-
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!
Reactive1's Account Talk
- Thread starter Reactive1
- Start date
nnuut
Moderator | TSP Legend
You're doing GREAT, and welcome to the message Board by the way!! Don't miss the Bailout Rally!:suspicious:So, do I smell an IFT for COB today? This is where I am:
G - 5%
F - 0%
C - 45%
S - 40%
I - 10%
Thoughts on moving back into the G for a little while. Oh, appologize ahead of time; I am new at this! Only four yrs in the Gov't.
Norman
INVSTSMRT78
Member
Many thanks! I hear my peers (age 30 and younger), often running for cover when the market gets bad. I try and tell them to hold out, it's not like we're going to retire in the next 25yrs. Either way! Thanks for the feedback!
INVSTSMRT78
Member
Thanks! Yeah, I try an commit 15% of my paycheck as a GS-12 (Balt-Wash area) to my TSP. Hopefully I can retire comfortably as I climb that Gov't ladder. 
You're doing GREAT, and welcome to the message Board by the way!! Don't miss the Bailout Rally!:suspicious:
Norman
INVSTSMRT78
Member
Holding, holding, holding. . . . :nuts:
What will the last day of the Gov't FY bring us???
What will the last day of the Gov't FY bring us???
Well, I will make a decision on any move sometime over the weekend and as late as Tuesday AM, with no ability to move in before Wednesday AM trading anyway. I think we will definately see a rally, but I also think we will see an almost automatic retest, which I suppose is fine as long as you are positioned well. I've been fortunate to miss 99% of this and am actually +12% or so being in G all year with exceptions not even worth mentioning. The retest may happen as early as this same month with the news cycle so outrageous. The Obama election rally should occur (watch how great things suddenly will seem to be once Obama is elected). Still uncertain here, but watching closely.
Congrats Reactive - way to navigate the market minefield! About Obama, I'm not so sure that stock investors will suddenly flood the market with money if he is elected (and it's looking like he probably will be). The prospect of his promised deletion of the 15% tax bracket for long-term investments doesn't exactly make me want to increase my investment risk level.
My elephant has stumbled. In fact he's been stumbling for quite a few
years and his hopeful replacement has been stumbling since the he made
his nomination speech. If I can see it, (and I'm a elephant lover) we're in
for four long years of Donkey Kong. Heeeeee-Haaaaaw :cheesy:
CountryBoy
Well-known member
Both side's have stumbled bad. The subprime mess seeds were planted in 1977 and it hasn't stopped growing since then. I'm just afraid we'll swing so fair to the left that socialism will take hold and our grandchilren won't even know what a democratic republic is. All the signs are there, from Bill Ayers revival, having fund raisers at his home for obama (he's the Timothy McVeigh of the 60's) to socialized medicine. The elephant has it coming, it had it's chance and blew it by to much spending. I just hope (that's my hope) and pray we weather this storm.
CB
Before yesterday I had some hope that McCain could mount a comeback if he went on a strong attack for the next three weeks and didn't relent. But then he got "Senatorial" at an event and told the crowd there that there was no reason to fear an Obama presidency and that he was a "good man." That's his problem, no message. He starts the attack bringing up Ayers etc, but then in the next breath says Obama is safe. The whole point of the attack methodology is to place fear in people's minds. It just makes no sense whatsoever, but I think he put the final nail in his coffin with that set of remarks.
In the bigger picture, it was always going to be very difficult to elect another Republican after Bush. Only two times in the previous century was an 8 year president able to hand off the presidency to the same party, and both were popular presidents (Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan) and both follow-on presidencies were one termers. There was hope in this case because McCain was somewhat outside the mainstream and Obama is WAY outside, but with the perception left with Bush, it was always nearly hopeless.
In the bigger picture, it was always going to be very difficult to elect another Republican after Bush. Only two times in the previous century was an 8 year president able to hand off the presidency to the same party, and both were popular presidents (Teddy Roosevelt and Reagan) and both follow-on presidencies were one termers. There was hope in this case because McCain was somewhat outside the mainstream and Obama is WAY outside, but with the perception left with Bush, it was always nearly hopeless.
http://stocktiming.com/Tuesday-DailyMarketUpdate.htm
Bernanke ... Paulson ... Bush, and our Government are nearly scared out of their wits. Everything is being thrown at the credit and banking problems.
The markets had a nice rise yesterday, but Institutions remained focused on the credit market and money market as their key concern.
"Leadership Stocks vs. the Broad Market" ...
