against all odds

'Saving' bezieht sich im Chart oben auf denjenigen Teil eines Kapitaleinkommens, der weiter angespart wird. Dies muss sachlich unterschieden werden vom 'personal saving', welches sich massgeblich auf angesparte Anteile von Lohn und Erwerbseinkommen bezieht. Die personal saving rate sinkt, seitdem das federal deficit konsolidiert (siehe Saldenmechanik weiter oben)...

No disaster, if and when the Fed changes course:

Dies würde zu deinem Szenario passen, weil eine überraschende Inflation den Zins und somit die Earnings beeinflussen würden. Die earnings würden sogar von zwei Seiten attakiert. Steigende Preise für Rohstoffe und den Zins!

Wir sind in '5'. Commodities bröckeln allerdings bereits seit Mitte 2012..

'...I’ll let you in on a secret: before this crisis, when I thought about the budget deficit I was like everyone else in that I paid no attention to how the government budget interacted with the private and trade sector balances. This is a big error. If you do that, you treat the government budget deficit in isolation, when the reality is that the government is an integral part of an open economy with households and businesses that trade domestically and abroad. When the government balance changes, the balances for those businesses and households change too. If you are talking about deficits then, you need to know how changes in the government balance affect the rest of the economy.

Here’s the thing: when we exchange goods and services with each other, from an accounting perspective, it’s a wash; if you buy my goods, I get money and you get goods of equivalent value. If you pay for those goods with an I.O.U., with a debt, your liability, your deficit in the year we made the transaction, is exactly equal to the asset on my balance sheet and my surplus for the year. I mean this is basic accounting, folks. There’s no hocus pocus. Any person’s, any household’s, any business’s, any group’s, any government’s debt is someone else’s asset. Any person’s, any household’s, any business’s, any group’s, any government’s deficit is someone else’s surplus. Again, it’s basic accounting.

Think of it like exchange traded options and the profit and losses on the exchange. People buy and sell oil futures or soybean futures. At the end of the option period, they either have a loss or a profit and that period’s deficit or surplus is exactly offset by the deficit or surplus of the counterparties. When you sum up these deficits and surpluses they net to zero. Again, no hocus pocus. That’s how accounting works.

The same is true for national accounts. At the end of any accounting period, then, the sum of the sectoral financial balances must net to zero. The government balance – the private balance – capital account balance = 0. The government balance = the private balance + the capital account balance. See my post Economics 101 on government budget deficits for the full write-up. I credit British economist Wynne Godley for making this identity relevant to macro economics.

What does all this mean then? Put simply, the financial sector balances framework means that when the government sector runs a deficit, the non-government sector runs a surplus of equivalent size. So, to move any sector balance in an open economy, you need to move the other two balances exactly opposite in equivalent measure. To reduce the government deficit in any period, the private balance and the capital balance must increase by the exact same amount in that period.

Thinking about government deficits this way opens a whole new understanding of what cutting deficits means for the economy. What it should mean to you is that deficits are the effect and not the cause. Budget deficits are the result of the ex-post accounting identity between the sectoral balances and should not be a primary goal of public policy. Let me give you an example.

Why are deficits so high? What I have been saying is that private debt is the problem. Debt has been a substitute for income due to stagnant wages. Now that the credit bubble’s asset price inflation has turned to deflation, people, businesses and banks have found themselves saddled with debts that are not adequately underpinned by asset collateral. Businesses have done some serious heavy lifting here and debt in the corporate sector is not a problem. But households are still over-indebted. As long as household financial assets provide insufficient collateral for the debts that depend on them, the household sector will continue to maintain a reduced level of consumption and investment as a percentage of income to deal with that debt. Businesses see this and reduce their investment too. And we get stuck in a lower-investment, higher savings world that leads to deficits....'

http://www.creditwritedowns.com/2012/05/...d-national-accounting.html

Die umlaufenden Ressentiments makro, monetär und auch zum investing haben einen nur geringen Nährwert, weil sie idR den basic accounting identies widersprechen. Diese sind jedoch ungeachtet des sich widersetzenden gesunden Menschenverstandes 'true by definition':

