Oil prices affect every industry as well as the overall economy, and oil price anywhere affect oil prices everywhere. Depending on how this conflict draws on, this could be a lasting issue.Kenneth_2003 said:
Geopolitically, the other Gulf Nations need to step up and start some of the heavy lifting to secure both the Gulf and the Strait.
Otherwise this further process Trump's general thesis that the US needs to reduce global dependency.
So from a markets perspective this could be beneficial to companies that do not have the Persian Gulf in their supply chains.
MRB10 said:
The people who really know the answer to this don't post on Texags. Everything posted here is speculation.
MRB10 said:
The people who really know the answer to this don't post on Texags. Everything posted here is speculation.
GeorgiAg said:
You cannot time the market. That is gambling. If you purchase financially solid companies over time, you will be fine. Dollar cost average.
Anyone who points to a time in the past where they successfully timed the market is the same as a guy who picked the correct number on the roulette.
You can be smart - when the US starts amassing a huge military force in a region, it is reasonable to assume there will be a conflict such as we are seeing now. Also, there might be some market volatility after the midterms. The Democrats are likely to overtake the House and perhaps even the Senate. That will grind Trumps agenda to a halt.
Furlock Bones said:
i'm sorry. but your constant assertions about how simple it is to beat DCA are hilarious given that the best minds in the business fail to consistently beat out the S&P.
Heineken-Ashi said:Furlock Bones said:
i'm sorry. but your constant assertions about how simple it is to beat DCA are hilarious given that the best minds in the business fail to consistently beat out the S&P.
Those "best minds" participate in the herding more than anyone else, and often drive it.
You can read their sentiment on a chart. What you can't easily do is time it. That's why being able to determine structurally strong vs structurally weak is pivotal.
And yall are right. The majority aren't capable. That's because it's against the very nature of economics and logical thought to believe that markets are driven in an emergent way by mass sentiment and herding. This is why the majority are at their most fearful once a bottom has already occurred, and most euphoric after a top has already occurred.
Heineken-Ashi said:GeorgiAg said:
You cannot time the market. That is gambling. If you purchase financially solid companies over time, you will be fine. Dollar cost average.
Anyone who points to a time in the past where they successfully timed the market is the same as a guy who picked the correct number on the roulette.
You can be smart - when the US starts amassing a huge military force in a region, it is reasonable to assume there will be a conflict such as we are seeing now. Also, there might be some market volatility after the midterms. The Democrats are likely to overtake the House and perhaps even the Senate. That will grind Trumps agenda to a halt.
People who say things like this are just admitting they have absolutely no idea how to tell the difference between a healthy market and a risky one. You don't have to sell an exact top, nor buy an exact bottom, to easily outperform a DCA approach. That's if you know what to look for.
Below is what's called negative divergence. It's what happens when price continues to make higher highs on continually weakening upward momentum. It signals an approaching or completed end to a trend and a reversal upcoming. The steeper the price move and longer the timeframe, the likely more severe the selloff will be. Just look at 2023 - 2025 divergence which was less severely sloped and led to a major selloff that could have easily been avoided had one had the foresight to de-risk into the weakening.
Wrighty said:Heineken-Ashi said:GeorgiAg said:
You cannot time the market. That is gambling. If you purchase financially solid companies over time, you will be fine. Dollar cost average.
Anyone who points to a time in the past where they successfully timed the market is the same as a guy who picked the correct number on the roulette.
You can be smart - when the US starts amassing a huge military force in a region, it is reasonable to assume there will be a conflict such as we are seeing now. Also, there might be some market volatility after the midterms. The Democrats are likely to overtake the House and perhaps even the Senate. That will grind Trumps agenda to a halt.
People who say things like this are just admitting they have absolutely no idea how to tell the difference between a healthy market and a risky one. You don't have to sell an exact top, nor buy an exact bottom, to easily outperform a DCA approach. That's if you know what to look for.
Below is what's called negative divergence. It's what happens when price continues to make higher highs on continually weakening upward momentum. It signals an approaching or completed end to a trend and a reversal upcoming. The steeper the price move and longer the timeframe, the likely more severe the selloff will be. Just look at 2023 - 2025 divergence which was less severely sloped and led to a major selloff that could have easily been avoided had one had the foresight to de-risk into the weakening.
lol. This take reminds me of the three ladies who started an investment newsletter because their stock selections outperformed the market significantly. Their fan base grew. Then a journalist reviewed their finances and determined that they had actually incorrectly calculated their returns and that they had actually lagged the market by 3% per year the whole time.
