DrSven wrote: ↑Sat Sep 17, 2022 12:25 pm
Very nice summary, Lori, thanks.
Yes, the plunderer favours the scenario that you described, i.e. we have already seen the ralley and are in for another move down.
TI still favours their scenario with the ralley still to come before we take another dive.
Other scenarios are possible too. No one knows what is going to happen.
Yodean shared several good posts during last days and weeks on the topic. Imo his approach makes sense: try to imagine all possible scenarios and attribute a possibility to each one of them.
Then, try to plan for the most likely scenarios. At least, that is what I am trying to do. This involves adjusting my cash position and having a clear vision of what happens to my portfolio in scenario A or B.
The hardest part for me is to accept that no ones knows what will happen. I mean it is clear that no ones got a working crystal ball, but at the moment it seems somehow even harder to predict the future than before, if that makes sense.
However, once accepted it allows me to concentrate on possible scenarios that different sources, i.e. TI, Yodean, the plunderer, others inside and outside this forum. And I am grateful to all of them for sharing their opinion.
Just my 2c and nfa.
It depends on what timeline you are basing your observations on.
The short term is very difficult to predict and even when it is, it is the wrong time frame to base one investments on. The focus should be on the long term and the short term like TA should be used when possible to fine tune entries and sometimes exits. Even when it was easier to determine the short-term trend say 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, etc, years ago, we would always focus on the long-term outlook.
Having said that yes, it is getting harder than before to determine the shorter-term trend. And the main reason is the money supply. We stated this many times over the years; as the money supply increases, there will be more manipulation.
Indirectly related to the money supply is this event or development
Another thing which I will get into later is that only 10% can really win when times are normal. We have two events that change the equation
The normal equation is something like this. 0.1 to 1% at the top. This figure has changed it is now closer to 3%
Then astute players/critical thinkers make up another 10%. Before the top players but critical thinkers would compromise 10.1 to 11% of the populace; this was an acceptable number.
However, the number of individuals in the top camp has grown and that is because some of them have become soft and allowed other usually unwanted elements to enter. There is a culling taking place. It is an intense battle for these individuals to understand the old way of investing well and so the way to kill them is via a
war of attrition
Next, you have the astute players, through analysis, MP, etc they also came to learn this game well and so they need to be destroyed. This is also a tough play. As to why these people need to be reduced in number. It has to do with the massive increase in the money supply. The more money is, the more control the big players need in order to control dissent. So this group needs to be reduced to roughly 6% and the Top players need to shed at least 2 per cent but if they are aiming to push the US debt towards the 65 to 100 trillion mark, they need to drop it down to by 2.1 to 2.4 leaving only 0.6 to 0.9% at the top.
As both groups contain very smart individuals, the only way to knock them out is by using a new play. Hence the war of extremes and the battle of Attrition