Wiki: Accounting identity

In accounting, finance and economics, an accounting identity is an equality that must be true regardless of the value of its variables, or a statement that by definition (or construction) must be true.[1][2] Where an accounting identity applies, any deviation from numerical equality signifies an error in formulation, calculation or measurement.[3]

The term accounting identity may be used to distinguish between propositions that are theories (which may or may not be true, or relationships that may or may not always hold) and statements that are by definition true. Despite the fact that the statements are by definition true, the underlying figures as measured or estimated may not add up due to measurement error, particularly for certain identities in macroeconomics.[4]

The most basic identity in accounting is that the balance sheet must balance, that is, that assets must equal the sum of liabilities (debts) and equity (the value of the firm to the owner). In its most common formulation it is known as the accounting equation:

Assets = Debt + Equity

where debt includes non-financial liabilities. Balance sheets are commonly presented as two parallel columns, each summing to the same total, with the assets on the left, and liabilities and owners' equity on the right. The parallel columns of Assets and Equities are, in effect, two views of the same set of business facts.

The balance of the balance sheet reflects the conventions of double-entry bookkeeping, by which business transactions are recorded. In double-entry bookkeeping, every transaction is recorded by paired entries, and typically a transaction will result in two or more pairs of entries. The sale of product, for example, would record both a receipt of cash (or the creation of a trade receivable in the case of an extension of credit to the buyer) and a reduction in the inventory of goods for sale; the receipt of cash or a trade receivable is an addition to revenue, and the reduction in goods inventory is an addition to expense (an "expense" is the "expending" of an asset, in this case, the inventory). Thus, there are two pairs of entries: an addition to revenue balanced by an addition to cash; a subtraction from inventory balanced by an addition to expense. The cash and inventory accounts are asset accounts; the revenue and expense accounts will close at the end of the accounting period to affect equity.

Double-entry bookkeeping conventions are employed as well for the National Accounts, so the definition and measurement of important economic concepts, such as national product, aggregate income, investment and savings, as well as the balance of payments and balance of trade, involve accounting identities. At base, the application of double-entry bookkeeping conventions to the problems of measuring aggregate economic activity derives from the recognition that every purchase is also a sale, every payment made is also income received, and every act of lending also an act of borrowing.

Here the term identity refers to the concept of a mathematical identity or a logical tautology, since it defines an equivalence which does not depend on the particular values of the variables.

Identities in accounting

Accounting has a number of identities in common usage, and since many identities can be decomposed into others, no comprehensive listing is possible.

Interperiod identities

Accounting identities also apply between accounting periods, such as changes in cash balances. For example:
Cash at beginning of period + Changes in cash during period = Cash at end of period[5]
Value of an asset

Any asset recorded in a firm's balance sheet will have a carrying value. By definition, the carrying value must equal the historic cost (or acquisition cost) of the asset, plus (or minus) any subsequent adjustments in the value of the asset, such as depreciation.
Carrying value = Historic cost + Change in value

Economics

In economics, there are numerous accounting identities.
Balance of payments

One of the most commonly known is the balance of payments identity,[6] where:
Current Account Surplus + Capital Account Surplus = Increase in Official Reserve Account

A common problem with the balance of payments identity is that, due to measurement error, the balance of payments may not total correctly. For example, in the context of the identity that the sum of all countries' current accounts must be zero, The Economist magazine has noted that "In theory, individual countries’ current-account deficits and surpluses should cancel each other out. But because of statistical errors and omissions they never do."[7]

Gross domestic product

The basic equation for gross domestic product is also an identity, and is sometimes referred to as the National Income Identity:[8]

GDP = consumption + investment + government spending + (exports − imports).

This identity holds because investment refers to the sum of intended and unintended investment, the latter being unintended accumulations of inventories; unintended inventory accumulation necessarily equals output produced (GDP) minus intended uses of that output—consumption, intended investment in machinery, inventories, etc., government spending, and net exports.

Investment

Investment = Fixed investment + Inventory investment

Gross investment – Depreciation = Net investment

Banking[

A key identity that is used in explaining the multiple expansion of the money supply is
Bank assets = Bank liabilities + Owners' equity

Here the liabilities include deposits of customers, against which reserves often must be held.

