- 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
Will the market improve as Corona subsides?
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:00 am
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:00 am
Should we expect a direct and inverse correlation between the stock market and the subsidence of new cases of the coronavirus? It’s a simple question.
7
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:13 am to tigerpawl
Yes
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:17 am to tigerpawl
I think as soon as the market realizes that not that many people are actually getting this then the market reversed course.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:19 am to tigerpawl
quote:
Should we expect a direct and inverse correlation between the stock market and the subsidence of new cases of the coronavirus? It’s a simple question.
No.
There are too many other moving parts from how global supply chains will be fundamentally restructed, which bankruptcies are coming, and what the disease burden next winter looks like.
This post was edited on 3/19/20 at 7:20 am
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:20 am to Shepherd88
Dude, we're in for more pain. When we start actually testing people and the extent of this thing sinks into the skulls of the mouth breathers you will see more selling.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:22 am to BobRoss
But the CFR will fall along with more testing, which should lower the fear some
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:25 am to BobRoss
Much more pain coming. The reason there isn’t more cases is because not everyone has been tested. I personally don’t know one person that has been tested
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:30 am to Ron Cheramie
Do you know anyone that has needed to be hospitalized?
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:38 am to BobRoss
LINK /
10% of those tested have tested positive, way less than what was pumped up by the media. On top of that, those who have been tested so far were the ones needing it done the most, the first responders, and those who were displaying symptoms.
A country with 1.6 billion only had 80k infections and 3k deaths. Another country only 100 miles away of 1.4 billion (India) has only had 400 infections. Turn the damn news off bc it’s lying to you.
10% of those tested have tested positive, way less than what was pumped up by the media. On top of that, those who have been tested so far were the ones needing it done the most, the first responders, and those who were displaying symptoms.
A country with 1.6 billion only had 80k infections and 3k deaths. Another country only 100 miles away of 1.4 billion (India) has only had 400 infections. Turn the damn news off bc it’s lying to you.
This post was edited on 3/19/20 at 7:41 am
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:51 am to Shepherd88
Maybe you aren't understanding the gravity of the situation. The issue is we're not all going to die, the issue is our healthcare system being overrun.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:53 am to tigerpawl
It should. Consumer demand isn't going anywhere.
I don't see it going all the way back to 29k but it shouldn't have been that high in the first place.
I don't see it going all the way back to 29k but it shouldn't have been that high in the first place.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 7:57 am to Shepherd88
quote:I'm a statistics and probability guy. I still don't get it.
10% of those tested have tested positive, way less than what was pumped up by the media. On top of that, those who have been tested so far were the ones needing it done the most, the first responders, and those who were displaying symptoms.
A country with 1.6 billion only had 80k infections and 3k deaths. Another country only 100 miles away of 1.4 billion (India) has only had 400 infections. Turn the damn news off bc it’s lying to you.
56% of the 50 states still reporting 0 (zero) deaths.
55% of all US cases confined to 3 states.
Average deaths per state (back out high state and low state): 1.8
Posted on 3/19/20 at 8:54 am to tigerpawl
The issue isn't the amount of people infected or the amount of people dead. The issue is that we have essentially shut down a large portion of our economy in order to limit the numbers from getting much much worse. The question should really be how quickly will the economy pick back up and what are the longer term effects of shutting everything down for an extended period of time. We also don't know how long everything will be shut down.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 9:02 am to Shepherd88
quote:
I think as soon as the market realizes that not that many people are actually getting this then the market reversed course.
That should be the case but I don't think so. I don't think the market is pricing in the virus. I think it's pricing the economic damage form the shutdown. As long as the government keeps a significant portion of the economy shut down, we're going to remain in this turmoil.
It's already clear that this virus is not that bad.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 9:03 am to tigerpawl
The corona virus was just the pin that burst the bubble. Once the bubble is popped it doesn’t matter what happens to the pin.
Regardless of what happens with the virus there will be more pain ahead for investors before things get better.
Of course we will have some face ripping bear market rallies here and there. But the ultimate low is not in yet.
Regardless of what happens with the virus there will be more pain ahead for investors before things get better.
Of course we will have some face ripping bear market rallies here and there. But the ultimate low is not in yet.
This post was edited on 3/19/20 at 9:04 am
Posted on 3/19/20 at 9:10 am to bod312
quote:
The issue isn't the amount of people infected or the amount of people dead. The issue is that we have essentially shut down a large portion of our economy in order to limit the numbers from getting much much worse. The question should really be how quickly will the economy pick back up and what are the longer term effects of shutting everything down for an extended period of time. We also don't know how long everything will be shut down.
This
I think the current market conditions are due directly to the virus. We have barely begun to see the actual economic indicators of how much this will affect the economy.
Today was the first report of jobless insurance claims increasing. I expect we'll see unemployment rise, company earnings decrease (in some industries drastically), and overall GDP to decrease. Once these numbers actually come out the market will not react favorably to them.
Now much of it could already be priced in, but we don't know how long this will last. This unpredictability is what's gonna keep driving the market volatility for a while.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 9:14 am to bod312
quote:If this "The issue isn't the amount of people infected or the amount of people dead.", then why this??: "...we have essentially shut down a large portion of our economy in order to limit the numbers from getting much much worse.". It doesn't add up. A bit contradictory, wouldn't you say?
The issue isn't the amount of people infected or the amount of people dead.
This post was edited on 3/19/20 at 9:23 am
Posted on 3/19/20 at 9:14 am to rintintin
quote:For me, the good news is the economy will bounce back quicker than it normally does during a slowdown.
I think the current market conditions are due directly to the virus. We have barely begun to see the actual economic indicators of how much this will affect the economy.
The pent up demand plus the relief that most people will feel for having weathered the storm will have them out shopping, eating and buying stuff again.
I know I can't wait to go eat out. I may even buy a new car.
Posted on 3/19/20 at 9:17 am to tigerpawl
quote:
If not "The issue isn't the amount of people infected or the amount of people dead.", then why this??: "...we have essentially shut down a large portion of our economy in order to limit the numbers from getting much much worse.". it doesn't add up. A bit contradictory, wouldn't you say?
This is not a money question then but a politics or OT question so this would be taking it to a different board. I think most people think the numbers will get worse as we are not close to peaking. I think most "experts" would say we are taking a proactive approach. If we did not take drastic actions the numbers would be scary. If we did nothing what would the infected and death tolls be and then what would the long term effects be?
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News