+Follow
Rexzyne
No personal profile
0
Follow
0
Followers
0
Topic
0
Badge
Posts
Hot
Rexzyne
2021-04-25
Hi
Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks
Rexzyne
2021-04-25
Hi
Sorry, the original content has been removed
Go to Tiger App to see more news
{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":3582321147205123,"uuid":"3582321147205123","gmtCreate":1619345714686,"gmtModify":1619345714686,"name":"Rexzyne","pinyin":"rexzyne","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":0,"headSize":0,"tweetSize":2,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":3,"level":{"id":0,"name":"","nameTw":"","represent":"","factor":"","iconColor":"","bgColor":""},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":0,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"success","userBadges":[],"userBadgeCount":0,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":null,"starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":375216861,"gmtCreate":1619345990953,"gmtModify":1704722718131,"author":{"id":"3582321147205123","authorId":"3582321147205123","authorIdStr":"3582321147205123","name":"Rexzyne","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3582321147205123"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/375216861","repostId":"2130941364","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2130941364","pubTimestamp":1619323455,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2130941364?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-25 12:04","market":"hk","language":"en","title":"Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2130941364","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. go","content":"<p>Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. </p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/64c17dcaadc093048638ac550527a91e\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"840\"><span>GETTY IMAGES</span></p>\n<p>Everyone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”</p>\n<p>Conventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&P 500 has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.</p>\n<p>This is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.</p>\n<p>In searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.</p>\n<p>On the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.</p>\n<p>After this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.</p>\n<p>That in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.</p>\n<p>As is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”</p>\n<p>Another indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.</p>\n<p>This puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96bbd1cd5123ac2704ccf0953509870f\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-25 12:04 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2130941364","content_text":"Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”\nConventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&P 500 has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.\nThis is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.\nIn searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.\nOn the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.\nAfter this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.\nThat in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.\nAs is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”\nAnother indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.\nThis puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.\n\nThe bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":258,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":375218721,"gmtCreate":1619345935863,"gmtModify":1704722717325,"author":{"id":"3582321147205123","authorId":"3582321147205123","authorIdStr":"3582321147205123","name":"Rexzyne","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3582321147205123"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/375218721","repostId":"2129364955","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":207,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":375216861,"gmtCreate":1619345990953,"gmtModify":1704722718131,"author":{"id":"3582321147205123","authorId":"3582321147205123","authorIdStr":"3582321147205123","name":"Rexzyne","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3582321147205123"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/375216861","repostId":"2130941364","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2130941364","pubTimestamp":1619323455,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2130941364?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-25 12:04","market":"hk","language":"en","title":"Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2130941364","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. go","content":"<p>Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. </p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/64c17dcaadc093048638ac550527a91e\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"840\"><span>GETTY IMAGES</span></p>\n<p>Everyone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”</p>\n<p>Conventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&P 500 has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.</p>\n<p>This is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.</p>\n<p>In searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.</p>\n<p>On the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.</p>\n<p>After this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.</p>\n<p>That in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.</p>\n<p>As is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”</p>\n<p>Another indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.</p>\n<p>This puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96bbd1cd5123ac2704ccf0953509870f\" tg-width=\"1260\" tg-height=\"849\"></p>\n<p>The bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.</p>","source":"lsy1603348471595","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy it’ll take more than easy money from the Fed to keep sparking this bull market in stocks\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-25 12:04 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".SPX":"S&P 500 Index",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-itll-take-more-than-easy-money-from-the-fed-to-spark-this-bull-market-11619159724?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2130941364","content_text":"Much depends on investors' appetite for taking risk. \nGETTY IMAGES\nEveryone “knows” that the U.S. government’s massive stimulus is the reason the U.S. stock market took off from its March 2020 lows. But, as Humphrey Neill, the father of contrarian analysis, constantly reminded his clients: “When everyone thinks alike, everyone is likely to be wrong.”