Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
I disagree to some extent as the Fed also tempered future increases to 25 basis points, maybe higher, but ruled out 75. First quarter GDP may have been effected mostly by trade and inventories, but the economy is showing signs that high ticket items, and housing, both leading indicators are heading down. Housing starts are down for the third month in a row. Also, with stimulus funds drying up and inflation, specifically food and energy, reducing purchasing power, we definitely are at risk for an economic pullback. I think the fed realized while the economy is not terribly bad, there are indications it starting to weaken, and the negative GDP tempered their original glide path...
The Fed wants the economy to weaken, dude. That's the only way they're going to slow the labor market and temper inflation. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
There's a reason why rates are now unchanged from pre-Fed yesterday. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
The Fed wants the economy to weaken, dude. That's the only way they're going to slow the labor market and temper inflation. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
There's a reason why rates are now unchanged from pre-Fed yesterday.
We need to see housing prices and gas prices begin to decline. If they do not, the .5% increase failed and that's just going to drag this shit show out longer.
The Fed is behind the curve and probably should have done the .75% increase as much as it might have been painful. [Reply]
Hammock Parties 05-05-2022, 09:33 AM
This message has been deleted by DaFace.
Reason: politics
Originally Posted by scho63:
We need to see housing prices and gas prices begin to decline. If they do not, the .5% increase failed and that's just going to drag this shit show out longer.
The Fed is behind the curve and probably should have done the .75% increase as much as it might have been painful.
It's not stopping the housing market here. The train was already moving way too fast for .5 to slow it down. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ghak99:
It's not stopping the housing market here. The train was already moving way too fast for .5 to slow it down.
With inflation high across the board and rates for mortgages jumping, the market is losing more and more low end buyers. This is the start of the decline. [Reply]
Here's a big picture question for people. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that the stock market doesn't go to zero this year and I'll still have some money going forward.
I have IRA accounts (tax-deferred) and regular investment accounts (taxed) to fund my retirement. I started the IRA accounts when I was young, and started the investment accounts later, after I had the cash flow to save beyond the IRA limits.
Because I started the IRA accounts at a younger age and tend to be a buy and hold guy, those accounts are much more heavily populated with non-tech stocks. As a general rule, imagine that they're companies like consumer goods and industrials and health care and stuff. They often pay dividends. Think classic Dow and S&P 500 stocks.
On the other hand, my investment accounts are more tech stocks. This is where I have most of my FAANG stocks and software companies and robotics and Tesla and so on. Think NASDAQ stocks. They're less likely to pay dividends and have been growing faster over the past decade.
It's not a clear distinction or a strategy. It's just a pattern because I had more money to spend in my investment accounts as the tech sector was growing.
So my question, then, relates to my optimal retirement cash flow strategy.
My hope is that I won't withdraw money out of my IRAs (other than required minimum distributions) for another 15-20 years. My early retirement will be funded by the investment accounts.
Am I better off....
1. Keeping the investment profiles the way they are now?
2. Shuffling my holdings so that I have the dividend stocks in my investment accounts and the tech stocks in my IRAs?
3. Mixing them up so there's no pattern?
My initial hunch is Approach 2. The dividend stocks are more stable so I'm less likely to need to sell at a low point. The dividends will generate cash so that I have to sell less. And the tech stocks have historically grown faster so they'd be better in the IRAs for another 20 years if that pattern persists. This would require me to take some capital gains taxes as I do the shuffle, though, which is costing me money that would otherwise be growing.
Again, this all assumes that we're not scavenging for post-apocalyptic food scraps as the stock market continues it's 2022 plunge toward zero.
Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe it doesn't matter. But it seems like there's probably an optimal strategy. What say ye, denizens of the football internet? [Reply]
Originally Posted by TwistedChief:
The Fed wants the economy to weaken, dude. That's the only way they're going to slow the labor market and temper inflation. Don't kid yourself otherwise.
There's a reason why rates are now unchanged from pre-Fed yesterday.
We are in the same page. They definitely tempered earlier statements. After the negative GDP they are trying to glide the plane down instead of crash landing it. The ultimate goal is QT measures that slow the economy and temper growth. It’s a tricky balance right now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Maybe I'm missing something, or maybe it doesn't matter. But it seems like there's probably an optimal strategy. What say ye, denizens of the football internet?
I would be inclined to not pay LTCG across a whole portfolio just to shift strategy. I guess I'd end up with 3 because I'd try to do it more organically. Balanace isn't bad either
In retirement you may qualify for the 0% LT cap gains rate depending on circumstances. That might be a good time to move some around. I've been surprised how high those brackets go. If you're a couple w/ no income other than a bit from dividends you can seemingly claim 105kish in LT gains at 0% when you include the standard deduction. [Reply]
Ive been seriously considering investing in this company since it went public. Of course it immediately opened up about 29 and went up as high as 179.46. These EV stocks are crazy like that so I tend to let them settle before considering investing. NKLA was the first one I really wanted to invest in, boy did I dodge a bullet there.
Ive watched many of these EV companies, some suggested in this forum, NIO, LCID, NKLA, GOEV and of course TSLA. Only one, TSLA have I regretted not investing in. Looking at that list makes me think why do I want to jump into this sector at all?
The one company I feel good about is RIVN. They actually are manufacturing and selling their vehicles. A truck and an SUV. I would actually buy one of their Trucks after looking into it.
I am a full size pickup man and although this is not a full size its not a mini truck either. Its a good looking truck, other than the front end. Wish they would have designed the front more like the rest of the truck.
The stock is back down close to opening value, its much better looking than the ridiculous Tesla Cybertruck. Its still pricey but I do think it will be popular and capture a fair percentage of the EV truck and SUV market.
If you are an investor, how do you feel about this stock?
If you are a pickup owner or want to be, would you consider buying one of these?
I don't pretend at all to know about the investing side of most individual stocks, but Rivian is having major production issues. I'd be a bit nervous because of that, but their product itself is great if they can get the volume up. [Reply]
