Market Cap Exceeds GDP

[william the wie]

When the monetary value of all listed shares exceed GDP it is a flashing sign of danger way up ahead, three to five years up ahead. A "new normal" is coming as in the run up to 2008, 2000, 1987, 1929 and 1905. Just tossing this one out here for bragging rights, comments?

 

[Moonglow]

Seen it coming for about a year now....Don't put all your eggs in one basket..

 

[Correll]

When the monetary value of all listed shares exceed GDP it is a flashing sign of danger way up ahead, three to five years up ahead. A "new normal" is coming as in the run up to 2008, 2000, 1987, 1929 and 1905. Just tossing this one out here for bragging rights, comments?

That does sound alarming, but it is just driven by international values being on our stock exchange?

 

[Moonglow]

Get out of GE it's about to cut the dividend.....

 

[william the wie]

When the monetary value of all listed shares exceed GDP it is a flashing sign of danger way up ahead, three to five years up ahead. A "new normal" is coming as in the run up to 2008, 2000, 1987, 1929 and 1905. Just tossing this one out here for bragging rights, comments?

That does sound alarming, but it is just driven by international values being on our stock exchange?

That too probably but foreign investment is the big problem. London, Tokyo, Shanghai and Mumbai are having problems.

 

[MarathonMike]

I'm not familiar with this correlation. Are you saying total market cap exceeded GDP in all the previous market crashes?

 

[william the wie]

I'm not familiar with this correlation. Are you saying total market cap exceeded GDP in all the previous market crashes?

The other way around. A crash can happen without giving out this signal but when this signal happens there will be a crash, a 20+% decline in a relatively short period. ETFs are the presumed culprit for this coming crash. This kind of one way bet mentality leads to overinvestment. Overinvestment causes crashes. This leads to absurd valuations even for otherwise dependable strategies like the Dow Dogs or equal weighting of transports, utilities and industrials.

 

[anotherlife]

Will there be a tax hike to cover for this new bailout then?

 

[william the wie]

Will there be a tax hike to cover for this new bailout then?

who knows? this will not result in a meltdown but beyond that is conjecture.

 

[Picaro]

When the monetary value of all listed shares exceed GDP it is a flashing sign of danger way up ahead, three to five years up ahead. A "new normal" is coming as in the run up to 2008, 2000, 1987, 1929 and 1905. Just tossing this one out here for bragging rights, comments?

Foreign money looking for safe havens in equities. Anybody betting heavily on tax cuts doing anything but creating another sucker bubble is going to lose their shirts.

 

[Picaro]

I'm not familiar with this correlation. Are you saying total market cap exceeded GDP in all the previous market crashes?

It's a huge red flag, especially when large amounts of debt are behind the market price increases. Low interest rates are also bad in such conditions.

 

[Picaro]

Will there be a tax hike to cover for this new bailout then?

As always, they raise taxes on 'the little people' to cover the deficits created by corporate subsidies. That is always the case. See all the 'tax cuts' since Nixon for examples.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm not familiar with this correlation. Are you saying total market cap exceeded GDP in all the previous market crashes?

The other way around. A crash can happen without giving out this signal but when this signal happens there will be a crash, a 20+% decline in a relatively short period. ETFs are the presumed culprit for this coming crash. This kind of one way bet mentality leads to overinvestment. Overinvestment causes crashes. This leads to absurd valuations even for otherwise dependable strategies like the Dow Dogs or equal weighting of transports, utilities and industrials.

when this signal happens there will be a crash, a 20+% decline in a relatively short period.

Link?

 

[Picaro]

When reading the 'official' GDP numbers put out by the Fed, remember to add another 30% minimum to those number to reflect the domestic activity off-shored via transfer pricing and all the other gimmicks and subsidies and accounting frauds facilitating 'globalism' and tax dodging.

 

[william the wie]

When reading the 'official' GDP numbers put out by the Fed, remember to add another 30% minimum to those number to reflect the domestic activity off-shored via transfer pricing and all the other gimmicks and subsidies and accounting frauds facilitating 'globalism' and tax dodging.

Since those trends predate the Civil War, I think I will ignore them.

 

[Picaro]

When reading the 'official' GDP numbers put out by the Fed, remember to add another 30% minimum to those number to reflect the domestic activity off-shored via transfer pricing and all the other gimmicks and subsidies and accounting frauds facilitating 'globalism' and tax dodging.

Since those trends predate the Civil War, I think I will ignore them.

Most of them only date back to Reagan and the big new GAAP changes agreed on by international treaties and of course the NAFTA and 'Favored Nation' status changes. Moving assets and gains overseas on paper gets a company several years of tax free money before they have to file on it, i.e. one of the many reasons everybody else gets ever higher tax rates to make up the differences and shortfalls. It's also why the financial sector doesn't need any more tax cuts; they don't pay much in the first place.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When reading the 'official' GDP numbers put out by the Fed, remember to add another 30% minimum to those number to reflect the domestic activity off-shored via transfer pricing and all the other gimmicks and subsidies and accounting frauds facilitating 'globalism' and tax dodging.

