. Economists expect the unemployment rate to climb to 9.7% by the end of the year, with two million more jobs lost over the next 12 months, even as growth returns to the economy. Seasonally adjusted claims in the week ended May 9 increased 32,000 to 637,000 from a revised 605,000 in the preceding week. Most of the losses can be chalked up to Chrysler LLC's 27,000 layoffs following its April 30 bankruptcy filing.
steveg
Member
Birch --
You say first of all that 4 million is not alot, since we have 75% more people employed now than in 1982. So? Who was talking about 1982? I was simply saying that if mortgage defaults SEVEN WEEKS AGO were at the "severe" threshold set by the stress tests, and we have lost FOUR MILLION MORE jobs since then, then won't that lead to an immense number of ADDITIONAL defaults over the next several months? So, what will happen then -- since that would put defaults MUCH HIGHER than the worst-case scenario assumed in the stress tests? What then? I mean, YOU might not call those 4 million jobs alot, but I bet from the perspective of the banks, who have lent mortgage money to those 4 million people, it is INDEED "a lot."
Secondly, that 4 million I am referring to is just in the past SEVEN WEEKS! That is not the total number unemployed -- that is job losses in LESS THAN TWO MONTHS. You say economists are talking only 2 million more over the next 12 months. Say WHAT? That means that our weekly initial jobless claims would have to fall from well over 600 K per week, which has been the case for many, many, many weeks now, to only 38,500 per week, on average, starting immediately. Or, another way to put it is, the rate we are going (600K per week), that would be thirty one million jobs over 12 months. THIRTY-ONE MILLION! I am NOT saying we'll lose another 31 million, but I'm just saying that I simply don't see weekly initial jobless claims falling from well over 600 K to 38 K, either.
Finally -- what is your point, regarding the 27,000 Chrysler layoffs? As CP said, why does the increase in weekly claims from 605K to 637K mean less, just because we can identify which industry most of the job losses came from in the past week. If those 27,000 jobs were cut by, say, GE, instead of Chrysler, would that have meant more to you? Further, I just heard that auto dealers will be closing roughly 2,000 dealerships in the next year. How many people will THAT be?
Clearly, we disagree. But my point is, I'd like to hear you refute, on point, some of the thoughts shared by others, instead of just cherry-picking some positive-sounding, but unrelated, bit of news.
Steve
You say first of all that 4 million is not alot, since we have 75% more people employed now than in 1982. So? Who was talking about 1982? I was simply saying that if mortgage defaults SEVEN WEEKS AGO were at the "severe" threshold set by the stress tests, and we have lost FOUR MILLION MORE jobs since then, then won't that lead to an immense number of ADDITIONAL defaults over the next several months? So, what will happen then -- since that would put defaults MUCH HIGHER than the worst-case scenario assumed in the stress tests? What then? I mean, YOU might not call those 4 million jobs alot, but I bet from the perspective of the banks, who have lent mortgage money to those 4 million people, it is INDEED "a lot."
Secondly, that 4 million I am referring to is just in the past SEVEN WEEKS! That is not the total number unemployed -- that is job losses in LESS THAN TWO MONTHS. You say economists are talking only 2 million more over the next 12 months. Say WHAT? That means that our weekly initial jobless claims would have to fall from well over 600 K per week, which has been the case for many, many, many weeks now, to only 38,500 per week, on average, starting immediately. Or, another way to put it is, the rate we are going (600K per week), that would be thirty one million jobs over 12 months. THIRTY-ONE MILLION! I am NOT saying we'll lose another 31 million, but I'm just saying that I simply don't see weekly initial jobless claims falling from well over 600 K to 38 K, either.
Finally -- what is your point, regarding the 27,000 Chrysler layoffs? As CP said, why does the increase in weekly claims from 605K to 637K mean less, just because we can identify which industry most of the job losses came from in the past week. If those 27,000 jobs were cut by, say, GE, instead of Chrysler, would that have meant more to you? Further, I just heard that auto dealers will be closing roughly 2,000 dealerships in the next year. How many people will THAT be?
Clearly, we disagree. But my point is, I'd like to hear you refute, on point, some of the thoughts shared by others, instead of just cherry-picking some positive-sounding, but unrelated, bit of news.
