Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 289 posts

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#141

Post by qubex »

cityhomesteader wrote: post #120
madballneek wrote: post #28

I've been hearing this for years. It'll happen when it happens and no one can actually predict. #golong

Pretty much every finance site - marketwatch, wsj, cnbc, bloomberg, zerohedge, etc along with the peter schiffs/etc clickbait it. For some reason, nytimes paywalled clickbait is constantly spammed here. The inverted yield curve. There are thousands of articles about the inverted yield curve. The death cross. The black swan event. All just voodoo clickbait nonsense. Also, I love how the nytimes say "wall st is concern…

I’m impressed by your post’s combination of cynicism and conspiracy-theory-type reasoning, compounded by the agency fallacy.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#142

Post by Bromskloss »

debt wrote: post #139
Bromskloss wrote: post #128

There is something sketchy in the underlying report [0]. In figure 2, they draw what I understand to be a curve of the probability (according to their model) of a recession happening within 12 months. The strange part is that they identify a "critical threshold" (at probability 0.24), and seem to imply that when the prediction goes above that value, a recession happens. That's not how probabilities work. Are they mea…

The probability of a recession rises immediately prior to a recession. When the recession occurs, the probability drops immediately back down below the threshold; as the probability of a back-to-back recession is very low and the conditions that caused the recession immediately change. So the critical threshold is saying "at any point beyond this line, as conditions remain the same, bad things may happen at a very ac…

> I think that's why the lines jump from .24 or .6 to 1.0(recession) and then back below .24.

None of the curves ever go to 1. The main curve ("spread only") never even reaches 0.4.

> So as far as I can tell, they're not saying a recession is guaranteed if the probability increases beyond the critical threshold

They certainly shouldn't be saying that, since the curve being at that level means precisely that the probability of recession is 0.24, not 1.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#143

Post by s2g »

briandear wrote: post #138
jonknee wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently it's devolving into tariffs on everything. Like Europe's 25% tariff on Harley motorcycles. They're getting hit on both ends too because their inputs are also hit (steel being the big one). Tariff in and tariff out, it's ridiculous.

Actually the tariff is 31%. An increase of 25% over the existing 6% tariff. If Europe is so concerned about tariffs, then why did they have a 6% tariff in the first place? That’s the point of this “trade war” — countries already have tariffs. It’s disingenuous to complain about American tariffs when the EU has built their protectionist model around doing just that. France has a bunch of “protected” industries and the…

Can you really not see the difference between the reasonable protectionism practiced by every country and the current trade war?

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#144

Post by cityhomesteader »

qubex wrote: post #141
cityhomesteader wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pretty much every finance site - marketwatch, wsj, cnbc, bloomberg, zerohedge, etc along with the peter schiffs/etc clickbait it. For some reason, nytimes paywalled clickbait is constantly spammed here. The inverted yield curve. There are thousands of articles about the inverted yield curve. The death cross. The black swan event. All just voodoo clickbait nonsense. Also, I love how the nytimes say "wall st is concern…

I’m impressed by your post’s combination of cynicism and conspiracy-theory-type reasoning, compounded by the agency fallacy.

> I’m impressed by your post’s combination of cynicism

I'm impressed by your naivety. Where's the cynicism? I've worked on wall street/finance and I've read finance publications for decades. It's not cynicism, it's experience.

> conspiracy-theory-type reasoning

What's the conspiracy?

> compounded by the agency fallacy.

I'd advise you to give Logic 101 another try. Also look up ad hominem while at it.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#145

Post by DesiLurker »

AndrewDucker wrote: post #51
j45 wrote: post #2

Is there a way to see NY times articles? Hn links to NY times always brings up a pay wall.

Here's a plugin for FF and Chrome: https://bypasspaywalls.weebly.com/

my standard PSA: any browser plugin you install has a full clear text view of content on ALL the websites you visit. choose wisely.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#146

Post by TAForObvReasons »

Analemma_ wrote: post #137
ahelwer wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aren't those the economists who managed to turn a spreadsheet bug into disastrous worldwide accepted economic policy?

It was even worse than that: the paper had multiple problems, of which the Excel bug was one, but they also chose an outrageously dumb sampling method. Basically, if a country had data for five years, it was weighted five times as heavily as a country that had that data for only one. Which, conveniently, lined up perfectly with overweighting countries whose development matched their hypothesis and underweighting coun…

The benefactors desired a conclusion, and the authors delivered it for them. They served their purpose. That "academic integrity" was not a purpose reflects the state of affairs in economics.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#147

Post by wokky »

Judgmentality wrote: post #85
wokky wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The stock market is not the economy.

How do you propose to measure economic health?

The phrase "economic health" looks odder to me the longer I ponder it.

"The economy" isn't a living creature, so the phrase is a metaphor, and different people are likely to have very different ways of interpreting it, according to their own interests and concerns. A hedge fund manager, a real estate magnate, and an unemployed single parent will have very different ideas about what is important for "economic health."

You could probably do worse than to start with actual human health, though. Even if your goal is something narrow, like the opportunity to personally accumulate money through speculation, a high average level of human health is a great foundation for that kind of growth.

Of course, if you accept all that, the news is again very ominous.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#148

Post by rainbowmverse »

Bromskloss wrote: post #131
throwaway5752 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, in a nutshell, is why the human condition is so tragic. This won't be "interesting", believe me. Watch what happens when the body of startups funded by global pools of capital (which are the underlying source of capital for VCs) sees the NPV of software startups vanish as lower expected investment returns smack up against higher risk-free rates. The current software economy is incredibly leveraged and intertwin…

So, it _will_ be interesting, after all! Now, how do we make money from this?

Startup idea: knowledge sharing, resume hosting, and real estate/rental listing platform for people chasing their current quality of life at a lower cost of living.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#149

Post by peterwwillis »

simonsarris wrote: post #73

People often note, like another comment here notes: > since 1960 there has been a US economic recession once every 5 to 10 years. The last one ended in 2009, 9 years ago This is an interesting line of thinking, but I think it's a mistake. We can use this fact itself and circumscribe some meta-thinking around it. Put the same fact another way, this is arguing that the 1960's started a brand new paradigm that was mater…

Is this hypothesis based on something? By looking at history you have some evidence to base your conclusion on.

Re: ‘A Powerful Signal of Recessions’ Has Wall Street’s Attention

#150

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

scrooched_moose wrote: post #15
AznHisoka wrote: post #7

"Stocks have been in a sideways struggle since the Standard & Poor’s 500 last peaked on Jan. 26." Is this really true? Almost every single stock I've been tracking has just been going up this year, especially the tech ones. Even ones with decreasing revenues like GoPro.

Ford has been sliding for 5 years: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/F?ql=1&p=F GE has been in freefall: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GE?p=GE&.tsrc=fin-srch Honeywell has basically been stagnate since January: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/HON?p=HON&.tsrc=fin-srch Same with 3M: https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/MMM?p=MMM&.tsrc=fin-srch The S&P500 index as a whole has crept up a little but many of them are struggling…

Yeah, FAANG+M and the banks make up the vast majority of the rise in the stock market. Mostly because of tax cuts, stock buybacks, and interest rates going up.
Post reply on HN