Regarding charting, the Schwab charting and stock analysis tools are excellent.
On the topic of the NASDAQ, it is my impression that the investment community often do not have a grasp of the the underlying technologies of technology stocks traded on the NASDAQ. For instance, many small and mid caps who build electronics technologies have been downgraded by many investment firms in the last year. There is the thinking that with the pull back in the EV market that the demand for electronics will be pulled back. What they these investment houses don't seem to realize is that most of these electronic component technology companies are diversified and don't sell exclusively into the EV market. Their products are also used in data farms and in industrial equipment.
Charting is one method to evaluate stocks, but price to earnings matters. Sales matter. Debt matters.
Regarding Trump, I've mostly tuned him out. Navarro and Musk also seem somewhat incoherent. Good on cutting some questionable federal contracts there were approved under Biden, but this won't fix the debt or the deficit. I doubt that Trump, Navarro, or Musk have a real plan to deal with the deft and deficit. But, hey, we're still going to Mars. So what is the real intent of Trump, Musk and Navarro? It doesn't look to me that they are serious about confronting the debt and deficit or making hard decisions about how to defend the manufacturing base of the US.
For sure, putting tariffs on Canadian made auto parts will increase the price of US vehicles (Ford and GM). It won't be easy for Detroit to back out the part of their manufacturing base that is in Ontario, Canada.
Trump says he doesn't care about tanking the economy? Well, I suspect this tune will change as the mid terms approach in under two years.
On technical analysis, I agree that the market overall moves with the direction of earnings. We have just repriced down because earnings expectations being lower at the same multiple. Volatility is up because the market doesn’t know whether to price in tariffs or not - Trump keeps changing his mind.
However, price is supposed to capture everything, including earnings, so I am inclined to focus there, rather than doing technical and fundamental analysis. It depends on which you are more comfortable with.
How are you going to measure and evaluate earnings? Relative to what? Historical earnings? Projected? There is so much that goes into earnings, including accounting and tax, which are both subject to lots of manipulation.
There is an army of analysts out there doing all the forecasting and DCF work - all that should end up in price.
I think fundamental analysis is a really important - possibly the only important thing because there is no liquid market and no price signals.
This is why I am more comfortable with macro and public markets.
I generally use price/earnings to get a rough idea about valuation. I am not sure I agree that only price matters. There is a lot between stock price and actual earnings. However, I agree that reporting of earnings can be manipulated.
Read the Hudson Bay Capital article. They argue that tariffs are one way for the US to offset it's imbalance of trade. But this only works if the current trading partners of the US continue to trade with the US. I'm not keen on economic policies dreamed up by some theorist living out his life in a penthouse or the Hamptons. Probably , the bourbon makers in Kentucky are not applauding the economic tariff theorists and their thoughts on how the US debt might be restructured with tariffs:
Tariffs do have their place. Clearly, there are many cases of egregious dumping into the US market, IP theft, market undercutting and market manipulation that should be addressed. In these cases, we not only need tariffs, but better export control. But Trump is using tariffs not as a scalpel to go after these egregious cases. Instead, he's taking a sledge hammer to all of the major trading partners of the US. It's almost as if Trump and his cabinet can't be bothered to do the detailed analysis to understand where tariffs might best be implemented. For Trump, rather than carefully addressing the trade imbalance while upholding the economy, it seems to be more about having the appearance of doing something about the trade imbalance and the debt.
As to the current financial situation, it is my impression that Trump is deliberately trying to tank the market. This may work out for him and his wealthy friends in the short term, but I doubt it will do anything to improve the economy
That Mirhan article was a bit academic. I read it for two reasons: firstly, he and Roubini wrote a fascinating article last year on the way Yellen had been shifting demand to t-bills as a backdoor way to QE by suppressing the longer end of the curve; secondly, as Chariman of the CEA, I assume he has some influence on policy.
I agree about the Crown Royale: I just can't get past the bottle!
Found some articles on Roubini's concerns about Yellen's manipulation of interest rates. In fact, I agree with Roubini.
Regarding Crown Royale, I am not sure who actually drinks it! My Dad, a fourth generation Scots-Canadian, did not drink it. He drank Scotch . . . and sometimes Bourbon.
Thank you for the detailed analysis. I look forward to reading Roubini's analysis in more depth.
Regarding charting, the Schwab charting and stock analysis tools are excellent.
On the topic of the NASDAQ, it is my impression that the investment community often do not have a grasp of the the underlying technologies of technology stocks traded on the NASDAQ. For instance, many small and mid caps who build electronics technologies have been downgraded by many investment firms in the last year. There is the thinking that with the pull back in the EV market that the demand for electronics will be pulled back. What they these investment houses don't seem to realize is that most of these electronic component technology companies are diversified and don't sell exclusively into the EV market. Their products are also used in data farms and in industrial equipment.
