BlackRock Says Get Ready For a Recession Unlike Any Other (msn.com) 237
A worldwide recession is just around the corner as central banks boost borrowing costs aggressively to tame inflation -- and this time, it will ignite more market turbulence than ever before, according to BlackRock, the investment giant that manages about $10 trillion. From the report: The global economy has already exited a four-decade era of stable growth and inflation to enter a period of heightened instability -- and the new regime of increased unpredictability is here to stay, according to the world's biggest asset manager. That means policymakers will no longer be able to support markets as much as they did during past recessions, a team of BlackRock strategists led by vice chairman Philipp Hildebrand wrote in a report titled 2023 Global Outlook.
"Recession is foretold as central banks race to try to tame inflation. It's the opposite of past recessions," they said. "Central bankers won't ride to the rescue when growth slows in this new regime, contrary to what investors have come to expect. Equity valuations don't yet reflect the damage ahead." The prospect of limited policy support means investors need more dynamic methods -- involving more frequent portfolio changes and taking a more "granular view on sectors, regions and sub-asset classes" -- to navigate the volatility ahead, according to BlackRock. "What worked in the past won't work now," the strategists said. "The old playbook of simply "buying the dip" doesn't apply in this regime of sharper trade-offs and greater macro volatility. We don't see a return to conditions that will sustain a joint bull market in stocks and bonds of the kind we experienced in the prior decade."
"Recession is foretold as central banks race to try to tame inflation. It's the opposite of past recessions," they said. "Central bankers won't ride to the rescue when growth slows in this new regime, contrary to what investors have come to expect. Equity valuations don't yet reflect the damage ahead." The prospect of limited policy support means investors need more dynamic methods -- involving more frequent portfolio changes and taking a more "granular view on sectors, regions and sub-asset classes" -- to navigate the volatility ahead, according to BlackRock. "What worked in the past won't work now," the strategists said. "The old playbook of simply "buying the dip" doesn't apply in this regime of sharper trade-offs and greater macro volatility. We don't see a return to conditions that will sustain a joint bull market in stocks and bonds of the kind we experienced in the prior decade."
fastest way to have a recession (Score:5, Interesting)
Is to talk about having a recession.
Re:fastest way to have a recession (Score:4, Informative)
Is to talk about having a recession.
The first rule of Fright Club is, "You always talk about Fright Club."
(I think this is the first, and only, two things listed on the official GOP agenda.)
They want one (Score:2)
The House Always Wins.
Re: fastest way to have a recession (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain how all of their money is borrowed. For the 20 years I have worked for companies with zero debt so they only spend what they have in the bank.
Re: (Score:2)
No borrowed money? That's pretty weird. So every company you worked for in the last 20 years was created by a founder who funded it from his own bank account? No investors at all? Just rich uncles who gave the founders the money as a gift?
Yes, even profitable companies are using the profits to pay off debts and, in many cases, borrowing more money.
Re: (Score:2)
yes, most publicly traded companies rely on stocks and bonds for funding, in both cases it is other people's money and they receive value for letting the company use it...
imo borrowed is an adequate term to describe the process
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I love it when conservative try to be funny! It's always funny, just usually not how it was intended to be.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
thank you for demonstrating skam240's point
Re: fastest way to have a recession (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:fastest way to have a recession (Score:4, Insightful)
That is largely true. If consumers are spooked, they cut back on big and long-term purchases, making it a self fulfilling prophecy. Economics is largely driven by human impressions.
You can't borrow your way out of debt. Cutting back on useless shit will cause a recession? Great - that means the future will be based on solid consumer demand, not "I'm going to put yet another pizza/chicken/tank of gas on the old credit card, then refinance it with a HELOC."
Re: (Score:2)
> Cutting back on useless shit will cause a recession?
Yes! If the economy is "used to" trading in "useless shit". The strength of the economy is usually measured by the monetary value in trade of goods and services, and not the quality of those goods or services. From an economic standpoint, $100 worth of fidget spinners is just as important as $100 of wheat grain. Economists generally don't put value judgements on transactions, for that's not really their job. Plus, much if it is subjective.
