Welcome to Hogville!      Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Shorting Trump

Started by hawgbawb, January 10, 2017, 06:49:23 pm

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hawgbawb

I post, therefor I am.
John Highsmith Adams rocks.

ricepig

You put your money there Bawb, the rest of us will profit from the lower taxes, repatriation of billions from overseas, and infrastructure building. I'm up 12% in two months since the election, good times are here.

 

LSUFan

Quote from: ricepig on January 10, 2017, 08:42:12 pm
You put your money there Bawb, the rest of us will profit from the lower taxes, repatriation of billions from overseas, and infrastructure building. I'm up 12% in two months since the election, good times are here.
Troof. I'm up about 11%

Just wait til Jan 20th, Dow >20,000
I ain't saying you babysitting, but my kids are all over your couch.

Quote from: JIMMY BOARFFETT on August 17, 2015, 02:46:52 pm
Sometimes, I think you're a wine-o who found a laptop in a dumpster.

hawgbawb

I post, therefor I am.
John Highsmith Adams rocks.

ricepig

Keep your politics to the Politics Forum, Bawb.

hawgbawb

Quote from: ricepig on January 11, 2017, 08:05:01 am
Keep your politics to the Politics Forum, Bawb.
OK, just be warned that this stock market might be ripe for a big correction, particularly if the smoke leads to a fire. Markets hate uncertainty. Carry on fellas.
I post, therefor I am.
John Highsmith Adams rocks.

HawgWild

January 11, 2017, 03:18:36 pm #6 Last Edit: January 12, 2017, 09:57:30 am by HawgWild
Neither link provided information relative to topics discussed in this forum. I did hear a discussion on CNBC today about traders having written software/algorithms that trigger a trade in pharmaceuticals whenever Trump mentions the word "pharma".

LSUFan

Quote from: hawgbawb on January 11, 2017, 08:19:39 am
OK, just be warned that this stock market might be ripe for a big correction, particularly if the smoke leads to a fire. Markets hate uncertainty. Carry on fellas.
Have your electric scooty carts corrected, yet?  ;D
I ain't saying you babysitting, but my kids are all over your couch.

Quote from: JIMMY BOARFFETT on August 17, 2015, 02:46:52 pm
Sometimes, I think you're a wine-o who found a laptop in a dumpster.

hawgbawb

Quote from: LSUFan on January 11, 2017, 06:43:39 pm
Have your electric scooty carts corrected, yet?  ;D
Lost my shirt.
I post, therefor I am.
John Highsmith Adams rocks.

LSUFan

I ain't saying you babysitting, but my kids are all over your couch.

Quote from: JIMMY BOARFFETT on August 17, 2015, 02:46:52 pm
Sometimes, I think you're a wine-o who found a laptop in a dumpster.

HawgWild

I heard on CNBC this morning that the pharmaceuticals lost $26 billion in value during Trump's 20 minute press conference yesterday.

ricepig

Quote from: HawgWild on January 12, 2017, 09:58:46 am
I heard on CNBC this morning that the pharmaceuticals lost $26 billion in value during Trump's 20 minute press conference yesterday.
Yeah, I'm going to have to talk to the Don about that, luckily Merck is back up good today, some of my other pharma's haven't recovered as well, lol.

BigBrandonAllenFan

Quote from: HawgWild on January 12, 2017, 09:58:46 am
I heard on CNBC this morning that the pharmaceuticals lost $26 billion in value during Trump's 20 minute press conference yesterday.

My FPHAX investment (Fidelity Select Pharmaceuticals) dropped 3.02%, but I wasn't one of the "panic and sell" crowd.  The pharm stocks were already bottomed out when I bought in a little more than a week ago, and I had already gained 2%..  Within a couple of weeks the loss will be regained.  If it falls another 5%, I'll double my investment.

What people overlook, is that the demand is still the same.  I see it as an opportunity, not a detriment.

 

HawgWild

Quote from: BigBrandonAllenFan on January 12, 2017, 01:11:02 pm
What people overlook, is that the demand is still the same.  I see it as an opportunity, not a detriment.

That's kind of what I was thinking. One man's sell is another man's buy. I need him to smack talk the financials so I can buy some more.

BigBrandonAllenFan

Quote from: HawgWild on January 12, 2017, 01:27:41 pm
That's kind of what I was thinking. One man's sell is another man's buy. I need him to smack talk the financials so I can buy some more.