The Leadership stock ratio came in at a Negative -52.37. On Friday, the Leadership Ratio was -30 and yesterday it was down to -52. The Leadership Stock Ratio actually declined ... how can the market be healthy with the broad market stocks going up, but Leadership stocks going down?
This is a non-supportive condition for yesterday's rally and suggests that things are not as rosy as most thought yesterday.
(A positive reading gives the advantage to the Bulls, and a negative reading gives the advantage to the bears.)
Bernanke ... Paulson ... Bush, and our Government are nearly scared out of their wits. Everything is being thrown at the credit and banking problems.
The markets had a nice rise yesterday, but Institutions remained focused on the credit market and money market as their key concern.
"Leadership Stocks vs. the Broad Market" ...
The Leadership stock ratio came in at a Negative -52.37. On Friday, the Leadership Ratio was -30 and yesterday it was down to -52. The Leadership Stock Ratio actually declined ... how can the market be healthy with the broad market stocks going up, but Leadership stocks going down?
This is a non-supportive condition for yesterday's rally and suggests that things are not as rosy as most thought yesterday.
(A positive reading gives the advantage to the Bulls, and a negative reading gives the advantage to the bears.)
http://stocktiming.com/Friday-DailyMarketUpdate.htm
Still a time to be very careful depending on your particular position.
Still a time to be very careful depending on your particular position.
IFT for COB 10-21-08
70% G
10% C
10% S
10% I
Looking for a short term upside rally.
The Net of Institutional Buying/Selling takes how much Institutions bought minus how much they sold on any given day. That tells you if they are in Accumulation or Distribution. Obviously, when they are in Distribution, the stock market moves down ... and this you can clearly see on today's chart.
But, what if they are in Distribution, but the rate of Distribution is decreasing at a rate where the distribution trend is becoming less and less?
That is what is happening now.
This indicates that ... while still at a net distribution level, they are starting to buy more and sell less.
It is not a prescription for a bullish rally, but it is the necessary ground work necessary for a foundation to be created if one is to happen.
And ... that is what the chart below is saying right now. Institutions are in Distribution, but on a trending basis, it is becoming less and less. That suggests that they are trying to halt the market's downside direction, and if this chart continues to trend at this rate and this direction, then Institutional investors could very well try to initiate an upside rally.
Can they pull it off? Yes ... if foreign investors don't use this as an opportunity to bail out. That is what happened to Wachovia when it became clear they were in trouble. Sources told me that Foreign investors rushed in to sell bonds that Wachovia had sold ... and that created a serious redemption problem.
Is there anything else Institutional Investors might be worried about right now? Yes ... sources have told me that there is supposed to be a Lehman CDS sale or auction tomorrow. The concern is that the if the CDSs sell for too little, is will set a very bad market value for other market CDSs which will have to be sold off later.
http://stocktiming.com/Tuesday-DailyMarketUpdate.htm
70% G
10% C
10% S
10% I
Looking for a short term upside rally.
The Net of Institutional Buying/Selling takes how much Institutions bought minus how much they sold on any given day. That tells you if they are in Accumulation or Distribution. Obviously, when they are in Distribution, the stock market moves down ... and this you can clearly see on today's chart.
But, what if they are in Distribution, but the rate of Distribution is decreasing at a rate where the distribution trend is becoming less and less?
That is what is happening now.
This indicates that ... while still at a net distribution level, they are starting to buy more and sell less.
It is not a prescription for a bullish rally, but it is the necessary ground work necessary for a foundation to be created if one is to happen.
And ... that is what the chart below is saying right now. Institutions are in Distribution, but on a trending basis, it is becoming less and less. That suggests that they are trying to halt the market's downside direction, and if this chart continues to trend at this rate and this direction, then Institutional investors could very well try to initiate an upside rally.
Can they pull it off? Yes ... if foreign investors don't use this as an opportunity to bail out. That is what happened to Wachovia when it became clear they were in trouble. Sources told me that Foreign investors rushed in to sell bonds that Wachovia had sold ... and that created a serious redemption problem.
Is there anything else Institutional Investors might be worried about right now? Yes ... sources have told me that there is supposed to be a Lehman CDS sale or auction tomorrow. The concern is that the if the CDSs sell for too little, is will set a very bad market value for other market CDSs which will have to be sold off later.
http://stocktiming.com/Tuesday-DailyMarketUpdate.htm
IFT for COB 10-23-08
100% G
Have to bail in another disaster move on my part. Taking no chances and this will probably cause a huge up day for Friday, lol. I don't care too much, I have to take advantage of my position of not being hurt at all by all of this. Best of luck to everyone.