\nConventional wisdom certainly appears to be based on the evidence. M2 money supply (consisting of cash, checking deposits, and so-called “near money” that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) has grown at a faster rate over the past 12 months than at any time over the last six decades. Sure enough, the S&P 500 has turned in one of its strongest 12-month returns ever.\nThis is just one data point. To investigate whether it is the exception or the rule, I analyzed several decades of historical record in search of a statistically significant correlation between the Federal Reserve’s stimulus and the stock market. I came up empty. The bulls therefore need to think twice before reassuring themselves that the bull market will continue just because the Federal Reserve is committed to priming the monetary pump.\nIn searching for possible correlations, I relied on two different measures of the money supply. I focused on M2 Money Supply (cash, checking deposits, and so-called ‘near money’ that can be converted into cash with little difficulty) and the Federal Reserve’s total balance sheet assets (a broader measure which reflects the Fed’s direct intervention in the economy through the purchase of securities and Treasuries). Regardless of the definition, however, the correlations between the stock market and money supply are not stable over time.\nOn the one hand, over the last decade there has been a strong positive correlation, just as we’ve seen over the last 12 months and what the bulls are assuming is the general pattern. But, on the other hand, this correlation was negative before that, which meant that in those earlier years faster money supply growth was more often than not associated with slower stock market growth, and vice versa. That’s just the opposite of what the bulls are assuming.\nAfter this first pass through the data, the most we can say is that sometimes faster money supply growth is good for stocks, and sometimes it isn’t.\nThat in turn suggests that the relationship between the money supply and the stock market is a lot more complex than most investors think. A full discussion of that relationship is beyond the scope of this column, but we know that it depends in large part on investors’ appetite for risk. In a “risk-on” environment, for example, it is more likely that aggressive Fed easing will be considered bullish. But when investors are preoccupied with the downside (“risk-off”) then an aggressive Fed might cause investors to become even more worried.\nAs is often the case, John Maynard Keynes, the famous British economist of a century ago, shrewdly captured this dynamic. He pointed out that central banks will be powerless to stimulate the economy if there is no appetite for risk-taking, and in such an environment the Fed’s efforts will be like “pushing on a string.”\nAnother indication of the complexity of the relationship between money supply and the stock market is how much money velocity varies over time. I’m referring to the average number of times that money changes hands in a given year. When velocity declines, it takes a bigger money supply to have the same economic impact. Or, to put it another way, a bigger money supply won’t be stimulating if velocity declines too much in the process.\nThis puts recent experience in perspective. As you can see from the accompanying chart, velocity plunged at the beginning of the pandemic and remains at one of its lowest levels in six decades.\n\nThe bottom line: The money supply undoubtedly is related to the course of both the economy and the stock market. But its role is neither simple nor straightforward.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":258,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":375218721,"gmtCreate":1619345935863,"gmtModify":1704722717325,"author":{"id":"3582321147205123","authorId":"3582321147205123","authorIdStr":"3582321147205123","name":"Rexzyne","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3582321147205123"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Hi","listText":"Hi","text":"Hi","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/375218721","repostId":"2129364955","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2129364955","pubTimestamp":1619335802,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/2129364955?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-04-25 15:30","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Is It the End of Netflix Growth as We Know It?","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2129364955","media":"Motley Fool","summary":"I feel fine.","content":"<p>When <b>Netflix </b> (NASDAQ:NFLX) reported earnings this week, its subscriber growth figures were terrible. Four million net new subscribers in the first quarter may sound like a lot, but management's guidance had called for six million. Furthermore, management's guidance pointed to continued weakness in the third quarter. Netflix shares plunged as much as 8.3% lower the next day and are still trading roughly 15% below January's all-time highs.</p>\n<p>Some would say that this is the end of Netflix growth as we know it, but I feel fine. Here's why.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/34512450fa7998a2a70b1f19b570071d\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"373\"><span>Image source: Netflix.</span></p>\n<h2>The bear case</h2>\n<p>Critics point to the chart above, claiming that Netflix has run out of rocket fuel. Not only did the company miss its own subscriber growth targets in the first quarter, but the first few weeks of the next reporting period indicate another period of disappointing growth. One million new customers would be the smallest growth figure Netflix has seen in a decade.</p>\n<p>The company added just 100,000 net new streamers in the fourth quarter of 2011, which was the second quarter for which Netflix even provided subscriber numbers for the brand-new streaming business. We're looking at the aftermath of the Qwikster mess here, and that's not an event most Netflix investors want to be reminded of.</p>\n<p>So I get why the soft customer growth outlook can be scary. However, Netflix has experienced lumpy subscriber growth before and lived to tell the tale.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5ff43425aeb88b5f02b6962bd1bbaf0\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"478\"><span>Image source: Getty Images.</span></p>\n<h2>Nothing new under the sun</h2>\n<p>For example, Netflix added 2.9 million new subscribers in the first quarter of 2012, but management also took time to explain that the summer season should come in below that 14% single-quarter increase. A larger user base amplifies the seasonal patterns of period-by-period growth figures. According to Netflix:</p>\n<blockquote>\n Due to this increased net add quarterly seasonality, Q2 [2012] net adds will be below those of 2010, despite Q2 gross adds following the traditional seasonal pattern, and despite us expecting to match 2010 in annual net additions. ... We see nothing new or particularly concerning this quarter to date in our member viewing, acquisition and retention. All are healthy.