;)

...

hog.goblin

Quote from: HawgWild on January 11, 2017, 03:18:36 pm
Neither link provided information relative to topics discussed in this forum.

This. 

The economy will drive the stock market.  Congress and the President have a modest impact on the economy in the short-term, and tend to impact specific industries (such as coal or steel) more than the overall markets.

Markets may react, positively or negatively, to sudden good (or bad) news about the president and/or his plans.  Those are simply buying/selling opportunities.  If that worries an investor then that person shouldn't be investing in the market.

lutherheggs

I was up 29.67% for 2016. At least a 1/3 of that came in the 6-7 weeks after Election Day. So much for shorting Trump. On the contrary, I am long Trump.

No one knows what will happen and how it will effect the economy, but after 8 year of GDP growing 1.5%, the U.S. economy could explode when corporate taxes are reduced, cash is repatriated and trade is handled more like a business.

BigBrandonAllenFan

Quote from: lutherheggs on January 26, 2017, 08:21:57 am
I was up 29.67% for 2016. At least a 1/3 of that came in the 6-7 weeks after Election Day. So much for shorting Trump.

Very nice, Luther. Congrats on a great year.

woodrow hog call

Quote from: BigBrandonAllenFan on January 26, 2017, 03:22:24 pm
Very nice, Luther. Congrats on a great year.

What are your thoughts on the Schwab Intelligent Portfolios? I changed mine over to that because it is much less costly than having them manage it for me. Just wondering if you or anyone has any experience with this type of account. It was explained to me that it will basically be managed by computer according to the profile I developed by answering the questionnaire.
"I hate rude behavior in a man, I won't tolerate it"

HawgWild

Depends upon how strong the algorithm is. 

woodrow hog call

Quote from: HawgWild on January 27, 2017, 09:26:01 am
Depends upon how strong the algorithm is. 

I guess the next few months will be a good indicator? If  my gains are not in line with the overall market (assuming the Trump bump lasts a while)? I also can affect it by going back through the questionnaire and selecting different answers to move towards a higher risk/reward mix.

I just don't have the knowledge or understanding of the market to manage it myself, so I thought I would try this for a while. Thanks for the reply, I read this forum a lot but hardly post because most of this is over my head.
"I hate rude behavior in a man, I won't tolerate it"

HawgWild

Sounds like a good approach. Pay attention to management fees. They can make a big difference over your investing lifetime. Good luck.

BigBrandonAllenFan

Quote from: woodrow hog call on January 27, 2017, 08:52:48 am
What are your thoughts on the Schwab Intelligent Portfolios? I changed mine over to that because it is much less costly than having them manage it for me. Just wondering if you or anyone has any experience with this type of account. It was explained to me that it will basically be managed by computer according to the profile I developed by answering the questionnaire.

I have no experience with SIP. But from the quick research I just did, it appears to be a much better strategy than simply adding money to given stock funds repetitively every month, which in my opinion is a stagnant approach to investing. On the average, diversity is the safest bet, and it appears the computer model of SIP is geared for diversity.  For the investor that has limited experience in trading funds, I think the SIP is indeed a good thing. I would say it sure beats stagnation.

woodrow hog call

Thanks for the input, I appreciate it.
"I hate rude behavior in a man, I won't tolerate it"

 

lutherheggs

Quote from: HawgWild on January 27, 2017, 01:17:41 pm
Sounds like a good approach. Pay attention to management fees. They can make a big difference over your investing lifetime. Good luck.
Asset allocation, investment costs, and savings rate. The big three for successful investing. Too bad most do not have the knowledge to invest in individual equities. There is no cost at all to that other than a paltry trade fee.

Biggus Piggus

I spent three days last week meeting with institutional investors who seek my expertise in certain stocks. They were not placing any bets on Trump being able to stimulate the economy. They were looking for ways to play the chaos he will create.

No one's yet willing to figure corporate tax cuts into valuation analysis. There's some upside potential for you.
[CENSORED]!

HotlantaHog

Agree with Barry Ritholtz ...You may love Trump or hate him, neither is a good rationale to buy stocks or sell them short... https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-01-20/love-trump-hate-him-that-s-no-way-to-invest

A number of folks have started to raise their estimates of S&P earnings for out years based on the presumption that Trump will get some kind lower corporate taxes through... It's unclear exactly what will get through... Infrastructure looks a lot more difficult to push through ...

