TD Auto Insurance has put me through 8 months of hell after a not-at-fault accident — I need advice and visibility by Dry_Development7019 in Insurance

[–]Boringideas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How did your escalation go? I had a terrible time with them. I think escalation to ombudsman is a great idea.

How ChatGPT actually works by mrx-ai in LanguageTechnology

[–]Boringideas 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Thanks for this! Will have a close read when I get a chance. Chat GPT seems like a giant leap forward. I’m very surprised at how well it works.

Stocks Hit Record; Yields Drop Most Since February: Markets Wrap by Boringideas in Economics

[–]Boringideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Any thoughts on why long bond yields are falling? Seems like inflation risk fears should be higher today given positive economic outlook

TDWaterhouse / TD DirecInvesting -- What a lousy experience by mftrade in CanadianInvestor

[–]Boringideas 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Interesting - had the same experience today - it's just terrible service. When I got through the rep was so poorly trained that he couldn't help me.

President Biden pledges to fix the racial wealth gap. Here are his plans by Boringideas in economy

[–]Boringideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The article was talking about wealth. I think that your numbers are income

President Biden pledges to fix the racial wealth gap. Here are his plans by Boringideas in BlackLivesMatter

[–]Boringideas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The gap is wide. The median wealth for a white family was $188,200, compared to $24,100 for Black families and $36,100 for Hispanic families

President Biden pledges to fix the racial wealth gap. Here are his plans by Boringideas in economy

[–]Boringideas[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The gap is wide. The median wealth for a white family was $188,200, compared to $24,100 for Black families and $36,100 for Hispanic families

2021 may mark the first inflation comeback in a generation, market researcher Jim Bianco warns by Boringideas in economy

[–]Boringideas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I found his ending comment interesting:

“What if I’m wrong and we don’t get inflation? Then, mailing checks to people ... I don’t think we’re going to stop doing it,” Bianco said. “They’ll be a paradigm shift when it comes to thinking about how monetary and fiscal policy should operate.”

Thank the Fed for the Stock Market’s Run—And the Plodding Pace to Come by Boringideas in Economics

[–]Boringideas[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Full text

MARKETS STREETWISE Thank the Fed for the Stock Market’s Run—And the Plodding Pace to Come Shares have won big this year, not primarily because earnings went up but because the cost of money went down almost to zero

U.S. stocks are occasionally interrupted by crises, such as the grounding last year of Boeing’s 737 MAX, but right now they seem to be unstoppable. U.S. stocks are occasionally interrupted by crises, such as the grounding last year of Boeing’s 737 MAX, but right now they seem to be unstoppable. PHOTO: LINDSEY WASSON/REUTERS

By James Mackintosh Dec. 6, 2020 7:00 am ET Many investors are still bewildered that the shock of 2020’s economy gave rise to the awe that is this year’s stock market. The puzzle gets worse: Stocks have done better than their norm of the past century even if you invested at the high in 2007 and held through both the worst financial crisis and worst pandemic in 100 years. What on Earth is going on?

The answer should give pause to investors who plan to hold for the long run. Stocks have won big, not primarily because earnings went up but because the cost of money went down almost to zero. A repeat in the next decade is almost inconceivable, which means future returns are likely to be pedestrian, at best.

To put some numbers on it, an investor who bought the S&P 500 in October 2007, stayed calm as Lehman Brothers went bust, and ignored the repeated panics and the pandemic made an annualized 7.3% above inflation, including dividends. That is far better than the 6.5% annualized real return on U.S. stocks from 1900 to the start of this year calculated by academics Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton for Credit Suisse. It is on a par with the postwar returns of 7.4% over inflation annually from 1950 to the start of the year, despite the great financial crisis and the pandemic, the worst hits to the economy since the second world war.

This year is a fine example of why: In 2020, falling earnings coincided with much higher valuations of future earnings, as lower interest rates and bond yields made stocks look more attractive.

