- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Q2 GDP, annualized, quarter over quarter -32.9%
Posted on 7/30/20 at 7:47 am
Posted on 7/30/20 at 7:47 am
vs -34.5% expected
Was -5% change in Q1.
Was -5% change in Q1.
This post was edited on 7/30/20 at 9:06 am
4
Posted on 7/30/20 at 8:02 am to castorinho
The oddest thing is happening. Futures are actually down 1% 
Posted on 7/30/20 at 8:08 am to castorinho
Obviously the play here is 0 Delta max strike QQQ calls. So bullish.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 8:24 am to wutangfinancial
I know you're being tongue in cheek, but on a serious note: the Put-Call ratio is actually climbing, which is interesting given:
1. Horrible, but expected, GDP print
2. Jobless claims worse than expected
3. Monetary stimulus appears to have plateaued
4. Consumer spending about to take a hit as unemployment benefits go from >100% of average wages to ~70%
I'd hate to be a Beta chaser if and when the market starts trading on fundamentals again
1. Horrible, but expected, GDP print
2. Jobless claims worse than expected
3. Monetary stimulus appears to have plateaued
4. Consumer spending about to take a hit as unemployment benefits go from >100% of average wages to ~70%
I'd hate to be a Beta chaser if and when the market starts trading on fundamentals again
Posted on 7/30/20 at 8:31 am to castorinho
Interestingly now neither Obama nor Trump have a stake at the dubious claim of never having a year with annual GDP of 3% or more as 2015 (3.1%) and 2018 (3%) were both revised upward.
From Ben Casselman at the NYT:
From Ben Casselman at the NYT:
quote:
This definitely qualifies as trivia, especially right now, but for the record: 2018 annual growth was revised back up to 3%. But 2015 was revised up to 3.1%, meaning Trump can no longer claim Obama never had a full year of 3% growth.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 8:41 am to buckeye_vol
To see people try to accurately characterize the Obama claim was so funny. To be accurate (before this revision), you had to have made at least (3) qualifiers by my count:
Obama is the only President (1) in recorded history never to have achieved at least 3.0% (2) annual (i.e. calendar year and not four successive quarters) (3) real GDP growth.
Now they're going to have an asterisk to contend with, too
Obama is the only President (1) in recorded history never to have achieved at least 3.0% (2) annual (i.e. calendar year and not four successive quarters) (3) real GDP growth.
Now they're going to have an asterisk to contend with, too
Posted on 7/30/20 at 8:49 am to castorinho
just so it's clear- thats "annualized"
GDP fell by 9.5%. If GDP continued to fall at that rate for a full year, it would be 32.9%, but that is not what happened in the 2nd quarter.
It's still very very bad, but the 32% is something of a sensationalized headline number to get clicks
GDP fell by 9.5%. If GDP continued to fall at that rate for a full year, it would be 32.9%, but that is not what happened in the 2nd quarter.
It's still very very bad, but the 32% is something of a sensationalized headline number to get clicks
Posted on 7/30/20 at 9:05 am to RedStickBR
The problem is that stuff is already "priced in." It will take an event in the bond market to shake the QQQ tree again. The DXY looks like it's behaving how the Fed wants and the MOVE index continues to dive so I'd guess we see ranged trading until Q3 earnings season.
I honestly thought the opposite would happen to 2018/2019.
quote:
Interestingly now neither Obama nor Trump have a stake at the dubious claim of never having a year with annual GDP of 3% or more as 2015 (3.1%) and 2018 (3%) were both revised upward.
I honestly thought the opposite would happen to 2018/2019.
This post was edited on 7/30/20 at 9:28 am
Posted on 7/30/20 at 9:32 am to wutangfinancial
I agree with you we'll need a catalyst before we see any sort of major retracement in the stock market, but I also think the underlying environment continues to evolve such that if said catalyst occurs, it could be catastrophic. Fiscal and monetary policy are both already highly accommodative, valuations are already near historical highs and credit is already tightening in certain areas.
While it may require a knockout punch to take out this market, I still think it's worth acknowledging the market appears to have a chin of glass at present.
While it may require a knockout punch to take out this market, I still think it's worth acknowledging the market appears to have a chin of glass at present.
This post was edited on 7/30/20 at 9:33 am
Posted on 7/30/20 at 9:41 am to wutangfinancial
If we bounce at 25k and 3k again when that comes up, that is going to confirm to me that we're range bound for a while.
I would not be surprised to see QQQ/the NASDAQ shave some points off whenever a vaccine gets announced next year, but it won't be a large amount unless the Fed has to raise interest earlier than they want to or we see another black swan event. Besides technology, a large amount of the stock market is still in a bear/recession market anyway.
I would not be surprised to see QQQ/the NASDAQ shave some points off whenever a vaccine gets announced next year, but it won't be a large amount unless the Fed has to raise interest earlier than they want to or we see another black swan event. Besides technology, a large amount of the stock market is still in a bear/recession market anyway.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 9:54 am to SECFan1995
quote:
unless the Fed has to raise interest earlier
I just don't see Paul Volcker walking through the door. If we raised rates at all in the next several years we would destroy our suppliers for everything we consume and it would become a positive feedback loop of economic destruction.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:45 am to Uncle Stu
quote:
just so it's clear- thats "annualized"
GDP fell by 9.5%. If GDP continued to fall at that rate for a full year, it would be 32.9%, but that is not what happened in the 2nd quarter.
It's still very very bad, but the 32% is something of a sensationalized headline number to get clicks
This is worth repeating.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 10:51 am to RedStickBR
quote:Not true for a lot of people. There are plenty of people who are unemployed and make much more than what unemployment pays. My entire family is losing thousands.
unemployment benefits go from >100%
Anyone who makes over $40,000 in Louisiana is losing money. The max unemployment is $767 a week in Louisiana after 10% taxes. A lot of people with careers, mortgages, and children make more than that without unemployment.
Without an extension, LA people will receive less than minimum wage at $222 a week.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 11:03 am to tigergirl10
Are you currently unemployed?
Posted on 7/30/20 at 11:05 am to tigergirl10
quote:
Not true for a lot of people.
True. I was speaking in generalities just to assess what the macroeconomic impact may be on discretionary spending. While there are certainly people for whom UE < pre-COVID wages, what I've seen is that UE > pre-COVID wages for 67% to 80% of U.S. workers. That means many people have actually had more money to spend post-COVID vs. pre-COVID (hence my >100% figure). When that drops to 70%, it should have a negative impact on discretionary spending (which is significant, given consumption is about 70% of the U.S. economy).
This post was edited on 7/30/20 at 11:41 am
Posted on 7/30/20 at 11:37 am to TigerDeBaiter
quote:
This is worth repeating.
Meh you can spin all you want but that print includes April and May where the poverty rate decreased and the unemployed received a pay raise.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 12:11 pm to Uncle Stu
quote:Right.
just so it's clear- thats "annualized"
GDP fell by 9.5%. If GDP continued to fall at that rate for a full year, it would be 32.9%, but that is not what happened in the 2nd quarter.
GDP fell by 9.5%
So can someone explain how the 32.9% is derived.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 12:13 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:0.905^4 = 0.671
Right.
GDP fell by 9.5%
So can someone explain how the 32.9% is derived.
Posted on 7/30/20 at 3:13 pm to buckeye_vol
Not sure why today's gdp print sent stocks tumbling. it was widely known that april-june was going to be an historic downturn. In fact, today's print was better than expected.
Why wasn't this baked in?
Why wasn't this baked in?
Posted on 7/30/20 at 3:17 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
I think it was likely more related to the employment numbers sucking wind.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News