Steve
Boghie
Well-known member
SteveG,
Those 'weekly' job loss numbers you are quoting are actually monthly numbers.
Still, the only reason why the numbers are reducing in growth rate seems to be gubmint jobs. Gubmint can only hire so many folks with the play money they are printing before the Chinese figure to get out of this monopoly session.
And, losing 1.2 million jobs in the seven weeks wont do the banks much good...
Those 'weekly' job loss numbers you are quoting are actually monthly numbers.
Still, the only reason why the numbers are reducing in growth rate seems to be gubmint jobs. Gubmint can only hire so many folks with the play money they are printing before the Chinese figure to get out of this monopoly session.
And, losing 1.2 million jobs in the seven weeks wont do the banks much good...
Birchtree
Well-known member
Steve,
How about some facts to muddy up the waters. Between the 2005 and 2008 time period, blacks and Latinos were far more likely than whites to take out so-called subprime loans - those designed for people with weak credit records or high debt in relation to income. You simply cannot make a mortgage payment on a welfare check. In 2007, 27.6% of home loans to Hispanics and 33.5% of mortgages to blacks were in the subprime category, compared with 10.5% of those loans made to whites. Now you know why Obama wants to increase the entitlement ranks - these folks are his constituency. All the at risk folks will be fine. Because minorities increased their levels of homeownership at a faster clip than whites during the recent housing boom, it's only fair they carry the burden. At the end of the day, minorities are still much better off now than in 1995, if measured by homeownership. So relax, the world is not ending. All this information came from a Pew analysis survey.
How about some facts to muddy up the waters. Between the 2005 and 2008 time period, blacks and Latinos were far more likely than whites to take out so-called subprime loans - those designed for people with weak credit records or high debt in relation to income. You simply cannot make a mortgage payment on a welfare check. In 2007, 27.6% of home loans to Hispanics and 33.5% of mortgages to blacks were in the subprime category, compared with 10.5% of those loans made to whites. Now you know why Obama wants to increase the entitlement ranks - these folks are his constituency. All the at risk folks will be fine. Because minorities increased their levels of homeownership at a faster clip than whites during the recent housing boom, it's only fair they carry the burden. At the end of the day, minorities are still much better off now than in 1995, if measured by homeownership. So relax, the world is not ending. All this information came from a Pew analysis survey.
steveg
Member
Boghie --
I'm confused. Losing 600K jobs per WEEK sure sounds like alot to me; your comment that these are MONTLY losses makes more sense from that perspective; but, why do they call them WEEKLY initial jobless claims? The number is updated every week, and is supposed to be the number of people filing the first time for unemployment over the past week, right?
Birch -- yeah, I know Obama is taking care of his constituency. His goal, I've read, is to get at least 50% of the population paying zero in income tax. Once you cross that 50% mark, you'd have a majority of the vote pretty much guaranteed!
Anyway, you say that "all the at-risk folks will be fine," referring to their mortgage payments. I'm not so sure. The govt. can't just keep printing and giving away money without there being MAJOR consequences down the road, right?
Steve
I'm confused. Losing 600K jobs per WEEK sure sounds like alot to me; your comment that these are MONTLY losses makes more sense from that perspective; but, why do they call them WEEKLY initial jobless claims? The number is updated every week, and is supposed to be the number of people filing the first time for unemployment over the past week, right?
Birch -- yeah, I know Obama is taking care of his constituency. His goal, I've read, is to get at least 50% of the population paying zero in income tax. Once you cross that 50% mark, you'd have a majority of the vote pretty much guaranteed!
Anyway, you say that "all the at-risk folks will be fine," referring to their mortgage payments. I'm not so sure. The govt. can't just keep printing and giving away money without there being MAJOR consequences down the road, right?
Steve
Corepuncher
Well-known member
A really cool animation of job losses over the past couple years. Each frame is jobs gained/lost over the last year ending that month.
http://www.slate.com/id/2216238/
Is Unemployment a Lagging or a Leading Indicator?
There is a very interesting animated graphic done by Chris Wilson at Slate.com
(http://www.slate.com/id/2216238/).