Re: (Score:3)
Then economists need to change their way of thinking. You can't have a solid economy based on shit. Buying something for $1,000 today that will be worthless next week is not the basis for a solid economy. Buying something for $1,000 today that will be worth $1,000 10 years from now is - the total value of assets in the economy doesn't go down. That asset can be bought and sold. The $1,000 shit asset that is worthless next week can't be bought and sold for any reasonable amount. It's not really an asset.
Bu
Re:fastest way to have a recession (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not spooked, I'm broke. I'm not cutting back on long-term purchases, I'm forced to wait until the price is sane.
Money I would have spent on other purchases has been eaten by the invisible tax. The increased costs of fuel, energy, and food easily soaked that up, and more. No extra savings here, I'm bleeding out. I'm still spending the same amount of money, but the money ain't worth shit.
So yeah, I guess I'm feeling the "impression".
Re: (Score:2)
Money I would have spent on other purchases has been eaten by the invisible tax. The increased costs of fuel, energy, and food easily soaked that up, and more. No extra savings here, I'm bleeding out. I'm still spending the same amount of money, but the money ain't worth shit.
And by "invisible tax" you mean inflation? It's been around for a while. It's currently a 7.745% for October (according to American inflation rate [rateinflation.com]), nowhere near the highest it's been. From Inflation rates in the United States of America [worlddata.info]:
The inflation rate for consumer prices in the United States of America moved over the past 61 years between -0.4% and 13.5% [in 1980]. For 2021, an inflation rate of 4.7% was calculated. During the observation period from 1960 to 2021, the average inflation rate was 3.8% per year. Overall, the price increase was 829.57%.
People are now just use to extremely low inflation rates managed, sometimes artificially, by the Fed. At the moment, inflation is mostly being driven by global events -- like Russia's war on Ukraine and recovering from the pandemic.
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation is a political policy, period. It's one that benefits governments, so we'll never have zero inflation.
The 13.5% inflation in the 80s devastated many families and small businesses. When the interest rate rose to double digits that further destroyed many small businesses. It did bring inflation under control at that time. However today it will not work because the cause of the inflation is supply-side, not demand. Cheap money (cheap debt) is not fueling a glut of demand. Demand for staples is p
Re: (Score:2)
Dang, I better find out where all that money went. Could have sworn it was withdrawn from my bank account right about the time I was spending it. But of course you should have a much better understanding of my own finances, what would I know?
Also, could someone point this out to all the fast food places around here? I guess their prices are only supposed to be 7.745% higher according to Mr money expert here. Obviously not the +40% they have listed on the menu.
Re: (Score:2)
And listen to you instead I assume?
For #2, nothing short of government intervention is going to move that one. There's no incentive to increase supply to meet demand anymore. Most supply-chain issues are excuses for high prices now. Corporate profits are at an all-time high---why should they increase supply and give up some of that?. Any and all excuses to raise prices are being exercised. The market is bearing it for now, but people are not at all happy about it.
Raising interest rates is just going t
Re: (Score:2)
Inflation driver number 1 cost of energy. So where is keystone XL, ...
First, several sources note that KLX wasn't even slated to be completed until late 2022 and start operation in early 2023. Even then, not sure that would have helped as much as you think. From: What is the Keystone XL Pipeline? [nrdc.org]
Dirty energy lobbyists claimed developing tar sands would protect our national energy security and bring U.S. fuel prices down. But environmental reviews by both the Obama and Trump administrations concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline would not have lowered gasoline prices. NRDC and its partners also found the majority of Keystone XL oil would have been sent to markets overseas—aided by a 2015 reversal of a ban on crude oil exports.
Going forward, you should probably take your own advice:
Please turn on your brain and stop believing what you are fed.
Re: (Score:3)
well 50k jobs lost.
Well... There were about 1,500 (mostly) construction workers at the time and the plan was for more per year. Those jobs were temporary and would be gone by now as the pipeline was slated to be finished in 2022. How many jobs after completion is up for debate, but it's about 50 (some in Canada). From [nrdc.org]
The industry also falsely claimed that the pipeline would be a big source of jobs.
When TC Energy said the pipeline would create nearly 119,000 jobs, a State Department report instead concluded the project would require fewer than 2,000 two-year construction jobs and that the number of full-time, permanent jobs would hover around 35 [nrdc.org] after construction.
Politifact notes [politifact.com] the same as well as other misleading things about the KLX cancellation.
