9 replies to this topic

[NAV]

Cuz economy has got nothing to do with the stock market. Stock market is only about one thing - LIQUIDITY ! QID makes an all time low today, amidst talks of an economic recession in the U.S. Housing recession - must be true. Median home prices in Silicon valley makes new highs. SRS drops nearly 30% from it's highs. Brazil Bovespa has moved from 8000 to nearly 60000 since 2003. What on earth is that stock market discounting ? Mexican economy must be the hottest thing in the world, with it's stock market having moved from 5000 to 30000, since 2003. Why are those folks still crossing the borders ?

Edited by NAV, 25 September 2007 - 12:48 AM.

[pdx5]

Sounds to me like there is bubbling going on out there in them fawreen stock markets! Add to your list China, India, Asian tigers, Russia etc. That will be the next bubble to be pricked. There is no rhyme or reason for market to move from 5000 to 30,000 in 4 years, no matter how good the economic performance.

[ogm]

Sounds to me like there is bubbling going on
out there in them fawreen stock markets!

Add to your list China, India, Asian tigers, Russia etc.

That will be the next bubble to be pricked.

There is no rhyme or reason for market to move from
5000 to 30,000 in 4 years, no matter how good the
economic performance.

You'd be surprized but a lot of Brazilian stocks are trading at P/E's that in US stocks would be considered a bargain. Take a look at RIO or TNE for example. Brazilian ADRs.

What really is going on is a global economic boom.

Caught a small segment on India on Bloomberg last night... India is spending 540 bil dollars over the next 5 years on infrastructure buildout. Construction everywhere. Buying everything they can get their hands on.

And bears are missing all the fun.

Edited by ogm, 25 September 2007 - 05:25 AM.

[Russ]

Have to disagree with you Nav, economics has everything to do with the stockmarket. If China had not been buying US bonds and thereby keeping interest rates low by providing liquidity how well would housing and housing stocks including building supplies etc. have done? It was a big part of economist Martin Armstrong's models that you have to understand international capital flows to know which sectors and countries can be expected to boom or not. Liquidity is important, economics can let you see why and where that liquidity is happening and coming from.

[relax]

agree with both of you once you have the right sectors, liquidity and everything which has nothing to do with economics decides how much of the potential is fulfilled the potential can be enormous but without the right mood and liquidity nothing big will happen

[NAV]

It was a big part of economist Martin Armstrong's models that you have to understand international capital flows to know which sectors and countries can be expected to boom or not.

Martin Armstrong - Why did he blew up big time trading his models ?

Trying to force correlations between the economic models and stock market is a disaster. When the economy is strong and the stock markets are strong, they attribute the market strength to economic strength. When the economy is down/weak and the market goes up, it becomes the wall of worry for the markets to climb. Do the economists ever lose ?

Why don't you explain me how that 600% stock market rally has got anything remotely to do with the Mexican economic growth ?

Or can you explain the huge Nikkei rally from 2003, while it was in the midst of a deflation ?

[OEXCHAOS]

I've never known ANYONE to trade profitably over time using "economics" primarily. That said, I know lots of folks who have lost their heinies relying upon economic data. Having a loose feel for the economics is fine and good, but economists are almost to a man lousy traders. Mark

[Russ]

It was a big part of economist Martin Armstrong's models that you have to understand international capital flows to know which sectors and countries can be expected to boom or not.

Martin Armstrong - Why did he blew up big time trading his models ?

Trying to force correlations between the economic models and stock market is a disaster. When the economy is strong and the stock markets are strong, they attribute the market strength to economic strength. When the economy is down/weak and the market goes up, it becomes the wall of worry for the markets to climb. Do the economists ever lose ?

Why don't you explain me how that 600% stock market rally has got anything remotely to do with the Mexican economic growth ?

Or can you explain the huge Nikkei rally from 2003, while it was in the midst of a deflation ?

On July 20, 1998 as written by Barclay Leib - technical analyst that owns his own service now http://www.sandspring.com/index.html - Leib sat beside and watched Martin Armstrong short 1000 contracts of the big SP contracts and hundreds of European contracts too. Armstrong had predicted in the early 1990's that July 20, 1998 would be a major event. He then held those shorts until around when the market bottomed a few weeks later. SPX dropped 20%, you do the math as to how much he made then. Armstrong was not a bad trader.

The CIA and the Chinese government showed up at his door a couple of months later wanting to aquire his model, he said no and has been in prison now since Jan. 2000. Coincidence? His banker from Republic Bank of New York, Edmund Safra was murdered shortly after in his armed guard Monaco residence around the same time. It was stated publicly by Eric Von Baranov - owner of the Kondratyev forum on Yahoo - that a CIA aquaintance of his said that Armstrong had to be stopped. The case is before the Supreme court now, while Armstrong waits in prison. This is one of the smartest people out there, this is a very complex case.

The Nikkei bottomed on Armstrong's 8.6 year pi cycle as did the rest of the world's markets. Again he had forecast years before that late 2002/early 2003 would be a major low. The reason stock market turn up while the economy is still weak is because stock markets have a predictive quality to them, 6 months is supposed to be the time period they lead by.

Back in late 1989 when the Nikkei ws peaking at 39,000 Armstrong predicted it was peaking and said it would drop over 10,000 points in a few months. It had run up because the then G5 got together in 1985 and decided it was time to bring the US dollar down which shifted money into overseas markets according to what Armstrong wrote back then. The Nikkei peaked right on his model, it was after that that the Japanese corporations sat up and decided to invest several billion dollars with his company.

As business show host and commentator Michael Campbell at Vancouver radio station CKNW.com said "Armstrong is different than other economists, he is usually right" Why was he usually right? ... because he has a 32,000 variable supercomputer model that cost $60 million in programming, that tracked international capital flows and many other things. He had data on that model going back thousands of years to the Babylonian Empire. His daughter Victoria Armstrong wrote on a web forum that the main reason her father was still in prison was because he would not hand over the code for his computer model to the US government. Why should he? It is his private property, the Cia couldn't get it from him legally.

Edited by Russ, 25 September 2007 - 08:19 AM.

[endisnear]

WTF is up with QID....down when Qs were down.... now down big when Qs only slightly up.. Anyone?

[bigtrader]

WTF is up with QID....down when Qs were down....
now down big when Qs only slightly up..

Anyone?

Dividend time.