Tarriffs

[idhawkman]

I hope he has something in mind and his trade negotiators are hard at work, but right now things just seem like they're going nowhere. And Canada? Seriously, I feel like I'm in a South Park episode trying to paint Canada as some kind of enemy. It's like we punched one of our best allies in the world because the guy in office like to do it. He'd rather be friends with Russian than Canada? Really? What's next? He starts taking shots at Great Britain? He insults Russia less than he insults some of our closest allies. It's stupid.

Do you really believe that he insults Russia less? He has expelled their diplomats, sold energy to Poland and is gutting their oil trade and has wiped out their mercenaries in Syria and you think that is less than telling Canada to lower their tarrifs on dairy and lumber? I'm a bit shocked at this.

[Aseahawkfan]

Do you really believe that he insults Russia less? He has expelled their diplomats, sold energy to Poland and is gutting their oil trade and has wiped out their mercenaries in Syria and you think that is less than telling Canada to lower their tarrifs on dairy and lumber? I'm a bit shocked at this.

I feel he was forced to do that. You giving him credit for signing on something he has to do is like giving Obama credit for signing drone assassination orders for terrorists. When you are instructed by Congress and your support staff to do certain things, you do them. The President still very much has people he answers to and must comply with. As I have argued many times, the president is not the most powerful leader in the world. He is very much a leader constrained by rules. It's why I laugh at people that think Trump can launch a coup or overturn term limits or is a fascist. It''s foolishness. The president is a leader constrained by a very cleverly build Constitution that divests power in a sufficient fashion to ensure the president does the job the office requires.

As far as his public twittering and statements, yes, I do believe he has spent more time insulting Justin Trudeau and European Leaders than he has Vladimir Putin. Do you have proof to contrary of what I just stated? Do you you have statements from Trump going after Putin and insulting him in a similar manner to Trudeau?

[RiverDog]

I feel he was forced to do that (expel diplomats). You giving him credit for signing on something he has to do is like giving Obama credit for signing drone assassination orders for terrorists. When you are instructed by Congress and your support staff to do certain things, you do them. The President still very much has people he answers to and must comply with. As I have argued many times, the president is not the most powerful leader in the world. He is very much a leader constrained by rules. It's why I laugh at people that think Trump can launch a coup or overturn term limits or is a fascist. It''s foolishness. The president is a leader constrained by a very cleverly build Constitution that divests power in a sufficient fashion to ensure the president does the job the office requires.

As far as his public twittering and statements, yes, I do believe he has spent more time insulting Justin Trudeau and European Leaders than he has Vladimir Putin. Do you have proof to contrary of what I just stated? Do you you have statements from Trump going after Putin and insulting him in a similar manner to Trudeau?

I agree with ASF. Trump has hurled far more insults and belittles the leaders of our allies much more than he has our arch enemies. I don't think there's a need for him to go out and use a Reagan-like rhetoric with the Russians and call them the Evil Empire, but his increasingly caustic and counterproductive insults to the Canadians and French are unnerving. Trump needs to take a few pages out of Calvin Coolidge's book and apply them to his own style.

[idhawkman]

First of all, Trump hasn't come to an agreement with Putin on trade just to have him wait until he got on his plane to criticize the deal he just shook hands on.

Second, The US has not allowed Russia to steal money out of their wallet anytime they want to.

Third, Canada and France rely on our protection where Russia does not.

Its time for these countries to grow up and start pulling their own weight. Its like the US has all these countries still living in the basement and won't move out. All Trump is doing is shutting off the endless cashflow to the kids.

[RiverDog]

First of all, Trump hasn't come to an agreement with Putin on trade just to have him wait until he got on his plane to criticize the deal he just shook hands on.

Second, The US has not allowed Russia to steal money out of their wallet anytime they want to.

Third, Canada and France rely on our protection where Russia does not.

Its time for these countries to grow up and start pulling their own weight. Its like the US has all these countries still living in the basement and won't move out. All Trump is doing is shutting off the endless cashflow to the kids.

We need Canada and France, along with other allies, in our corner. Maybe not as much as they need us, but nevertheless, we cannot go it alone, either on economic matters or defense.

Trump has taken his disagreements in the trade discussions to a personal level, calling heads state of our most trusted allies "weak and dishonest", and at the same time, he's wrapping his arms around Putin and Kim. I find that very discomforting.

[idhawkman]

We need Canada and France, along with other allies, in our corner. Maybe not as much as they need us, but nevertheless, we cannot go it alone, either on economic matters or defense.

Trump has taken his disagreements in the trade discussions to a personal level, calling heads state of our most trusted allies "weak and dishonest", and at the same time, he's wrapping his arms around Putin and Kim. I find that very discomforting.

You see it as wrapping his arms around them. I see it as dialogue with enemies.

You see it as personal and I would agree with Trump, when you steal as much as they are, it is personal.

[idhawkman]

It seems like the EU And Mexico have no problem removing tarrifs between each other but both want to tax US goods? This is not going to work out well for either of them.

