elindholm
edited for content
To me the question is whether the market is driven more by rank-and-file investors or the big-money guys. I think that when push comes to shove, big money will continue to follow the TINA (There Is No Alternative) principle. They want to make money, and they want to have more money than the next guy, so that means staying aggressive.I'm increasingly convinced that a market crash and recession is on the horizon. We've talked about all the fed nonsense and the easy money fueling speculation and huge asset bubble. But the biggest problem is the labor shortage and resulting inefficiencies. Anecdotally, we can't find enough people to answer the phones much less wait months for them to attain their licenses so they can do something besides basic service related issues. I'm seeing this everywhere from fast food to manual labor to white collar jobs. Employers can't innovate fast enough to make up for the labor shortage and meet the higher demand and AI is not ready for widespread implementation. A reset has to take place, something that causes some pain to reign in demand and cool things off.
All of the amateur real estate agents, crypto bros, and other speculators who have been coasting on the easy money asset bubble are going to get washed out and have to return to the workforce. Unfortunately the working class will also feel the pain like they do with any recession.
The NASDAQ is down 16.3% from its peak. I don't have actual numbers in front of me, but eyeballing the graph, that looks like its fourth-biggest downturn ever, after 2000-2002 (when it lost most of its value), the W. Bush recession, and the start of the pandemic. The present conditions don't seem any worse than in those previous situations, so I'd be surprised if it fell a whole lot more -- maybe another 10% max.
The hard part for us rank-and-file guys is guessing where big money will move. There's all this talk about a retreat to value, but today, money is flowing back into growth, and some traditional value stocks (including, ahem, MMM) are getting hammered. (MMM reported earnings on Tuesday, but waited until today to crash, so I don't know what's going on.)
Because I'm older, I'm gradually moving more defensive anyway -- 75% equities, and one could argue that that's too high. I agree that a big rash repositioning isn't called for.
This was, as usual, a messaging blunder by the Democrats. I think that propping up the economy during the pandemic was the right decision, but it was dishonest to wave off the legitimate fears that such actions would be inflationary. The "follow the science" crowd was all too eager to drop their mantra when it was a potential impediment to the policy they wanted to push through. The right thing would have been to say, "We can suffer a bit for the next several years, or we can suffer a whole lot right now, and stretching it out is going to be the better long-term decision." Instead, we were asked to believe that creating trillions of dollars out of thin air would make unicorns poop ice cream and have no adverse consequences.
Last edited: