• analysis /əˈnæl.ə.sɪs/
the act of studying or examining something in detail,
in order to discover or understand more about it,
or your opinion and judgment after doing this
There's almost an underlying assumption that taxpayers will bail you out, or you that you won't go to jail for all these securities frauds, or miscalculating risk on pension funds assets is okay.
Rip away all these away and the Emperor is called out to be naked very quickly.
all because of M2 money printer, it broke how money works , process of fiat money started in 1971 but with covid printing they made last nail in the coffin.
Numbers go up because they can print UNLIMITED $trillions, your work means nothing.
All the Fed, CBs and invesment bankers lies to you when you ask about how printing and fiat money works. They steal real value from you, they only create certain amount of value with banking but instead they OWN the money suppy and control.
Why has inflation been low then? I know there was a covid spike and it's a little higher now, but if money printing was out of control, wouldn't we have Venezuela or Zimbabwe levels of inflation?
because printed money mostly goes to stocks, private family funds + overseas. That level of inflation requires failed financial system + lack of fiancial people.
Why do you think sp500 and stocks are at ATH? they get printed fiat that's why. you as a worker dont get printed fiat now so you dont add to consumer inflation. They gave covid checks and business loans when inflation increased, you dont get that benefit anymore. They learn their lesson to steal value from you.
> all because of M2 money printer, it broke how money works , process of fiat money started in 1971 but with covid printing they made last nail in the coffin.
I don't think your claim is well founded or even has a rational basis. Frankly it sounds like an attempt to cram together impopular cliches.
It doesn't mattet whether you have fiat money or any type of commodity money. What matters is the monetary and economic policies in place. The gold standard didn't prevented the kind of inflation or drops in purchasing power that you're pinning on fiat or whatever scapegoat.
In addition, any type of commodity you might think of still shows huge price fluctuations. Take gold for example. Gold prices increased around 50% in the last year alone, and tanked about 20% in the last two weeks alone. Do you think that with the gold standard this would have zero impact on inflation?
> Numbers go up because they can print UNLIMITED $trillions, your work means nothing.
You're complaining about changes to the money supply. With a gold standard, you'd get the exact same benefit and consequences by the state increasing debt to fund their monetary and economic policies.
I think you're trying to vent frustration but you are failing to identify the problem.
I'm not really sure what point this writer is actually arguing here.
> In short: Wall Street, writ large, has put business fundamentals in a corner and has settled into a kind of cynical vibe-trading in which the goal is always “number go up.”
Yes, the goal is in fact "number go up". The number being the amount of wealth that investors have control over. That is almost the entire point of investing in the stock market. That's the reason anyone is bothering to do so. The only other reasonable justification I can think of for buying or selling stocks is so that you can use your control over the operations of a publicly-traded company to engage in investor activism for a political or social cause you care about - which is a thing some people are interested in doing, but that's a niche, niche concern compared to making the number of dollars you have go up.
Like, what other principle do you think ought to govern how people invest in US financial markets?
> This week, Bank of America analysts said Tesla’s core automotive business represents just 12% of the company’s total value. Robotaxi is 45% and “full self Driving” — Tesla’s autonomous driving software that doesn’t reliably work and customers don’t reliably want to pay for — is 17%. In short: Well over half of the stock’s value lies in products that either don’t yet exist or don’t exist at scale.
Yeah, one of the reasons an investor might buy a company's stock is because they think the company will develop a product that doesn't currently exist or exist at scale, but will eventually do so and then make the company a lot of money, that will ultimately get split with the investor. That's just a thing you do when you make investment decisions. Of course any investor could be wrong about this, but if an investor thinks that Tesla is overvalued they have lots of ways of making money off of this prediction, including but not limited to shorting the stock.
> Tesla’s reward for snoozing on its core product and gambling on a nascent technology with no proof of concept? Its stock is up 75% over the past 12 months, near its record high, and it remains by far the world’s most valuable car company, with a $1.5 trillion market cap. Musk, whose partisan outbursts reportedly cost Tesla one million sales, remains the world’s wealthiest person, and could become the first-ever trillionaire.
Some financial analysts have put forth the theory that one of the reasons Tesla stock has gone up in value so much is because many investors see it as a way to invest in Elon Musk personally. Which seems like a plausible theory to me. Is it a good idea to invest in Elon Musk personally? I have no idea.
