Stimulus not so stimulus to ma_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

wilo621
2021-03-17

Stimulus not so stimulus to markets?

Why $40 billion in stimulus won’t go ‘into’ stocks

It’s a simple logical error If you’re planning to take extra risk in your retirement accounts becau

Why $40 billion in stimulus won’t go ‘into’ stocks

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

推荐
最新

暂无评论

热议股票

关于我们·老虎社区守则·老虎社区账号管理规范·老虎社区服务协议·老虎社区隐私政策

公司名称：北京至简风宜信息技术有限公司

违法和不良信息投诉：010-5681-3562（工作时间9:30-18:30）

邮箱：service@laohu8.com

营业执照：91110105MA01A4U55R

ICP备：京ICP备18016422号

网安备：京公网安备11010502036490

关注我们

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"data":{"magic":2,"id":324112838,"tweetId":"324112838","gmtCreate":1615973920924,"gmtModify":1703495729158,"author":{"id":3575929684948138,"idStr":"3575929684948138","authorId":3575929684948138,"authorIdStr":"3575929684948138","name":"wilo621","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":3,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":0,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Stimulus not so stimulus to markets?</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Stimulus not so stimulus to markets?</p></body></html>","text":"Stimulus not so stimulus to markets?","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/324112838","repostId":1149837805,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1149837805","pubTimestamp":1615971667,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1149837805?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-17 17:01","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why $40 billion in stimulus won’t go ‘into’ stocks","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1149837805","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"It’s a simple logical error\n\nIf you’re planning to take extra risk in your retirement accounts becau","content":"<p>It’s a simple logical error</p>\n<p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/7a82b8df4254390b71a4ce4488e33d21\" tg-width=\"1259\" tg-height=\"1092\"></p>\n<p>If you’re planning to take extra risk in your retirement accounts because of all the stimulus money about to be “poured into stocks”—don’t.</p>\n<p>The same goes for bitcoin.</p>\n<p>Mizuho Securities is the latest to push this idea, with a survey suggesting that 10% of the $380 billion in stimulus windfalls will be invested in stocks and bitcoin.</p>\n<p>That,according to Wall Street, means that about $40 billion in extra money will “come into the stock market,” driving it higher.</p>\n<p>Recently Deutsche Bank&nbsp;estimated&nbsp;young individual investors were ready to pour $170 billion into the market.</p>\n<p>And the Wall Street hucksters made the same argument.</p>\n<p>But it’s the old “money on the sidelines” fallacy. (Incidentally this raises, yet again, the question of why we don’t teach logic as Topic No. 1 in the public education system—a failure whose devastating costs are apparent every day.)</p>\n<p>It’s a simple logical error, and it doesn’t matter who points it out—me, your broker, the Man in the Moon. It’s basic logic.</p>\n<p>Stimulus money, or money “on the sidelines,” cannot “come into the market” for one very simple reason that gets ignored time and time and time again when this comes up.</p>\n<p>Every time a security is bought, one must be sold.</p>\n<p>Pretty obvious, right? If I buy your Apple&nbsp;stock, then you…er…have to sell it to me. I buy, you sell.</p>\n<p>Imagine if you bought a house and tried to move in, and the previous owner figured he’d hang on to it, as well as banking the check.</p>\n<p>If investors plunge $40 billion of their stimulus windfalls “into” stocks (and bitcoin), guess how much current investors will simultaneously “take out” of stocks (and bitcoin).</p>\n<p>Er…$40 billion.</p>\n<p>And if eager young investors rush out and pour $170 billion of their cash into these investments, current investors will…er…take $170 billion out.</p>\n<p>It is not a coincidence that the figures match.</p>\n<p>I have $10, you have a share. I buy your share. Now I have your share…and you have my $10.</p>\n<p>None of this means the stock market is a bad investment (or a good one), merely that this particular argument has no force.</p>\n<p>The more interesting question is whether or not this hot stimulus money will spark even greater animal spirits among investors — especially among those who have the least experience of investing.</p>\n<p>Is that possible? Obviously.</p>\n<p>Is it likely? Maybe.</p>\n<p>On the other hand, $40 billion is about 0.07% of the value of the U.S. stocks market and $170 billion is 0.3%, so you have to wonder how much this additional euphoria is going to be worth.</p>\n<p>You might also reasonably wonder how much extra exuberance the market can handle, given — as the chart above shows — it looks pretty exuberant already.</p>\n<p>For those following trends the more important short-term issue is that the U.S. market—as measured for example by the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF—is (just) above its 50-day moving average and well above its 200 day moving average. So the trend remains bullish.