OT: Stock and Investment Thread
- Thread starter RU05
- Start date
You forgot to include a laughing emoticon, since there is no way possible any rational person would actually believe in jinxes.
Fine by me to debate all the political implications, complications and ramifications here--Richie has been warning not to though. Did you miss that too?
Stephanie Link just on CNBC mentioned she was buying the last couple of weeks had 9% cash and now has 1% cash. I think she’s a little early and I noticed funds think 10% is high. I like that she like META but I like it at 40% down around $450 . After today I have about 55-60% cash.
Link is one of the best on CNBC. Very reasonable and focused on GARP stocks.
I agree she’s good but surprised she brought so early.
U.S. President Donald Trump said on Tuesday the United States is taking in $2 billion per day from tariffs.
He made the comment without providing details during an event at the White House.
Trump likes the tariffs.
As I said this morning, bird in hand. No matter what happens from here, you are getting 20-30% discounts on the broad indexes and amazing stocks (maybe more). Link mentioned in a recent segment, she's a long-term investor and doesn't need to time the bottom. She buys when opportunities are attractive.
Last edited:
Are we allowed to discuss or theorize what the goal of these tariffs actually are?
We have security guards watching the thread.
The bank reduced its price target on Meta to $610 from $725 while it cut its price target on AMZN to $220 from $270.
JPMorgan lowered its price target on Alphabet to $180 from $220, while cutting its price target on NFLX to $1,025 from $1,150.
However, the bank kept Overweight ratings on all four names.
JPMorgan believes that there is now a 60% chance of a recession in the U.S. this year, and it expects real GDP to "decline substantially in the second half of 2025."
Sure if you're adding something new to the discussion that doesn't cross the line re: political as dictated by Richie and the mods. Look at Nimbers post for example, another tedious regurgitation of stuff he reads from his political go-to flacks.
Just a few days ago you said it was surprising that Trump was implementing his tariff policies...but PBS lol.
Obviously not, since that post of mine, quoted twice above, was deleted, although it's impossible to discuss the tariffs without mentioning the tariff guy's name, but some view that as being "political." Maybe people can post opinions on tariffs from "expert" sources, but can't comment on them in the thread. It's a bit confusing. Tomorrow will likely be another bloodbath, given the China and other tariffs go live - Dow futures are down significantly. So far, it looks like a trade of $900 billion in trade deficits for $6 trillion in market value.
https://www.investors.com/market-tr.../dow-jones-futures-trump-tariffs-apple-tesla/
Because this forum is such a group of Puritans who only drink apple juice and read the bible
I can support this.
However, it could’ve been done strategically.
However, it could’ve been done strategically.
I've been out of the loop most of the day. Anything new said/done today by Trump et al?
SIAP, but this was a fascinating development, as one of the primary authors of a paper that the tariff team cited for their tariff equation, said they got it completely wrong, noting that the calculated tariffs should be much smaller - about 1/4th as large, as per below.
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released its methodology and cited an academic paper produced by four economists, including me, seemingly in support of its numbers. But it got it wrong. Very wrong. I disagree fundamentally with the government’s trade policy and approach. But even taking it at face value, our findings suggest the calculated tariffs should be dramatically smaller — perhaps one-fourth as large....I would strongly prefer that the policy and methodology be scrapped entirely. But barring that, the administration should divide its results by four.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/opinion/trump-tariff-math-formula.html
The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative released its methodology and cited an academic paper produced by four economists, including me, seemingly in support of its numbers. But it got it wrong. Very wrong. I disagree fundamentally with the government’s trade policy and approach. But even taking it at face value, our findings suggest the calculated tariffs should be dramatically smaller — perhaps one-fourth as large....I would strongly prefer that the policy and methodology be scrapped entirely. But barring that, the administration should divide its results by four.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/07/opinion/trump-tariff-math-formula.html
Nothing that new, but if you want the digest version, the Times article has some quotes from today. However, Vance is trending in China for calling the Chinese, "peasants."
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/08/us/politics/trump-tariffs-greer.html
I wouldn’t necessarily say they calculated it “wrong”. I think they intentionally grossed them up significantly higher for leverage given the administration’s propensity for very aggressive foreign policy.
PBS - ?
Regarding all the folks surprised about Trump doing this or that - all things he promised he would do - the Maya Angelou quote applies: “When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.”
Last edited:
Where is Tom Lee when you need him?
We want to apologize as the terms of tariff Liberation Day were far worse than we expected,” said Tom Lee, the usually bullish — and often right — head of research for Fundstrat Global Advisors.
But he misread the signs coming from the White House coming ahead of the announcement of reciprocal tariffs. To be fair, he was hardly alone — the market reaction, which as of Monday morning was a cumulative 14% decline in the S&P 500 futures ES00, also was complacent going into the tariffs.
“The resulting market fury is not due to a reaction to a trade war, but rather, in our view, the fact the White House broke a core covenant of capitalism — stable and predictable regulatory environment,” says Lee in a message to clients.
Here’s an approach that actually isn’t insanely stupid.
I think that Trump wants the 10% tariffs for everybody to stay and keep it as revenue so Bill is only repeating what Trump wants. 10% tax on imports and more tariffs if Trump deem it necessary.
All I see if the tariff situation ain’t solved by end of this week, then 10% down. Another week then another 10% down to close to 40% down. 100% recession if it happens.
Mid day announcement that the full 104% China tariffs would take effect at midnight tonight.
TSLA going down to $150. JPM Target price for TSLA is $125. Hype disappears in recession downturn. Musk wealth will depend on his other companies which depends on the government contracts
AAPL another stock going down big probably below $100. Both companies tied to China.
Last edited:
I wouldn’t touch any companies with large consumer businesses in China…companies like Starbucks and Nike will be in trouble even if we reconcile at some point with China.
If AAPL goes under $100. I may mortgage our house to buy. You always predict the comical worst.
While the namecalling is hilarious, Musk ought to have some sway here, as he's at least reasonably bright, whereas Navarro is straight up dumb, such that Musk calling him dumber than a sack of bricks is actually an insult to bricks.
Navarro has a Harvard MA (Kennedy School) and PhD (economics) from when it was still a good university.
He was a professor at Cal.
He ran Trade and Manufacturing during Trump's first term and did great work - especially on China issues.
Musk, Trump and Navarro run thing like men and they can bark at each other and keep roiling.
Musk is under a lot of stress with the threats, domestic terror attacks on his businesses/customers.
Its natural he would seek some leniency in Europe and it might come.
It was smarter to drop the big hits now and work the wrinkles out later, than to try and negotiate 1000s of smaller details over many weeks with the usual suspects tossing banana peels
Well it ain't RU, but his education is nothing to sneeze at lol...but of course he could learn a thing or two from you about global economics.
Navarro attended Tufts University on an academic scholarship, graduating in 1972 with a Bachelor of Arts degree. He then spent three years in the U.S. Peace Corps, serving in Thailand. He received a Master of Public Administration from Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government in 1979, and a PhD in economics from Harvard under the supervision of Richard E. Caves in 1986.
I'll do you a solid and copy your cut&paste opinion post here in the CE Tariff thread right under the link to Kevin Hassett shredding Georgie Stephanopoulos about the tariff strategy.
Market futures down almost 2% for tomorrow - another bloodbath likely...
This is scary. Fed may need to intervene. And quickly.