# Spooky market trend?



## Quills (Jun 14, 2011)

I was checking out the markets tonight as I didn't have a chance to check them earlier today while they were open, and I came across this article:

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ghost-of-1929-crash-reappears-2013-12-06

I don't know how much attention one should pay to it, but it is a very spooky coincidence, if nothing else, the way the trends follow each other so closely.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

Quills said:


> I was checking out the markets tonight as I didn't have a chance to check them earlier today while they were open, and I came across this article:
> 
> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/ghost-of-1929-crash-reappears-2013-12-06
> 
> I don't know how much attention one should pay to it, but it is a very spooky coincidence, if nothing else, the way the trends follow each other so closely.


http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-chart-thats-scaring-wall-street-2013-12-06

Look at the charts on the above link and the graphs look very similar... now look at the vertical scale. One is a 100% increase (200-400) the other is 33% increase (12,000 to 16,000). Look at the horizontal scale... similar but still not the same. Drawn to the same scale/time period and these charts would not look so similar. Also mentioned in the above article is the statement that if you look for a pattern enough eventually you'll find something that fits. Doesn't mean it's accurate.

On the other hand I'm not saying to dismiss this information either. Look at the sources, look at the data for yourself (not just as they are presenting it) and make your own decisions.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

Even if you don't put much credence in somebody's 1929 parallel, the market has had a very nice run and a correction would not be a huge surprise.

More importantly on January 1 at least 5 million people will be losing their health insurance, so we are getting a little boost in health care spending now that will come to a halt on January 1 and resume slowly as people are able to get reinsured.

Healthcare is 1/6 of the economy, as the media keeps reminding us. If you get a 10% drop in health care spending, that will translate to a 1.5% drop in GDP. It is hard to say how long it will take for that to show up in the numbers, but I think some caution is warranted.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Geek999 said:


> Healthcare is 1/6 of the economy, as the media keeps reminding us. If you get a 10% drop in health care spending, that will translate to a 1.5% drop in GDP.


That is absolutely insane!!!


----------



## goshengirl (Dec 18, 2010)

Geek999 said:


> Even if you don't put much credence in somebody's 1929 parallel, the market has had a very nice run and a correction would not be a huge surprise.


A financial planner/broker (friend of my husband's) told DH that 'normal' corrections tend to run about 14%, but the last two corrections have only been around 6%. In other words, QE is keeping the market from its natural correction behavior, and he believes we are due for a very large correction to make up for that. He advises that all high risk investments be moved to low risk investments.

The fact that this guy said any of this is telling to me, because he's typically been in the life-is-hunky-dorey-the-economy-is-great-nothing-bad-happens-in-America camp.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Your broker friend is correct, Goshen.


----------



## Immolatus (Feb 20, 2011)

Thanks for pointing that out CP, I read the article on ZH and honestly only saw the pretty lines in the graph, and didnt look at the scales. Shame on me.
It all looks nicely wrapped up until that, no? 
I am not immune...


----------



## Woody (Nov 11, 2008)

I'm no financial wiz, nor do I pretend do be so. But, I do agree that QE is keeping the whole mess afloat. Without an 85 BILLION dollar a month injection, the whole thing would be toast.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

LincTex said:


> That is absolutely insane!!!


Are you saying the situation is insane or my description is insane? 

I provided the numbers as a simple illustration of the disruption the ACA will be causing. The example was just one facet of the problem. All the new taxes in the law will also have a negative effect on GDP. The screwed up networks may result in too many patients in some facilities with too few in others, etc.

We also have the well published effects of people being moved to less than 30 hours a week at the same time they are required to buy health insurance, so we can expect them to cut back spending in general, and the list goes on.

While some of these effects occur Jan. 1 and others drift out over time, I think it is fair to say that there will be a negative economic impact, probably noticeable during 2014.

While the Fed pumping is obviously helping the market, the market will not be immune to a declining economy. Therefore, I think caution is in order.


----------



## recoilless_57mm (Oct 15, 2012)

Nothing spooky about cooking the books and lying like a cheap rug IMO.


