Hello ape community!
Here another update for those of you who understand German. The FED is warning investors about a bubble of its own making. Much attention is paid to retail data, but how durable are they? The real economy is struggling around the world and is ultimately the basis of the stock market. In Germany, 3 nuclear power plants will be shut down by the end of the year, and the blackout is approaching. The gas crisis has not been resolved either and the superpowers are threatening each other with nuclear weapons. Prepare yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wBCvD9drQ0
Hallo Gemeinde!
Die FED warnt die Anleger vor einer Blase, die sie selbst geschaffen hat. Viel Aufmerksamkeit wird Einzelhandelsdaten geschenkt, aber wie dauerhaft sind diese? Die Realwirtschaft hat weltweit zu kämpfen und ist letztendlich die Basis der Börse. In Deutschland werden bis Ende das Jahres 3 Atomkraftwerke abgeschaltet, der Stromausfall rückt näher. Die Gaskrise ist auch nicht behoben und die Supermächte bedrohen sich mit Atomwaffen. Bereitet euch vor.
Grüße/regards
J.
Given that housing bubbles have historically caused worse problems than stock bubbles, and how much money has poured into real estate in recent years, I'd like to find a way of analyzing housing under/overvaluation similar to CAPE, Tobin's Q, AIEA, the Buffett Indicator, Household and Non-Profit Equities to GDP.
Is there any way of doing so for housing? Bonus points for methods that use freely available data sources like FRED.
EDIT: Even though CAPE, Tobin's Q, AIEA, and the Buffett Indicator are analyzing different variables, they all reach very similar conclusions about stock valuation. Given the multiple metrics specified below, are there any pairs of metrics that likewise give similar results?
Da li mi se cini, ili je bas jaka verovatnoca da je S&P 500 (a u stvari i US Total Stock Market) najverovatnije precenjen?
Meni se cini da gledajuci neke top kompanije po market cap, meni se cini mi se da bi sledece kompanije mogle biti precenjene: Amazon, Visa, Mastercard, Tesla, NVIDIA, Adobe, ...
Toliko je toga na mojoj listi, da se u ovom trenutku plasim da kupim indeks koji ima US stocks 40+% u sebi, bez obzira sto tamo ima toliko sjajnih kompanija (npr. sve ovo su dobre firme, ali po meni precenjene).
Random thought:
Many new unicorn start-ups are easily valued at over a billion dollars, some even more. The majority of the time, their valuation is solely based on a business idea.
How is this possible? When a company is just starting out, has little to no customers(many instances there are no customers), has no revenue, in fact, most are underwater. Has little to no partnerships, can be valued so high?
Yes, some of you may say this is the definition of a start-up, i.e an idea and rough beginnings.
Who decides the value of an idea? How can they truly project that the idea will actually turn a profit?
I can compare this to early day crypto market. Where someone would create a new “coin”, a website, and a tail of what their future blockchain technology will solve. People ate that up, threw money in, coin sky rocketed, the technology failed, or it was never supposed to even be real. People sold high and moved to the next thing, losers who didn’t realize this was a sham lost their money.
Problem is, this sort of conceptuality is shifting over to the world markets, markets that are the underlying infrastructure that make the world turn.
The people who valuate unicorns work with the people who fund them. Isn’t that a big conflict of interest? Of course, you would value the investment high because you want this to get noticed and more investors involved why wouldn’t you?
It’s like 2008, rating the mortgage-backed securities well, but they are in fact dog shit.
So the question:
Is the huge inflow of funding to unicorns from various types of public and private investors and the overvaluation of unicorns that have little to no concrete substance, yet only the belief that their business idea will generate huge upside revenues in the future, a bubble?
“The world exists not merely in itself, but also as it appears to me. Indeed, at bottom, we have absolutely no criterion that could help us to form a judgment of a world which was unassimilable by the subject.
If we were to ignore the subjective factor, it would be a complete denial of the great doubt as to the possibility of absolute cognition. And this would mean a relapse into the stale and hollow positivism that marred the turn of the century—an attitude of intellectual arrogance accompanied by crudeness of feeling, a violation of life as stupid as it is presumptuous. By overvaluing our capacity for objective cognition we repress the importance of the subjective factor, which simply means a denial of the subject.
But what is the subject? The subject is man himself—we are the subject. Only a sick mind could forget that cognition must have a subject, and that there is no knowledge whatever and therefore no world at all unless “I know” has been said, though with this statement one has already expressed the subjective limitation of all knowledge.”
Excerpt From: Jung, C. G., Hull, R. F.C., Adler, Gerhard. “Collected Works of C.G. Jung, Volume 6: Psychological Types”. Apple Books.
There’s been a lot of “correction” or “market crash” talk the last few days (heck, even at W S B they are talking about it).
So anyway, if the market is overvalued, then at what S&P index price would it NOT be overvalued? 4000? 3750? 3500?
And after how many years (other things being equal) would it take for the present ~4150 valuation to—in fact—be fairly valued?
Who else here won’t be touching coin base?
As this saga drags on the overarching strategy of the enemy becomes more and more clear. These days they talk a great deal about meme stocks, and of course gme is included, but they’re starting to focus the overvaluation narrative on all of the other stocks in the ‘meme stock’ basket. Those other stocks really are overvalued, unlike GME, which remains a deep value play at only a 16 billion market cap.
We all know the shfs have been manipulating the meme stocks to run together. They’re hoping that the general public will start helping them by actually trading them all together. They’re basically trying to make meme stocks its own sector, so that when one goes down they all go down. When bad news affects one the pin action affects the rest.