Beispiel:

'...Starting at the beginning, we know that we can add up GDP on the output side by summing its components, consumption, investment, government, and net exports. This must be equal to the incomes generated in production. This gives us a basic identity that:

1) C+I+G+(X-M) = Y

where Y stands for income. This identity must always hold, it is true by definition.

We can then divide Y into disposable income, which is total income, minus taxes. This gives us:

2) Y = YD + T

We can then divide disposable income into savings and consumption, since by definition any income that is not consumed is saved. This gives us:

3) YD = C+S

since we now know that  Y = C+S+T, we can rewrite equation 1 as,

4) C+I+G+ (X-M) = C+S+T

we then eliminate consumption from both sides and we get:

5) I+G+(X-M) = S+T, rearranging terms gives:

6) (X-M) = (S-I)+(T-G)

This one actually has a clear meaning. X-M is exports minus imports, or the trade surplus, S-I is private saving minus private investment, and T-G is taxes minus government spending, or the budget surplus. This identity means that the trade surplus is equal to the sum of the surplus of private savings over investment and the government budget surplus. Remember, this is an accounting identity, it must be true.

The country has a large trade deficit, which means that X-M is a large negative number. It's currently around 4 percent of GDP (just under $600 billion), but would certainly be much larger if the economy were near full employment. Imports rise with income, so that with a higher level of GDP the trade deficit would expand.

If X-M is negative, then either or both (S-I) or (T-G) MUST be negative. This means either or both that we have negative private savings or we have a budget deficit.

We can have the former with a very low private saving rate, as we did during the stock and housing bubble. In both periods there was a consumption boom driven by transitory wealth created by the bubbles. It is difficult to understand why anyone would want a low private saving rate.

It means that people reach retirement with very little to support them other than their Social Security or Medicare. So no one can consistently want both low private saving and cuts to Social Security and Medicare, unless they want the elderly to be very poor. (It is in principle possible to raise investment, but in practice very difficult. The equipment and software investment share of GDP is already almost back to its pre-crash levels, so the prospects of further increases are very limited.)  

The other possibility is that we can have a large budget deficit, making T-G a big negative number.

For those who believe in accounting identities and evolution there is only one other place to go, we must get our trade deficit down. We need X-M to be a much smaller negative number. The best mechanism for getting the trade deficit down is reducing the value of the dollar..."

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs/...gton-post-and-robert-samuelson

U.S. Government-backed student loans were first offered in the 1950s under the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), and were only available to select categories of students, such as those studying toward engineering, science, or education degrees. The student loan program was established in response to the Soviet Union (USSR's) launch of the Sputnik satellite, and a widespread perception that the United States was falling behind on education and technology in the Cold War. Student loans were extended more broadly in the 1960s under the Higher Education act, with the goal of encouraging greater social mobility and equality of opportunity.[2][14]

Prior to 2010, Federal loans included both direct loans—originated and funded directly by the U.S. Department of Education—and guaranteed loans—originated and funded by private investors, but guaranteed by the federal government. Guaranteed loans were eliminated in 2010 through the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act and replaced with direct loans because of a belief that guaranteed loans benefited private student loan companies at taxpayers expense, but did not reduce costs for students.[2][14]

These loans are available to college and university students via funds disbursed directly to the school and are used to supplement personal and family resources, scholarships, grants, and work-study. They may be subsidized by the U.S. Government or may be unsubsidized depending on financial need. The U.S. Department of Education published a booklet comparing federal loans with private loans.[15] In this same document, the government describes what you may use the loan for:

You may use the money you receive only to pay for education expenses at the school that awarded your loan. Education expenses include school charges such as tuition; room and board; fees; books; supplies; equipment; dependent childcare expenses; transportation; and rental or purchase of a personal computer.