\n</blockquote>\n<p>Nine years later, Netflix's global paid subscribers have soared from 24.4 million to 208 million. First-quarter revenues jumped from $870 million (including $320 million for DVD-by-mail plans) to $7.2 billion (less than $50 million from DVD subscribers).</p>\n<p>Most importantly, Netflix's split-adjusted stock price has climbed from $12.53 to $505 per share. That's a 3,950% return. The naysayers of 2012 have been proven wrong in the long run to the benefit of patient shareholders.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4d62bcc99b5adf34ef8e7711c4446edc\" tg-width=\"720\" tg-height=\"468\"><span>NFLX data by YCharts.</span></p>\n<h2>What's next for Netflix?</h2>\n<p>The situation really hasn't changed except that Netflix is far larger these days. Quarterly subscriber additions can come in significantly above or below expectations for many reasons, including seasonal effects and unforeseen pandemics. The growth trajectory was accelerated by COVID-19 last year only to take a break in the second half of 2020 and early 2021. When the restarted content production slate comes back in full force later this year, it should light new fires under the global growth story.</p>\n<p>And the beat goes on. I think it's smart to buy Netflix shares whenever the stock gets a discount from short-term subscriber trends. The real game-changing story here is that digital streaming is here to stay, and Netflix will benefit as the market itself expands over the next decade or two. I wouldn't be surprised if we look back at this drop from 2030 as a fantastic buying opportunity -- just like the market error in 2012.</p>","source":"fool_stock","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Is It the End of Netflix Growth as We Know It?</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nIs It the End of Netflix Growth as We Know It?\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-04-25 15:30 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/04/24/is-it-the-end-of-netflix-growth-as-we-know-it/><strong>Motley Fool</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>When Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX) reported earnings this week, its subscriber growth figures were terrible. Four million net new subscribers in the first quarter may sound like a lot, but management's ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/04/24/is-it-the-end-of-netflix-growth-as-we-know-it/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"NFLX":"奈飞"},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/04/24/is-it-the-end-of-netflix-growth-as-we-know-it/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2129364955","content_text":"When Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX) reported earnings this week, its subscriber growth figures were terrible. Four million net new subscribers in the first quarter may sound like a lot, but management's guidance had called for six million. Furthermore, management's guidance pointed to continued weakness in the third quarter. Netflix shares plunged as much as 8.3% lower the next day and are still trading roughly 15% below January's all-time highs.\nSome would say that this is the end of Netflix growth as we know it, but I feel fine. Here's why.\nImage source: Netflix.\nThe bear case\nCritics point to the chart above, claiming that Netflix has run out of rocket fuel. Not only did the company miss its own subscriber growth targets in the first quarter, but the first few weeks of the next reporting period indicate another period of disappointing growth. One million new customers would be the smallest growth figure Netflix has seen in a decade.\nThe company added just 100,000 net new streamers in the fourth quarter of 2011, which was the second quarter for which Netflix even provided subscriber numbers for the brand-new streaming business. We're looking at the aftermath of the Qwikster mess here, and that's not an event most Netflix investors want to be reminded of.\nSo I get why the soft customer growth outlook can be scary. However, Netflix has experienced lumpy subscriber growth before and lived to tell the tale.\nImage source: Getty Images.\nNothing new under the sun\nFor example, Netflix added 2.9 million new subscribers in the first quarter of 2012, but management also took time to explain that the summer season should come in below that 14% single-quarter increase. A larger user base amplifies the seasonal patterns of period-by-period growth figures. According to Netflix:\n\n Due to this increased net add quarterly seasonality, Q2 [2012] net adds will be below those of 2010, despite Q2 gross adds following the traditional seasonal pattern, and despite us expecting to match 2010 in annual net additions. ... We see nothing new or particularly concerning this quarter to date in our member viewing, acquisition and retention. All are healthy.\n\nNine years later, Netflix's global paid subscribers have soared from 24.4 million to 208 million. First-quarter revenues jumped from $870 million (including $320 million for DVD-by-mail plans) to $7.2 billion (less than $50 million from DVD subscribers).\nMost importantly, Netflix's split-adjusted stock price has climbed from $12.53 to $505 per share. That's a 3,950% return. The naysayers of 2012 have been proven wrong in the long run to the benefit of patient shareholders.\nNFLX data by YCharts.\nWhat's next for Netflix?\nThe situation really hasn't changed except that Netflix is far larger these days. Quarterly subscriber additions can come in significantly above or below expectations for many reasons, including seasonal effects and unforeseen pandemics. The growth trajectory was accelerated by COVID-19 last year only to take a break in the second half of 2020 and early 2021. When the restarted content production slate comes back in full force later this year, it should light new fires under the global growth story.\nAnd the beat goes on. I think it's smart to buy Netflix shares whenever the stock gets a discount from short-term subscriber trends. The real game-changing story here is that digital streaming is here to stay, and Netflix will benefit as the market itself expands over the next decade or two. I wouldn't be surprised if we look back at this drop from 2030 as a fantastic buying opportunity -- just like the market error in 2012.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":207,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}