Biggus Piggus

The real mystery is how the GOP will treat the revenue impact of corporate tax rates. A lot of questions figure into this analysis. First - will they use any tactics to compel Fortune 500 corporations to pay more taxes (in instances where they pay little or none)? Second - will they try to focus tax breaks on smaller companies? And many more things up in the air.

Smaller businesses employ about 80% of American workers. They are mostly full taxpayers. If you cut the corporate tax, say, from 35% to 15%, pretax profits would have to increase by more than 130% before the change was revenue-neutral.
[CENSORED]!

ricepig

Quote from: Biggus Piggus on January 30, 2017, 01:54:06 pm
The real mystery is how the GOP will treat the revenue impact of corporate tax rates. A lot of questions figure into this analysis. First - will they use any tactics to compel Fortune 500 corporations to pay more taxes (in instances where they pay little or none)? Second - will they try to focus tax breaks on smaller companies? And many more things up in the air.

Smaller businesses employ about 80% of American workers. They are mostly full taxpayers. If you cut the corporate tax, say, from 35% to 15%, pretax profits would have to increase by more than 130% before the change was revenue-neutral.

Mexico is going to pay for it.

Biggus Piggus

[CENSORED]!

Biggus Piggus

BTW I'm hearing more like 25% corporate tax rate. So we might go from 35% to 25%.

That change - if it flows through to public companies - could increase US equity values by 15%.

If tax cuts stimulate economic growth, then we could get more gains from stronger earnings and improved confidence.
[CENSORED]!

HotlantaHog

Quote from: Biggus Piggus on January 30, 2017, 06:42:22 pm
BTW I'm hearing more like 25% corporate tax rate. So we might go from 35% to 25%.

That change - if it flows through to public companies - could increase US equity values by 15%.

If tax cuts stimulate economic growth, then we could get more gains from stronger earnings and improved confidence.

The 25% is certainly a reasonable expectation.

It won't affect all companies equally. There may be some effort to eliminate or reduce deductions, at the same time. The companies who are actually paying the top rate would be the ones most likely to benefit.

A lot of the stock market rally since Trump was elected has been in anticipation of these tax and regulatory changes, as well as infrastructure spending. There have been some big moves in for example bank stocks that are seen as big beneficiaries. I am not sure equity valuations are likely to go up another 15% with the passage of lower taxes -- a lot of it is already baked into valuations.

It's early days, but the uncertainty around the trade and immigration policies, which would reduce economic growth, are starting to worry some investors. Policy uncertainty looks like it could be rising. The chaotic nature of the start of the Trump administration is not comforting.


Biggus Piggus

I don't see lower taxes baked into equity valuations. The prospect of lower taxes/regulation might have removed some of the previous negativity from valuation multiples. They moved back toward normal.

But lower tax rates should not change P/E multiples UNLESS growth prospects also change.
[CENSORED]!

HawgWild

About lowering the tax rate from 35% to whatever, don't we have some big companies that are paying much below this rate already? I seem to recall reading where GE pays 0%. What impact will this have on them? Will the same loopholes be kept to allow the further reduction of the new base rate or do they do away with all the deductions?

ricepig

Quote from: HawgWild on January 31, 2017, 01:26:01 pm
About lowering the tax rate from 35% to whatever, don't we have some big companies that are paying much below this rate already? I seem to recall reading where GE pays 0%. What impact will this have on them? Will the same loopholes be kept to allow the further reduction of the new base rate or do they do away with all the deductions?

I think this is where the expression "the devil is in the detail" comes from.

nationwish

Quote from: HawgWild on January 31, 2017, 01:26:01 pm
About lowering the tax rate from 35% to whatever, don't we have some big companies that are paying much below this rate already? I seem to recall reading where GE pays 0%. What impact will this have on them? Will the same loopholes be kept to allow the further reduction of the new base rate or do they do away with all the deductions?

I hate the phrase "tax loopholes" because so many people talk about them without knowing a single example of a loophole. I've also seen too many cases of people complaining about given companies not paying their fair share of income taxes when those companies had a loss.

I think that pretty much any example of an actual tax loophole is the result of someone convincing people that we needed to incentivize whatever behavior, and that giving a credit, exemption, or deduction would be a net benefit to the economy. I'm not a fan of using the tax code to regulate behavior, either on the individual or the corporate level, but if you were to close all the loopholes without lowering tax rates, you'd be punishing pretty much everyone, especially the middle class.