</p>\n<p>Whether that remains the case as inflation forecasts break above 8-year highs, and the White House looks at a 25% hike in corporate tax rates, is going to be another matter.</p>\n<p>Meanwhile those of a curious disposition might wonder why, if new and inexperienced investors are so eager to plunge $40 billion or even $170 billion “into” the market, current (and possibly more experienced) investors are so willing to take the same amount out.</p>","source":"market_watch","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 $40 billion in stimulus won’t go ‘into’ 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 $40 billion in stimulus won’t go ‘into’ stocks\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-17 17:01 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-40-billion-in-stimulus-wont-go-into-stocks-11615842577?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>It’s a simple logical error\n\nIf you’re planning to take extra risk in your retirement accounts because of all the stimulus money about to be “poured into stocks”—don’t.\nThe same goes for bitcoin.\n...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-40-billion-in-stimulus-wont-go-into-stocks-11615842577?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":{},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-40-billion-in-stimulus-wont-go-into-stocks-11615842577?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1149837805","content_text":"It’s a simple logical error\n\nIf you’re planning to take extra risk in your retirement accounts because of all the stimulus money about to be “poured into stocks”—don’t.\nThe same goes for bitcoin.\nMizuho Securities is the latest to push this idea, with a survey suggesting that 10% of the $380 billion in stimulus windfalls will be invested in stocks and bitcoin.\nThat,according to Wall Street, means that about $40 billion in extra money will “come into the stock market,” driving it higher.\nRecently Deutsche Bank estimated young individual investors were ready to pour $170 billion into the market.\nAnd the Wall Street hucksters made the same argument.\nBut it’s the old “money on the sidelines” fallacy. (Incidentally this raises, yet again, the question of why we don’t teach logic as Topic No. 1 in the public education system—a failure whose devastating costs are apparent every day.)\nIt’s a simple logical error, and it doesn’t matter who points it out—me, your broker, the Man in the Moon. It’s basic logic.\nStimulus money, or money “on the sidelines,” cannot “come into the market” for one very simple reason that gets ignored time and time and time again when this comes up.\nEvery time a security is bought, one must be sold.\nPretty obvious, right? If I buy your Apple stock, then you…er…have to sell it to me. I buy, you sell.\nImagine if you bought a house and tried to move in, and the previous owner figured he’d hang on to it, as well as banking the check.\nIf investors plunge $40 billion of their stimulus windfalls “into” stocks (and bitcoin), guess how much current investors will simultaneously “take out” of stocks (and bitcoin).\nEr…$40 billion.\nAnd if eager young investors rush out and pour $170 billion of their cash into these investments, current investors will…er…take $170 billion out.\nIt is not a coincidence that the figures match.\nI have $10, you have a share. I buy your share. Now I have your share…and you have my $10.\nNone of this means the stock market is a bad investment (or a good one), merely that this particular argument has no force.\nThe more interesting question is whether or not this hot stimulus money will spark even greater animal spirits among investors — especially among those who have the least experience of investing.\nIs that possible? Obviously.\nIs it likely? Maybe.\nOn the other hand, $40 billion is about 0.07% of the value of the U.S. stocks market and $170 billion is 0.3%, so you have to wonder how much this additional euphoria is going to be worth.\nYou might also reasonably wonder how much extra exuberance the market can handle, given — as the chart above shows — it looks pretty exuberant already.\nFor those following trends the more important short-term issue is that the U.S. market—as measured for example by the Vanguard Total Stock Market ETF—is (just) above its 50-day moving average and well above its 200 day moving average. So the trend remains bullish.\nWhether that remains the case as inflation forecasts break above 8-year highs, and the White House looks at a 25% hike in corporate tax rates, is going to be another matter.\nMeanwhile those of a curious disposition might wonder why, if new and inexperienced investors are so eager to plunge $40 billion or even $170 billion “into” the market, current (and possibly more experienced) investors are so willing to take the same amount out.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":88,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"EN","currentLanguage":"EN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":31,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ORIG"},"commentList":[],"hasMoreComment":false,"orderType":2}