Also, from VERIFY: Yes, jobs lost from President Biden canceling Keystone XL Pipeline, but not as many as you think [firstcoastnews.com]:
TC Energy Corp., the Canadian company that owns the pipeline, told PolitiFact that it estimates 1,000 people will be out of work as a direct result of Biden's order.
The company estimated about 10,400 U.S. jobs and 2,800 Canadian jobs would be created throughout the pipeline's construction, according to the company's project overview of the project. Meaning, only 1,000 of those projected jobs have been filled so far, according to TC Energy Corp.
The company also told AFP Fact Check that these jobs are temporary, only lasting a few months. Only 50 of the jobs would be permanent with some based in Canada, according to a State Department report.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps. The World Data link I gave has separate charts for "Consumer Goods" and "Energy and Food" and doesn't detail the historical inflation rate data except to note at the bottom: "Data vasis: International Monetary Fund, World Bank and OECD Inflation CPI indicator (doi:10.1787/eee82e6e-en)".
This describes Why Is the Consumer Price Index Controversial? [investopedia.com] noting "the switch from a cost of goods index (COGI) to a cost of living index (COLI)" and that "there are three different definitions of the CPI; sin
Re: (Score:2)
I'm honestly 100% confused. Which part do you think is horse shit?
Do you think I'm not trying to find the best value for my money? /whoosh?
Do you think I'm saving money in secret?
Do you think that I'm not feeling the "impression"?
Did I go
Re: (Score:2)
Shrinkflation is pretty rampant here in Canada. Granola bars are about half an inch shorter than they used to be. Boxes of crackers are smaller. Granted I don't shop at Costco where everything is in big boxes but you'd probably not notice a 5% decrease in net weight on a large box. Shrinkflation is hard to notice unless you're in a habit of noticing the weights and volumes on packages and track them over time. There are web sites that track it across the US.
For me in Canada, my monthly food bill has go
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a site that sort of tracks this sort of thing across the US:
https://www.mouseprint.org/cat... [mouseprint.org]
Their entry on cereal box sizes is pretty interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you situation is but I can tell prices have not gone up a 'LITTLE' from the perspective of a lot of families.
I have two dependents and I keep pretty good trace of where all our household income goes. The average spend on groceries for 2022 is about $60 higher than it was in 2019. I am fortunate enough that an extra $700-$1000 a year on groceries does not have change my behavior but that sizeable to sum for many families.
Now consider they are seeing similar spikes in other non-discretionary
Re: (Score:2)
Where do you live where things have gotten so incredibly expensive?
Northern great plains, USA.
Gas did jump up, but it came down here awhile back....and granted, since I work from home and have for over a decade, I don't drive and fill my tank much, so good reason I don't see it there.
Yes the price of gas did finally come down. Praise Science! That doesn't change the fact that it cost me a huge pile of money while it was up.
I never look at the prices at the pump when I fill up, I just fill up.
I first noticed it going up when my credit card only allowed $75 at the pump. That wasn't enough to fill my tank(s) so I had to end the first transaction, then swipe my card a second time to fill the rest of the way. Thankfully I didn't have that nuisance when driving my Prius.
But food is the one everyone goes on about and I do buy food....mostly split between regular local grocery store chain and Costco. I'm sure prices have gone up some, but not in a perceptible manner that I can see. I certainly haven't had to cut back on how much or what I buy....
I envy you. Absolutely everything at the grocery store is sig
Re:fastest way to have a recession (Score:5, Interesting)
If the stimulus was causing inflation, it would have been seen a long time ago. And in fact many many people predicted massive inflation from QE1 and QE2, but it never happened. Now we are experiencing a period of rapid inflation but it's not from too much money supply. This time it's from the supply side. For a wide variety of reasons, many of which are the direct consequence of government covid response, the entire supply side of the equation broke down. Now more than two years later things are still not working right, and I don't believe they ever will again. The norms and rules that traditionally governed economic behavior broke. In ordinary times when demand skyrockets (often because of cheap cash), prices rise, spurring supply to rise and meed the demand. However covid showed companies that in many markets the barriers to entry are high enough that they can safely cut supply, regardless of demand, and make money hand over fist, nearly indefinitely. There's zero incentive to raise supply to meet the demand in the short term. In short, this is greed and profiteering. Even worse, making money more expensive is not going to solve the inflation, rather it will make it worse and cause a great deal of misery.