Biggus Piggus

There are few federal tax loopholes. Multinational corporations engineer their taxes lower by twiddling with how much of their profits are recognized in the US vs. lower-tax countries.
[CENSORED]!

DLUXHOG

Quote from: hawgbawb on January 10, 2017, 06:49:23 pm
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-impeach-impeached-odds-shorten-president-elect-hotels-constitution-republican-latest-a7430441.html

With breaking allegations about the investigations into Trump being compromised, this might be easy money.
Ohhhhhh geeeeeeee whizzzz.....    your bitch lost.... get over it.... (actually, I can't believe that these two were the best that America could put up for the post.....)
"Don't go in anyplace you'd be ashamed to die in..."
(you might get this someday)

hog.goblin

Quote from: Biggus Piggus on January 31, 2017, 07:50:58 pm
There are few federal tax loopholes. Multinational corporations engineer their taxes lower by twiddling with how much of their profits are recognized in the US vs. lower-tax countries.

Truth

lutherheggs

Quote from: Biggus Piggus on January 30, 2017, 01:54:06 pm
The real mystery is how the GOP will treat the revenue impact of corporate tax rates. A lot of questions figure into this analysis. First - will they use any tactics to compel Fortune 500 corporations to pay more taxes (in instances where they pay little or none)? Second - will they try to focus tax breaks on smaller companies? And many more things up in the air.

Smaller businesses employ about 80% of American workers. They are mostly full taxpayers. If you cut the corporate tax, say, from 35% to 15%, pretax profits would have to increase by more than 130% before the change was revenue-neutral.
Reality is, our gov't does not need more revenue. Cutting regs, cutting governmental entities and agencies is needed. We have overdone it by a long shot. We'd get along better with less oversight and less people working for the gov't.

lutherheggs

Quote from: Biggus Piggus on January 30, 2017, 06:42:22 pm
BTW I'm hearing more like 25% corporate tax rate. So we might go from 35% to 25%.

That change - if it flows through to public companies - could increase US equity values by 15%.

If tax cuts stimulate economic growth, then we could get more gains from stronger earnings and improved confidence.
Neither you nor anyone else knows what is going to happen with corp tax rates. Could end up unchanged, could be 30, or 25, or 20 or 15%.

HawgWild

Quote from: DLUXHOG on January 31, 2017, 07:57:10 pm
Ohhhhhh geeeeeeee whizzzz.....    your bitch lost.... get over it.... (actually, I can't believe that these two were the best that America could put up for the post.....)

Someone's got the Joneses over the Political forum being shut down.

Biggus Piggus

Quote from: lutherheggs on February 01, 2017, 09:53:55 am
Reality is, our gov't does not need more revenue. Cutting regs, cutting governmental entities and agencies is needed. We have overdone it by a long shot. We'd get along better with less oversight and less people working for the gov't.

Our government needs tons more revenue. We can't pay for our social security, Medicare and military spending. "Regs, governmental entities and agencies" make up a small percentage of the budget. You guys always are completely unaware of budget numbers. Always. Why is that?

I run into your kind every week. Want to focus on perceived freeloaders and handouts to the poor, when they're a [CENSORED] rounding error in our budget. Moron.

Guess how much federal government employment changed over the past four years. Guess! I'd love to know your honest guess.
[CENSORED]!

HotlantaHog

Quote from: Biggus Piggus on February 03, 2017, 11:18:41 am
Our government needs tons more revenue. We can't pay for our social security, Medicare and military spending. "Regs, governmental entities and agencies" make up a small percentage of the budget. You guys always are completely unaware of budget numbers. Always. Why is that?

I run into your kind every week. Want to focus on perceived freeloaders and handouts to the poor, when they're a [CENSORED] rounding error in our budget. Moron.

Guess how much federal government employment changed over the past four years. Guess! I'd love to know your honest guess.
This is absolutely correct. There are 2.8 million civilian federal employees. As a share of overall U.S. employment, they have been shrinking steadily for seven decades -- to 1.9% as of the end of last year. It is essentially unchanged over four years. Do I win something?

HotlantaHog

Quote from: Biggus Piggus on February 03, 2017, 11:18:41 am
Our government needs tons more revenue. We can't pay for our social security, Medicare and military spending. "Regs, governmental entities and agencies" make up a small percentage of the budget. You guys always are completely unaware of budget numbers. Always. Why is that?

I run into your kind every week. Want to focus on perceived freeloaders and handouts to the poor, when they're a [CENSORED] rounding error in our budget. Moron.