[NorthHawk]

It seems like the EU And Mexico have no problem removing tarrifs between each other but both want to tax US goods? This is not going to work out well for either of them.

Like most other countries in the world they are signing FTA's that work for both parties.
Canada has one with the EU as of Sept 2017, too as well as the CPTPP which has yet to be approved by Parliament.
The US lead the original TPP as a check on the abuses of China, and could have got much of it's own way in the agreement as it hadn't been completed, but it's history now.

[idhawkman]

Trump just announced that the European Union and the US are working to have 0% tarriffs on all non-auto trade.

So the tough stance seems to have born some fruit. Chalk up another win for the President.

Add that Barclays is forecasting 5.3% GDP for second Quarter.

I know a lot of people poo-poo'd me saying 4% GDP but the economy will sky rocket after this. The Dow is currently up 172 points on this news and near all time highs.

Are you tired of winning yet? I'm not.

[idhawkman]

So second quarter growth came in at 4.1% which is good but a bit of a disappointment because some of the soy bean purchases that normally happen in third quarter were pulled into the second quarter on fears of the tarriffs going into effect.

Still a good report but 3rd quarter growth is going to tell a lot. Maybe by then the EU, Canada and Mexico trade deals will be complete and pull up the slack. We need the fed not to jump the gun and raise rates too radically stifling the growth for the rest of the year.

[Aseahawkfan]

So second quarter growth came in at 4.1% which is good but a bit of a disappointment because some of the soy bean purchases that normally happen in third quarter were pulled into the second quarter on fears of the tarriffs going into effect.

Still a good report but 3rd quarter growth is going to tell a lot. Maybe by then the EU, Canada and Mexico trade deals will be complete and pull up the slack. We need the fed not to jump the gun and raise rates too radically stifling the growth for the rest of the year.

4.1% is very good growth. Best we've had in many years. If we can sustain or grow it for a year, that would be amazing.

[idhawkman]

Things you won't see on the main stream media. Did anyone else hear of this on Friday?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/china-drops-us-crude-oil-from-its-target-list-of-tariffs-2018-08-10

[idhawkman]

Interesting NY Times article on the trade situation with China.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/world/asia/china-trade-war-trump-xi-jinping-.html?emc=edit_th_180815&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=753379810815Trump%E2%80%99s

[burrrton]

Interesting NY Times article on the trade situation with China.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/14/world/asia/china-trade-war-trump-xi-jinping-.html?emc=edit_th_180815&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=753379810815Trump%E2%80%99s

I'll happily eat my words if we end up with meaningful benefits without kicking US consumers in the nads economically.

I don't see that yet (steel prices- etc- are going through the roof, aren't they?), but I'll stay reticent for now.

[idhawkman]

I'll happily eat my words if we end up with meaningful benefits without kicking US consumers in the nads economically.

I don't see that yet (steel prices- etc- are going through the roof, aren't they?), but I'll stay reticent for now.

No, they are not going through the roof but we have had a few steel plants reopen in the US already.

[Aseahawkfan]

If we get better long-term trade deals with lowered tariffs on US goods to make us more competitive, I'll be happy. Like said, protectionism seems to work for other countries, but not for us in the minds of some. Not sure why, just seems to work that way because their knee jerk economic analysis is "tariffs bad because such and such economic theorist said so." It doesn't matter if China, Europe, Canada, and the like are using tariffs against us, but hey, those don't work. It's strange that if we were in a physical war with a nation, I'm sure Americans would be calling for us to stand our ground against invasion or attack. But these foreign nations attacking US companies, stealing our technology, and the like is all ok. We should just give in and do nothing but complain to the foreign government who doesn't care.

Americans need to be wiling to take some consumer pain to get China and Europe to knuckle under. We're not going to get them to drop their resistance to our companies by asking nicely.

Now Mr. Twiter is calling former aids dogs. All his work to better the nation will be for nought if he loses enough of his support to lose the election and both Houses because he can't stop acting like a petty child in these feuds.

[RiverDog]

Inflation is up, to 2.9% this month, the highest monthly rate in 6 years and the core inflation rate (minus food and energy) is the highest in a decade:

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/i ... ion-rates/

[idhawkman]

Inflation is up, to 2.9% this month, the highest monthly rate in 6 years and the core inflation rate (minus food and energy) is the highest in a decade:

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/i ... ion-rates/

Uh.... Yeah. That's what growth does. 3% is normal growth and what the fed is targeting. No news there other than it has been a decade since we've had growth.

[RiverDog]

Uh.... Yeah. That's what growth does. 3% is normal growth and what the fed is targeting. No news there other than it has been a decade since we've had growth.

This article disagrees with your typical rosy scenario spin:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... -s-tariffs

But regardless of the cause, rising inflation is going to put pressure on the Fed to raise interest rates, and in turn slow down the economy.

[idhawkman]

This article disagrees with your typical rosy scenario spin:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles ... -s-tariffs

But regardless of the cause, rising inflation is going to put pressure on the Fed to raise interest rates, and in turn slow down the economy.

I know I posted this very thing in one of these threads where I was talking about 4% GDP but everyone said I was nuts for that projection.

Its not rosy, it is normal if you grow the economy. Not like the last administration who told you that the new norm was sub 2% growth.

[RiverDog]

I know I posted this very thing in one of these threads where I was talking about 4% GDP but everyone said I was nuts for that projection.

Its not rosy, it is normal if you grow the economy. Not like the last administration who told you that the new norm was sub 2% growth.

You're nuts if you think that a 4% growth rate can be sustained for a full year. A 4% growth rate for a single quarter isn't something novel or unique. It hit 5.1%/4.9% for the 2nd/3rd quarters of 2014 under Obama:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

As a matter of fact, the annualized growth rate for the 1st quarter of 2018 has been revised downward to 2.0%:

The US economy expanded an annualized 2 percent on quarter in the first quarter of 2018, below 2.2 percent in the second estimate and market expectations of 2.2 percent. It is the lowest growth rate in a year as business inventories and personal consumption were revised down, the final estimate showed.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

So please, stop with this fantasy of yours that the economy is doing gangbusters under Trump. It's not doing badly, but it's nothing to write home about.

[idhawkman]

So please, stop with this fantasy of yours that the economy is doing gangbusters under Trump. It's not doing badly, but it's nothing to write home about.

You can sell your doom and gloom to WalMart who grew their online sales this last quarter by 40% and reported big earnings which sent the Dow up 400 points yesterday. Art Laffer stated that the 4% growth rate can be sustained for the next 8-10 years. I know you don't want to hear this on a retirement budget but it is going to happen and has already started happening.

[RiverDog]

You can sell your doom and gloom to WalMart who grew their online sales this last quarter by 40% and reported big earnings which sent the Dow up 400 points yesterday. Art Laffer stated that the 4% growth rate can be sustained for the next 8-10 years. I know you don't want to hear this on a retirement budget but it is going to happen and has already started happening.

Doom and gloom? More of your spin. I specifically said that the economy isn't doing badly. If that's doom and gloom, I'd challenge you to characterize someone that's predicting a recession.

The point I was trying to make is that you're cherry picking one rosy quarterly number on economic growth to justify your arguments. Heck, even DJT himself wants to do away with the reporting of quarterly earnings. Annualized date is a much more accurate measurement of economic growth.

Not that it's any of your business, but my retirement budget is just fine. I am no more worried about my financial status now than I was when I was employed, so please cease with those types of personal references.

[Aseahawkfan]

You're nuts if you think that a 4% growth rate can be sustained for a full year. A 4% growth rate for a single quarter isn't something novel or unique. It hit 5.1%/4.9% for the 2nd/3rd quarters of 2014 under Obama:

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

As a matter of fact, the annualized growth rate for the 1st quarter of 2018 has been revised downward to 2.0%:

The US economy expanded an annualized 2 percent on quarter in the first quarter of 2018, below 2.2 percent in the second estimate and market expectations of 2.2 percent. It is the lowest growth rate in a year as business inventories and personal consumption were revised down, the final estimate showed.

https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp-growth

So please, stop with this fantasy of yours that the economy is doing gangbusters under Trump. It's not doing badly, but it's nothing to write home about.

A 4% growth rate is not uncommon for a year when our economy is doing well. The only reason Americans are no longer accustomed to 4% is because of The Great Recession. Prior to that, 4% was a very expected level of growth. We should be able to get back there if the economy is managed properly. That management will depend a great deal on completing these trade deals as well as maintaining a competitive tax rate and wage growth. The ideal numbers we shoot for is 2% inflation and 3 to 4% economic growth for a net/real growth of 1 to 2%. That's the numbers game using fiat currency in the current economic system.

[Aseahawkfan]

Inflation is up, to 2.9% this month, the highest monthly rate in 6 years and the core inflation rate (minus food and energy) is the highest in a decade:

https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/i ... ion-rates/

What point are you trying to make? That we will experience short-term pain with tariffs? No reason to sell what is already known. All that will matter once this is done is what the final trade agreements do. Any time you engage in a trade war using tariffs, there is going to be short-term pain just as there is with any war save that the pain is economic. It is the final result that matters most. If we obtain more favorable trade deals that lead to an increase in jobs and metrics that will help America, then it is a successful war.

Why do you have this idea in your mind that "tariffs by us always bad"? Why do you make such statements knowing that China, Europe, Canada, and many other nations use tariffs against us in what they deem a successful manner? Why don't you think forcing new trade deals is a good idea?

You ever take the time to research how much of the world economy we subsidize, especially medicine. So often they tout socialized medicine in Europe, Canada, and other nations, yet they never highlight how much America pays for the world's medical development. As in the new processes they are using worldwide usually gets paid for by American money. I was watching a Swedish commentator explaining how much of Sweden's medical system is paid for with a consumption tax because wealthy Swedish people tend to move their money out of the nation to avoid taxes and a great deal of their advanced medicine is purchased from companies that funded their research from American investment in medical technology. The Holy Grail of medical advancement is approval for use in the American market.

America also pays a huge sum to keep the trade ways clear with American military power keeping the peace in the world.

You should be supporting America forcing better trade deals, more contributions from "allies" for defense and NATO, and definitely the push back against China for all the ways they are engaging in nefarious politics to push Chinese products. China is a far greater threat to us than Russia. Yet these Democrats and their supporters are more interested in fabricated election hacking than the very real economic threat of China. Russia is a long defanged economically weak nation known for almost nothing worldwide other than being a fabricated enemy of the United States that somehow has this great influence over our elections that they aren't much benefiting from economically, politically, or in any way.

Now if Trump wasn't such a combative, insulting prick dishonoring and demeaning The Office of the Presidency, he might be able make people realize much of what he's doing is going to be good long-term for our economy and nation. Why the hell does it take a guy like Trump to do what is right for our nation? Why couldn't it have been a more well-spoken, craftier politician. Why does a blow-hard, rude, billionaire former reality TV star have to be one of the few presidents willing to stand up for America? If Trump could speak like Reagan with what he is doing right now, he would easily win two terms and make Bush and Obama look like presidential jokes for their weak management of this nation.

[RiverDog]

A 4% growth rate is not uncommon for a year when our economy is doing well. The only reason Americans are no longer accustomed to 4% is because of The Great Recession. Prior to that, 4% was a very expected level of growth. We should be able to get back there if the economy is managed properly. That management will depend a great deal on completing these trade deals as well as maintaining a competitive tax rate and wage growth. The ideal numbers we shoot for is 2% inflation and 3 to 4% economic growth for a net/real growth of 1 to 2%. That's the numbers game using fiat currency in the current economic system.

The Great Recession was in 2009. We've haven't had a 4% annual GDP growth rate for 17 years when the tech bubble burst in 2000. Prior to then, 4% growth rates, if not the norm, were very common: We hit an annual 4+% 6 times in the '60's, three times in the 70's, four times in the '80's, and 4 times in the 90's. If Trump can pull off a sustained 4% growth rate and not just a one hit wonder, then my hat's off to him. Although some are seeing 4%, most are forecasting an annual growth rate somewhere between 3 and 3.5% for 2018.

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

The problem with sustaining a healthy growth rate is inflation. It's currently at 2.9%, with the prospects of it going higher due to an increase in prices as a result of Trump's trade war and increased energy prices due to tensions in the Middle East. If inflation doesn't come back down to 2%, the Fed will raise interest rates and slow the economy. No one wants to see runaway inflation like we had in the late 70's.

[RiverDog]

What point are you trying to make? (that inflation is up to 2.9%)

The fact that inflation is up is a warning sign that the Fed may act to reel in inflation by raising interest rates, which would have the effect of slowing down the economy. It's not a good sign if you are looking for a sustained 4-5% GDP growth of the kind that Trumpies have been touting.

Why do you have this idea in your mind that "tariffs by us always bad"?

Where did I ever say that? You're putting words into my mouth.

You should be supporting America forcing better trade deals, more contributions from "allies" for defense and NATO, and definitely the push back against China for all the ways they are engaging in nefarious politics to push Chinese products. China is a far greater threat to us than Russia. Yet these Democrats and their supporters are more interested in fabricated election hacking than the very real economic threat of China. Russia is a long defanged economically weak nation known for almost nothing worldwide other than being a fabricated enemy of the United States that somehow has this great influence over our elections that they aren't much benefiting from economically, politically, or in any way.

My main beef with Trump's tariffs are that they are poorly targeted. His first tariff, on imported steel and aluminum, is the equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face. It will hurt other domestic manufacturing industries, such as the auto industry, by raising their cost of production and making them less competitive as their foreign counterparts will not have to pay higher prices for their raw materials as US industries will. IMO there isn't enough jobs that stand to be gained in the aluminum and steel industries to offset the negative impacts of higher raw material costs and other consequences of the tariffs. And I'm not buying Trump's argument that multiple steel and aluminum plants will be built as a direct result of these tariffs.

Now if Trump wasn't such a combative, insulting prick dishonoring and demeaning The Office of the Presidency, he might be able make people realize much of what he's doing is going to be good long-term for our economy and nation. Why the hell does it take a guy like Trump to do what is right for our nation? Why couldn't it have been a more well-spoken, craftier politician. Why does a blow-hard, rude, billionaire former reality TV star have to be one of the few presidents willing to stand up for America? If Trump could speak like Reagan with what he is doing right now, he would easily win two terms and make Bush and Obama look like presidential jokes for their weak management of this nation.

Agreed. I have consistently said that I object more to Trump the person than I do his politicis. I do have some disagreements with his immigration and trade positions, but my major objection is that he's an A-hole.

[idhawkman]

The point I was trying to make is that you're cherry picking one rosy quarterly number on economic growth to justify your arguments. Heck, even DJT himself wants to do away with the reporting of quarterly earnings. Annualized date is a much more accurate measurement of economic growth.

You missed the reason for the semi-annual reporting vs quarterly. It is so companies can do longer term planning not for more accurate numbers. Companies have to project quarterly now so their strategies have to be shorter in order to hit their guidance. Longer term allows them to do better strategic planning.

[RiverDog]

You missed the reason for the semi-annual reporting vs quarterly. It is so companies can do longer term planning not for more accurate numbers. Companies have to project quarterly now so their strategies have to be shorter in order to hit their guidance. Longer term allows them to do better strategic planning.

I didn't miss the reason at all, it's just that you're being too simplistic and not looking at the whole picture. Yes, it's true that companies would rather use semi annual reports for their long range planning, but did you ever consider why? The reason is because quarterly reports aren't as accurate as semi annual or annual reports. Why would they not want to use a more timely quarterly report for their long range planning if it was just as accurate as a semi-annual report?

[Aseahawkfan]

I'm mixed on the reporting. Removing quarterly reports or modifying them might provide more stability to the stock market. Though we would start seeing big swings during annual reporting rather than quarterly. I can see the concern with quarterly reporting, but at the same time there has to be some kind of equality to reporting. Annual reports might make it so that only the wealthy investor has access to important information that affects investments, while the small investor who can't call the company CEO or executives will have to wait for the annual report to make a decision. Whereas with quarterly reporting and conference calls open to all, even the small investor can keep abreast of changing events within a business. I'll see what they propose. As a small investor, I don't want to be cut out of information or create an environment that is slanted even more heavily towards big investors as far as information goes.

[RiverDog]

I'm mixed on the reporting. Removing quarterly reports or modifying them might provide more stability to the stock market. Though we would start seeing big swings during annual reporting rather than quarterly. I can see the concern with quarterly reporting, but at the same time there has to be some kind of equality to reporting. Annual reports might make it so that only the wealthy investor has access to important information that affects investments, while the small investor who can't call the company CEO or executives will have to wait for the annual report to make a decision. Whereas with quarterly reporting and conference calls open to all, even the small investor can keep abreast of changing events within a business. I'll see what they propose. As a small investor, I don't want to be cut out of information or create an environment that is slanted even more heavily towards big investors as far as information goes.

The proposal involves going to semi annual reporting, not annual. It's a concept that I'd be willing to try, at least for some industries, particularly those that experience large seasonal fluctuations. Some of the libs, like Elizabeth Warren, want more reporting, but IMO over reporting can be counter productive as companies start playing shell games like juggling their inventories just to make a quarterly report look good. I used to get so frustrated when we'd run out of parts or supplies just because the bean counters were letting our inventory dwindle as they didn't want to deduct the cash value of it from our bottom line profit, or we would forgo a great buying opportunity on raw materials simply because it was at the end of a reporting period and they didn't want to make a large cash outlay.

Companies can make some really bad long term decisions j/b they're obsessed with short term (quarterly) earnings report. As an investor, I'd rather make a buy or sell decision based on a semi annual report vs. a quarterly report because it's less likely to be influenced by the shell games some companies will play. You don't want to buy a stock that's artificially inflated or pass up one because the company refused to play that shell game and let their quarterly earnings report sag a bit.

This is one area where I'm in agreement with Trump on. The libs are so suspicious of Wall Street that they think more reporting makes companies more transparent and more honest when in many cases it has the opposite effect. Most libs don't understand how public corporations operate and consider big business to be their ultimate villain.

[Aseahawkfan]

I'd be ok with biannual as long as companies were still required to release material changes to investments like loss of customers, contracts, lawsuits, or other material changes to the company's well-being. You won't want to be waiting six months to hear the primary supplier of Apple chips lost the contract and a new supplier picked it up while the bigwigs at the investment banks and Berkshire are picking up huge amounts of the supplier's stock. The main thing you want is relative equality of key information to make investment decisions. People should be expected to watch their investments or pay someone who can. It would make investing very lop-sided if information were concentrated at the top.

Short-term financials aren't as important as material information for those that understand a business they're investing in. Information is key to intelligent investing.

[RiverDog]

I'd be ok with biannual as long as companies were still required to release material changes to investments like loss of customers, contracts, lawsuits, or other material changes to the company's well-being. You won't want to be waiting six months to hear the primary supplier of Apple chips lost the contract and a new supplier picked it up while the bigwigs at the investment banks and Berkshire are picking up huge amounts of the supplier's stock. The main thing you want is relative equality of key information to make investment decisions. People should be expected to watch their investments or pay someone who can. It would make investing very lop-sided if information were concentrated at the top.

Short-term financials aren't as important as material information for those that understand a business they're investing in. Information is key to intelligent investing.

You mean semi annual. Biannual would be once every two years.

There's not a week that goes by when I don't receive some sort of summary on one or more of my investments in publicly held corporations. Some are bound books as thick as a small city's telephone book. Some even include CD's. I've never bothered to read any of it and it generally goes straight into the garbage can. IMO they'd be better off disclosing less information and put it on a single sheet of paper than they would this huge flood of information that they currently give us. It's a big waste of money to produce those reports. Heck, most of the time, I don't even realize that I have money in the corporation as all my investments are done by my financial counselor and he'll select multiple mutual funds on my behalf.