Tell me again that economics has nothing to do with human perceptions and behavior (which is often irrational)? Sorry, but economics is not a hard science. It's a branch of psychology which a bunch of equations fitted that used to work but now don't seem to.
Re:fastest way to have a recession (Score:5, Interesting)
No we are absolutely seeing QE and Stimulus causing inflation. Its just that what happened first was a massive asset bubble. QE money NEVER found its way into the pockets of people that were going to spend it - it had zero velocity it basically just enable banks to meet capital requirements. That freed the next level out the investor class to borrow money at near nothing rates and pump into stocks.. Which 'only went up' for years based on that.
Then COVID happens and the St. Anthony was listened to for some fucking reason, stimi monies got passed out, but nobody could do anything. Even the people who would have spend that money into the economy could not do so, so they bought stocks - which went WAY up..
Now the economy opens back up and suddenly that money is finally free to chase goods and wham-o inflation! Inflation that persists even now past the initial supply shocks; because there is still a lot of COVID-era savings out there. However that will run dry mid year, 2023 and THEN the pain starts...
Making money more expensive is the only way to solve inflation - because of whats happened. Its already hit 'inelastic goods' things like food, basic commuter cars, healthcare, rent - things people will borrow to pay for. At this point you have make borrowing so expense it puts those things out plain out of reach for even the people that NEED them, that is the only way suppliers will ever come down on price, when they can't sell stuff. Which sounds awful - but the alternative is social mobilty disappears completely and the wealth gap only grows forever.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's hard science, why can't we use it to actually accurately predict shit like we can with, say, orbital mechanics?
Re:fastest way to have a recession (Score:5, Informative)
No economist worth their salt will try to convince you that economics can accurately and reliably predict the future. One reason for this is that markets are not uniformly rational, because the behavior of people is not uniformly rational ... hence, economics is in large part a study of psychology.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice one.
So we're seeing a very long delayed effect of quantitative easing now, and the pandemic supply crunch and fallout had nothing to do with it? You seriously believe that?
Re: (Score:2)
>>Beliefs like that shared by the current administration is EXACTLY what got us into this predicament in the first place.
wtf are you trying to say there?
Quick question, if consumer confidence [conference-board.org] is NOT key to the economy, then why is it tracked?
It already started. (Score:2)
Re:It already started. (Score:5, Informative)
Inflation != recession.
One can have inflation with or without a recession.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So until that happens, inflation and recessions are myths brought into reality by people to control others.
Re:It already started. (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of that is not properly inflation, it's greedy money grabs with inflation as the cover story. Were this actual inflation, corporate profits wouldn't be up.
Re: (Score:2)
the price increase on everything, which is inflation, is as real as it gets
Actually, that's as nominal as it gets.
Har Har.
Re:It already started. (Score:4, Funny)
It is under Foxenomics.
We reduce inflation by causing recessions (Score:2)
The trouble is that after 4+ decades of mega mergers there's little or no competition, so businesses can just pocket the profits and give us working stiffs the middle finger. But they wouldn't do that, would they?
Re:It already started. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone with a bigass weenie-compensating SUV or pickup truck needs $12/gallon fuel. VROOOOOOOOM
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone with a bigass weenie-compensating SUV or pickup truck needs $12/gallon fuel. VROOOOOOOOM
Absolutely. Check out the vehicles idling outside your local food bank.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
You know what? I don't care what you think of me. I enjoy shitting on trolls like you. You deserve it.
But go look at the SUVs idling at the local food bank and say I'm wrong. Or listen to the stupid people on TV who are whining that they have to use a food bank while working on their social archeology PhD (a true story a few weeks ago). Even if they graduate, they will still be using food banks because they will have a degree that the only real job is "teaching social archeology."
And the guy complainin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a registered Democrat voter I keep up to date on all party statements. The Biden administration has assured us we're not in a recession and that they have everything under control.
-- www.fark.com/politicalfantasy
Meanwhile the Republicans are predicting national doom if we don't get this runaway inflation under control. Sounds like the: 'no matter what they say, I will say the polar opposite' algorithm is working perfectly. Take a closer look and you'll find that both the R and the D tribe are completely full of shit.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Both sides are bad! Look at me! I'm super smart!"
LOL! That's not the moderate/reasoned position you seem to think it is. You just look like an idiot who hasn't been paying attention.