100% G
Have to bail in another disaster move on my part. Taking no chances and this will probably cause a huge up day for Friday, lol. I don't care too much, I have to take advantage of my position of not being hurt at all by all of this. Best of luck to everyone.
From the Wall Street Journal:
You have in GM's Volt a perfect car of the Age of Obama -- or at least the Honeymoon of Obama, before the reality principle kicks in.
Even as GM teeters toward bankruptcy and wheedles for billions in public aid, its forthcoming plug-in hybrid continues to absorb a big chunk of the company's product development budget. This is a car that, by GM's own admission, won't make money. It's a car that can't possibly provide a buyer with value commensurate with the resources and labor needed to build it. It's a car that will be unsalable without multiple handouts from government.
AP
The first subsidy has already been written into law, with a $7,500 tax handout for every buyer. Another subsidy is in the works, in the form of a mileage rating of 100 mpg -- allowing GM to make and sell that many more low-mileage SUVs under the cockamamie "fleet average" mileage rules.
Even so, the Volt will still lose money for GM, which expects to price the car at up to $40,000.
We're talking about a headache of a car that will have to be recharged for six hours to give 40 miles of gasoline-free driving. What if you park on the street or in a public garage? Tough luck. The Volt also will have a small gas engine onboard to recharge the battery for trips of more than 40 miles. Don't believe press blather that it will get 50 mpg in this mode. Submarines and locomotives have operated on the same principle for a century. If it were so efficient in cars, they'd clog the roads by now. (That GM allows the 50 mpg myth to persist in the press, and even abets it, only testifies to the company's desperation.)
Hardly mentioned is the fact that gasoline goes bad after a few months. If the Volt is used as intended, for daily trips of 40 miles or less, the car's tank will have to be drained periodically and the gas disposed of.
The media have been terrible in explaining how the homegrown car companies landed in their present fix, when other U.S. manufacturers (Boeing, GE, Caterpillar) manage to survive and thrive in global competition. Critics beat up Detroit for building SUVs and pickups (which earn profits) and scrimping on fuel-sippers (which don't). They call for management's head (fine -- but irrelevant).
These pre-mortems miss the point. Critics might more justifiably flay the Big Three for failing long ago to seek a showdown with the UAW to break its labor monopoly. In truth, though, politicians have repeatedly intervened to prevent the crisis that would finally settle matters.
The Carter administration rushed in with loan guarantees to keep Chrysler out of bankruptcy. The Reagan administration imposed quotas on Japanese imports to prop up GM. Both parties colluded in the fuel-economy loophole that allowed the passenger "truck" boom that kept Detroit's head above water during the '90s.
Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi now want to bail out Detroit once more, while mandating that the Big Three build "green" cars. If consumers really wanted green cars, no mandate would be necessary. Washington here is just marching Detroit deeper into an unsustainable business model, requiring ever more interventions in the future.
The Detroit Three will not bounce back until they're free to buy labor in a competitive marketplace as their rivals do. In the meantime, private money, even in bankruptcy, almost certainly will not be available to refloat GM and colleagues. Nationalization, with or without a Chapter 11 filing, is probably inevitable -- but still won't make them competitive.
History seldom affords such perfect analogies: In 1968, the Penn Central merger (a proxy for GM-Chrysler) was touted as a fix for a sagging rail business. In two years, the company was in bankruptcy. When a judge couldn't find new lenders, Washington absorbed them into government-owned Conrail, but the death spiral continued. Finally, Congress passed the deregulatory Staggers Act, which overnight gave the rail industry back its future. Conrail was triumphantly reprivatized in 1987.
We're about to replay this ordeal with the auto industry. Let's at least give ourselves a chance to be successful on the first try.
The simplest step forward would be to get rid of the "two fleet rule," devised by Congress's fuel-mileage managers to keep Detroit making small econoboxes in high-cost UAW factories. Dumping the rule would force the UAW to compete directly inside each company for jobs against cheaper workers abroad.
Even better would be to dump CAFE altogether. If Congress really thinks consumers must be encouraged to use less gas, replace it with an intellectually honest gas tax. Mr. Obama promised to transcend the old stalemates -- let him begin with the 30-year-old fraud that our fuel-economy rules represent.
He ran a brilliant campaign, but his programmatic prescriptions amounted to handwaving designed to capture the presidency rather than tell voters what really to expect. This may have been a virtue in campaigning but it becomes a handicap in governing. The public now has no idea what to expect -- except miracles, reconciling all opposites, turning all hard choices into gauzy win-wins. Thanks to Detroit, his honeymoon is about to end before it begins.
