Trump calls out Pfizer for price hikes. Pfizer stock...goes up

Hedgology · Jul 9, 2018

Moot said:
That was so weaselly. He didn't agree with you....in fact, no one is.

Hey! Don't call me weaselly.

The President alone said duties on steel and aluminum would be imposed for long period of time. And how did the market react?.....

"....And once again, Wall Street is blaming the White House.

After falling 420 points on Thursday, the Dow Jones industrial average tumbled another 300 points early Friday morning, and is down more than 1,500 points in total since Tuesday afternoon....

What's Spooking Stocks This Time?

Stocks plummeted Thursday immediately after the Trump administration’s move to impose 25% tariffs on imported steel and 10% tariffs on aluminum to protect U.S. jobs in those industries.

The president said those duties would likely be imposed “for a long period of time.”...."

Why the Stock Market Is Plunging Again | Money

I see you've abandoned your first argument in favor of a more reasonable one. Nice.

Okay, so markets were down by alot that day. That is terrible. If the situation was so bad, why did markets recover their losses the next day?

Trump has created a very uncertain market and if there's one thing the market doesn't like is uncertainty.

If there is uncertainty, it's not captured in the VIX. VIX appears to be mean-reverting.

Moot · Jul 9, 2018

Hedgology said:
You gave a misleading example. It is already a generally accepted fact that the sharp downturn in equities in the Technology industry was due to the NASDAQ bubble, not the statements of the President.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot-com_bubble

The DotCom bubble didn't burst until 2001. However, the Biotechs dropped sharply in mid March of 2000...the day after Clinton said genome research should be freely shared. Surely, you know the difference between the tech industry and the biotech. If you do, I'm not seeing it.

You're confused... redux...

You're kinda slow, aren't cha?

Hedgology · Jul 9, 2018

Moot said:
The DotCom bubble didn't burst until 2001. However, the Biotechs dropped sharply in mid March of 2000...the day after Clinton said genome research should be freely shared. Surely, you know the difference between the tech industry and the biotech. If you do, I'm not seeing it.

Ehhh, no. In 2000, the NASDAQ had a peak of 5,023. In 2001, the trough as 1,470. If you would have waited until 2001 to realize there was a bubble, you would have experienced a loss of well over 50%.

In simpler terms, the bubble popped in 2000, not 2001. But good guess.

You're kinda slow, aren't cha?

LOL...

LMAO...

LMFAO...

ROFLMAFO...

ROFLMAFOXQSAZ...

And so on, and so forth...

Greenbeard · Jul 9, 2018

Threegoofs said:
Hilarious.

Thanks to his serial lying, The orange clown in chief doesn’t even have a bully pulpit anymore.

Twitter

Pfizer shares rise after President Trump attacks its drug price hikes

We were less than two weeks into his administration before he revealed that the campaign rhetoric about pharma was just hot air.

After meeting with pharma lobbyists, Trump drops promise to negotiate drug prices

A lot happened in the 2016 campaign, but one of the things Donald Trump did to win the election was shift to the left on a number of key issues — promising to avoid cuts in Social Security and Medicare benefits and adopting a longstanding Democratic pledge to let Medicare negotiate bulk discounts in the price it pays for prescription drugs.

Today, after a meeting with pharmaceutical industry lobbyists and executives, he abandoned that pledge, referring to an idea he supported as recently as three weeks ago as a form of “price fixing” that would hurt “smaller, younger companies.” Instead of getting tough, Trump’s new plan is that he’s “going to be lowering taxes” and “getting rid of regulations.”

Nobody cares about his tweets anymore.

Moot · Jul 9, 2018

Hedgology said:
Hey! Don't call me weaselly.

I see you've abandoned your first argument in favor of a more reasonable one. Nice.

Okay, so markets were down by alot that day. That is terrible. If the situation was so bad, why did markets recover their losses the next day?

http://www.hedgology.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Dow.jpg[IMG]

If there is uncertainty, it's not captured in the VIX. VIX appears to be mean-reverting.

[IMG]http://www.hedgology.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/VIX.jpg[IMG][/QUOTE] I didn't abandon anything. I just keep finding more evidence to support my original argument is all.

The VIX rose sharply after Trump's announcement to raise tariffs....

[indent]
[I][B]The VIX shot up Thursday following Trump’s announcement[/B] on the intention to impose steel and aluminum tariffs next week. Source: CBOE[/I]

[img]https://agmetalminer.com/mmwp/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Screen-Shot-2018-03-01-at-2.01.05-PM-768x302.png

Elsewhere, the Dow Jones dropped more than 400 points after Trump’s announcement, CNBC reported.