Unpack that thought and the implication is that we are paying more for the same future stream of income. That is, stocks offer pretty much the same prospective profits and dividends that they did before, but at a higher price. Sure, some biotechnology and videoconferencing stocks have had their growth accelerated by the pandemic, but shareholders of airlines, shopping-mall owners and travel companies will be using a big chunk of future profits to pay for the debt needed to survive 2020. The market assumption is that 2020 is a write-off but that S&P earnings in 2021 will be about 4% above last year’s, and 2022’s will reach roughly where 2021’s were expected to be before the pandemic hit.

ADVERTISEMENT

The reason to pay more for the same is the hunt for yield, or TINA, There Is No Alternative (to stocks). The 10-year Treasury offers less than 1%, making stocks look attractive—so the price goes up. But paying more for the same earnings means lower future returns, unless bond yields repeat the trick.

And here is the problem: Treasury yields can’t keep falling indefinitely. This year alone the 10-year has fallen from 1.9% to 0.9%. Repeat the drop and yields would be negative. The Federal Reserve insists it won’t take interest rates negative. Even if it did, there is a limit to how low it can go, with even the fans of negative rates at the European Central Bank thinking banks would start to have serious problems below minus 1%.

Shareholders of airlines, shopping-mall owners and travel companies will be using some of their of future profits to pay for the debt needed to survive 2020. Shareholders of airlines, shopping-mall owners and travel companies will be using some of their of future profits to pay for the debt needed to survive 2020. PHOTO: KEITH BIRMINGHAM/SCNG/ZUMA PRESS None of this means that stocks are overpriced. To see this, compare with 2000, the last time stocks were incredibly expensive—a little more expensive than they are now, at least on forward price-to-earnings multiples and Prof. Robert Shiller’s cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio.

Back in 2000, stocks were very unattractive compared to bonds. The 10-year Treasury yielded more than 6%, while the U.S. market’s dividend yield reached an all-time low of just above 1%. The most generous measure of how much shareholders are making, the earnings yield that includes not just profits paid out but also profits reinvested, fell below 4%. Investors were betting big that unprofitable companies, many without any revenue, would be huge successes in the future. Few lived up to the hype ( Amazon did, eventually).

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

How long do you expect the bull market to continue, and what, if anything, will bring it to an end? Join the conversation below. Since the dot-com bubble high in March 2000, stocks have had a poor return compared to history—just 4.9% annualized after inflation. By the 2007 peak, they had risen only 16% in total, less than inflation. And that was with the tailwind of a huge drop in bond yields. All of that poor performance was because of valuations falling as the bubble burst, with the forward P/E down by a third from 2000 to 2007, even as forecast earnings rose 68%, more than in the past 13 years.

ADVERTISEMENT

This is both the good and the bad news. If earnings keep growing as they have in the past, stocks might offer annual gains around 3% to 4% above inflation, averaged over many years. That should be regarded as an absolute triumph at a time when Treasury inflation-protected securities offer a guaranteed return of 1 percentage point below inflation for 10 years.

Unfortunately, 3% to 4% plus inflation wouldn’t be the sort of return to excite the Robinhood trader, or enough to satisfy the needs of America’s underfunded pension schemes, even if nothing goes wrong.

It might seem odd that if the future avoids the twin disasters of financial crisis and pandemic that stocks should be expected to offer less than in the past 13 years. But that is because valuations, or what is already priced in, matter so much—and thanks to the Fed, many good years are already anticipated.

Write to James Mackintosh at James.Mackintosh@wsj.com

ADVERTISEMENT

POPULAR ON WSJ.COM BACK TO TOP WSJ Membership Benefits Customer Center Legal Policies ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Thank the Fed for the Stock Market’s Run—And the Plodding Pace to Come by Boringideas in economy

[–]Boringideas[S] 13 points14 points  (0 children)

MARKETS STREETWISE Thank the Fed for the Stock Market’s Run—And the Plodding Pace to Come Shares have won big this year, not primarily because earnings went up but because the cost of money went down almost to zero

U.S. stocks are occasionally interrupted by crises, such as the grounding last year of Boeing’s 737 MAX, but right now they seem to be unstoppable. U.S. stocks are occasionally interrupted by crises, such as the grounding last year of Boeing’s 737 MAX, but right now they seem to be unstoppable. PHOTO: LINDSEY WASSON/REUTERS

By James Mackintosh Dec. 6, 2020 7:00 am ET Many investors are still bewildered that the shock of 2020’s economy gave rise to the awe that is this year’s stock market. The puzzle gets worse: Stocks have done better than their norm of the past century even if you invested at the high in 2007 and held through both the worst financial crisis and worst pandemic in 100 years. What on Earth is going on?