A worldwide recession is just around the corner (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Sell all your stocks, bonds... no wait, keep your stocks but re-allocate them into recession proof commodity stocks.
2. Wait, sell all the stocks and buy real-estate and hard assets.
3. No, real estate is a bubble, sell your real-estate assets and buy gold and precious metals.
4. Don't buy gold, buy crypto.
5. Crypto is a scam you're better to be in cash.
6. No wait, keeping your money in cash will lose value to inflation it's best to buy stocks and bonds.
7. Goto step 1. Thanks slashdot, you've really helped my finances.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A worldwide recession is just around the corner (Score:5, Insightful)
When it comes to stocks, I remember a teacher telling us about his experience in the early 1980s. He sold off his stocks when the market started crashing. He admitted, in retrospect, that he would have been a lot richer if he had held.
It also reminds me of a study a financial company did to figure out their best investors - the best ones, it turned out, were either dead or had forgotten about about their investments.
Overall, as long as one is diversified and investing for the long term, holding tends to be the superior strategy. It's not that complicated - trades cost money. So the average person will get better returns by not trading. There will, of course, be above-average and below-average traders, but most likely you will get average returns for the class you invest in and the level of risk you take. So the strategy is to reduce costs.
Or in short, buy a low-cost index fund, keep putting the same amount of money in it each month, and forget about it. Or, if you want to go even more simply, a target date fund.
Also, as general life advice, make sure you have an emergency fund, and reduce your expenses.
Re:A worldwide recession is just around the corner (Score:5, Insightful)
Never bet for the end of the world. Even if you're right, there's nothing worth collecting or that you can do with your "winnings".
Re: (Score:2)
Max out your 401k, if applicable (Score:2)
Investments are pre-tax, so the money never gets to your account.
Can't miss what you never had to begin with. Then forget about it.
Re:A worldwide recession is just around the corner (Score:5, Insightful)
Mod parent up. Boring, but necessary.
Also (concerning the article) consider the source. Who is better positioned to make money off of market movement up or down? Average joe slashdot, or the folks managing 10 TRILLION in assets.
Re: (Score:2)
> It also reminds me of a study a financial company did to figure out their best investors - the best ones, it turned out, were either dead or had forgotten about about their investments.
Either that or make it into Congress where you hear about and pass laws before the general public gets the information.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how these "experts" don't give advice that actually works regardless of macroeconomic conditions.
Such as (in no particular order):
1. Ignore idiots on the internet
2. Avoid debt
3. Avoid highly speculative "investments"
4. Live within your means
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny how these "experts" don't give advice that actually works regardless of macroeconomic conditions.
Such as (in no particular order):
1. Ignore idiots on the internet 2. Avoid debt 3. Avoid highly speculative "investments" 4. Live within your means
The "Investment consultants": But-but-but that will destroy our jerbs! Especially #4.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you having a competition with yourself to write the dumbest possible post?
Re: (Score:2)
Are you having a competition with yourself to write the dumbest possible post?
Nah, why would I even think of challenging you? (Your quoted post being just one example).
Re: (Score:2)
That's good advice, but be aware it doesn't always work. (It still gives better odds than most other choices.)
OTOH, "avoid debt" isn't always possible. debt is always risky, but sometimes it's a necessary gamble. Just get rid of it as quickly as feasible and DON'T increase it.
Ditto for "live within your means". That's even more commonly good advice than "avoid debt", but there are situations where it's not the correct choice. But keep any exceptions to an extremely short time frame.
"Avoid speculative i
Re: (Score:2)
OTOH, "avoid debt" isn't always possible. debt is always risky, but sometimes it's a necessary gamble. Just get rid of it as quickly as feasible and DON'T increase it.
It's not even "necessasry", sometimes it's good. The advice should be, I think, "don't buy a used Porsche on a credit card".
On the other hand if you use a low-interest loan to finance let's say trainig, or expand your business, or to just free up your own cahs for a more profitable investment, it can be a very good thing.
Re:A worldwide recession is just around the corner (Score:4, Informative)
1. Sell all your stocks, bonds... no wait, keep your stocks but re-allocate them into recession proof commodity stocks. 2. Wait, sell all the stocks and buy real-estate and hard assets. 3. No, real estate is a bubble, sell your real-estate assets and buy gold and precious metals. 4. Don't buy gold, buy crypto. 5. Crypto is a scam you're better to be in cash. 6. No wait, keeping your money in cash will lose value to inflation it's best to buy stocks and bonds. 7. Goto step 1. Thanks slashdot, you've really helped my finances.