It shows the progression of unemployment by US county over the last two years. I reproduce the beginning and ending stages of the graph for you below, and apologize to those of you who are reading this in black and white, as it will not be as dramatic. But if you watch the entire series, it shows how rapid the deterioration in unemployment has been. (It takes about ten seconds.) The first graph shows that there 2.6 million jobs had been created in 2006. The last one shows that job losses were 5 million through March and, if we add in April and estimates for May, it will be close to 6 million. Again, the actual animation is dramatic, and made my daughter go “Ouch!”
It’s been 50 years since we have seen unemployment drop as rapidly as it has in the current recession. Given that we have a much smaller percentage of manufacturing jobs now, that volatility is breathtaking. Look at the data since 1930 from the St. Louis Fed:
The typical pundit keeps telling us unemployment is a lagging indicator, and that the recovery will be well under way before it shows up in the job numbers. Therefore, you should buy what they are selling, because the recovery is on its way. But that may not be the case this time. One of my favorite reads, when I get to see it, is the economic analysis from Bridgewater. They are among the best thinkers anywhere, and everyone who follows them gives them a great deal of credence. This is what they wrote about unemployment being a lagging indicator last month:
“Normally, labor markets lag the economy because incremental spending transactions are financed via debt, stimulated by interest rate cuts. But as long as credit remains frozen, spending will require income, and income comes from jobs. And debt service payments are made out of income. Therefore, in a deleveraging environment job growth becomes an important leading, causal indicator of demand and other economic conditions.
“… The bounce in the economy and the stabilization in markets reflect government actions that are big enough to impact near-term growth rates, but are not sufficiently directed at the root problem of excessive indebtedness to produce permanent healing. The deterioration in employment markets will continue because companies’ profit margins are so deeply damaged that a little bounce in growth won’t do much to alter their need to cut costs. This deterioration in labor markets will undermine demand and continue to pressure loan losses, which will keep the pressure on the banks and elevate the cost of capital for tentative borrowers, inhibiting credit expansion.”
This again illustrates the problem of using past performance to project future results. You have to look at the underlying conditions in order to get a real comparison, and we have not seen a deleveraging recession in the US for 80 years. Using the past data in today’s world is statistical masturbation: it may make you feel good, but it is not producing anything really useful, and may be harmful to your portfolio.
http://www.slate.com/id/2216238/
Is Unemployment a Lagging or a Leading Indicator?
There is a very interesting animated graphic done by Chris Wilson at Slate.com
(http://www.slate.com/id/2216238/).
It shows the progression of unemployment by US county over the last two years. I reproduce the beginning and ending stages of the graph for you below, and apologize to those of you who are reading this in black and white, as it will not be as dramatic. But if you watch the entire series, it shows how rapid the deterioration in unemployment has been. (It takes about ten seconds.) The first graph shows that there 2.6 million jobs had been created in 2006. The last one shows that job losses were 5 million through March and, if we add in April and estimates for May, it will be close to 6 million. Again, the actual animation is dramatic, and made my daughter go “Ouch!”
It’s been 50 years since we have seen unemployment drop as rapidly as it has in the current recession. Given that we have a much smaller percentage of manufacturing jobs now, that volatility is breathtaking. Look at the data since 1930 from the St. Louis Fed:
The typical pundit keeps telling us unemployment is a lagging indicator, and that the recovery will be well under way before it shows up in the job numbers. Therefore, you should buy what they are selling, because the recovery is on its way. But that may not be the case this time. One of my favorite reads, when I get to see it, is the economic analysis from Bridgewater. They are among the best thinkers anywhere, and everyone who follows them gives them a great deal of credence. This is what they wrote about unemployment being a lagging indicator last month:
“Normally, labor markets lag the economy because incremental spending transactions are financed via debt, stimulated by interest rate cuts. But as long as credit remains frozen, spending will require income, and income comes from jobs. And debt service payments are made out of income. Therefore, in a deleveraging environment job growth becomes an important leading, causal indicator of demand and other economic conditions.
“… The bounce in the economy and the stabilization in markets reflect government actions that are big enough to impact near-term growth rates, but are not sufficiently directed at the root problem of excessive indebtedness to produce permanent healing. The deterioration in employment markets will continue because companies’ profit margins are so deeply damaged that a little bounce in growth won’t do much to alter their need to cut costs. This deterioration in labor markets will undermine demand and continue to pressure loan losses, which will keep the pressure on the banks and elevate the cost of capital for tentative borrowers, inhibiting credit expansion.”