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

That's pretty much what I posted recently along with a story about how the COMEX (Commodity Exchange) is about to default on gold deliveries. So yes, I think we're headed for a 1929-style crash. The stock market is artificially pumped up with all that money from the Fed. The economy is in terrible shape. Obamacare will be the killshot once its fully implemented.

The question for me is whether the COMEX will default before the stock market crashes. It it does, we'll see large amounts of money go into physical metals. Jim Sinclair predicts $50,000 gold by 2020.

http://usawatchdog.com/jim-sinclair-50000-gold-us-dollar-collapse-hyperinflation-and-more/


----------



## BillS (May 30, 2011)

double post


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Geek999 said:


> We also have the well published effects of people being moved to less than 30 hours a week at the same time they are required to buy health insurance, so we can expect them to cut back spending in general, and the list goes on.
> 
> While some of these effects occur Jan. 1 and others drift out over time, I think it is fair to say that there will be a negative economic impact, probably noticeable during 2014.
> 
> While the Fed pumping is obviously helping the market, the market will not be immune to a declining economy. Therefore, I think caution is in order.


Something like 75% of all new jobs this year are part-time. Why? Because companies are unwilling to commit to full-time positions until they understand the effects of the law.

You are absolutely correct that *any increase* in taxes lowers everyone's standard of living. Why? Because it reduces choices you have in spending money and forces you to get by on less.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Geek999 said:


> Are you saying the situation is insane or my description is insane?


The situation. Can it really be 16% -17%?

What does that say about us as a country? Are we really getting charged that much for health care, or are we also just that unhealthy? The numbers are plain nutz.



Geek999 said:


> Healthcare is 1/6 of the economy,


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

LincTex said:


> The situation. Can it really be 16% -17%?
> 
> What does that say about us as a country? Are we really getting charged that much for health care, or are we also just that unhealthy? The numbers are plain nutz.


It is a larger portion of our economy than other developed countries. There are several reasonss for this, but the biggie is the malpractice mess. Our tendency to sue doctors for unfortunate outcomes increases malpractice insurance premiums and results in doctors prescribing excess tests, inflating costs.

That factor was not addressed in Obamacare, so it won't be a factor one way or the other in the economy this year. I think if we were looking at a drop in malpractice suits and needless tests, the drop in economic activity wouldn't look so bad. However, a drop due to people not having insurance, having huge deductibles they didn't have before, and just not seeking treatment will result in a falloff in actual healthcare services. In addition, so many doctors are being left out of networks that we are going to see rapid overcrowding of doctors and facilities that will accept the new insurance.

If you want decent treatment going forward, you'll need to pay out of pocket to a doctor who has been excluded from the networks.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Geek999 said:


> If you want decent treatment going forward, you'll need to pay out of pocket to a doctor who has been excluded from the networks.


That's what my wife and I determined. We dropped our health insurance for '14 and will just put that $5000 in a savings account instead.


----------



## Geek999 (Jul 9, 2013)

LincTex said:


> That's what my wife and I determined. We dropped our health insurance for '14 and will just put that $5000 in a savings account instead.


So now you have a Health Savings account without a tax benefit. I feel for you.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

LincTex said:


> That's what my wife and I determined. We dropped our health insurance for '14 and will just put that $5000 in a savings account instead.


One of the talk shows over the weekend had a guy on it who explained how to work it. For families who make over $60K/year and are fairly young, buy a non-conforming catastrophic policy. Non-conforming means it doesn't meet ACA guidelines. That way you're covered for major medical problems and it'll be cheaper, even with the ACA penalty, than buying an ACA-conforming policy.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Geek999 said:


> So now you have a Health Savings account without a tax benefit. I feel for you.


We have a FSA called WageWorks, max allowable contrib is $2,500.

My pay stub as of 11/29 shows pre-tax health care costs of $11,208.90, Y-T-D. $3,900 is 401K, the rest is all helath/vision/dental at $7,300 or so.

The company contributes about $18,000 or so, when I last read up on it.... which is STILL NUTS!!!!