I own a small amount of Tesla stock because Tesla is in the S&P 500, and I own a S&P 500 index fund, because I am following the (well-known and easy to find) advice from serious personal finance professionals that this is a good way for ordinary people to invest their money. I have no idea what the price of Tesla should be, and no reason to trust this author's judgement about whether Tesla is overvalued or not compared to any other person's. A major justification for buying broad market index funds is precisely that individual non-specialists like me shouldn't expect to have any better information than the market collectively has, that would allow them to consistently beat the market return in the long term; and attempting to introduces a bunch of idiosyncratic risks that generally lower return.
> Being a naysayer in this market doesn’t pay the bills. Buying the dip does. All those crypto trolls who taunted skeptics to “have fun staying poor” were not, sadly, incorrect (though we can all agree they were jerks). Crypto has not only stayed alive, it’s practically gone mainstream. Even Jamie Dimon, the JPMorgan Chase boss Jamie Dimon, a longtime critic, has sort of come around, saying earlier this month that blockchain – crypto’s underlying technology — “is real.”
>
> There is almost no “bad” news that can rattle Wall Street anymore, as investors have learned that buying the dip almost always pays off.
Why is this bad? Why is not not "right"? What state of affairs about how much stocks in the US stock market cost does this author want to be the case? Why is doing the thing that pays the bills bad?
You can't have a functioning democracy without consequences for the bad behavior of wealthy people that mask their sociopathy in mounds of legalese, financial abstraction, bought off politicians and media PR. If the law doesn't do it, then the burden fall on the shoulders of private citizens. We've demonized people for this view but I think it's heathier that we culturally normalize it and stop pretending.
Content aside, I find it sad that "journalists" don't even bother tagging their opinion articles with "Opinion" or "Editorial" any more.
The byline says "Analysis by Allison Morrow."
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/analysisDo you really need to be told that "It’s better to be rich than right" cannot be an objective fact?
> Do you really need to be told that "It’s better to be rich than right" can not be an objective fact?
It's not about being told. It's about the publication's attitude towards producing impartial content.
Why should CNN not be allowed to publish analysis?
What would it take for something like the stock market to become illegitimate in the world's eyes? To the point of not investing, that is
Value and return destruction dissuading capital flows to the asset class.
end of fiat money or WW3.
Investors traded on stock markets even back when currency was backed by precious metals.
yes but nowhere near current % number of the popl. ? now a lot more people invest on it, big difference
There's almost an underlying assumption that taxpayers will bail you out, or you that you won't go to jail for all these securities frauds, or miscalculating risk on pension funds assets is okay.
Rip away all these away and the Emperor is called out to be naked very quickly.
[dead]
[dead]
After looking up the author on LinkedIn, I can’t understand why her output is being discussed here.
In 2008, the SEC made it illegal to short financial institutions.
Do they exist to ensure fairness, or to prop up the winners?
Pretty obvious answer.
That’s misleading. You’re talking about the ban on naked shorts.
Which isn’t enforced if you are big enough
It is not misleading.
It happened exactly as described https://www.cnbc.com/2008/09/19/sec-halts-shortselling-in-79...
all because of M2 money printer, it broke how money works , process of fiat money started in 1971 but with covid printing they made last nail in the coffin.
Numbers go up because they can print UNLIMITED $trillions, your work means nothing.
All the Fed, CBs and invesment bankers lies to you when you ask about how printing and fiat money works. They steal real value from you, they only create certain amount of value with banking but instead they OWN the money suppy and control.
Why has inflation been low then? I know there was a covid spike and it's a little higher now, but if money printing was out of control, wouldn't we have Venezuela or Zimbabwe levels of inflation?
because printed money mostly goes to stocks, private family funds + overseas. That level of inflation requires failed financial system + lack of fiancial people.
Why do you think sp500 and stocks are at ATH? they get printed fiat that's why. you as a worker dont get printed fiat now so you dont add to consumer inflation. They gave covid checks and business loans when inflation increased, you dont get that benefit anymore. They learn their lesson to steal value from you.
You might be on to something. Do you have any further reading?
> all because of M2 money printer, it broke how money works , process of fiat money started in 1971 but with covid printing they made last nail in the coffin.
I don't think your claim is well founded or even has a rational basis. Frankly it sounds like an attempt to cram together impopular cliches.
It doesn't mattet whether you have fiat money or any type of commodity money. What matters is the monetary and economic policies in place. The gold standard didn't prevented the kind of inflation or drops in purchasing power that you're pinning on fiat or whatever scapegoat.