Since those trends predate the Civil War, I think I will ignore them.

Most of them only date back to Reagan and the big new GAAP changes agreed on by international treaties and of course the NAFTA and 'Favored Nation' status changes. Moving assets and gains overseas on paper gets a company several years of tax free money before they have to file on it, i.e. one of the many reasons everybody else gets ever higher tax rates to make up the differences and shortfalls. It's also why the financial sector doesn't need any more tax cuts; they don't pay much in the first place.

It's also why the financial sector doesn't need any more tax cuts; they don't pay much in the first place.

Bank of America, in 2016, had income of $25.153 billion and paid income tax of $7.247 billion.

BAC Income Statement | Bank of America Corporation Stock - Yahoo Finance

Any other financial firms you're confused about?

 

[Picaro]

When reading the 'official' GDP numbers put out by the Fed, remember to add another 30% minimum to those number to reflect the domestic activity off-shored via transfer pricing and all the other gimmicks and subsidies and accounting frauds facilitating 'globalism' and tax dodging.

Since those trends predate the Civil War, I think I will ignore them.

Most of them only date back to Reagan and the big new GAAP changes agreed on by international treaties and of course the NAFTA and 'Favored Nation' status changes. Moving assets and gains overseas on paper gets a company several years of tax free money before they have to file on it, i.e. one of the many reasons everybody else gets ever higher tax rates to make up the differences and shortfalls. It's also why the financial sector doesn't need any more tax cuts; they don't pay much in the first place.

It's also why the financial sector doesn't need any more tax cuts; they don't pay much in the first place.

Bank of America, in 2016, had income of $25.153 billion and paid income tax of $7.247 billion.

BAC Income Statement | Bank of America Corporation Stock - Yahoo Finance

Any other financial firms you're confused about?

If you think they paid taxes on all of their income you're clearly dumb, but then that is usually the case with 'tax cut' cultists; most obviously have never filled out a tax return in their entire lives and have no idea what they're talking about. The financial sector doesn't need any tax cuts, and you won't find many Republicans who support tax cuts for those who genuinely need them, like raising the personal tax reduction for individuals to what minimum wage would be adjusted for inflation, i.e. around $45K for each individual; all you will find is the usual dissembling followed by the usual 'fair tax' scams that end up raising various taxes on low income people as per the grand tradition established by Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker as 'conservatism'.

 

[Picaro]

And, BoA should be paying an annual fee of at least a flat $3 billion a year on top of whatever taxes it chooses to pay just for being 'too big to fail' and needing bailouts and Federal asset guarantees to stay in business. To be really fair it should be assessed to stockholders, the primary beneficiaries of bailouts, along with those vested in 401K scams and the like who get subsidized by the Feds at the expense of others. 'Tax cuts' are a stupid policy for subsidized schemes who are risking pretty much nothing personally.

You want to talk tax cuts, then get back to me when you want to do away with the limited liability scam for shareholders in these companies.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When reading the 'official' GDP numbers put out by the Fed, remember to add another 30% minimum to those number to reflect the domestic activity off-shored via transfer pricing and all the other gimmicks and subsidies and accounting frauds facilitating 'globalism' and tax dodging.

Since those trends predate the Civil War, I think I will ignore them.

Most of them only date back to Reagan and the big new GAAP changes agreed on by international treaties and of course the NAFTA and 'Favored Nation' status changes. Moving assets and gains overseas on paper gets a company several years of tax free money before they have to file on it, i.e. one of the many reasons everybody else gets ever higher tax rates to make up the differences and shortfalls. It's also why the financial sector doesn't need any more tax cuts; they don't pay much in the first place.

It's also why the financial sector doesn't need any more tax cuts; they don't pay much in the first place.

Bank of America, in 2016, had income of $25.153 billion and paid income tax of $7.247 billion.

BAC Income Statement | Bank of America Corporation Stock - Yahoo Finance

Any other financial firms you're confused about?

If you think they paid taxes on all of their income you're clearly dumb, but then that is usually the case with 'tax cut' cultists; most obviously have never filled out a tax return in their entire lives and have no idea what they're talking about. The financial sector doesn't need any tax cuts, and you won't find many Republicans who support tax cuts for those who genuinely need them, like raising the personal tax reduction for individuals to what minimum wage would be adjusted for inflation, i.e. around $45K for each individual; all you will find is the usual dissembling followed by the usual 'fair tax' scams that end up raising various taxes on low income people as per the grand tradition established by Ronald Reagan and Paul Volcker as 'conservatism'.

If you think they paid taxes on all of their income you're clearly dumb

If you have a better version of their 2016 financials, provide it.

The financial sector doesn't need any tax cuts,

That may be, but not because of your silly claim that they don't pay much.

like raising the personal tax reduction for individuals to what minimum wage would be adjusted for inflation, i.e. around $45K for each individual

What are you talking about? Over what period of time?
Show your math or provide a link.