Re: (Score:2)
The actual problem is price gouging and market consolidation. But go ahead and blame people for dining out too much.
This isn't even the dumbest thing you've written in this thread... Ugh...
Price gouging has always been around. And market consolidation has been a "feature" since the gilded age.
People spending money they don't have, then doing a debt consolidation because they live beyond their means, is not sustainable. You can't borrow your way out of debt. The whole "it's only so much a month over x number of months" for consumer goods - and not just major purchases, but stuff like laptops and phones and big screen TVs, is nuts. I've got 5 x 50" TVs - and didn't borrow a penny for any o
Re: A worldwide recession is just around the corne (Score:2)
But the trendy future is own nothing and be happy - just make lots of payments
Convenient (Score:2)
Better get a professional to do that for you.
And there is nothing to be done (Score:2)
They "manage about $10 trillion" and tell us to duck and cover? Like they are apart from it?
Perhaps they could release some of that Strategic Cash Reserve somehow and help out a regular joe.
That might not get them to $15 trillion by Q2, so they are not going to do that.
Re: (Score:2)
Did they sleep thru 2007 thru 2010? And again thru the pandemic? Not to mention all the smaller recessions in the past 40 years.
Put yr $$ where yr mouth is, or STFU (Score:4, Insightful)
If you truly believe it, purchase tons of puts and shorts on stocks. Otherwise, I don't want to hear predictions. Nobody consistency forecasts correctly, otherwise they'd be golfing with Warren Buffett instead of writing opinion pieces in B-level magazines/sites.
If Buffett predicts something, I'm likely to listen because he has the bucks to prove he has an ability to forecast. This author doesn't. (Buffet only claims to be slightly better than average, not perfect at forecasting.)
Re: (Score:2)
Eh, the "if you're so smart why ain't you rich?" argument doesn't really work against Black Rock. They have $10,000,000,000,000 (that should be $10 Trillion) of assets under management. And you can bet this is the kind of "insight" that is shared only after they have made their own moves based on it.
Re:Put yr $$ where yr mouth is, or STFU (Score:5, Informative)
This is basically just BlackRock saying that the future is going to require active money managing. This isn't a surprising take from a company that sells active money managing. Of course they say that. They definitely have money where their mouth is, it just isn't their money.
I suppose we will see. I would be surprised if they do better than the S&P 500 over the next 10 years, but it is possible.
Re: (Score:2)
And it's true that the portfolios of the masses (like myself) are not going to increase during a down market just by holding index funds, that's tautological. But even if they are geniuses, at some point they're just too big to beat the market substantially because they are the market, like Warren Buffett.
https://www.fool.com/investing... [fool.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Buffett predicts something, I'm likely to listen because he has the bucks to prove he has an ability to forecast. This author doesn't.
Don't have the bucks? This "author" is "BlackRock, the investment giant that manages about $10 trillion." Agreed I'd be very interested to see how this forecast is (or isn't) reflected in their investment strategy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Buffett predicts something, I'm likely to listen because he has the bucks to prove he has an ability to forecast. This author doesn't.
Errr what? You'll listen to Buffett who runs Berkshire Hathaway but not Blackrock who are literally 10x larger in the same business? Who is your ultimate arbiter of truth? A homeless man?
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, it's not exactly the same business.
FWIW, I prefer to listen to Buffet (to the extent that I listen to any of them) because a lot of his advice makes sense, some of it is actionable, and he has a track record of usually giving good advice. I don't know that any of those things are true of BlackRock.
OTOH, it's also true that I generally don't follow ANY economic forecaster. Follow the oracle you prefer, and accept the risks that entails.
Obserever effect: Predicted = small (Score:5, Interesting)
Merely by announcing a prediction, you lessen it's strength. The more people believe you, the more people counter it. When you say Market crash, people go defensive, which reduces the size of the crash.
