Does America really want a change?

[Q-Unit]

Such drastic change in just 2 days? Let's just wait and see what tomorrow brings us!

there have been drastic changes in the last two months. the biggest one day drop since the Great Depression, and the biggest one day gain since forever. Both in a 2 week span!

Its even been said during the Great Depression, there were record gains sporadically over certain days.

It's like if you had 100 bucks, and lost 75 bucks in one day, the most youve ever lost in one day only to see yourself finding a 20 dollar bill the next week the largest one day gain you've seen, yet your total worth was still only 45 bucks, still bad compared to the 100 bucks you had from day one.

So while the swings are great, the big picture is we are still in the midst of a recession. A two day gain followed by another slip is of no correlation to Obama's election especially when all the fingers pointed to Cisco's lowered sale outlook. I doubt the majority of anyone would think we would be out of this economic crisis in only a matter of days, its gonna take a few years.

[Q-Unit]

Late money came in on McCain! :thumbs:

and all of those tickets are being swept off the floor of casinos by Joe the casino-floor-sweeper/waxer.

lol I get what you're saying though, the slight hope McCain would win, and he wasnt far off, a 6% discrepancy in the popular vote certainly demonstrates as much. Notwithstanding the 1-2 discrepancy in electoral votes which only further weakens the position to continue to support the electoral college system.

my point was only that late hope for McCain doesnt correlate to the huge swings in the market, in the same way if McCain won, and the market plunged, I certainly wouldn't think it was his fault all the same.

[homedawg]

If you followed the election tally from the start, you would have seen, Obama up HUGE, early, due to the early(pre-election day) voting results, insert: FRAUD- ACORN! McCain did win, with the voters ages 30&up!

[Fish2006]

there have been drastic changes in the last two months. the biggest one day drop since the Great Depression, and the biggest one day gain since forever.

Its even been said during the Great Depression, there have was record gains in sporadic over certain days.

It's like if you had 100 bucks, and lost 75 bucks in one day, the most youve ever lost in one day only to see yourself finding a 20 dollar bill the next week the largest one day gain you've seen, yet your total worth was still only 45 bucks, still bad compared to the 100 bucks you had from day one.

So while the swings are great, the big picture is we are still in the midst of a recession. A two day gain followed by another slip is of no correlation to Obama's election especially when all the fingers pointed to Cisco's lowered sale outlook. I doubt the majority of anyone would think we would be out of this economic crisis in only a matter of days, its gonna take a few years.

The best thing to do is ignore the nominal value of the investments (if you are an investor - long term - not a trader), and look at the P/E ratio you can buy them at now. At this point, you can buy at a present P/E of around 9 or 10 just buying the market. That is already at 70s levels - amazingly cheap. Corp profits will go down 20%-40%. The market has priced in over 40% decline. From there, profits will recover.

So what happens. Stocks could get even cheaper... a PE of 7 is Great Depression level stuff - and we get there just by profits recovering 5% a year for 3 years and stocks staying flat. Or the market recovers over the next 4-6 years, we get back to a more typical PE of 15, something very reasonable in the newer, deleveraged environment (leverage takes possible PEs into the 20s, but at the cost of unsustainable bubbles). A PE of 15 means we get a 50% rise in the market over a few years, just on multiple expansion, leaving aside increases in corporate profits above that.

I dont know about you, but I am buying. Every month I buy with my 401k, and I add in more from cash that I have had on the sidelines waiting for **** to get cheap. Not all at once - I cant call a bottom - but every month, I take 1/24th of the stash and buy into an index fund. And I sleep well knowing that I am doing exactly what you are supposed to do... buy low, sell high.

[homedawg]

and all of those tickets are being swept off the floor of casinos by Joe the casino-floor-sweeper/waxer.

lol I get what you're saying though, the slight hope McCain would win, and he wasnt far off, a 6% discrepancy in the popular vote certainly demonstrates as much. Notwithstanding the 1-2 discrepancy in electoral votes which only further weakens the position to continue to support the electoral college system.

my point was only that late hope for McCain doesnt correlate to the huge swings in the market, in the same way if McCain won, and the market plunged, I certainly wouldn't think it was his fault all the same.

I dont have a problem with the electoral, except for the fact, that you have 2 heavy dem states giving you almost 1/3 of the needed votes (cal & ny=86)

[dananderson32]

McCain did win, with the voters ages 30&up!

he won one age group 65+ and not by much McCain lost every other age group

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US Elections 2008 | Who voted for Obama

[Q-Unit]

I dont know about you, but I am buying. Every month I buy with my 401k, and I add in more from cash that I have had on the sidelines waiting for **** to get cheap. Not all at once - I cant call a bottom - but every month, I take 1/24th of the stash and buy into an index fund. And I sleep well knowing that I am doing exactly what you are supposed to do... buy low, sell high.

I am doing exactly the same. When I joined the work force 3 years ago, (government) I contributed 5% of my earnings to my 401k (its not called that but for argument purposes its the same vehicle, its TSP for federal employees), just enough to get the 5% matching from the feds.

