/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>57604015
This isn't a bullrun, it's a currency collapse

>>55598313

>>30003535

There will be a crash, but it's going to be an inflationary one or in real terms, not nominal terms as he posits. They will implement Yield-Curve Control and parabolic money-printing to try and delay the day of reckoning as long as they can. Stocks will soar but crash in terms of gold. It's the only politically expedient option.

>>28119009
Hmm could it be... potentially.. hyperinflation?

>>25945080

Once the Fed institutes Yield Curve Control, whether in policy or in practice, stocks will continue to climb and even go parabolic, but they will be crashing in terms of gold and commodities, as in Venezuela, Weimar Germany, Argentina, Zimbabwe, etc. We are still in the brief window of time where the game of musical chairs is ongoing, and people can cash out the paper gains into gold to realise their wealth. But soon that won't be a possibility any longer.

>>25649022
REITs, airlines, banks

We're heading for double digit inflation, get your capital out of the cash (TRASH) bin and into literally anything

>>22746319

When yields went to 3% in late 2018, stocks immediately crashed 20%. So they can't be allowed to go up again. But they can't be made permanently negative either; Q. E. has a time-limit. Why? because the more negative yields go, the fewer real buyers of treasuries there are, the more Q. E. that is needed to suppress them, ad infinitum. Eventually you get to a point where the Fed is the only only buyer, and foreigners have dumped U. S. treasuries completely. At that point you're looking at Weimar-Germany-style hyperinflation. U. S. stocks will soar in nominal terms, as Venezuelan ones have; but, in terms of gold, commodities, mining stocks, they will be crashing into oblivion.

>>21297347

Problem is you didn't have these massive asset-bubbles after WW2, nor all these colossal social programs. In real terms, we are going to see a crash in stocks and house-prices worse than that of 1929. It won't show itself in nominal terms, just like the crashes in Venezuela and Zimbabwe. But any one holding anything paper money is going to lose 99% of their wealth, and anybody holding assets is going to lose over 90%. It will be the greatest wealth transfer in the history of man from those who are currently wealthy into the hands of those who hold gold and silver. Again, pensions, public schools, medicare, etc., will get wiped out, and people who were relying on the government to protect them will be completely destitute. It is going to be horrific.

>>21265639

YCC would do the direct opposite of crashing the markets. YCC would mean permanently low yields, and hence a permanently low rate of risk-free return. A hyperinflationary bond-market crash would commence, and there would be a stampede into stocks. You would see a rally in the markets like the ones in Zimbabwe or Venezuela.

If yields go up, the markets crash. That's what happened in late 2018, for example, when a 3% yield on the ten-year caused an instant crash from 26,500 to 22,500, before the Fed was forced to re-start Q. E. The whole point of YCC is to drive down yields and prevent the asset-bubbles from collapsing into oblivion. The only alternative to YCC is defaulting on the debt, and letting stocks and house prices crash by 90%.

>>21250093

>Gold also went that way because .. there was a lot of instability

This is untrue. Gold did not simply rise because of uncertainty. We had another bull market in gold from '00 to '11 and it took place under exactly the same conditions, falling yields and the prospect of a debt-trap and a currency crisis. Gold is inversely correlated with negative real yields, and that is the end of it.

>>QE helps to prevent these kinds of crashes

No, Q. E. simply re-inflates bubbles and makes the next crash worse, until you are out of ammunition once real yields finally go negative. The Dotcom bubble was inflated, then the Housing bubble, and now we are in the Everything Bubble. Only, in 2008, nominal yields were still 5%, and the Fed had a little ammunition left; now they are really negative; it can do nothing.

>>Finally, we'll never see a crash like we did in 1929 because we're not using a gold-backed currency.

As I say, whether the crash happens nominally or in real terms is immaterial. The crash will probably look like picture related, but that is still a crash. If your Tesla stock goes to 10,000, but you can only buy a loaf of bread when you sell it, then it is not worth very much to you.

>>Regarding the hyperinflation of Zimbabwe and Venezuela, again, this will never happen to the US because of the aforementioned political posture the US holds.