We kept dental and vision ($350 total) and killed the medical for '14.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Marcus said:


> ... explained how to work it. For families who make over $60K/year and are fairly young, buy a non-conforming catastrophic policy. That way you're covered for major medical problems and it'll be cheaper, even with the ACA penalty, than buying an ACA-conforming policy.


Sweet! Thanks!!


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

Marcus said:


> One of the talk shows over the weekend had a guy on it who explained how to work it. For families who make over $60K/year and are fairly young, buy a non-conforming catastrophic policy. Non-conforming means it doesn't meet ACA guidelines. That way you're covered for major medical problems and it'll be cheaper, even with the ACA penalty, than buying an ACA-conforming policy.


That will work for 2014 and maybe 2015, BUT 2016 it raises to $650 OR 2.5% of your pre-deduction income....someone making 60k a year would owe $1,500+ to IRS as a penalty...

I think I have hinted my wife works for one of the largest temp agencies in the world... Here is something interesting - numbers are way up on bringing in workers for contracts, HOWEVER, they also are seeing the first signs of a downturn - they are the first to see the indicators because their livelihood depends upon it... So they monitor a ton of data indicators, and according to my wife it isn't looking to bright in the future, she reports to the CFO of North America and the CFO of US, both are starting to become concerned and talking about a bad bad dip. One even mentioned economic collapse...


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

invision said:


> That will work for 2014 and maybe 2015, BUT 2016 it raises ...


We are HOPING and praying it no longer exists by then!!!!!! 



invision said:


> Here is something interesting - numbers are way up on bringing in workers for contracts, HOWEVER, they also are seeing the first signs of a downturn - ... they monitor a ton of data indicators, and according to my wife it isn't looking to bright in the future, ... talking about a bad bad dip. One even mentioned economic collapse...


More Sheeple awaken, nice. 
Thanks for the input, I always like hearing what various industries are realizing.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Invision.
We are getting close to the point in the business cycle where a recession becomes likely. So your wife's data point is not surprising.


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

LincTex said:


> We have a FSA called WageWorks, max allowable contrib is $2,500.
> 
> My pay stub as of 11/29 shows pre-tax health care costs of $11,208.90, Y-T-D. $3,900 is 401K, the rest is all helath/vision/dental at $7,300 or so.
> 
> ...


Yep... we got HMO and PPO options at my office and the contribution (depending on spouse and or children coverage) costs the company between 10K and 23K per employee. We just did a study and determined that everything the company pays, outside of your salary runs between 30%-almost 60% of your salary. So a 50,000 a year employee is costing the company 65K-85K in total depending, in large part, on their selected health insurance option.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

CulexPipiens said:


> Yep... outside of your salary runs between 30%-almost 60% of your salary. So a $50,000 a year employee is costing the company 65K-85K in total depending, in large part, on their selected health insurance option.


I look around where I work, and see all the mandatory "safety stuff", cutting up perfectly good step ladders with one tiny flaw to avoid the OSHA hammer from falling on them, HOURS spent on training, hazmat handling practices, etc. and I'll bet a $50,000/year employee costs more than $100K a year with all the stuff added to the health insurance costs.


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

LincTex said:


> I look around where I work, and see all the mandatory "safety stuff", cutting up perfectly good step ladders with one tiny flaw to avoid the OSHA hammer from falling on them, HOURS spent on training, hazmat handling practices, etc. and I'll bet a $50,000/year employee costs more than $100K a year with all the stuff added to the health insurance costs.


Your correct there, but most companies don't realize those examples as employee expenses... What would be interesting would be a study on how much a company spends on "government mandated compliance/regulations" then equate that to lost taxes, less potential earnings, lower employee counts, etc. Wonder if the government might realize how interference is harming more than helping....


----------



## CulexPipiens (Nov 17, 2010)

invision said:


> Your correct there, but most companies don't realize those examples as employee expenses... What would be interesting would be a study on how much a company spends on "government mandated compliance/regulations" then equate that to lost taxes, less potential earnings, lower employee counts, etc. Wonder if the government might realize how interference is harming more than helping....