Both subsidized and unsubsidized loans are guaranteed by the U.S. Department of Education either directly or through guaranty agencies. Nearly all students are eligible to receive federal loans (regardless of credit score or other financial issues). Federal student loans are not priced according to any individualized measure of risk, nor are loan limits determined based on risk. Rather, pricing and loan limits are politically determined by Congress. Undergraduates typically receive lower interest rates, but graduate students typically can borrow more. This lack of risk-based pricing has been criticized by scholars as contributing to inefficiency in higher education.[2]

In June 2010, the amount of student loan debt held by Americans exceeded the amount of credit card debt held by Americans. At that time, student loan debt totaled at least $830 billion, of which approximately 80% was federal student loan debt and 20% was private student loan debt. In October 2011, the total amount of money owed in student loan debt was said to exceed $1 trillion.[50]  (wiki)

2014 könnte ein gutes Jahr für die Antizykliker werden. Das Sentiment bietet den ein oder anderen Einstieg an. Ich bin gerade mit einer kleinen Position Gold Long gegangen.

Das Sentiment spricht dafür und es scheinen viele darauf gewartet zu haben, dass Gold auf 1000 fällt. Knock Out liegt bei 1150.

Sober Look:  If "taxes don't underwrite government expenditure - they are irrelevant to it", why are we paying taxes at all?

Dr. L Brownstein (University of Leeds in the UK): There are a number of reasons to pay taxes. One is to legitimate the currency, as your taxes can't be paid in any other currency than the one legitimated by the government. This means that you have to use this currency and no other. Another function of taxes is to serve as an economic redistribution mechanism, which is a political function that sometimes works well and at other times not so well. At present, it isn't working well in this sense at all. A third function of taxation is to control spending, sometimes as an aid to reduce inflationary pressures. Whether this is the best mechanism for doing this is a matter of some debate.

None of this has anything to do with supplying the government with money to spend.

The type of economic system we have now is what is known as, and called so by Keynes, a fiat system accompanied by a floating exchange rate with foreign currencies. In a fiat currency system, money is created by government fiat, that is, ex nihilo, out of nothing. Should anyone else attempt to create this currency, they become counterfeiters. Where else can it originate?

If the government creates all the money, then it must spend it before anyone has any of it to pay any taxes that might be owed to said government.

In a deflationary situation in which we currently find ourselves there is a good argument for substantially reducing the tax burden for both companies and individuals. In an inflationary situation, this may be a good time, depending on circumstances, to increase taxes, which would hopefully calm economic activity.

This means that a government with its own sovereign currency can never go broke. The US Constitution mandates the government to pay all its debts. Congress may interfere with this but this becomes a political issue. The US, the UK, Japan, and other sovereign nations with their own sovereign currencies are not like the members of the Euro, who have surrendered their own sovereign for a foreign currency over which they have very little if any control. Neither the US nor the UK are in the position of Greece or Spain. These countries can go broke. And, like California and other individual states of the US, must balance their budgets. There is no need whatsoever for a sovereign government to balance its budget, as it is under no economic constraints given that it is the creator of the currency in the first place...'

http://soberlook.com/

Glaub ich auch, dass dieses neue Jahr wieder an die AZler geht. Von Gold hab ich jedoch keine Ahnung. Ich seh zwar die Sentimentindikation, aber keine fundamentalen Motive für Kursbewegungen. Ist wie mit bitcoin, dessen Kurs selbstreferentiell) allein von der psychologischen Oberfläche bewegt wird (Glaube an steigenden vs fallenden Kurs)..

Fill

metropolis:   08.10.08 07:20

Ja, es ist schwer, unabhängig zu bleiben.

Im Bärenthread wird ME zu sehr die Weltuntergangs-Karte a la Krise 1929-32 gespielt. Dies wird sich auf Dauer als falsch rausstellen. Es gab schon viele Krisen in der Vergangenheit und alle wurden überwunden; so auch diese. Die Postings dort sollte man also berücksichtigen, sich aber nicht davon einschüchtern lassen, demnächst long zu spielen. Die Gewinnchancen werden norm sein.

Umgekehrt darf man aber auch nicht auf sein Glück vertrauen, den Boden exakt zu treffen. Das ist unmöglich, daher soll man es nicht versuchen. Die ersten vielleicht 5% muss man eben sausen lassen. Betrachte sie als Versicherungsprämie!