Steel and aluminum stocks, however, received a boost from the announcement...."

https://agmetalminer.com/2018/03/01...l-implement-steel-aluminum-tariffs-next-week/ [/indent]

The point is...the president alone can influence the market. While he may not be able to influence the entire market or even influence part of the market to show a trend...but then that wasn't the point. To say otherwise would be "moving the goal posts".

Hedgology · Jul 9, 2018

Moot said:
I didn't abandon anything. I just keep finding more evidence to support my original argument is all.

The VIX rose sharply after Trump's announcement to raise tariffs....

The VIX shot up Thursday following Trump’s announcement on the intention to impose steel and aluminum tariffs next week. Source: CBOE

Elsewhere, the Dow Jones dropped more than 400 points after Trump’s announcement, CNBC reported.

Steel and aluminum stocks, however, received a boost from the announcement...."

https://agmetalminer.com/2018/03/01...l-implement-steel-aluminum-tariffs-next-week/

The point is...the president alone can influence the market. While he may not be able to influence the entire market or even influence part of the market to show a trend...but then that wasn't the point.

LMAO. If the President can't influence the entire market or "even part of the market" then he can't influence markets at all. Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound when you type things on your keyboard?

Moot · Jul 9, 2018

Hedgology said:
Ehhh, no. In 2000, the NASDAQ had a peak of 5,023. In 2001, the trough as 1,470. If you would have waited until 2001 to realize there was a bubble, you would have experienced a loss of well over 50%.

In simpler terms, the bubble popped in 2000, not 2001. But good guess.

LOL...

LMAO...

LMFAO...

ROFLMAFO...

ROFLMAFOXQSAZ...

And so on, and so forth...

Regressing into infantile mode, are ya?

The dotcom bubble didn't burst in March 2000.... but the biotech industry did because of President Clinton and Tony Blair's statement....

However, the Trump-inspired loss is actually minor compared to what another president once did to drug stocks...
March 2000 turned out to be the Nasdaq’s all-time high and remained so for another 15 years. That bear market had many causes, but Bill Clinton and the UK’s then-Prime Minister Tony Blair gave it the first push...."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/patric...-biotech-stocks-plunged-by-half/#7ae571a760cd

"...President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair's brief statement of March 14 supporting free access to human genome information unleashed a slew of clichés, including "too little too late" and "water under the bridge." But initial misinterpretation of the statement led to a temporary slide in biotech stocks. By the end of the day, Celera Genomics Corp. of Rockville, Md., had dropped 19 percent, while Incyte Pharmaceuticals of Palo Alto, Calif., plummeted 27 percent. Even though the stock market soon rallied, ill will lingers between the public and private genome sequencers that the statement addressed..."
https://www.the-scientist.com/news/clinton-blair-stoke-debate-on-gene-data-56059

"....President Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain said yesterday that the sequence of the human genome should be made freely available to all researchers. The statement led to a sharp sell-off in the stocks of biotechnology companies, which hope to profit by creating drugs based on genetic data...."
https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nyt...ents/pop/articles/031500sci-human-genome.html

"...Abstract: This paper presents an event study on the declaration of Bill Clinton and Tony Blair about the free availability of raw genomic data. This event is known to have had a deep impact on stock prices. We found that this is the case in all sub-sectors of the biotechnology industry, especially for genomic companies, although that this does not necessarily represent the true informational content of the statement. Our findings suggest that investors have misinterpreted the event. They also suggest that biotechnology stock returns may not follow classical return generating processes like the CAPM...."
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.2.7988&rep=rep1&type=pdf

"...In March 2000, President Bill Clinton and British Prime Minister Tony Blair released an ambiguous statement lauding open access to raw gene data--a comment some news analysts interpreted as a hit to Celera and other genomics companies that have guarded their genome sequences carefully....The afternoon Clinton and Blair issued their announcement, biotech stocks slid, with some dropping 20 percent by day's end..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=t...e&q=clinton biotech stocks march 2000&f=false

"Sentiment vs. fundamentals is the prick for speculative bubbles," wrote the analysts. They noted that the turning point for the last bubble occurred on March 14, 2000 when then U.S. President Bill Clinton and then British Prime Minister Tony Blair began pushing for the open access, or non-patentability of gene sequences. This triggered a 49% drop in the sector in just one month...."
http://www.businessinsider.com/credit-suisse-biotech-bubble-2014-3