In addition, any type of commodity you might think of still shows huge price fluctuations. Take gold for example. Gold prices increased around 50% in the last year alone, and tanked about 20% in the last two weeks alone. Do you think that with the gold standard this would have zero impact on inflation?
> Numbers go up because they can print UNLIMITED $trillions, your work means nothing.
You're complaining about changes to the money supply. With a gold standard, you'd get the exact same benefit and consequences by the state increasing debt to fund their monetary and economic policies.
I think you're trying to vent frustration but you are failing to identify the problem.
I can't write long now but this one is good > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45762412
WRONG
you might go broke trying to prove the market | crowd wrong.
one hedge fund guy learned this lesson i.e with herbalife.
due to money printing or whatever - certain models are no longer applicable. maybe they will be but for now are not.
“The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
In other news: water is wet.
I'm not really sure what point this writer is actually arguing here.
> In short: Wall Street, writ large, has put business fundamentals in a corner and has settled into a kind of cynical vibe-trading in which the goal is always “number go up.”
Yes, the goal is in fact "number go up". The number being the amount of wealth that investors have control over. That is almost the entire point of investing in the stock market. That's the reason anyone is bothering to do so. The only other reasonable justification I can think of for buying or selling stocks is so that you can use your control over the operations of a publicly-traded company to engage in investor activism for a political or social cause you care about - which is a thing some people are interested in doing, but that's a niche, niche concern compared to making the number of dollars you have go up.
Like, what other principle do you think ought to govern how people invest in US financial markets?
> This week, Bank of America analysts said Tesla’s core automotive business represents just 12% of the company’s total value. Robotaxi is 45% and “full self Driving” — Tesla’s autonomous driving software that doesn’t reliably work and customers don’t reliably want to pay for — is 17%. In short: Well over half of the stock’s value lies in products that either don’t yet exist or don’t exist at scale.
Yeah, one of the reasons an investor might buy a company's stock is because they think the company will develop a product that doesn't currently exist or exist at scale, but will eventually do so and then make the company a lot of money, that will ultimately get split with the investor. That's just a thing you do when you make investment decisions. Of course any investor could be wrong about this, but if an investor thinks that Tesla is overvalued they have lots of ways of making money off of this prediction, including but not limited to shorting the stock.
> Tesla’s reward for snoozing on its core product and gambling on a nascent technology with no proof of concept? Its stock is up 75% over the past 12 months, near its record high, and it remains by far the world’s most valuable car company, with a $1.5 trillion market cap. Musk, whose partisan outbursts reportedly cost Tesla one million sales, remains the world’s wealthiest person, and could become the first-ever trillionaire.
Some financial analysts have put forth the theory that one of the reasons Tesla stock has gone up in value so much is because many investors see it as a way to invest in Elon Musk personally. Which seems like a plausible theory to me. Is it a good idea to invest in Elon Musk personally? I have no idea.
I own a small amount of Tesla stock because Tesla is in the S&P 500, and I own a S&P 500 index fund, because I am following the (well-known and easy to find) advice from serious personal finance professionals that this is a good way for ordinary people to invest their money. I have no idea what the price of Tesla should be, and no reason to trust this author's judgement about whether Tesla is overvalued or not compared to any other person's. A major justification for buying broad market index funds is precisely that individual non-specialists like me shouldn't expect to have any better information than the market collectively has, that would allow them to consistently beat the market return in the long term; and attempting to introduces a bunch of idiosyncratic risks that generally lower return.
> Being a naysayer in this market doesn’t pay the bills. Buying the dip does. All those crypto trolls who taunted skeptics to “have fun staying poor” were not, sadly, incorrect (though we can all agree they were jerks). Crypto has not only stayed alive, it’s practically gone mainstream. Even Jamie Dimon, the JPMorgan Chase boss Jamie Dimon, a longtime critic, has sort of come around, saying earlier this month that blockchain – crypto’s underlying technology — “is real.” > > There is almost no “bad” news that can rattle Wall Street anymore, as investors have learned that buying the dip almost always pays off.
Why is this bad? Why is not not "right"? What state of affairs about how much stocks in the US stock market cost does this author want to be the case? Why is doing the thing that pays the bills bad?
You can't have a functioning democracy without consequences for the bad behavior of wealthy people that mask their sociopathy in mounds of legalese, financial abstraction, bought off politicians and media PR. If the law doesn't do it, then the burden fall on the shoulders of private citizens. We've demonized people for this view but I think it's heathier that we culturally normalize it and stop pretending.