January and February

[Guest]

imported post

The last 3 days of a month and the first two days of the next month tend to be the most bullish, so I'm expecting our lackluster rallies to continue next week.

HOWEVER, February is still traditionally a bad month for all indices and particularly bad after a down January.

February has also traditionally been the worst NASDAQ month of the year in post election years (avg down 4.5%).

 

[rokid]

imported post

"If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians." - Warren Buffet

 

[tsptalk]

imported post

rokid wrote:

"If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians." - Warren Buffet

Speaking of Warren, he owns 96 million shares of Gillette which is up $5 today after the Proctor & Gamblebuy out. Nice day. :shock:

 

[Guest]

imported post

rokid wrote:

"If past history was all there was to the game, the richest people would be librarians." - Warren Buffet

"Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." George Santayana

And anyway, if past history were all there was to this game, then the HISTORIANS would be the richest people, not the librarians. The librarians merely point the historians in the direction of the history books. *LOL* I think Warren is great but even he isn't always right.

 

[rokid]

imported post

Hey, I work with librarians and Warren's quote is LOL funny!

Anyway, who's the better investor? Buffet or Santayana?:^

 

[Guest]

imported post

Hey rokid, "past history"? What history isn't past history?

As I said before, Warren is a great investor and great American, but I don't think he is as brilliantas, say, Albert Einstein or Bill Belichick. *LOL*

 

[Rolo]

imported post

saraho wrote:

As I said before, Warren is a great investor and great American, but I don't think he is as brilliantas, say, Albert Einstein or Bill Belichick. *LOL*

Agreed. However, he is richer and this is an investment board. :dude:<-- Frizz B.

I heard on Bloomberg that the OoO added 4M shares pre-buyout.

 

[rokid]

imported post

Hey rokid, "past history"? What history isn't past history?

"future history"?

"If grammarwas all there was to the game, the richest people would beEnglish teachers".----Rokid

OK, you get the last word.

Go Pats!!! :^

 

[Mike]

imported post

I don't think this is the time to emphasize seasonality - January is typically a very strong month, and look what we've been through thus far. :shock:

 

[Guest]

imported post

Mike wrote:

I don't think this is the time to emphasize seasonality - January is typically a very strong month, and look what we've been through thus far. :shock:

Well, IHMO, that's exactly WHY we need to review seasonality. It assistsus in knowing where we are and where we are going....and what we should do. Past Januarys like this one generally resulted in poor years...

 

[Mike]

imported post

...but the year ends in five, which is bullish.

 

[Guest]

imported post

The C fund for January 2005 was down 2.4%

During the past 50 years, January's S&Phas been down 20 times. Of those 20 times, the following month of February was down 13 times (65%).

January February

-0.7-1.8

-0.8-4.7

-0.9-3.9

-1.0-0.4

-1.6-2.1

-1.7-3.7

-1.8-6.1

-2.0+1.0

-2.7-1.7

-3.6+3.5

-3.8+1.6

-4.2-3.3

-4.4-3.1

-4.6 +1.3

-5.1-2.0

-5.1 -2.2

-6.2 -2.5

-6.9 +0.9

-7.1 +0.9

-7.6 +5.3

 

[Rolo]

imported post

Don't you think that kind of analysis is looking for patterns that aren't relevant? things that aren't there? almost like investing based on celestial alignment or tea leaves?

How helpful/accurate is it?

 

[Guest]

imported post

Rolo wrote:

Don't you think that kind of analysis is looking for patterns that aren't relevant? things that aren't there? almost like investing based on celestial alignment or tea leaves?

How helpful/accurate is it?

Let me try to explain it another way. Lets say, 54 year ago, you gave me $10,000 to invest for you in the S&P. And lets say I only invested the money during the month of February. After 54 years, you would have $9,670. Had you invested the money only during the month of September, after 54 years, you would have $6,180 now.

The fact that these have traditionally been the two worst months of the year should be a consideration...they have been bad for 55 yrs, 20 yrs, 10 yrs and 5 yrs. I'm not saying this should be your sole consideration, but its definitely something to consider.

 

[Rolo]

imported post

But what if this February is in the 35%?

What about Februarys in years that end in 5?

What about Februarys in first-year second-term presidencies?

Ah ha! I bet Februarys in first-year second-term presidencies in years that end in 5 do vErY well, no?



My point is that it appears to me like that John whatshisface mind-reader crap...you can get it to say pretty much anything given a little tid-bit. Note I only mean these historical statistics, not historical market conditions.

 

[Guest]

imported post

Rolo wrote:

But what if this February is in the 35%?

What about Februarys in years that end in 5?

What about Februarys in first-year second-term presidencies?

Ah ha! I bet Februarys in first-year second-term presidencies in years that end in 5 do vErY well, no?



My point is that it appears to me like that John whatshisface mind-reader crap...you can get it to say pretty much anything given a little tid-bit. Note I only mean these historical statistics, not historical market conditions.

As I said..its something to consider..not a sole criterion.... If you think its meaningless, then so be it.

After 54 years, your $10,000 would have grown to $19,550 having invested only in Decembers (that's an avg of 1.7% each year)

After 54 years, your $10,000 would have declined to $6,180 based on September investments (that's an avg decline of0.7% each year).

I think there is some merit in considering this ...

 

[Guest]

imported post

saraho wrote:

As I said..its something to consider..not a sole criterion.... If you think its meaningless, then so be it.

After 54 years, your $10,000 would have grown to $19,550 having invested only in Decembers (that's an avg of 1.7% each year)

After 54 years, your $10,000 would have declined to $6,180 based on September investments (that's an avg decline of0.7% each year).

I think there is some merit in considering this ...

If I had $10000 54 years ago, I would of been one the top 20% of the "well to do"......

 

[Guest]

imported post

tsptorture wrote:

saraho wrote:

As I said..its something to consider..not a sole criterion.... If you think its meaningless, then so be it.

After 54 years, your $10,000 would have grown to $19,550 having invested only in Decembers (that's an avg of 1.7% each year)

After 54 years, your $10,000 would have declined to $6,180 based on September investments (that's an avg decline of0.7% each year).

I think there is some merit in considering this ...

If I had $10000 54 years ago, I would of been one the top 20% of the "well to do"......

Oops, I guess I should clarify that. I meant as a 20-something year old............

Did anyone see that Mrs. Kerry only paid 12% income tax last year? Unbelievable.

 

[Guest]

imported post

She like most rich people hold a large amount oftax free muniss....they are great for the rich people but they also hold down the taxes of the poor folk like us since the munis are used to fund needed itemslike pave roads, build hospitals, airports and fund the states GOs.

If tax reform goes through...munis will be dumped faster then Colin Powell....since rich people can put their money in taxable bonds and not have to pay income because income will no longer be taxed...in turn....

the states will have to figure out how to pay for thedumped munisand how to fund the projects the munis used to fund...HMMM....how would they do that?

Cutting services, raising property taxes, state income taxes and state sales tax is a start....25% fed tax plus 25% state tax crap is going to hurt someone??? Wonder how???

Good luck out there....and do not drink the kool aide.

MT

 

[Guest]

imported post

Interesting enough the only issue Kerry did not hammer Bush on was tax reform because Kerry knows where is bread is buttered....if his wife dumps the munis and can put her wad into the currently taxable bonds that will no longer be taxable if tax reform goes through that would be another 15-25M a year of income for them each year that will compound and compound and compound tax free....

Interesting...two classes rich and poor...15 years...buy silver.

MT