Imagine some 1929s genius gets a prediction of the coming great Crash/recession. He sells out his portfolio, which lowers the prices. So the DOW never gets over to 381. Instead it starts the fall at 370. Then, he predicts the bottom, so starts buying 1932, so it bottoms at 50 instead of 41. It is still a big drop, but he cuts a month off each side, turning a 2 year 11 month drop into a 2 year 9 month drop. Instead of a 340 pt drop, it is only a 320 pt drop.
It's also why stock picks from mass media are worthless. Everyone else has heard the same news and you lose whatever advantage you got from listening to people that know more than you because know everyone knows that same information.
Re: (Score:3)
When you say Market crash, people go defensive, which reduces the size of the crash.
Actually no. Typically people's defensive strategy is "get out while you can" which often makes markets crash far worse on the news than if no one talked about it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting out while you can is a defensive move which starts the crash earlier, but lessen's its effect. Like I said in the original post, if the crash starts at 370 rather than 381, that becomes a smaller crash.
Re: (Score:2)
You're merely weaving a story with no real evidence. I can create something equally compelling. A big player predicts the market will crash. Investors scared that many people will sell start a sell off that causes a market crash. Without this prediction, there would have been no crash.
This is just
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, maybe not. The thing that made the original Great Depression was not just the depth, it was the duration. People bought stocks that were down 50% after a year or two, and got crushed as they ultimately went down 90% or just went bankrupt 3 or 4 years later. The Dow didn't recover until the early 1950s. There was an anecdote of a guy walking in to a broker's office at that time looking to sell stocks that had recovered. Inflation throughout the era was relatively tame, even deflationary at times,
This is a lot like Harvey Weinstein (Score:3, Funny)
Never do as they say, do as they do... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If more people follow this rule, a lot of bad crap would be avoided.
Do not listen to Elon Musk. Watch what he does
Do not listen to Trump. Watch what he does.
Do not listen to BlackRock. Watch what they do. They are trying to sell a product.
Corporation that profits from instability... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sounds like.... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's more like they're trying to drive the price down (so they can by cheaply) or up (so they can sell for a profit). But I can't really guess which.
So far I approve (Score:3)
So far I'm liking the crash of crypto and related bullshit, deflation of stock markets, decreasing housing prices, raising interest rates and the bitching of cesspools like Blackrock way more than I dislike the downsides.
I hope the Fed keeps it up.
Motivation? (Score:4, Interesting)
Blackrock is not saying stuff like this as a selfless public service. If Blackrock is saying this, then they are pushing for a recession. In fact, they are trying to provoke a recession.
You have to ask: why? Were they expecting a recession that failed to materialize? Perhaps they have made a bunch of short-sales that they need to cover?
Re: (Score:2)
>> If Blackrock is saying this, then they are pushing for a recession. In fact, they are trying to provoke a recession.
They don't want a recession. Those comments are aimed at central bankers. They want them to stop raising interest rates.
Scaring everyone else into selling assets so they can buy them cheap is just a happy side-effect for them.
Says the company pushing ESG (Score:2)
Blackrock is pushing corporate hemlock. Fortunately, most reputable economists are seeing right through this scam.
Smoking the Black Rock (Score:2)
That's what they're doing. Everyone in finance is smoking black rock and satan's cock.
Ph.D. Economists are especially stupid. Economics, by definition, is not a science. There are no testable hypotheses because there is no way to isolate a single independent variable. Worse, much of economics is turning into psychology. Psychology is a noble field of endeavor, but economists are the worst people imaginable at understanding it.
Imagine in a world where you do math, but pretend it's science... that's econ
Re: (Score:2)
I’m gonna guess t
I just look for ... (Score:2)
...however this will help Goldman-Sachs. Somehow they always seem to be on the winning side.
I just do what they do.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This isn't a tangible disaster like a hurricane, tornado, flood or pandemic where there are scarce resources. It's a financial issue causes by a slow down in the economy. If people want to stimulate the economy by buying toilet paper, tulips or PS5s why would you stop them?
Re: low on toilet paper (Score:2)
You clearly done understand what happens to your bowels when you die
Re: (Score:2)
The people we elected to protect us have no interest in doing so, and demonstrate it repeatedly, yet the incumbent is re-elected something like 95% of the time. I blame the voting methods.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do we let them do this to us?
Because you have no legal alternative, and America will sooner start another civil war than dare to practice anything resembling so.... oops... *whispers very gently* socialism.
Re: They neglected to say (Score:2)