This again illustrates the problem of using past performance to project future results. You have to look at the underlying conditions in order to get a real comparison, and we have not seen a deleveraging recession in the US for 80 years. Using the past data in today’s world is statistical masturbation: it may make you feel good, but it is not producing anything really useful, and may be harmful to your portfolio.
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Bingo,
That's bHo's and the libs plan all along. Who's going to vote for whats's good for the country ( which is everyone pay some amount of income tax), when your main man/party says you don't have to pay any income tax, but get that free ride from the productive people. 50% is the magic number, they are shooting for in the 2010 election. It's somewhere between 40 and 45% now, depending on who you read. If over 50% don't pay any income tax. then we need to change the saying to "No representation without taxation."
CB
alevin
Well-known member
CP, you're bringing forward something I've been wondering about for at least a few months-the leading/lagging indicator situation re unemployment and conventional wisdom. all I've had were suspicions til now but hadn't seen anything anywhere that would invalidate the conventional wisdom that unemployment lags recovery by up to 9 months. Glad you brought this forward. Not hard evidence, but at least somebodys saying out loud that the possibility exists (that unemployment may be a leading indicator this time). :worried:
Corepuncher
Well-known member
Messed up.
Last edited:
Corepuncher
Well-known member
Hey, anyone want to play pretend with me? Lets begin.
First, observe the skittle crapping unicorn. Hello Mr. unicorn!
Goldman Sachs upgrades several banks. Obviously, we should all invest in the banks!
Banks are paying back TARP. They do not need it anymore (and never will at any point in the future obviously!).
Housing is turning around...invest in Lowes!
Ok, enough of this...goodbye Mr. unicorn, I can't take it anymore!
Tax receipts are falling off a cliff, and yet, we will spend trillions more than we have. Someone keeps buying that confetti called treasury bills...and rates are low. That simply cannot continue for much longer. I could go on and on, but lets just get to the point...
WE ARE SCREWED BIGTIME.
If you've caught the rally, GREAT! But just understand you are playing with fire, and will end up a smoldering pile of bones along with Birchtree if you blindly stay 100% invested in this market. I give us months before confidence in the system is totally lost. Enjoy the G fund, it stands for "Good" and it can be your best friend.
First, observe the skittle crapping unicorn. Hello Mr. unicorn!
Goldman Sachs upgrades several banks. Obviously, we should all invest in the banks!
Banks are paying back TARP. They do not need it anymore (and never will at any point in the future obviously!).
Housing is turning around...invest in Lowes!
Ok, enough of this...goodbye Mr. unicorn, I can't take it anymore!
Tax receipts are falling off a cliff, and yet, we will spend trillions more than we have. Someone keeps buying that confetti called treasury bills...and rates are low. That simply cannot continue for much longer. I could go on and on, but lets just get to the point...
WE ARE SCREWED BIGTIME.
If you've caught the rally, GREAT! But just understand you are playing with fire, and will end up a smoldering pile of bones along with Birchtree if you blindly stay 100% invested in this market. I give us months before confidence in the system is totally lost. Enjoy the G fund, it stands for "Good" and it can be your best friend.
RunningFool
Member
I have often wondered if the economy falls off the cliff, will it do any good to be in the G fund as the dollar will be worthless. Where can you invest to survive the economic Armageddon. Maybe the I fund would be better or take all your money and buy up a couple of years of food.
Uptrend
Well-known member
When inflation hits the market will have asset revaluation and therefore sectors of the market will rise (oil, coal, gold, industrials). Sound confusing? Not really. Commodities are safe havens. As far as TSP, G will be a loser due to inflation, F should be a loser due to higher yields required for Fed to sell bonds, and selling by investors due to low yields that are surpassed by inflation, S should be a loser because less commodities in the index, C might be ok as 1/3 of index is based on energy and related, and I should be the winner due to the cascading and weak dollar. Also companies will have pressure to make parts etc overseas, and so I index will track greater productivity, while US former union workers remain un or under employed.
So, just thinking about it, I should be the winner. Perhaps Optionman is on to something. He got a head start!
So, just thinking about it, I should be the winner. Perhaps Optionman is on to something. He got a head start!
Similar threads