I didnt know much, and was just starting out, I figured I need all the money I could get my hands on lol. After much research and education, I slowly increased it to 15%, especially after 3 yearly salary increases.

The thing was I had it all in government securities which yield on average a 5% return, which is rock solid, guarantees no loss, but does not outpace inflation long term.

Then when I started actively educating myself on stocks and the market, going to fool.com to read (Thanks Kevin :thumbs: ), I started balancing out my portfolio.

I started that back last January shifting new contributions to our C Fund (large caps), S Fund (small caps), and I Fund (international caps).

When the shyt hit the toilet, err I mean the fan, back in September or so, I was somewhat lucky because in late August I rebalanced my portfolio and had more %'s spread out to buy into more of the 3 aforementioned indexes but still a good portion into government securities for stability. It was good timing because when the new rebalance kicked it, it was right after the crash, so my buy-in was at vastly cheaper prices in the indexes.

When the shyt hit the fan again, and stuck to the blades lol, I increased a bit more, but I had to check myself to make sure I keep my portfolio balanced and enough in stabler indexes like the g securites and bonds.

:beerbang:

[homedawg]

he won one age group 65+ and not by much McCain lost every other age group

BBC NEWS | World | Americas | US Elections 2008 | Who voted for Obama

You missed what I stated!
Obama received 66% of the votes, ages 18-29, (approx=21million+/approx. 11million) he only won by less than 8million, result= McCain won the votes ages 30&up! :thumbs:

[Q-Unit]

I dont have a problem with the electoral, except for the fact, that you have 2 heavy dem states giving you almost 1/3 of the needed votes (cal & ny=86)

thats just bad luck. well not really luck, but circumstances.

two of the more populous states get more electoral votes.

just so happens they are two of the more traditionally democratic states.

however I saw something interesting, the popular votes in California were close, there were lots of conservatives for McCain in that state, whereas in Texas a traditionally Republican state garnered close to 45% (I believe not sure) of the popular vote for Obama. Just shows you how close it was.

*Texas is one in which I saw during the 04 election they had a 40% number for Kerry also, I believe if Kerry or Obama even tried a bit harder (Obama's ads were more prevalent this year in Texas than Kerry in 04, almost nonexistent in fact) in Texas, it could have been crazy different.

[homedawg]

The best thing to do is ignore the nominal value of the investments (if you are an investor - long term - not a trader), and look at the P/E ratio you can buy them at now. At this point, you can buy at a present P/E of around 9 or 10 just buying the market. That is already at 70s levels - amazingly cheap. Corp profits will go down 20%-40%. The market has priced in over 40% decline. From there, profits will recover.

So what happens. Stocks could get even cheaper... a PE of 7 is Great Depression level stuff - and we get there just by profits recovering 5% a year for 3 years and stocks staying flat. Or the market recovers over the next 4-6 years, we get back to a more typical PE of 15, something very reasonable in the newer, deleveraged environment (leverage takes possible PEs into the 20s, but at the cost of unsustainable bubbles). A PE of 15 means we get a 50% rise in the market over a few years, just on multiple expansion, leaving aside increases in corporate profits above that.

I dont know about you, but I am buying. Every month I buy with my 401k, and I add in more from cash that I have had on the sidelines waiting for **** to get cheap. Not all at once - I cant call a bottom - but every month, I take 1/24th of the stash and buy into an index fund. And I sleep well knowing that I am doing exactly what you are supposed to do... buy low, sell high.

I can see the dow hitting 6k or less! Then I may buy back in! :beer2: I sure in hell wouldn't buy **** right now! :thumbs:

[homedawg]

thats just bad luck. well not really luck, but circumstances.

two of the more populous states get more electoral votes.

just so happens they are two of the more traditionally democratic states.

however I saw something interesting, the popular votes in California were close, there were lots of conservatives for McCain in that state, whereas in Texas a traditionally Republican state garnered close to 45% (I believe not sure) of the popular vote for Obama. Just shows you how close it was.

The Terminator is gonna make them pay! :laughing: "spread the wealth"

[dananderson32]

thats just bad luck. well not really luck, but circumstances.

two of the more populous states get more electoral votes.

just so happens they are two of the more traditionally democratic states.

from 1968-88 california went republican and since then democrat

1972, 84, 88 New york went red also

[Q-Unit]

from 1968-88 california went republican and since then democrat

1972, 84, 88 New york went red also

traditionally, not unequivocally forever and always dan you ass! lol

Texas went blue in the 60s as well, so while traditionally, doesnt mean always

[Q-Unit]

from 1968-88 california went republican and since then democrat

1972, 84, 88 New york went red also

I could be wrong but I believe NY went red for reagan both times in 80 and 84 but not for Bush sr in 88.

...just splitting hairs but no biggie

[Q-Unit]

I could be wrong but I believe NY went red for reagan both times in 80 and 84 but not for Bush sr in 88.

...just splitting hairs but no biggie

and New Yorkers are giving me the finger for reminding them they backed Dukakis :bang: