Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Tesla Investor's General Macroeconomic / Market Discussion

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
I think the salient sentence from pGo's referenced article is the following:

The losses from lower prices are larger and quicker than expected as energy companies cut back on investment and lay off workers, while the gains are smaller and slower to materialize, as consumers save some of their windfalls.

And I utterly refute that statement, and would do so by challenging Professor Levin, SF Fed Bank president Willliams or any other fine notable mentioned in that article to defend the following as the logical conclusion to the above statement.

* Revitalize the sputtering US economy by emplacing, à la Richard Nixon, a price floor on domestically-produced and imported crude of, let's say, $80/bbl. If their arguments hold water, then Happy Days Are Here Again.

<Fail, of course...>
 
Agree AudubonB.

Perhaps they should be noting that the price change is causing investment dislocation in the energy sector and impacting high risk debt portfolios. The change is also causing investments to be reallocated from the fossil fuel industry to other industries supporting consumers. Auto sales were ~18mm for 2015. Consumers have increased savings and spent money for other consumer products. The loser is stands out and is very obvious, but the winners are spread out across many sectors, which does not seem to be understood and articulated yet.

It may also be true that energy prices below a threshold like crude at $40 a barrel, create some market instabilities, much like crude over $140 barrel. Does the consumer benefit wane after a certain point, or lag, if consumers think the price reduction is temporary.

I think the salient sentence from pGo's referenced article is the following:



And I utterly refute that statement, and would do so by challenging Professor Levin, SF Fed Bank president Willliams or any other fine notable mentioned in that article to defend the following as the logical conclusion to the above statement.

* Revitalize the sputtering US economy by emplacing, à la Richard Nixon, a price floor on domestically-produced and imported crude of, let's say, $80/bbl. If their arguments hold water, then Happy Days Are Here Again.

<Fail, of course...>
 
Anybody read any good analysis of our current macro outlook? I just came across these two, but I know nothing of the author or his inherent biases etc.

Jesse Felder's Tumblr — Don’t Dismiss The Systemic Risk Of A Corporate...

Why Recession Is More Likely Than You Think | The Felder Report

I know Carl Icahn was making the case a while back that the corporate debt bubble bursting was going to cause a recession similar to the Great Recession and he predicted it would pop pretty soon. What do you guys think?
 
Bloodbath today. This has not been a fun week.

bloodyQQQ.png
 
What's your investment strategy for the long-term& short-term? Any thoughts on an ER play?

I honestly am gyrating back and forth on my prognostications for the market and TSLA, but as for my portfolio, I am almost all cash right now. Not short, not long, just static. 2016 has been an unwinding of risk on a scale not seen in a long time, and I'm not sure when it ends. However, I don't see a massive risk-on/buying spree/FOMO coming back anytime soon that will magically erase losses in high beta stocks like this one.

As for TSLA ER, I would think being short into it is very risky after such a steep drop, being long less so. But I have no clue how to play it and may just stay away completely.

I think the world has to figure out what it means to no longer depend on expensive oil as a surefire investment, what it means when every nation competes to devalue its currency indefinitely, and what it means when there is a statistically significant chance that the US may elect a socialist or near-fascist president in November.
 
I honestly am gyrating back and forth on my prognostications for the market and TSLA, but as for my portfolio, I am almost all cash right now. Not short, not long, just static. 2016 has been an unwinding of risk on a scale not seen in a long time, and I'm not sure when it ends. However, I don't see a massive risk-on/buying spree/FOMO coming back anytime soon that will magically erase losses in high beta stocks like this one.

As for TSLA ER, I would think being short into it is very risky after such a steep drop, being long less so. But I have no clue how to play it and may just stay away completely.

I think the world has to figure out what it means to no longer depend on expensive oil as a surefire investment, what it means when every nation competes to devalue its currency indefinitely, and what it means when there is a statistically significant chance that the US may elect a socialist or near-fascist president in November.
I don't believe the macro conditions are related just to oil. Yes, oversupply due to Saudi actions and fracking has caused an issue but why now? I believe it is the dollar going up and the fear of it continuing to go up in the face of the Fed raising rates. If the Fed continues to raise rates, all the investments that depended on a cheap dollar (carry trade) have to unwind. Until the Fed gives in and says they will stop raising rates or even add more QE, this will continue.
 
With the election coming up, what is y'all's thoughts on whether the market would prefer Trump over Sanders for president- purely hypothetical question of course?
Good question. I think Trump or Sanders are perceived bad for the market as they change the status quo. The market would actually prefer establishment candidates like Clinton and Bush.

Edit: Trump saying we are in a bubble on CNBC just now is not helping.
 
Maybe Trumps entire campaign is just a huge play to upset and scare the US equities market? As in he doesn't really want to be president, he just went short everything in early 2015 and is planning to cash out come summer 2016. :)

As much as it hurt to say it the best thing for the US right now would be Hilary.
 
Maybe Trumps entire campaign is just a huge play to upset and scare the US equities market? As in he doesn't really want to be president, he just went short everything in early 2015 and is planning to cash out come summer 2016. :)

As much as it hurt to say it the best thing for the US right now would be Hilary.

This isn't a political thread so I hesitate to opine on that, but I think it's clear that the wealthy barons of Wall St would very much like their champion Hillary to win, and post-Iowa, have begun to be fearful that this may not in fact happen. Also, what is best for the capital holders/wealthy/market makers does not necessarily equate to what is best for the US economy. Even CNN has an interesting take:

Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says - Feb. 8, 2016
 
Transition to next post

My political expertise is in foreign policy, not domestic politics, though teaching at a public university for 46+ years, half of my teaching was government 1.


It's awfully early for polls to be indicative and, of course, later we will have other inputs from primaries to refine guidance. As it stands now, some polls matching the two Democratic candidates conclude Hillary might lose in a close race to Ted Cruz, whereas Sanders would win handily. I don't know of any poll against Trump.


Personally, I think Hillary will win the Democratic nomination. If that is contested at the convention, and a strong public support for Sanders is trumped (small t) by super delegates, that would dampen public (and my) enthusiasm. Normally this should be a Democratic year. Despite a lot of antipathy by tea party strength in the old confederacy, and fear of it elsewhere in the Republican Party, Obama has not been a bad president. Polls do show that almost a 70% share of voters prefer expansion of social security, increase in the minimum wage, infrastructure investment, greater penalties for bankers, etc., the mainstream which is a hopeful sign. I believe such changes would give a strong boost for the economy if implemented, mostly because people I admire greatly such as Mohammad El-Arian believe the one-game in town of Fed stimulus should have been augmented fiscally. I haven't read his recent book, but I remember interviews where he implied such for the future.


Wall Street's reaction to a Sanders win would be negative, but from the shareholders perspective breaking up the big banks would be a plus. I don't remember, although I am near 80, but when the utility trusts were broken up by Roosevelt, in five years or so the stocks of the smaller companies rose 1,000%! Recent commentaries argue the economies of scale for banks do not improve once assets reach $100 billion or so, and the current top banks are orders of magnitude higher.

I will post a later thought on the foreign environment and what is happening to markets today.
 
Last edited:
I must apologize for misspelling Mohamed A. El-Erian’s name in my earlier post. A bit more about politics which seem to compound the markets these days.


On the foreign environment, we have not as a nation been served well by the Iraq war and we are also as a nation very uninformed (like the leading Republican candidates) about what to do about its consequences. Nefarious as was the division of boundaries by the British and French in the Middle East, we will long rue the collapse of the dictatorships which inevitably rose to preserve either military rule or the privileges of one minority group over another. Further, the refusal of Dick Cheney to permit the State Department's planning for the future (a purely bureaucratic conflict) set the stage for the disastrous occupation in Iraq after hostilities. The contrast with the careful planning for the occupation of Germany after World War II (about which I am an expert) clearly shows Roosevelt was so much more visionary. Ryan C. Crocker, a well-regarded diplomat and formerly U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan and Iraq, was interviewed on Vice about the ISIS threat. He said, in effect, conditions in Iraq are much worse for the people now than under Sadam. A stunning comment which only a retired diplomat of his standing can concede. Our policy was not improved by another notch when Obama failed to honor the popular vote which failed to support Maliki’s re-election. So mistakes were made on all sides proving our leaders’ amateur status.


Of a different category, but still almost impossible to deal with was the temptation by policy-makers to support the Arab spring after one of the dictators had been removed by Bush. You now have a Middle East and Northern Africa totally fractured. Added to this were naive attempts under Secretary Clinton’s stewardship to take advantage of popular uprising in Ukraine and whiff of talk Ukraine might move toward membership in the EU. Obviously this was enough to justify Putin’s awakening from hibernation.


We need a much more realistic assessment of the world than the illusion of superpower resulting from the aftermath of World War II. To paraphrase Lincoln, we cannot control events abroad, they have returned to control our markets today.


Others have rightly identified an earth-wrenching change we are going through, the shift from fossil fuels to conservation and alternative energy sources. Alone that is enough to explain the uncertainty of our future. It is often said, “business does not like uncertainty.” While we often want change, no one really likes uncertainty, although the world is surely boring for those who have it; hence the oft quoted Chinese curse about crisis.


My teachers of U.S. diplomatic history said, the U.S. had almost a perfect record in diplomacy when it was a relatively weak country. To illustrate: the scholar, William Appleton Williams began The Tragedy of American Diplomacy with the Open Door Notes and our foreign adventures.


Our founders knew we had to be smart when dealing with the Big Boys. They knew then, as we must learn now, the Big Boys get into trouble when their ambition exceeds their reach. They took advantage of Britain’s ignorance. ISIS is the direct result of our fumbling hubris.


The even bigger news in the Middle East is the shakiness of the Saudi regime. The conflict between that country and Iran may eventually make today’s oil price concern seem timid, indeed. The Saudis’ support for Wahhabism when translated into Salafism, their failure to diversify the economy, and the tribal orientation of the oil producing areas (Shia) of the country, combined with the regional flirtation with populism, portends eventual collapse. The two Muslim Big Boys in the Middle East need to bury the hatchet as the U.S. and Russia seemed to have. It would be neat if Israel would play middle-man in this truce, but under Netanyahu that is exceedingly unlikely. He’s not driven to seek a sure-fire Nobel Peace Prize.


How do these politics play into the market? Just as they usually do before a war. Thank God the Iranians have been estopped about the bomb for a few years, unless the Republicans take the White House and follow through on electioneering promises. Though off the thread, its time to take politics much more seriously, more than ever after Hiroshima.