Der Verkaufsdruck wird erst nachlassen, wenn die Verkäufer kein Material mehr haben und diejenigen die GEkauft haben nichts mehr rausrücken wollen weil sie wissen dass die Preise lächerlich sind. Noch ist es nicht soweit, erkennbar u.a. daran, dass die FED-Maßnahmen alle am Markt verpuffen. Im späteren Verlauf werden aber gerade diese Maßnahmen (Geldflutung!!!!) dazu führen, dass die Kurse quasi durch die Decke gehen.

Warten wir es ab! Weiter Kapital und Nerven schützen! Viel Glück heute ;-)

http://www.ariva.de/forum/Der-Antizykliker-Thread-348181?page=3

Fillorkill: Malboro: 'eindeutig short'  08.06.10 12:53

Du klebst des öfteren zu hautnah an der technischen Analyse, wie ich finde. Deine Folgerung 'Wenn - dann' unterstellt eine (Mono-) Kausalität, die deiner Anordnung von Indikatoren, also deiner individuellen Sichtweise entspringt, jedoch in dieser Form nicht im Markt existiert.  Ich unterstelle zwar, dass Marktbewegungen einer Kausalität unterliegen, diese jedoch nie defintiv zu bestimmen ist. Eine Bedingung übrigens, die überhaupt erst spekulative Chancen ermöglicht. Mit anderen Worten: Auch wenn - wie gesehen - der sekundäre Aufwärtstrend nach unten verlassen wird, kann es ohne weiteres im Anschluss up gehen. Weil dann eben eine andere Kausalität zum Zuge kommt, die nicht in Deinem Chart abgebildet wird...

http://www.ariva.de/forum/...liker-Thread-348181?page=448#jump8151102

Armitage: Erwartungsenttäuschung
10
25.08.09 21:39
#7276  
Nachdem die Differenzierung in die kleine und feine Elite und das große, dumpfe Börsenpöbel überwunden ist, will ich mal versuchen aus einer psychologischen Perspektive die Grundlage des derzeit herrschenden Dissenses herauszuarbeiten. Dies möchte ich offen tun, ohne für eine Position Partei zu ergreifen.

Unzufriedenheit kommt daher, dass eine Enttäuschung eingetreten ist  – diese Enttäuschung folgt i.d.R. einem Vergleich (z.B. einer  Soll- und einer Istsituation) und der sich daran anschließenden Verarbeitung. Ich erwarte ein nettes Zimmer, mit Balkon und Blick über die Lagune und finde mich wieder in einem verwohnten Zimmer mit Blick auf den Wirtschaftshof. Die Folge davon ist Frustration, die sich auf unterschiedlichen Arten Luft macht: Beschweren, Reinfressen des Frustes (Achtung Magengeschwüre…), Relativieren („ach so schlimm ist es nicht, wir sind ohnehin immer am Strand.“). Ein Student, der diese Reise gewonnen hat, wird sich freuen, ein Fünf-Sterne-Resort und umsonst, was stört ihn diese Aussicht…

An der Börse haben wir es ebenso mit zwei Situationen zu tun, welche – und das macht es kompliziert – beide einer Interpretation unterliegen: Es gibt die „echte“ Welt, also die Realwirtschaft mit ihrer Flut an Indikatoren und das „Abbild“ dieser Welt mir ihrer Vielzahl an Kursen und Indices. Und beide „Welten“ hängen „irgendwie“ zusammen – nicht beliebig, aber es gibt auch keinen strikten Determinismus.

Und beides passt nicht zusammen:

Die Börse ist in den vergangenen Monaten extrem gestiegen, ohne dass es aus Bärensicht einen glaubhaften Grund dafür gibt. Und was nicht passt, wird passend gemacht und man fängt an, zu versuchen, sich einen Reim auf diese „unpassende“ Situation zu machen. Die Zahl der Erklärungsmuster „warum es trotzdem hoch geht“ ist enorm. Ähnlich wie beim Urlaubsbeispiel kann man den Anstieg relativieren, weil der Schwung nachlässt, man kann in die Verschwörungsschublade greifen, Parallelen zur Vergangenheit knüpfen usw. Im Gegensatz zum Urlaubsbeispiel kann man außer sich die Welt zu erklären (oder zurechtzubiegen) nichts tun – im Urlaub kann man immerhin zur Rezeption laufen – 20 Dollar auf den Tresen legen und warten bis man ein schönes Zimmer bekommt…