Guess how much federal government employment changed over the past four years. Guess! I'd love to know your honest guess.
Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security have been growing as a percent of the budget. Defense too, when we get into wars.

It's underappreciated but health care costs have slowed in the past few years, making the long-term budget outlook more favorable. Some people credit the Affordable Care Act for this improvement -- others are skeptical. But for whatever reasons, things have improved since ACA was passed. ... The real challenge for the new administration with ``repeal and replace ACA'' will be providing some kind of coverage to the 20 million people covered by ACA as well as keeping overall health-care costs not spiraling out of control, as they were prior to ACA. I'm not saying it can't be done, just won't be easy. The long-term budget outlook depends very substantially on what happens to health-care spending.

LSUFan

Quote from: hawgbawb on January 11, 2017, 08:19:39 am
OK, just be warned that this stock market might be ripe for a big correction, particularly if the smoke leads to a fire. Markets hate uncertainty. Carry on fellas.
I'm glad you're not my financial adviser, I'm up 22.9%
I ain't saying you babysitting, but my kids are all over your couch.

Quote from: JIMMY BOARFFETT on August 17, 2015, 02:46:52 pm
Sometimes, I think you're a wine-o who found a laptop in a dumpster.

ricepig

Quote from: LSUFan on March 01, 2017, 08:01:04 pm
I'm glad you're not my financial adviser, I'm up 22.9%

Don't you mean, this week alone, haha....

Biggus Piggus

Quote from: HotlantaHog on February 03, 2017, 02:43:29 pm
Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security have been growing as a percent of the budget. Defense too, when we get into wars.

It's underappreciated but health care costs have slowed in the past few years, making the long-term budget outlook more favorable. Some people credit the Affordable Care Act for this improvement -- others are skeptical. But for whatever reasons, things have improved since ACA was passed. ... The real challenge for the new administration with ``repeal and replace ACA'' will be providing some kind of coverage to the 20 million people covered by ACA as well as keeping overall health-care costs not spiraling out of control, as they were prior to ACA. I'm not saying it can't be done, just won't be easy. The long-term budget outlook depends very substantially on what happens to health-care spending.

The ACA slowed the rate of inflation in healthcare costs because it did two things:

Pulled more healthy people into the insurance pool, thereby reducing the rate of inflation in overall insurance rates.

Reduced reimbursement rates for Medicare/Medicaid, which was the tradeoff for enlarging the patient pool.

The ACA had not yet done anything about the growth rate of spending on prescription drugs. That was to come later.

Healthcare spending consists of about one-third hospital care, 20% physician and clinical services, 10% prescription drugs, and the rest nursing/residential care. I don't know where in these stats they include medical devices.

The ACA's heaviest focus has been on controlling costs of hospital, physician practice and clinical care. Yet to come is MACRA - merit-based incentive payments and advanced alternative payment models. Value-based care, shifting from fee-for-service.

Republicans helped pass the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (MACRA). They don't have to repeal MACRA when they kill the ACA.

MACRA is supposed to enable Medicare to pay for care based on whether it's beneficial, not paying based solely on patient transaction volumes.

Merit-based pay is going to funnel more dollars to high-performing doctors, taking away dollars from low-performing ones. That's the plan.

The goal is to force the system to quit doing low-value procedures and focus on improving patient outcomes. How well this works is completely unpredictable at this point.
[CENSORED]!

lutherheggs

SS, medicare and medicaid need to be modified. Too big a part of the budget. Cannot go to 99% of budget. Time to pay the piper.

I pity the fool who shorted Trump immediately after the election. I finished 2016 up 30% and about 40% of that came in the last 7 weeks of the year. YTD has been fantastic as well. Someone asked me 2 days ago if it was time to take some $ of the table. I told them I just invested more and the next day, the DJIA goes up 300 pts. We are in the 3rd or 4th inning of an economic boom and the stock market is trying to tell you that. It is a forward looking indicator of corporate revenues and earnings and of the economy.

DeltaBoy

Stock market broke 21,000!
If the South should lose, it means that the history of the heroic struggle will be written by the enemy, that our youth will be trained by Northern school teachers, will be impressed by all of the influences of history and education to regard our gallant dead as traitors and our maimed veterans as fit subjects for derision.
-- Major General Patrick Cleburne
The Confederacy had no better soldiers
than the Arkansans--fearless, brave, and oftentimes courageous beyond
prudence. Dickart History of Kershaws Brigade.