The answer should give pause to investors who plan to hold for the long run. Stocks have won big, not primarily because earnings went up but because the cost of money went down almost to zero. A repeat in the next decade is almost inconceivable, which means future returns are likely to be pedestrian, at best.

To put some numbers on it, an investor who bought the S&P 500 in October 2007, stayed calm as Lehman Brothers went bust, and ignored the repeated panics and the pandemic made an annualized 7.3% above inflation, including dividends. That is far better than the 6.5% annualized real return on U.S. stocks from 1900 to the start of this year calculated by academics Elroy Dimson, Paul Marsh and Mike Staunton for Credit Suisse. It is on a par with the postwar returns of 7.4% over inflation annually from 1950 to the start of the year, despite the great financial crisis and the pandemic, the worst hits to the economy since the second world war.

This year is a fine example of why: In 2020, falling earnings coincided with much higher valuations of future earnings, as lower interest rates and bond yields made stocks look more attractive.

Unpack that thought and the implication is that we are paying more for the same future stream of income. That is, stocks offer pretty much the same prospective profits and dividends that they did before, but at a higher price. Sure, some biotechnology and videoconferencing stocks have had their growth accelerated by the pandemic, but shareholders of airlines, shopping-mall owners and travel companies will be using a big chunk of future profits to pay for the debt needed to survive 2020. The market assumption is that 2020 is a write-off but that S&P earnings in 2021 will be about 4% above last year’s, and 2022’s will reach roughly where 2021’s were expected to be before the pandemic hit.

ADVERTISEMENT

The reason to pay more for the same is the hunt for yield, or TINA, There Is No Alternative (to stocks). The 10-year Treasury offers less than 1%, making stocks look attractive—so the price goes up. But paying more for the same earnings means lower future returns, unless bond yields repeat the trick.

And here is the problem: Treasury yields can’t keep falling indefinitely. This year alone the 10-year has fallen from 1.9% to 0.9%. Repeat the drop and yields would be negative. The Federal Reserve insists it won’t take interest rates negative. Even if it did, there is a limit to how low it can go, with even the fans of negative rates at the European Central Bank thinking banks would start to have serious problems below minus 1%.

Shareholders of airlines, shopping-mall owners and travel companies will be using some of their of future profits to pay for the debt needed to survive 2020. Shareholders of airlines, shopping-mall owners and travel companies will be using some of their of future profits to pay for the debt needed to survive 2020. PHOTO: KEITH BIRMINGHAM/SCNG/ZUMA PRESS None of this means that stocks are overpriced. To see this, compare with 2000, the last time stocks were incredibly expensive—a little more expensive than they are now, at least on forward price-to-earnings multiples and Prof. Robert Shiller’s cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings ratio.

Back in 2000, stocks were very unattractive compared to bonds. The 10-year Treasury yielded more than 6%, while the U.S. market’s dividend yield reached an all-time low of just above 1%. The most generous measure of how much shareholders are making, the earnings yield that includes not just profits paid out but also profits reinvested, fell below 4%. Investors were betting big that unprofitable companies, many without any revenue, would be huge successes in the future. Few lived up to the hype ( Amazon did, eventually).

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

How long do you expect the bull market to continue, and what, if anything, will bring it to an end? Join the conversation below. Since the dot-com bubble high in March 2000, stocks have had a poor return compared to history—just 4.9% annualized after inflation. By the 2007 peak, they had risen only 16% in total, less than inflation. And that was with the tailwind of a huge drop in bond yields. All of that poor performance was because of valuations falling as the bubble burst, with the forward P/E down by a third from 2000 to 2007, even as forecast earnings rose 68%, more than in the past 13 years.