Ein besonders Beispiel für derartige Erklärungsmuster habe ich als Grafik angeführt.
Das Fatale ist, dass sich dieser „Erklärungsprozess“ verstärkt, man verrennt sich in der eigenen Argumentation. „Die Rigidität der Betroffenen verhindert ein Erkennen der eigenen Situation, der Selbstschutz ist [..] ausgeblendet. Auslöser ist der Widerspruch zwischen Erwartungen und der subjektiv wahrgenommenen Situation.“  (Das ist von mir – ein paar Jahre alt)

Und noch fataler ist, dass die Bären es im Jahr 2007 gelernt haben, dass beides: Die Krise der „realen“ Welt und das Sinken der Börsen zusammen gehören. „So gehört es sich ja auch – wo kommen wir denn sonst hin?!“
Ja aber, werden jetzt die „richtigen“ Bären sagen, das ist alles schön und gut, aber ich bin überzeugt, dass bald die Fahrt nach unten ins W, ins L ins dicke U oder was auch immer ansteht. „Ich bleibe meiner Einschätzung treu.“
Das mag richtig sein, aber was schadet es sich mal aus „seiner“ Position zu lösen, das „andere“, das „Undenkbare“ denken? Um es auf den Punkt zu bringen, auch mal den Grüner zu lesen und nachzudenken, was ihm sein Einflüsterer Fisher  über den großen Teich zugerufen hat?  Ich für meinen Teil denke immerzu die bärische Position durch, ich bin ein Bulle, der immer einen Bärenhut aufhat. Wie hat Kostolany gesagt „Angst haben, aber nicht erschrecken.“
So gesehen beginnt Antizyklik im eigenen Kopf.

Jetzt wird AL sagen, dass er doch genau dann und dann long gegangen ist und dass er eigentlich der richtige Antizykliker wäre. Das mag für ihn zutreffen, wenn ich mir andere Teilnehmer dieser Show namens ARIVA ansehe, entdecke ich, dass es sehr viele gibt, die niemals nur angedeutet haben, dass es eine Chance auf einen Boden gibt, dass es aufwärts gehen könnte. Diese Dogmatik hat verhindert, sich auf reale Tendenzen einzustellen (Bear Religion – Bad Religion?).

Oben habe ich geschrieben, dass ich diesen Text  „offen [..], ohne für eine Position Partei zu ergreifen“ erstellen möchte, also auch keinen überzeugen will, seine Position zu ändern. Aber jeder sollte sich der inhärente ablaufenden Prozesse klar werden, auf dass er die Bewertungen seines Gehirns bewerten kann.

http://www.ariva.de/forum/...liker-Thread-348181?page=291#jump6377514

Fundamentals katastrophal und das Sentiment auf allen Ebenen auf Untergang gebürstet. Die Paradesituation für die AZ'ler, umzingelt von den Bären wie weiland General Custer, mit einer bullishen Grundeinstellung dagegen zu halten. Diese wurde in einem Ausmass verifiziert, welches selbst für die '3 von der Tankstelle' seinerzeit nicht vorstellbar war. Man muss aber verstehen, dass derartige glasklare antizyklischen Einstiege einen absoluten historischen Ausnahmefall darstellen - fixiert am Ende eines 'grossen Creditcycle'. Im Regelfall fällt dagegen das grosse Drama mit der entsprechenden Eskalation im Sentiment aus. Die Indikatoren sind eher diffus und mehrdeutig interpretierbar. Die antizyklische Mentalität bedarf der Ergänzung durch die 'Kunst'...

Bemerkenswert, was Du alles ausgegraben hast.
DAS war die Hochzeit des AZ, es war eine Freude zu lesen, zu schreiben.

Wäre schön, wenn der alte Metro zurück käme, der Zaph kann mir gestohlen bleiben!