You have in GM's Volt a perfect car of the Age of Obama -- or at least the Honeymoon of Obama, before the reality principle kicks in.
Even as GM teeters toward bankruptcy and wheedles for billions in public aid, its forthcoming plug-in hybrid continues to absorb a big chunk of the company's product development budget. This is a car that, by GM's own admission, won't make money. It's a car that can't possibly provide a buyer with value commensurate with the resources and labor needed to build it. It's a car that will be unsalable without multiple handouts from government.
The first subsidy has already been written into law, with a $7,500 tax handout for every buyer. Another subsidy is in the works, in the form of a mileage rating of 100 mpg -- allowing GM to make and sell that many more low-mileage SUVs under the cockamamie "fleet average" mileage rules.
Even so, the Volt will still lose money for GM, which expects to price the car at up to $40,000.
We're talking about a headache of a car that will have to be recharged for six hours to give 40 miles of gasoline-free driving. What if you park on the street or in a public garage? Tough luck. The Volt also will have a small gas engine onboard to recharge the battery for trips of more than 40 miles. Don't believe press blather that it will get 50 mpg in this mode. Submarines and locomotives have operated on the same principle for a century. If it were so efficient in cars, they'd clog the roads by now. (That GM allows the 50 mpg myth to persist in the press, and even abets it, only testifies to the company's desperation.)
Hardly mentioned is the fact that gasoline goes bad after a few months. If the Volt is used as intended, for daily trips of 40 miles or less, the car's tank will have to be drained periodically and the gas disposed of.
The media have been terrible in explaining how the homegrown car companies landed in their present fix, when other U.S. manufacturers (Boeing, GE, Caterpillar) manage to survive and thrive in global competition. Critics beat up Detroit for building SUVs and pickups (which earn profits) and scrimping on fuel-sippers (which don't). They call for management's head (fine -- but irrelevant).
These pre-mortems miss the point. Critics might more justifiably flay the Big Three for failing long ago to seek a showdown with the UAW to break its labor monopoly. In truth, though, politicians have repeatedly intervened to prevent the crisis that would finally settle matters.
The Carter administration rushed in with loan guarantees to keep Chrysler out of bankruptcy. The Reagan administration imposed quotas on Japanese imports to prop up GM. Both parties colluded in the fuel-economy loophole that allowed the passenger "truck" boom that kept Detroit's head above water during the '90s.
Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi now want to bail out Detroit once more, while mandating that the Big Three build "green" cars. If consumers really wanted green cars, no mandate would be necessary. Washington here is just marching Detroit deeper into an unsustainable business model, requiring ever more interventions in the future.
The Detroit Three will not bounce back until they're free to buy labor in a competitive marketplace as their rivals do. In the meantime, private money, even in bankruptcy, almost certainly will not be available to refloat GM and colleagues. Nationalization, with or without a Chapter 11 filing, is probably inevitable -- but still won't make them competitive.
History seldom affords such perfect analogies: In 1968, the Penn Central merger (a proxy for GM-Chrysler) was touted as a fix for a sagging rail business. In two years, the company was in bankruptcy. When a judge couldn't find new lenders, Washington absorbed them into government-owned Conrail, but the death spiral continued. Finally, Congress passed the deregulatory Staggers Act, which overnight gave the rail industry back its future. Conrail was triumphantly reprivatized in 1987.
We're about to replay this ordeal with the auto industry. Let's at least give ourselves a chance to be successful on the first try.
The simplest step forward would be to get rid of the "two fleet rule," devised by Congress's fuel-mileage managers to keep Detroit making small econoboxes in high-cost UAW factories. Dumping the rule would force the UAW to compete directly inside each company for jobs against cheaper workers abroad.
Even better would be to dump CAFE altogether. If Congress really thinks consumers must be encouraged to use less gas, replace it with an intellectually honest gas tax. Mr. Obama promised to transcend the old stalemates -- let him begin with the 30-year-old fraud that our fuel-economy rules represent.
He ran a brilliant campaign, but his programmatic prescriptions amounted to handwaving designed to capture the presidency rather than tell voters what really to expect. This may have been a virtue in campaigning but it becomes a handicap in governing. The public now has no idea what to expect -- except miracles, reconciling all opposites, turning all hard choices into gauzy win-wins. Thanks to Detroit, his honeymoon is about to end before it begins.
Similar threads
- Article