Political position of the U. S. is meaningless. Nobody is stupid enough to buy a ten-year treasury when the U. S. is caught in a debt-trap, can't let yields go positive ever again, and offers an actual decrease in purchasing-power along with the bond. This means that a vicious circle of Q. E. _must_ take place, eventually leading to a bond-market crash and hyperinflation. There is no getting out of this. It is absolutely inescapable. Rome was the greatest and most powerful Empire in the world; didn't matter once they debased their silver coinage to nothing. You can't field an army without money.

>>20781089

U. K. house prices will crash in real terms, not in nominal terms. Alasdair Macleod says that the pound will crash to nothing this year along with the dollar:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XliHE6QgljY&feature=emb_title

Anybody with pound-notes should be converting them into gold and gold miners as quickly as possible if he actually wants to take advantage of the house price crash. The economist Dominic Frisby made a video about this a few weeks ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZDE-_553jc

>>20724595

No. See my post here. >>20722620 Stocks are about to become valuable only in the same way as Venezuelan or Zimbabwe ones are.

>>20722196

All the "gains" in the stock market are going to be like those in the Venezuelan or Zimbabwe ones. Completely worthless. Everybody needs to get out of dollars and go into gold and gold miners before it is too late.

>>19913424

Your picture is truer than you think.

>>19877750
L E V E R A G E

line go up, balance go up up!

>>19850352

Gold will only go down if stocks go down. Tapered liquidity will soon cause yields to rise, and may put pressure on metals as well as stocks. But when the Fed halts this crash in September/October, just before the election, gold and silver are going to soar to levels you can hardly even imagine. Stocks will be going up as well, but only because of inflation, as in Venezuela.

>>19848369

In terms of gold, which is the measuring-stick of inflation, stocks have gone down this year, vastly. It can only get worse from here. Even when the Fed turns on the money-printers to halt this crash in September/October, stocks will only be going up because of high inflation, like Venezuela or Zimbabwe. In terms of gold, you will be losing money, so it will be a real, if not a nominal crash.

>>19733547

Why would you buy stocks then? Would you rather hold gold, or Venezuelan equities giving you 1000% gains?

>>19672856

Yield curve control -- also known as a formal cap on yields. It would cap the yields on bonds which are paid to investors at a certain percent. They would have to print tens of trillions to enforce it, and so it would signify high inflation and eventual hyperinflation. However, as it would cap the level of risk-free return very low, people would be discouraged from buying bonds, and so stocks would soar. Gold, however, would outperform stocks, as it did in the 70s and 80s, or in Venezuela or Zimbabwe, because stocks would mostly only be going up because of inflation, while inflation would absolutely trash the real economy upon which stocks are based.

>>19623796

During the inflationary 70s and 80s, you lost money in the stock market in real terms. You made 20 times your money in gold. So in the case of hyperinflation. Look at the gains in the Venezuelan stock market. Would those make you feel content? Certain companies will do well in the coming crisis, especially those to do with commodities, but many will become bankrupt and worthless.

In the long-term, people should be looking at foreign stocks; American ones will perform worst of all.

>>19623796

During the inflationary 70s and 80s, you lost money in the stock market in real times. You made 20 times your money in gold. Likewise in the case of hyperinflation. Look at the gains in the Venezuelan stock market. Would those make you feel content? Certain companies will do well in the coming crisis, especially those to do with commodities, but many will become bankrupt and worthless.

>>19615597

Sorry, deleted my post to rephrase it; you were replying to >>19615585

>>19615488

>By your own argument, the only real risk in equities is total worldwide economic collapse and longterm depression

Cart before the horse. What I'm saying is that the collapse of America will collapse the rest of the world with it, because the world economy is so closely tied to that of America. In the modern age, stock markets tend to rise or fall together.

Unless you can show how yields can rise without collapsing stocks nominally, or yields can be suppressed without collapsing stocks really (see >>19613751), as they did in Zimbabwe or Venezuela, 90% losses in equities are inevitable.

>>19610064

It's either going to crash nominally, or it's going to be a bull market in the same way that Venezuela is.