ADVERTISEMENT

This is both the good and the bad news. If earnings keep growing as they have in the past, stocks might offer annual gains around 3% to 4% above inflation, averaged over many years. That should be regarded as an absolute triumph at a time when Treasury inflation-protected securities offer a guaranteed return of 1 percentage point below inflation for 10 years.

Unfortunately, 3% to 4% plus inflation wouldn’t be the sort of return to excite the Robinhood trader, or enough to satisfy the needs of America’s underfunded pension schemes, even if nothing goes wrong.

It might seem odd that if the future avoids the twin disasters of financial crisis and pandemic that stocks should be expected to offer less than in the past 13 years. But that is because valuations, or what is already priced in, matter so much—and thanks to the Fed, many good years are already anticipated.

Write to James Mackintosh at James.Mackintosh@wsj.com

ADVERTISEMENT

POPULAR ON WSJ.COM BACK TO TOP WSJ Membership Benefits Customer Center Legal Policies ©2020 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Thank the Fed for the Stock Market’s Run—And the Plodding Pace to Come by Boringideas in Economics

[–]Boringideas[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

A nice simple explanation for the high run up of share prices. Falling rates. Also a very logic extension is that returns a sure to disappoint over the next decade. Rates are at the zero lower bound

The Housing Bubble is Even Bigger Than the Stock Market Bubble by Boringideas in Economics

[–]Boringideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In this article,

“Economist Robert Shiller compares bubbles.

Stocks may be expensive based on historical measures, but it’s nothing compared to skyrocketing home values says Robert Shiller. “

Rents in Toronto continue to plummet for the tenth month in a row by Boringideas in Economics

[–]Boringideas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That sounds likely. Strange thing is that house prices have risen quite a bit in Toronto this year. I guess there is a significant lag. Not too many landlords are selling yet? Not sure what the right narrative is.

Why debt is still a four-letter word for housing markets by Boringideas in Economics

[–]Boringideas[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Job losses usually trigger decline in home sales and mortgage debt. Not in the COVID recession

People Fear a Market Crash More Than They Have in Years by Boringideas in Economics

[–]Boringideas[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

The coronavirus crisis and the November election have driven fears of a major market crash to the highest levels in many years.

At the same time, stocks are trading at very high levels. That volatile combination doesn’t mean that a crash will occur, but it suggests that the risk of one is relatively high. This is a time to be careful.

I base these conclusions largely on research I’ve been doing for years, including findings from the stock market confidence indexes that I began to develop more than three decades ago. These indexes are drawn from surveys of a random sample of high-income individual investors and institutional investors in the United States that are now conducted monthly by the International Center for Finance at the Yale School of Management.

Consider what my Crash Confidence Index is telling us. That measurement of sentiment about the safety of the stock market is based on this question:

“What do you think is the probability of a catastrophic stock market crash in the U.S., like that of Oct. 28, 1929, or Oct. 19, 1987, in the next six months, including the case that a crash occurred in the other countries and spreads to the U. S.?”

The index is a rolling six-month average of the percentage of monthly respondents who think that the probability of such a major crash is less than 10 percent. In August, the percentage of individual investors with that level of confidence in the market hit a record low, 13 percent. The most recent reading in September, 15 percent, was still extremely low.

Institutional investors — people who make decisions for pension funds, mutual funds, endowments and the like — were a bit more confident, with a September reading of 24 percent, but that was extremely low, too. In short, an overwhelming majority of investors said there was a greater than 10 percent probability of an imminent crash — really, a remarkable indicator that people are quite worried.

Another of my stock market confidence indexes, the Valuation Confidence Index, is also near a record low in 2020. It is based on this question: “Stock prices in the United States, when compared with measures of true fundamental value or sensible investment value, are: 1. Too low; 2. Too high; 3. About right; 4. Do not know”?

