Financial topics

[richard5za]

Thank you for finally admitting that I was correct in my thesis all along. I'll excuse you for not having enough stones to say it directly.

In the next 3 years, if it goes to a new ATH, with me buying in at teens levels and being up big on all positions, will you admit I was right?

Yes, for me personally, of course I will admit that you were right and that I was wrong. But this need to be right is interesting and was the reason I asked you the question as to whether you are married to Bitcoin, which restarted the Bitcoin discussion.

If you are dealing with economics and the financial markets you are working with shades of grey, rather than "black/white"; and rather than "either/or" things can be "both/and". So we all make errors. Its how we deal with the errors that makes an enormous difference to our investment/trading returns.

A good example of "both/and" is John's prediction that in terms of generational theory we were headed for deflation. I have no doubt that he is right; recession reduces inflation, and if the recession is severe enough it results in deflation. So we will have both inflation and deflation because I believe that the high probabilty is that the world will enter severe recession in the medium term

[Higgenbotham]

Thank you for finally admitting that I was correct in my thesis all along. I'll excuse you for not having enough stones to say it directly.

In the next 3 years, if it goes to a new ATH, with me buying in at teens levels and being up big on all positions, will you admit I was right?

Yes, for me personally, of course I will admit that you were right and that I was wrong. But this need to be right is interesting and was the reason I asked you the question as to whether you are married to Bitcoin, which restarted the Bitcoin discussion.

If you are dealing with economics and the financial markets you are working with shades of grey, rather than "black/white"; and rather than "either/or" things can be "both/and". So we all make errors. Its how we deal with the errors that makes an enormous difference to our investment/trading returns.

A good example of "both/and" is John's prediction that in terms of generational theory we were headed for deflation. I have no doubt that he is right; recession reduces inflation, and if the recession is severe enough it results in deflation. So we will have both inflation and deflation because I believe that the high probabilty is that the world will enter severe recession in the medium term

I thought about the deflation angle when giving my response to Cool Breeze. If there's a serious deflation and Bitcoin doesn't get back to an all time high but still beats the CPI, then Cool Breeze will have been right, in my opinion.

[Cool Breeze]

Thank you for finally admitting that I was correct in my thesis all along. I'll excuse you for not having enough stones to say it directly.

In the next 3 years, if it goes to a new ATH, with me buying in at teens levels and being up big on all positions, will you admit I was right?

Yes, for me personally, of course I will admit that you were right and that I was wrong. But this need to be right is interesting and was the reason I asked you the question as to whether you are married to Bitcoin, which restarted the Bitcoin discussion.

If you are dealing with economics and the financial markets you are working with shades of grey, rather than "black/white"; and rather than "either/or" things can be "both/and". So we all make errors. Its how we deal with the errors that makes an enormous difference to our investment/trading returns.

A good example of "both/and" is John's prediction that in terms of generational theory we were headed for deflation. I have no doubt that he is right; recession reduces inflation, and if the recession is severe enough it results in deflation. So we will have both inflation and deflation because I believe that the high probabilty is that the world will enter severe recession in the medium term

Thank you for the post, but most of it is confused. I too like "both/and" categories, but your analysis is off on many points here, though I still like the post. Let me detail why:

Consider the backdrop. Many of you, if not all, were telling me I was duped, it was a ponzi, You all act like I was dumb, I don't know what I'm talking about, I'm a "true believer". You are talking about the "need to be right" which you perceive is a characteristic of mine in order to dissolve your responsibility (Higgie's and John's as well) in lambasting me unfairly and incorrectly. I'm just defending myself and saying, "Oh, interesting that it turns out I was right and you were not only wrong, but dead wrong in your analysis." That's all I'm saying, but apart from you and Higgie, who deserve credit for admitting it (it appears) now, I haven't seen anyone else admit they were wrong. Why? This takes some humility. So good on you.

The point of the errors comment of yours, which is good, goes back to my point of making the BIG error. Calling BTC a ponzi and fake, a trap, a dupe, etc. is a BIG categorical error, one that shows you that someone else has major chinks in their thinking armour. I wouldn't say this if all you said (or whomever) was, "BTC is too unknown, too speculative for me, I don't know enough about it, I'm not touching it." That's the classic hubris and ignorance paradigm that most legacy people follow. It's not enough for them to just say, I don't know it, I'm not touching it - it's too risky for me - they disqualify it entirely and make fun of other people. Who know more than they do. Which is the point here.

I stand by my description of reality as best, since it is and has been accurate - inflation crushing everyone and turning the economy and central planners to stupid policies and further destruction of the economy (most of which was planned). If you were given a choice between being right on a topic and years passing, and then finally something bad happening, and you consider John "right" - you have serious analytical problems. He said I was wrong and that there would be no real inflation (transitory crowd) for pete's sake! "That doesn't happen in generational crises" he said.

As I said, a long time ago, it doesn't take any analysis at all to say that we're all gonna die. Describing the functioning / interim is therefore the key in the whole thing. That's what analysis is.

[Higgenbotham]

A stabilization or improvement in the relative strength of Bitcoin versus the Nasdaq could be a good first indication that BTC is ready to make a more sustained move higher than has been seen since the all time high.