Reminds me also of a thread where a Texags user who had similar confidence about market predictions posted "buy now" or "sit out" and his performance was bad over time, and the thread went quiet.
hey, the oil market did go bust. He was absolutely right.Ducks4brkfast said:Wrighty said:Heineken-Ashi said:GeorgiAg said:
You cannot time the market. That is gambling. If you purchase financially solid companies over time, you will be fine. Dollar cost average.
Anyone who points to a time in the past where they successfully timed the market is the same as a guy who picked the correct number on the roulette.
You can be smart - when the US starts amassing a huge military force in a region, it is reasonable to assume there will be a conflict such as we are seeing now. Also, there might be some market volatility after the midterms. The Democrats are likely to overtake the House and perhaps even the Senate. That will grind Trumps agenda to a halt.
People who say things like this are just admitting they have absolutely no idea how to tell the difference between a healthy market and a risky one. You don't have to sell an exact top, nor buy an exact bottom, to easily outperform a DCA approach. That's if you know what to look for.
Below is what's called negative divergence. It's what happens when price continues to make higher highs on continually weakening upward momentum. It signals an approaching or completed end to a trend and a reversal upcoming. The steeper the price move and longer the timeframe, the likely more severe the selloff will be. Just look at 2023 - 2025 divergence which was less severely sloped and led to a major selloff that could have easily been avoided had one had the foresight to de-risk into the weakening.
lol. This take reminds me of the three ladies who started an investment newsletter because their stock selections outperformed the market significantly. Their fan base grew. Then a journalist reviewed their finances and determined that they had actually incorrectly calculated their returns and that they had actually lagged the market by 3% per year the whole time.
Reminds me also of a thread where a Texags user who had similar confidence about market predictions posted "buy now" or "sit out" and his performance was bad over time, and the thread went quiet.
Not mention.. Houston, we have a problem oil bust is imminent and I Mr I went all cash.
MRB10 said:
Only the OB knows things. Everything you all do is gambling.
Captain Winky said:
Define "soon".
Dr. Doctor said:
Glad to know that we went into this quagmire with zero planning against an enemy that has been preparing for the past 40+ years.
Who's looking to take on their perceived 'bully' and bloody some noses.
I'm sure nothing bad will come of this...
~egon
I bleed maroon said:Dr. Doctor said:
Glad to know that we went into this quagmire with zero planning against an enemy that has been preparing for the past 40+ years.
Who's looking to take on their perceived 'bully' and bloody some noses.
I'm sure nothing bad will come of this...
~egon
I'm sure you know this, but this is a total fabrication and lie. Don't let your political bias intrude into your desired truth.
The US military, intelligence, and diplomatic community has in fact been planning a version of this action for over 40 years themselves. Israel as well. Think about it - you know this. The difference is that we didn't have a leader during this past time period that posted his every thought and whim on social media on an hourly basis. Past leaders had decorum, discipline, and judgment that were above this sort of thing. THAT's the difference, and is the primary wildcard here - no need to embellish or exaggerate.
Sapper Redux said:I bleed maroon said:Dr. Doctor said:
Glad to know that we went into this quagmire with zero planning against an enemy that has been preparing for the past 40+ years.
Who's looking to take on their perceived 'bully' and bloody some noses.
I'm sure nothing bad will come of this...
~egon
I'm sure you know this, but this is a total fabrication and lie. Don't let your political bias intrude into your desired truth.
The US military, intelligence, and diplomatic community has in fact been planning a version of this action for over 40 years themselves. Israel as well. Think about it - you know this. The difference is that we didn't have a leader during this past time period that posted his every thought and whim on social media on an hourly basis. Past leaders had decorum, discipline, and judgment that were above this sort of thing. THAT's the difference, and is the primary wildcard here - no need to embellish or exaggerate.
The military is usually good at planning operations. They are complete **** at planning for the consequences of operations. People love to blame politicians for failures in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan, but the simple fact is that the military does not fully consider the consequences of military action. You only need look at the horrible assumptions made regarding strategic bombing or "shock and awe." Additionally, the Pentagon doesn't give two ****s about oil prices or the stock market.