How people manage their money is one of my biggest pet peeves from my former employment. We had a very good 401K program with a lot of options and I would have scores of people asking me for help, but my plan was different than our hourly workers so I didn't have the same familiarity with it and I plain felt uncomfortable giving people financial advice. I literally begged any manager that would listen to put on some voluntary classes hosted by a financial expert, but to no avail. They never did.

Nevertheless, anyone can easily get free financial advice, at least on a one time basis, from scores of financial institutions if they'll just ask. They're all more than willing to get an opportunity to manage your money for you. I'm always getting these invitations to seminars that offer a free dinner at a 5 star restaurant. Same goes with Social Security and Medicare. There's lots and lots of free workshops advertised in the newspapers, on Facebook, and through the mail, although you'll have to endure a sales pitch as they're usually put on by a private investment company like Merrill Lynch or Edward Jones. One of our local hospitals puts on a twice a month free Medicare clinic that my wife and I attended. AARP has a lot of resources that one can utilize. Here locally, there's even an advocacy group that will help you select a Medicare supplement plan, even fills out your application and mails it in for you.

The problem isn't access to information. The problem is that too many people are scared, naïve, or just plain too lazy to educate themselves.

[Aseahawkfan]

You mean semi annual. Biannual would be once every two years.

There's not a week that goes by when I don't receive some sort of summary on one or more of my investments in publicly held corporations. Some are bound books as thick as a small city's telephone book. Some even include CD's. I've never bothered to read any of it and it generally goes straight into the garbage can. IMO they'd be better off disclosing less information and put it on a single sheet of paper than they would this huge flood of information that they currently give us. It's a big waste of money to produce those reports. Heck, most of the time, I don't even realize that I have money in the corporation as all my investments are done by my financial counselor and he'll select multiple mutual funds on my behalf.

How people manage their money is one of my biggest pet peeves from my former employment. We had a very good 401K program with a lot of options and I would have scores of people asking me for help, but my plan was different than our hourly workers so I didn't have the same familiarity with it and I plain felt uncomfortable giving people financial advice. I literally begged any manager that would listen to put on some voluntary classes hosted by a financial expert, but to no avail. They never did.

Nevertheless, anyone can easily get free financial advice, at least on a one time basis, from scores of financial institutions if they'll just ask. They're all more than willing to get an opportunity to manage your money for you. I'm always getting these invitations to seminars that offer a free dinner at a 5 star restaurant. Same goes with Social Security and Medicare. There's lots and lots of free workshops advertised in the newspapers, on Facebook, and through the mail, although you'll have to endure a sales pitch as they're usually put on by a private investment company like Merrill Lynch or Edward Jones. One of our local hospitals puts on a twice a month free Medicare clinic that my wife and I attended. AARP has a lot of resources that one can utilize. Here locally, there's even an advocacy group that will help you select a Medicare supplement plan, even fills out your application and mails it in for you.

The problem isn't access to information. The problem is that too many people are scared, naïve, or just plain too lazy to educate themselves.

I agree about the free financial education, but to use that education Information is vital. I know how to read a financial report and bypass unimportant information that is nothing more than disclosures meant to act as legal protections. Absent financial reports you would be shooting in the dark and leaving all your decisions to money managers that may not have your best interests in mind as they lazily push investing vehicles with compromised stocks or investments. Learning how to bypass the useless sections of a financial report is part of financial education. Corporate reporting is vital to the investor, big or small.

At least you're not complaining about the 1% or Wall Street like so many others that are bored by all the activities necessary to investing like listening to earnings conference calls, reading earnings reports, and keeping up on the financial news that at least applies to the companies you invest in and macroeconomic conditions. If you want to make money using a financial education, then you need information. It is essential.

As with all things you can also learn simpler means of money management. As long as you're saving, have a quality skill, plan to purchase a piece of property at a reasonable price and pay it off, don't overuse credit, and invest in some low risk investment like an index fund or bonds that grows at at steady rate above inflation, you would likely be well-prepared for retirement. Maybe you won't be rich, but well off enough for a retired person receiving social security and medicare.

That being said I reiterate that information is vital to investment. You absolutely have to have it to make sound investment decisions be it property, stocks, bonds, or the like. You may throw out those big corporate reports they send you that detail the financials of your investments, but I read them carefully, usually online. You learn very quickly to sift the unimportant parts and get to the important parts of the report. There is a lot of fluff in investment reports because when dealing with money they have a lot of legal protections they must declare that take up pages that you bypass to get to the nuts and bolts. They do save paper when investors sign up to have financial reports online. Lots of ways to get the information without paper.

I do hope even if they don't require quarterly reporting and move to semiannual, they still require the release of important information that concerns the investment good or bad. That information should not be for institutional or big money investors only.