March 14, 2000: President Clinton and Prime Minister Tony Blair released a joint statement that genome information "should be made freely available to scientists everywhere". While Clinton and Blair went on to reinforce “the intellectual property protection for all gene-based inventions”, the market reacted to only the first part of the statement, putting stock market investors in a panic. Biotech stocks across the board went into a 'screaming nosedive', dragging down the NASDAQ, which on that day suffered its second-biggest point loss ever! By the end of the day, investors in the biotechnology sector lost over $40 billion. Ouch!
https://www.biology.iupui.edu/biocourses/Biol540/2bkgrnd2k9.html

Moot · Jul 10, 2018

Hedgology said:
LMAO. If the President can't influence the entire market or "even part of the market" then he can't influence markets at all. Do you not understand how ridiculous you sound when you type things on your keyboard?

Psst...your ignorance is showing.

Hedgology · Jul 10, 2018

Moot said:
Regressing into infantile mode, are ya?

The dotcom bubble didn't burst in March 2000.... but the biotech industry did because of President Clinton and Tony Blair's statement....

ARE YOU SURE IT DIDN'T BURST IN MARCH 2000? I HAVE THIS QUOTE YOU MADE 6 HOURS AGO FROM YOU STATING THAT IT DID. YOU USED THE SAME NASDAQ INDEX THAT I USED AND EVERYTHING...

Moot said:
It took another 15 years for the biotech industry to reach the high it had in March 2000...

Before you embarrass yourself any further, you may want to take the time and think about what you are saying. You also shouldn't be so quick to Google whatever article you think is going to support your assertions. Information might be freely available, but Google is no substitute for an education...

Hedgology · Jul 10, 2018

Moot said:
Psst...your ignorance is showing.

"The President alone can influence the entire market, even though he can't influence the entire market, or even part of the market (while preceding to show an index chart of the entire market as evidence)."

- written by Moot Point on July 9th, 2018

Moot · Jul 10, 2018

Hedgology said:
"The President alone can influence the entire market, even though he can't influence the entire market, or even part of the market (while preceding to show an index chart of the entire market as evidence)."

- written by Moot Point on July 9th, 2018

Geez, you can't even quote correctly. Pathetic.

It's true, the president can't influence the entire market all at once...but he can influence sectors...just not all the time or long enough to create a trend.

"Gurgle goo goo ga ga...<burp> hehehe" - Hedgology on July 9, 2018

Moot · Jul 10, 2018

Hedgology said:
Hey! Don't call me weaselly.....

If there is uncertainty, it's not captured in the VIX. VIX appears to be mean-reverting.

2018 sure looks volatile to me. So what was going on in the first couple of months to cause such massive swings? Uncertainty?

Stocks haven't seen this much volatility since the financial crisis.....

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/sto...ch-volatility-since-the-financial-crisis.html

Uncertainty with inflation, Trump trade policies and geopolitics will do it.

Hedgology · Jul 10, 2018

Moot said:
Geez, you can't even quote correctly. Pathetic.

It's called a jist, moot. It's simply the jist of your argument.

It's true, the president can't influence the entire market all at once...but he can influence sectors...just not all the time or long enough to create a trend.

Well, since this thread is all about how the President has no influence over a single company, I fail to see how the President can even influence "sectors" of the market, whether long-term or short-term.

"Gurgle goo goo ga ga...<burp> hehehe" - Hedgology on July 9, 2018

There should be an international law which states that if you're not clever or funny when mocking others, you should be prosecuted and spend your life in prison.

Hedgology · Jul 10, 2018

Moot said:
2018 sure looks volatile to me. So what was going on in the first couple of months to cause such massive swings? Uncertainty?

Well, I'm home so I don't have access to my terminal so I can't show you the long-term chart. But the point is that the historical average for the VIX index was 19 pre-financial crisis. Volatility is treading is increasing, but its' still below historical norms.

Stocks haven't seen this much volatility since the financial crisis.....

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/11/sto...ch-volatility-since-the-financial-crisis.html

I doubt that.

What-Does-This-Rare-Positive-Correlation-Between-VIX-and-SP-500-Mean_body_VIX_Low.png.full.png

Volatility is generally mean reverting, which means there are periods of low volatility, followed by periods of high volatility. Your source is measuring volatility by measuring the number of times the S&P has made 1% moves in a given day, which is not really the way to measure volatility. Volatility, or implied volatility, is measured by the number of volume of puts and calls options for the amount of stocks in the market, and that is measured by the VIX. The VIX is still near historic lows, that will change in the future, as it always does.