Stupid mandated expenses? We have to replace all of our "no parking - fire lane" signs because it says $50 fine on them and the city raised it to $100.


----------



## Gians (Nov 8, 2012)

BillS said:


> That's pretty much what I posted recently along with a story about how the COMEX (Commodity Exchange) is about to default on gold deliveries. So yes, I think we're headed for a 1929-style crash. The stock market is artificially pumped up with all that money from the Fed. The economy is in terrible shape. Obamacare will be the killshot once its fully implemented.
> 
> The question for me is whether the COMEX will default before the stock market crashes. It it does, we'll see large amounts of money go into physical metals. Jim Sinclair predicts $50,000 gold by 2020.
> 
> http://usawatchdog.com/jim-sinclair-50000-gold-us-dollar-collapse-hyperinflation-and-more/


If this Jim Sinclair is the same one that owns a Tanzanian Gold Mine, I'll take his prediction of $50,000 Gold in 2020 with a grain of salt.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

CulexPipiens said:


> Stupid mandated expenses? We have to replace all of our "no parking - fire lane" signs because it says $50 fine on them and the city raised it to $100.


Try Handicapped parking and ADA-compliant restrooms....at an industrial plant the employs no handicapped folks since the job requirements pretty much preclude a handicapped person from working anywhere but in the offices (half of which are on the 2nd floor and only accessible by stairs.)

I wouldn't mind so much except those unused handicapped parking spaces are nearest to the entrance to the plant. I can understand the need for places open to the public, but our plant isn't. And we have the ramps too.....but only in the parking lot. Oh and we now have fewer toilets since the handicapped ones are bigger.

Stupid is as stupid does. Forrest Gump


----------



## invision (Aug 14, 2012)

CulexPipiens said:


> Stupid mandated expenses? We have to replace all of our "no parking - fire lane" signs because it says $50 fine on them and the city raised it to $100.


Cheaper fix, duck tape and a sharpie.

See we citizens can do thing a heck of a lot cheaper than the government... Bwahahahaha


----------



## Tacitus (Dec 30, 2012)

Marcus said:


> Try Handicapped parking and ADA-compliant restrooms....at an industrial plant...


Oh, you got me going on this one. I work at a non-retail facility--the only visitors we get are UPS truck drivers and the occasional salesman. Not a single handicapped person is employed...at least, not one that uses handicapped parking places. But I have to walk past the 5 spaces up front (the equivalent of at least 8 regular spaces) every day.

It's not the extra 20 steps I have to take every morning that bothers me. It is the idiotic legal requirements which require paving extra parking spots that will never be used. After all, we still need spots for everyone to park in. Every handicapped spot means the parking lot needs to be that much bigger to make spots that will actually be used. (I wonder when the environmental folks are going to stop this; aren't they against impermeable earth coverage?)

I have often wondered why we can't have one handicapped spot for the once-a-decade visitor who needs it. If we happen to hire a bunch of handicapped people, we can just repaint a few extra places for them. Everyone is happy.


----------



## Marcus (May 13, 2012)

Tacitus said:


> I have often wondered why we can't have one handicapped spot for the once-a-decade visitor who needs it. If we happen to hire a bunch of handicapped people, we can just repaint a few extra places for them. Everyone is happy.


I wonder why they can't just put all the handicapped spaces but one way out in the back of the lot. Of course being in Texas, we do have a number of spaces for folks with trailers but those spaces are well away from the front of the plant.


----------



## LincTex (Apr 1, 2011)

Tacitus said:


> But I have to walk past the 5 spaces up front (the equivalent of at least 8 regular spaces) every day.
> 
> It's not the extra 20 steps I have to take every morning that bothers me. It is the idiotic legal requirements which require paving extra parking spots that will never be used.


Same at work, an aerospace facility that can hire very few handicapped persons. It must be based on % of employees per spot ... because we have *12* available handicapped spots, one of which is occupied one partial day every two weeks.


----------