[RiverDog]

I agree about the free financial education, but to use that education Information is vital. I know how to read a financial report and bypass unimportant information that is nothing more than disclosures meant to act as legal protections. Absent financial reports you would be shooting in the dark and leaving all your decisions to money managers that may not have your best interests in mind as they lazily push investing vehicles with compromised stocks or investments. Learning how to bypass the useless sections of a financial report is part of financial education. Corporate reporting is vital to the investor, big or small.

I pretty much agree. I actually have 2 investment counselors that work for 2 different companies, and I trust both of them to act in my best interests. Both are local, so we sit down face to face at least once a year and review my investments. I'm not an expert and don't read the WSJ every day, but I'm not a babe in the woods, either.

The thing that millennials aren't doing is saving. Not too long ago, I mentored a college grad, married, wife had a good job, and they had no kids. When I asked him how much of his paycheck he was contributing to our 401K, he said "2%". I told him that he was nuts, that the company had a 1 to 2 match up to a max of 4%, so he was allowing the company to retain 3% of his paycheck. And he wasn't the only one. They also don't know the difference between a conventional 401K and a Roth. It boggles my mind.

I do hope even if they don't require quarterly reporting and move to semiannual, they still require the release of important information that concerns the investment good or bad. That information should not be for institutional or big money investors only.

As far as I know, the only change being proposed is the timliness of the reports, not the scope or nature of them.

[idhawkman]

Revisiting this thread a year later and the market is poised to make an all time new high today and as reported a couple days ago, import pricing is actually down year over year. The Dow futures are showing that it is within 50 points of its all time high and the S&P is set to make an all time new high at the open.

[Aseahawkfan]

Revisiting this thread a year later and the market is poised to make an all time new high today and as reported a couple days ago, import pricing is actually down year over year. The Dow futures are showing that it is within 50 points of its all time high and the S&P is set to make an all time new high at the open.

I'm afraid to put my money in the market right now. As I hinted to you a while back, the low interest rates are a double edged sword. It is creating a bubble in the stock market as people look for returns. Investing is about comparative risk versus return. When you make it so that stocks are the only game in town, then you create a bubble, a leveraged bubble. The interest rates are still so low that there is nowhere else to go with your money but stocks or property. We have huge amounts of leverage being used to profit on an artificially propped up stock and property market. You can borrow money right now and make a better rate of return on property and stocks than you can loaning money. If we get any kind of downturn, the market will drop like a hot rock. It's a very dangerous time to invest because you won't lose a little bit when the downturn comes, you'll lose a lot because of market inflation. Then if companies with huge leverage can't pay their bills, they head to bankruptcy. It might get bad.

A lot of money is flowing into emerging markets at the moment because they look like bargains or at least priced at market value. Chinese stocks look better priced at the moment due to the trade war as they are deflated. Once the trade war is over, the Chinese stocks should bounce back strong.

Not sure stock market highs are the best way to look at the economy. We don't even have second quarter earnings yet. I've heard profit warnings from chip stocks like Broadcom and Taiwan Semiconductor. Apple is seeing dampening domestic demand and China was one of their big markets where they produce a lot of phones and sell a lot of phones. We'll see what happens with second quarter profits after it ends June 30th. Tariff effects on the economy take a bit to process given financial information from the affected companies comes once a quarter. We'll see who gets hammered the hardest. I'm waiting on second quarter earnings to see how things are going. Some companies are winning, some losing. It's hard to pick the right ones.

I'm sure the electronic and momentum traders are having a blast, but Mom and Pop investor should be worried. This is definitely not a stable or attractively valued market. It's more like a very beautiful house with a well-kept exterior, but a lot of problems with the wiring, plumbing, and important parts inside the house that might lead to a collapse. Not the best time to invest if you're looking to hold long-term given stock valuations.

[idhawkman]

Revisiting this thread a year later and the market is poised to make an all time new high today and as reported a couple days ago, import pricing is actually down year over year. The Dow futures are showing that it is within 50 points of its all time high and the S&P is set to make an all time new high at the open.

I'm afraid to put my money in the market right now. As I hinted to you a while back, the low interest rates are a double edged sword. It is creating a bubble in the stock market as people look for returns. Investing is about comparative risk versus return. When you make it so that stocks are the only game in town, then you create a bubble, a leveraged bubble. The interest rates are still so low that there is nowhere else to go with your money but stocks or property. We have huge amounts of leverage being used to profit on an artificially propped up stock and property market. You can borrow money right now and make a better rate of return on property and stocks than you can loaning money. If we get any kind of downturn, the market will drop like a hot rock. It's a very dangerous time to invest because you won't lose a little bit when the downturn comes, you'll lose a lot because of market inflation. Then if companies with huge leverage can't pay their bills, they head to bankruptcy. It might get bad.

A lot of money is flowing into emerging markets at the moment because they look like bargains or at least priced at market value. Chinese stocks look better priced at the moment due to the trade war as they are deflated. Once the trade war is over, the Chinese stocks should bounce back strong.