Moot · Jul 10, 2018

Hedgology said:
Well, I'm home so I don't have access to my terminal so I can't show you the long-term chart. But the point is that the historical average for the VIX index was 19 pre-financial crisis. Volatility is treading is increasing, but its' still below historical norms.

I doubt that.

Volatility is generally mean reverting, which means there are periods of low volatility, followed by periods of high volatility. Your source is measuring volatility by measuring the number of times the S&P has made 1% moves in a given day, which is not really the way to measure volatility. Volatility, or implied volatility, is measured by the number of volume of puts and calls options for the amount of stocks in the market, and that is measured by the VIX. The VIX is still near historic lows, that will change in the future, as it always does.

Boo. See the first VIX chart you posted, Hedgology. It shows high volatility for the first six months of 2018 and then compare it to the last ten years.

I sure hope that kind of volatility isn't becoming the new norm.

Moot · Jul 10, 2018

Hedgology said:
It's called a jist, moot. It's simply the jist of your argument.

Geez, you can't even jist right.

Well, since this thread is all about how the President has no influence over a single company, I fail to see how the President can even influence "sectors" of the market, whether long-term or short-term.

Well, since you still can't comprehend the point of the thread...hint: it's not about the president having no influence over a single company....then your fail is understandable....and huge by normal standards.

There should be an international law which states that if you're not clever or funny when mocking others, you should be prosecuted and spend your life in prison.

As long as it made me laugh that's all that really matters. :lamo

Hedgology · Jul 10, 2018

Moot said:
Boo. See the first VIX chart you posted, Hedgology. It shows high volatility for the first six months of 2018 and then compare it to the last ten years.

I don't see how that's possible, because this is only a 5-year chart. You need to get your eyes checked.

I sure hope that kind of volatility isn't becoming the new norm.

You do realize that it is much more difficult to make a return on equities in a low volatility environment, correct?

Your knowledge, or lack thereof, is pretty much what separates people like you and people who work on Wall Street. So, I don't think you have anything to worry about. You're most likely not wealthy, you will probably remain that way.

Hedgology · Jul 10, 2018

Moot said:
Geez, you can't even jist right.

Well, it's not spelled jist, but it's spelled gist. Guess you weren't smart enough to catch on. Pity.

Well, since you still can't comprehend the point of the thread...hint: it's not about the president having no influence over a single company....then your fail is understandable....and huge by normal standards.

Xelor said:
The OP-er is highlighting the incongruity of a POTUS' ridiculing a firm only to have result a stock price jump, which is something the firm wants to make happen. The point is that Trump's remark has had an outcome that is opposite what one would expect from being castigated by the POTUS.

As long as it made me laugh that's all that really matters. :lamo

There is a word associated with people who laugh when there is nothing to laugh at. It's called "insane" or "retarded," which ever politically incorrect term you prefer.

Moot · Jul 10, 2018

Hedgology said:
I don't see how that's possible, because this is only a 5-year chart. You need to get your eyes checked.

You do realize that it is much more difficult to make a return on equities in a low volatility environment, correct?

Your knowledge, or lack thereof, is pretty much what separates people like you and people who work on Wall Street. So, I don't think you have anything to worry about. You're most likely not wealthy, you will probably remain that way.

It was mixed. Pfizer went up and then it went down to close slightly higher while other stocks closed slightly lower...Merck closed even. Fortunately, it wasn't that big of a deal...but it did allow for some analysts to point out how a president can and does influence certain sectors in the market. Seriously, your lack of comprehension over the simplest concepts is appalling.

The only reason we're talking about volatility is because I mentioned uncertainty and the only reason I mentioned uncertainty is because Trump created uncertainty in the drug market today when he attacked Pfizer. Frankly, I don't think the market knows how to react to Trump...hence the volatility.

Hedgology · Jul 10, 2018

Moot said:
It was mixed. Pfizer went up and then it went down to close slightly higher while other stocks closed slightly lower...Merck closed even. Fortunately, it wasn't that big of a deal...but it did allow for some analysts to point out how a president can and does influence certain sectors in the market. Seriously, your lack of comprehension over the simplest concepts is appalling.