This is where you need civilian leadership to step in and apply their expertise and offer a critical eye towards military plans. It appears there was none in this case.
YouBet said:
It was expected to be a better year for international stocks than US domestic but now with this going on that script has flipped. That could obviously change. Who knows.
So, glass half full take is that you are better off being down here vs elsewhere.
I bleed maroon said:Sapper Redux said:I bleed maroon said:Dr. Doctor said:
Glad to know that we went into this quagmire with zero planning against an enemy that has been preparing for the past 40+ years.
Who's looking to take on their perceived 'bully' and bloody some noses.
I'm sure nothing bad will come of this...
~egon
I'm sure you know this, but this is a total fabrication and lie. Don't let your political bias intrude into your desired truth.
The US military, intelligence, and diplomatic community has in fact been planning a version of this action for over 40 years themselves. Israel as well. Think about it - you know this. The difference is that we didn't have a leader during this past time period that posted his every thought and whim on social media on an hourly basis. Past leaders had decorum, discipline, and judgment that were above this sort of thing. THAT's the difference, and is the primary wildcard here - no need to embellish or exaggerate.
The military is usually good at planning operations. They are complete **** at planning for the consequences of operations. People love to blame politicians for failures in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan, but the simple fact is that the military does not fully consider the consequences of military action. You only need look at the horrible assumptions made regarding strategic bombing or "shock and awe." Additionally, the Pentagon doesn't give two ****s about oil prices or the stock market.
This is where you need civilian leadership to step in and apply their expertise and offer a critical eye towards military plans. It appears there was none in this case.
The hyperbole is strong on all sides in this conflict. Trump may end up royally screwing this up in the end (I have no faith in his Commander in Chief performance myself), but:
1. Zero planning or oversight of the military? Silly falsehood.
2. "Quagmire"? After three weeks? Get real.
3. Fun to exaggerate things to make your political opponents look bad? Sure.
Sapper Redux said:I bleed maroon said:Sapper Redux said:I bleed maroon said:Dr. Doctor said:
Glad to know that we went into this quagmire with zero planning against an enemy that has been preparing for the past 40+ years.
Who's looking to take on their perceived 'bully' and bloody some noses.
I'm sure nothing bad will come of this...
~egon
I'm sure you know this, but this is a total fabrication and lie. Don't let your political bias intrude into your desired truth.
The US military, intelligence, and diplomatic community has in fact been planning a version of this action for over 40 years themselves. Israel as well. Think about it - you know this. The difference is that we didn't have a leader during this past time period that posted his every thought and whim on social media on an hourly basis. Past leaders had decorum, discipline, and judgment that were above this sort of thing. THAT's the difference, and is the primary wildcard here - no need to embellish or exaggerate.
The military is usually good at planning operations. They are complete **** at planning for the consequences of operations. People love to blame politicians for failures in Vietnam or Iraq or Afghanistan, but the simple fact is that the military does not fully consider the consequences of military action. You only need look at the horrible assumptions made regarding strategic bombing or "shock and awe." Additionally, the Pentagon doesn't give two ****s about oil prices or the stock market.
This is where you need civilian leadership to step in and apply their expertise and offer a critical eye towards military plans. It appears there was none in this case.
The hyperbole is strong on all sides in this conflict. Trump may end up royally screwing this up in the end (I have no faith in his Commander in Chief performance myself), but:
1. Zero planning or oversight of the military? Silly falsehood.
2. "Quagmire"? After three weeks? Get real.
3. Fun to exaggerate things to make your political opponents look bad? Sure.
1. What's the endgame here? Seriously, what's the goal and what does success look like in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years? Has any of that been explained with any reliability? Because the goals seem to shift daily. The measure of success seems extremely arbitrary. And buy-in from allies and strategic partners who could help guarantee the outcome was never sought and instead the plan seems to be to insult them until they acquiesce. The military can plan different operations for different strategic goals, but the choice of targets and the integration with a larger strategic vision relies on the civilian leadership.
2. Can you point to where I said quagmire? I said there appears to be no planning for the full scope of this conflict and I stand by that. The history of these "operations" is not good and the application of overwhelming force alone, particularly bombing, has an awful history of producing the long term results you want.
3. I'm not exaggerating anything. Trump and Hegseth are doing little more than trolling in public. They haven't done anything to explain the conflict to the American people or explain the actual goals. Those goals seem to shift moment to moment.