Not sure stock market highs are the best way to look at the economy. We don't even have second quarter earnings yet. I've heard profit warnings from chip stocks like Broadcom and Taiwan Semiconductor. Apple is seeing dampening domestic demand and China was one of their big markets where they produce a lot of phones and sell a lot of phones. We'll see what happens with second quarter profits after it ends June 30th. Tariff effects on the economy take a bit to process given financial information from the affected companies comes once a quarter. We'll see who gets hammered the hardest. I'm waiting on second quarter earnings to see how things are going. Some companies are winning, some losing. It's hard to pick the right ones.

I'm sure the electronic and momentum traders are having a blast, but Mom and Pop investor should be worried. This is definitely not a stable or attractively valued market. It's more like a very beautiful house with a well-kept exterior, but a lot of problems with the wiring, plumbing, and important parts inside the house that might lead to a collapse. Not the best time to invest if you're looking to hold long-term given stock valuations.

I agree the market could be in a precarious position right now but anytime something is at its highs there should be some healthy skepticism. Stocks aren't the only think up though. Gold is up, Crypto is up, Real Estate is up (everywhere but maybe California), oil would be up if we weren't producing so much of it here which gives us a stability that we haven't had in my lifetime.

The economy reminds me of a race horse. Obama kept the reigns tight and never let the horse stretch its legs whereas Trump has just given it full reign and let it go. They both will eventually stop and need to rest, eat and sleep but the restrained horse never finds its full potential.

[Aseahawkfan]

I agree the market could be in a precarious position right now but anytime something is at its highs there should be some healthy skepticism. Stocks aren't the only think up though. Gold is up, Crypto is up, Real Estate is up (everywhere but maybe California), oil would be up if we weren't producing so much of it here which gives us a stability that we haven't had in my lifetime.

The economy reminds me of a race horse. Obama kept the reigns tight and never let the horse stretch its legs whereas Trump has just given it full reign and let it go. They both will eventually stop and need to rest, eat and sleep but the restrained horse never finds its full potential.

I really don't like the leverage from the interest rates. It's like free money for big companies. Borrow at 3%, make 10%, why bother using their own cash and profits to expand their business when they can expand for essentially free. Yet working folk are borrowing money using variable rate instruments building up leverage they likely can't afford during a downturn. Low interest rates encourage the use of credit and lending that leads to things like 2008 or the Savings and Loan crisis in the 90s. It's worrisome. Any economic downturn in an heavily leveraged market just leads to problems. Good economic growth is usually driven by growing companies with real demand and real wage growth, not cheap money credit growth that is paid for later.

I don't know about your experience with people, but mine is they aren't real sharp when it comes to money. They often dig themselves holes in cheap credit environments they can't get out of if anything bad happens. That can lead to some very bad economic times. So far things are looking well enough, but real profit growth is slowing on several sectors. If companies start cutting back with the leverage we have out there, man, I hope it's not another 2008 given the insane property prices and number of people buying houses they may not be able to afford. Then we get the domino effect of that.

I encourage people to be careful with leverage. It's a dangerous game to use credit for too much.

[RiverDog]

I really don't like the leverage from the interest rates. It's like free money for big companies. Borrow at 3%, make 10%, why bother using their own cash and profits to expand their business when they can expand for essentially free. Yet working folk are borrowing money using variable rate instruments building up leverage they likely can't afford during a downturn. Low interest rates encourage the use of credit and lending that leads to things like 2008 or the Savings and Loan crisis in the 90s. It's worrisome. Any economic downturn in an heavily leveraged market just leads to problems. Good economic growth is usually driven by growing companies with real demand and real wage growth, not cheap money credit growth that is paid for later.

I don't know about your experience with people, but mine is they aren't real sharp when it comes to money. They often dig themselves holes in cheap credit environments they can't get out of if anything bad happens. That can lead to some very bad economic times. So far things are looking well enough, but real profit growth is slowing on several sectors. If companies start cutting back with the leverage we have out there, man, I hope it's not another 2008 given the insane property prices and number of people buying houses they may not be able to afford. Then we get the domino effect of that.

I encourage people to be careful with leverage. It's a dangerous game to use credit for too much.

You're preaching to the choir regarding people and their financial acuity. I had a guy working for me that was making just minimum monthly payments on his credit card and it wasn't even enough to cover the monthly finance charge, so even if he didn't charge a dime on the card that month, he was still falling behind. I've never paid a penny in interest charges on any of my credit cards or charge accounts, and there's been lots of times when I was living from paycheck to paycheck.

But IMO the problem with credit abuse has less to do with low interest rates and more to do with the ease at which people can get credit, particularly credit to by cars, boats, etc. A person that is impulsive and seeking immediate self gratification doesn't care if he's getting 5% interest on a loan vs. 6%. If he/she wants something, they buy it, and there's always someone willing to give him/her the money. They really need to tighten the rules on borrowing, particularly credit cards and car loans.

I want to see interest rates on home loans remain low. Home ownership is the first step out of poverty.