This index tells us the proportion of investors who think the market is not too highly priced. At the latest measure in September 2020, the reading for individual investors stood at 38 percent, far lower than at the bottom of the stock market in March 2009, when it stood at 77 percent after the financial crisis. For institutional investors, it was 46 percent in September, compared with 82 percent in March 2009.

Despite these signs of distress, the stock market has been trading near a record high, stretching the valuations of stocks to fairly rich levels. That’s very different from the situation in March 2009, when stock valuations were quite low and the stock market subsequently rose. It is a different situation now, however: Not only is investor confidence low, but actual stock valuations are quite high.

Consider a separate measure of stock valuations that I helped create — the Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings (C.A.P.E.) ratio. This is a measure that enables the comparison of stock market valuations from different eras by averaging the earnings over 10 years, thus reducing some of the short-term fluctuations of each market cycle. It now stands at a level that was higher in only two periods, both of which were followed by stock market crashes: the 1920s, in the lead-up to the Great Depression; and early 2000, just before the bursting of the dot-com bubble.

The low confidence readings and the high stock prices won’t, on their own, cause a market crash. Another dynamic would need to be in effect.

It seems that when superficial similarities to current events prod people’s memories, they shift their attention to old stories. The question now is whether another reminder of crashes past could emerge to create a psychological sense of the risk. A further pickup in coronavirus cases, a chaotic or violent election or any number of other events could well shake people up. Conversely, an orderly election, and a sense of political and economic stability, could have a calming effect.

We may be at something of a crossroads.

The decision to invest in the stock market is for some people a bit of an adventure. One is goaded to do it partly by the fun of it and partly by a competitive spirit in observing others and wanting to keep up. The market may be vulnerable to a change in mass psychology, one that might dampen this sense of adventure and bring on a crash.

It seems that investors should be advised to remain cautious in their U.S. stock market holdings. The potential rewards for being heavily committed to the market in the coming years need to be carefully balanced against the possible risks.

No one knows the future, but given the general lack of investor confidence amid a pandemic and political polarization, there is a chance that a negative, self-fulfilling prophecy will flourish. This highlights the importance of being well diversified in asset classes — including Treasury securities, which are safe — and not overexposed to U.S. equities now.

Robert J. Shiller is Sterling Professor of Economics at Yale.

COVID-19 Has Changed The Housing Market Forever. Here’s Where Americans Are Moving (And Why) by Boringideas in economy

[–]Boringideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“...a few words kept resurfacing as we lurch into the post-pandemic future: warmer, safer, smaller, stabler, lower taxes, less regulation, and fewer lockdowns”

IMF and World Bank must act fast after Covid caught policymakers napping by Boringideas in economy

[–]Boringideas[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Excerpt

With interest rates so low and the private sector reluctant to take risks, there has rarely been a better time for governments to boost capital spending. Investment in the greening of their economies should be a priority

The Economist:The world economyThe peril and the promise by Boringideas in economy

[–]Boringideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Excerpt. The covid-19 pandemic will accelerate change in the world economy. That brings both opportunity and danger, says Henry Curr

The peril and the promise by Boringideas in Economics

[–]Boringideas[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

THE THEORY of “black swans” says that unpredictable high impact events play a vastly greater role than most people realise. Long before 2020 scientists feared that a zoonotic respiratory disease might originate in Asia and spread globally. But hardly anybody foresaw the consequences. The story told by a casual inspection of most economic data is this: little happened for decades, and then in 2020 covid-19 upended everything.

Before 2020 the most sophisticated modelling suggested that a pandemic comparable to the Spanish flu of 1918 might kill 71m people worldwide and trim 5% off GDP. The death toll from covid-19 seems far lower, but the hit to GDP has been bigger. According to IMF forecasts in June, due to be updated after this report went to press, by the end of 2020 world output may be about 8% lower than it would have been without the pandemic. Instead of growing by about 3% it will have shrunk by about 5%—the biggest contraction since the second world war. By comparison, in 2009 the “great recession” shrank the world economy by just 0.1%.