The only reason we're talking about volatility is because I mentioned uncertainty and the only reason I mentioned uncertainty is because Trump created uncertainty in the drug market today when he attacked Pfizer. Frankly, I don't think the market knows how to react to Trump...hence the volatility.

What is volatility? I am curious about what you think volatility is because you keep using the term loosely.

Moot · Jul 10, 2018

Hedgology said:
Well, it's not spelled jist, but it's spelled gist. Guess you weren't smart enough to catch on. Pity.

You spelled it "jist" and I merely copied you so I wouldn't confuse you anymore than you already are. lol

There is a word associated with people who laugh when there is nothing to laugh at. It's called "insane" or "retarded," which ever politically incorrect term you prefer.

You make me laugh. :lamo

Moot · Jul 10, 2018

Hedgology said:
What is volatility? I am curious about what you think volatility is because you keep using the term loosely.

Uncertain, unpredictable, rapid change, irrational exuberance...

Hedgology · Jul 10, 2018

Moot said:
Uncertain, unpredictable, rapid change, irrational exuberance...

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. No wonder you don't sound informed on this issue.

Volatility, in its simplest explanation, is the measure of how prices change. How is it measured? Usually with the standard deviation or variance.

When asset prices change, that is volatility. Worrying about volatility is akin to worrying about inflation. Without inflation, there would be no economic growth. Without volatility, all asset prices would be forever constant, there would be no point in trying to invest into anything.

Moot · Jul 10, 2018

Hedgology said:
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. No wonder you don't sound informed on this issue.

Volatility, in its simplest explanation, is the measure of how prices change. How is it measured? Usually with the standard deviation or variance.

When asset prices change, that is volatility. Worrying about volatility is akin to worrying about inflation. Without inflation, there would be no economic growth. Without volatility, all asset prices would be forever constant, there would be no point in trying to invest into anything.

Well, I tend look at volatility from an investors perspective.

Investors care about volatility for at least eight reasons:

The wider the swings in an investment's price, the harder emotionally it is to not worry;

Price volatility of a trading instrument can define position sizing in a portfolio;

When certain cash flows from selling a security are needed at a specific future date, higher volatility means a greater chance of a shortfall;

Higher volatility of returns while saving for retirement results in a wider distribution of possible final portfolio values;

Higher volatility of return when retired gives withdrawals a larger permanent impact on the portfolio's value;

Price volatility presents opportunities to buy assets cheaply and sell when overpriced;

Portfolio volatility has a negative impact on the compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of that portfolio

Volatility affects pricing of options, being a parameter of the Black–Scholes model.

Since I don't do options (the last on the list), I don't really care about that kind of volatility. Or should I?

Xelor · Jul 10, 2018

Threegoofs said:
Hilarious.

Thanks to his serial lying, The orange clown in chief doesn’t even have a bully pulpit anymore.

Twitter

Pfizer shares rise after President Trump attacks its drug price hikes

Hedgology said:

I'm having difficulty figuring out what your point is...

Xelor said:

Really? Are you serious?

The OP-er is highlighting the incongruity of a POTUS' ridiculing a firm only to have result a stock price jump, which is something the firm wants to make happen. The point is that Trump's remark has had an outcome that is opposite what one would expect from being castigated by the POTUS.

Hedgology said:

There is a word associated with people who laugh when there is nothing to laugh at. It's called "insane" or "retarded," which ever politically incorrect term you prefer.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

[The quoted passages above are, from top to bottom (outermost to innermost) this thread's OP, post #2, my response to post #2 and Hedgology's reply to me.]

Why, Hedgology, have you responded to my post with a passive-aggressive tone?

You stated that you were "having difficulty figuring out" the point of the OP-er's point.
- I asked you if you were serious because I thought perhaps you were being sardonic. I was uncertain because the point of the OP was patently obvious, for the thread title plus the OP content have between them one theme.
- I don't know you, and you didn't put anything else in your post (post #2) to indicate clearly whether (or not) you were feigning incomprehension. If one is going to infer a tone from my questions, it'd be the same one applicable to any other non-rhetorical question: the inquirer seeks to know the answer to the question s/he asked.
In case you were serious and thus to abet your comprehension of the OP's theme, I succinctly identified it.
If you truly did not discern the point of the OP, "yes" would have been the appropriate answer to my question.
If you did discern the point of the OP and your first "red" statement was sarcastic, sardonic or not, "no" would have been sufficient.

Red:

How did you manage to infer jocularity from my blue-text remarks?

(read the linked content before answering)