Charting is one method to evaluate stocks, but price to earnings matters. Sales matter. Debt matters.
Regarding Trump, I've mostly tuned him out. Navarro and Musk also seem somewhat incoherent. Good on cutting some questionable federal contracts there were approved under Biden, but this won't fix the debt or the deficit. I doubt that Trump, Navarro, or Musk have a real plan to deal with the deft and deficit. But, hey, we're still going to Mars. So what is the real intent of Trump, Musk and Navarro? It doesn't look to me that they are serious about confronting the debt and deficit or making hard decisions about how to defend the manufacturing base of the US.
For sure, putting tariffs on Canadian made auto parts will increase the price of US vehicles (Ford and GM). It won't be easy for Detroit to back out the part of their manufacturing base that is in Ontario, Canada.
Trump says he doesn't care about tanking the economy? Well, I suspect this tune will change as the mid terms approach in under two years.
On technical analysis, I agree that the market overall moves with the direction of earnings. We have just repriced down because earnings expectations being lower at the same multiple. Volatility is up because the market doesn’t know whether to price in tariffs or not - Trump keeps changing his mind.
However, price is supposed to capture everything, including earnings, so I am inclined to focus there, rather than doing technical and fundamental analysis. It depends on which you are more comfortable with.
How are you going to measure and evaluate earnings? Relative to what? Historical earnings? Projected? There is so much that goes into earnings, including accounting and tax, which are both subject to lots of manipulation.
There is an army of analysts out there doing all the forecasting and DCF work - all that should end up in price.
I think fundamental analysis is a really important - possibly the only important thing because there is no liquid market and no price signals.
This is why I am more comfortable with macro and public markets.
Tariffs are a fun topic. The usual market adjustment is that exports tend to strengthen the currency of the exporter because the goods are paid for in the currency of the exporter. The USD being the global currency for over 50% of transactions distorts this because the US pays for most of its stuff in USD. Steven Mirhan chair of the Council of Economic Advisors wrote about this in November (check out Hudson Bay Capital - https://netorgft13574283-my.sharepoint.com/:b:/g/personal/winward_dakotaridgecapital_com/EdBF4h6FjjVMibWon4dPgLMBz0ds6CEvEi7ZPIdS06FNHw?e=ZkM678)
Policy right now feels like someone punching a hold in the wall and then someone else drawing a target around it.
"price is supposed to capture everything . . ."
I generally use price/earnings to get a rough idea about valuation. I am not sure I agree that only price matters. There is a lot between stock price and actual earnings. However, I agree that reporting of earnings can be manipulated.
Read the Hudson Bay Capital article. They argue that tariffs are one way for the US to offset it's imbalance of trade. But this only works if the current trading partners of the US continue to trade with the US. I'm not keen on economic policies dreamed up by some theorist living out his life in a penthouse or the Hamptons. Probably , the bourbon makers in Kentucky are not applauding the economic tariff theorists and their thoughts on how the US debt might be restructured with tariffs:
https://www.lpm.org/news/2025-03-05/ky-bourbon-industry-prepares-to-respond-to-trade-war-between-u-s-and-canada
Tariffs do have their place. Clearly, there are many cases of egregious dumping into the US market, IP theft, market undercutting and market manipulation that should be addressed. In these cases, we not only need tariffs, but better export control. But Trump is using tariffs not as a scalpel to go after these egregious cases. Instead, he's taking a sledge hammer to all of the major trading partners of the US. It's almost as if Trump and his cabinet can't be bothered to do the detailed analysis to understand where tariffs might best be implemented. For Trump, rather than carefully addressing the trade imbalance while upholding the economy, it seems to be more about having the appearance of doing something about the trade imbalance and the debt.
As to the current financial situation, it is my impression that Trump is deliberately trying to tank the market. This may work out for him and his wealthy friends in the short term, but I doubt it will do anything to improve the economy
(or the trade imbalance) for the long haul.
That Mirhan article was a bit academic. I read it for two reasons: firstly, he and Roubini wrote a fascinating article last year on the way Yellen had been shifting demand to t-bills as a backdoor way to QE by suppressing the longer end of the curve; secondly, as Chariman of the CEA, I assume he has some influence on policy.
I agree about the Crown Royale: I just can't get past the bottle!
Found some articles on Roubini's concerns about Yellen's manipulation of interest rates. In fact, I agree with Roubini.
Regarding Crown Royale, I am not sure who actually drinks it! My Dad, a fourth generation Scots-Canadian, did not drink it. He drank Scotch . . . and sometimes Bourbon.
Thank you for the detailed analysis. I look forward to reading Roubini's analysis in more depth.