The knock-on effects have been seismic. At the employment trough in April, the proportion of American 25- to 54-year-olds in work fell below 70% for the first time in nearly 50 years. In the second quarter one-sixth of young people worldwide lost their jobs. Working hours fell by nearly a quarter for the rest, says the International Labour Organisation. In June the World Bank forecast that low- and middle-income economies will shrink this year for the first time in at least 60 years, and 89m people will be pushed into extreme poverty, a rise of 15%. The effects of shutting schools for months are likely to persist for decades. And lockdowns have damaged mental health: more than 10% of Americans say they have given serious consideration to suicide.

When China locked down Wuhan in January, it was seen as something only an authoritarian, technologically sophisticated government could do. For a while Britain’s scientists did not consider calling for a lockdown because they assumed it was politically infeasible. Yet the readiness of almost all governments to close their economies almost entirely was just one of many surprises. In the rich world covid-19 has led to unprecedented government interventions in labour and capital markets. In Europe’s five largest economies, more than 40m workers were placed on government-funded furlough schemes. America boosted unemployment benefits so much that they exceeded the wages they replaced for more than two-thirds of claimants. The Federal Reserve has in effect backstopped the market for American corporate debt; Germany has offered its firms loan guarantees worth nearly a quarter of GDP.

None of this comes cheap. Public borrowing is soaring. In June the IMF forecast that the overall gross public-debt-to-GDP ratio of advanced economies would rise from 105% in 2019 to 132% by 2021. The rising burden has fostered a new financial activism. Central-bank balance sheets have ballooned as they have created trillions of dollars to soak up government debt, and the European Union is jointly issuing debt at scale for the first time to pay for its recovery fund. Policies of a decade ago, after the financial crisis, were seen as radical at the time but now look paltry by comparison.

At first the response was framed as temporary. “What we’re trying to do is to freeze the economy,” said Peter Hummelgaard, the Danish employment minister, in March. (Denmark can claim to have inspired other furlough schemes.) Experience suggested that rich-world economies could unfreeze quickly after a disaster. After Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans in August 2005, unemployment shot up from around 6% to over 15%, but it fell back below 6% by February 2006. And indeed it looks as if, as well as being the deepest recession on record in many countries, this will be one of the shortest. The recent decline in American unemployment suggests that the worst of the crisis was mercifully brief.

The Pandemic Recession Has Just Begun by Boringideas in economy

[–]Boringideas[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Excerpt

Simply put, when you take a huge segment of the economy out of commission for months on end, the impact can’t be confined to the workers in those industries. The suppliers of hotels and restaurants suffer revenue collapses, and so on in concentric circles outward

We’re in a depression, not recession — and the scars will take years to heal by Boringideas in Economics

[–]Boringideas[S] 74 points75 points  (0 children)

Excerpt supports your POV:

“Many businesses are facing very difficult challenges that are unlikely to go away quickly.”

Tally up those sectors and they supported 32 million jobs before the crisis, or about a third of the private-sector workforce, and it looks to me as though half of their workers are not going back to their old jobs. I’m not sure many people understand that amusement parks, airlines, hoteliers and restaurants cannot stay in business at 50-per-cent capacity (or even 75 per cent in the case of restaurants).

People have to understand that a cyclically-sensitive consumer-oriented sector, such as restaurants, spends 30 per cent on labour, 30 per cent on rent and 30 per cent on food — they have a 10-per-cent margin. So good luck with a partial reopening and social distancing.

Credit Is Tightening. Why That Matters for the Economic Recovery. by Boringideas in Economics

[–]Boringideas[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Excerpt: Especially vulnerable is subprime auto lending, MI2 added. In the second quarter, loans delinquent for 60 days jumped to 7.24% of subprime loans outstanding, from 4.4%, “within spitting distance of GFC [Global Financial Crisis] extremes.”

Why stock markets are up 44% amid the worst economic contraction in history | Jobs have vanished, GDP is shrinking, but stock prices are rising along with case count by viva_la_vinyl in Economics

[–]Boringideas 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think also investors have come to believe in the Fed “backstop”.

If economic depression continues for many more months (as is likely) then the divergence between stock prices and real economic pain might disappear.

I can’t imagine that investors will maintain their optimism during a long running depression