Reuters has an article out today talking about the fact that the correlation between Bitcoin and the Nasdaq has been breaking down recently.

https://www.reuters.com/technology/cryp ... eak%20away.

[Higgenbotham]

The chart below shows the 1 minute volumes on Meta Platforms (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) for the past few days. I've circled a spike in the volume. That minute $400 million worth of this stock was traded. Almost all of this stock would have likely been purchased by one party. At the same time, almost all of it would have been sold by one party too, probably at a huge loss (since Meta is at approximately a 6 year low).

The points that are relevant to me about this are:

1. There are only a few parties in the world who would or even could be liquid enough to purchase this much of one stock all at once.
2. When this much stock is purchased the volume has to be there and most of the time it is not.
3. Because of 2., a party purchasing this much stock has to be early and probably knows they are early, but doesn't have a choice.
4. In similar past situations they are early but not by much and they almost always make good returns.

Today I read that the FCC Commissioner called for TikTok to be banned in the US. Whoever bought this stock probably knew that was coming.

[Cool Breeze]

The chart below shows the 1 minute volumes on Meta Platforms (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) for the past few days. I've circled a spike in the volume. That minute $400 million worth of this stock was traded. Almost all of this stock would have likely been purchased by one party. At the same time, almost all of it would have been sold by one party too, probably at a huge loss (since Meta is at approximately a 6 year low).

The points that are relevant to me about this are:

1. There are only a few parties in the world who would or even could be liquid enough to purchase this much of one stock all at once.
2. When this much stock is purchased the volume has to be there and most of the time it is not.
3. Because of 2., a party purchasing this much stock has to be early and probably knows they are early, but doesn't have a choice.
4. In similar past situations they are early but not by much and they almost always make good returns.

Today I read that the FCC Commissioner called for TikTok to be banned in the US. Whoever bought this stock probably knew that was coming.

What's your best guess on this?

If I believe that a major move down, whether in 1 week or 3-5 weeks, happens from Jan to April (ish) of next year (I'm talking down 50+%) ... when should I get out of my current paper positions? That is, the small ones that I have remaining? Just curious about your advice there.

Your posting has been great lately, seriously, keep it up.

[Higgenbotham]

What's your best guess on this?

If I believe that a major move down, whether in 1 week or 3-5 weeks, happens from Jan to April (ish) of next year (I'm talking down 50+%) ... when should I get out of my current paper positions? That is, the small ones that I have remaining? Just curious about your advice there.

Your posting has been great lately, seriously, keep it up.

I would wait for a continuation of the rally, but if it reverses down I would get out. My interpretation of today's bar is that the market is still in an uptrend. It also appears that the Fed has no intention of upsetting the applecart before the election and the market mostly believes that. That means there will still be a few more buyers if they don't (tomorrow).

[richard5za]

I would wait for a continuation of the rally, but if it reverses down I would get out. My interpretation of today's bar is that the market is still in an uptrend. It also appears that the Fed has no intention of upsetting the applecart before the election and the market mostly believes that. That means there will still be a few more buyers if they don't (tomorrow).

I think you are right that high probability is that the bear rally will continue upwards. Unless the Fed is very hawish

There are some issues that I am still puzzling about and may have a bearing on the future

The first is that after some years of irresponsible money management the US dollar has strenghened massively since the end of 2020 and very substantially since 2011 during the money printing period. Why? Logically one would expect less global appreciation from the dollar considering the circumstances?

The second is that the BRICS have been making noises about another reserve currency for 2 or 3 years. Having the dollar as the global reserve currency has been massively favourable to America and one would assume that steps have been or are being taken to make sure that a challenge doesnt happen, especially now that both Russia and China are personna non gratia?

The above may also explain the Fed's recent zeal on dealing with inflation?

Gold has always over the long term been an inflation hedge and safe haven. Yet during this current bout of inflation has disappointed. In addition to being subdued by a strenghtening dollar it seems that powerful monetary influences such as central banks might have put the lid on gold? Is this because gold is big enough and stable enough to become one of the pillars supporting an alternative reserve currency to the dollar? (Bitcoin is fully banned in China and Russia so its an unlikely BRICS consideration)

Food for thought

[richard5za]

The chart below shows the 1 minute volumes on Meta Platforms (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) for the past few days. I've circled a spike in the volume. That minute $400 million worth of this stock was traded. Almost all of this stock would have likely been purchased by one party. At the same time, almost all of it would have been sold by one party too, probably at a huge loss (since Meta is at approximately a 6 year low).

I am not familiar legal mechanisms in the USA for transfers of listed assets from one party to another.
But in this country if it was a transfer of ownership of stock market listed stocks between two connected parties that would be reported as a 'book over' and although a visible trade as in this case would not be included in stock market volumes. The connected parties might be a 100% subsidairy company transfering to a holding company or vice versa

[vincecate]

Every month the economists predict inflation will rapidly fall back down to 2% and every month the Fed confidently tells us they have the tools to control inflation. But it does not really look so. Some day people will notice. Next CPI is Nov 10th.