Bitcoin Active Addresses Chart - BitInfoCharts

Bitcoin charts weighted average or another source?

Hey guys,
I've been using the bitcoin charts weighted average API for BTC to USD conversions on my website. Today I noticed their weighted average for the last 24 hours is USD 603. How is that possible? According to bitcoinindex.es the 24 hour low among all exchanges was around 650 at mt gox.
Does anyone know how the get their value? Am I missing something or is it way off? What should I use instead for a json accessible weighted average?
submitted by userNameNotLongEnoug to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Whale Watch: 68 New Whales Join ETH Network, BTC Holds Lowest Concentration of Whales

Whale Watch: 68 New Whales Join ETH Network, BTC Holds Lowest Concentration of Whales
Whale Watch: 68 New Whales Join ETH Network, BTC Holds Lowest Concentration of Whales
Onchain data shows that during the market carnage this past weekend the number of ethereum whales increased significantly, while ETH prices dropped by 30%. Analytics from the data firm Santiment shows 68 new whales joined the network during the last three days.
During the last three days, cryptocurrency prices dropped considerably but ethereum (ETH) and a handful of defi tokens took some deeper losses in comparison. Over the weekend after the Sushiswap fiasco, ETH and a number of ERC20 token prices plummeted, losing 30% in value.
The lower prices of ETH sparked a buying frenzy and according to Santiment data, 68 new whales (1,000 to 10,000 ETH) joined the ETH ecosystem.
“Santiment‘s holder distribution chart shows that as ethereum was falling, there was a spike in the number of addresses with millions of dollars in ETH, colloquially known as whales,” the crypto proponent Ali Martinez tweeted on Sunday. “Roughly 68 new whales holding 1K to 10K ETH have joined the network in the past three days.”
At the time of publication, the entire market cap of 6,700+ crypto assets is just above the $300 billion mark losing 7% in value during the last 24 hours. Looking at the top ten digital assets, in terms of market valuation, ETH’s concentration of large holders is 40% according to Intotheblock’s onchain metrics.
In contrast to ETH’s concentration of large holders, bitcoin (BTC) has around 10%.
ETH’s holders’ composition by time held is 56% today, while BTC’s time held aggregate is roughly 65%. Holders’ composition by time held is the classification of addresses according to their weighted average holding period.
Meanwhile, tether (USDT) has a decent concentration of whales equal to ethereum at 40% but of course holders composition by time held for USDT is much less. Chainlink’s (LINK) concentration of whales is by far much larger, resting at 82% today.
Bitcoin cash (BCH) whales on Monday is around 30% and holders’ composition by time held stands at 93%.
Bitcoinsv (BSV) the fork of BCH has a touch lower concentration of whales at 28% today and holders’ composition by time held is around 89%.
Litecoin (LTC) has a bigger concentration of large holders in contrast to BSV and BCH with 48% today. Holders’ composition by time held is resting at 66% for litecoin as well.
Lastly, the tenth market position held by cardano (ADA) has 33% a concentration of whales and ADA’s time held holders’ composition is only 37% on Monday.
The top ten’s onchain data shows that BTC has the least number of whales, while Chainlink (LINK) has the most concentration of large holders.
What do you think about the concentration of large holders in the crypto asset economy? Let us know what you think in the comments below.
👉 Telegram TOTBTC: https://t.me/TOTBTCofficial👉 Register at: https://www.totbtc.com/register
#TOTBTC #BTC #ETH #WHALES #LARGEHOLDERS
https://preview.redd.it/vjsygtyd8am51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=248a28e2add7a072d7acd533499337310973a3a3
submitted by TOTBTC_Official to u/TOTBTC_Official [link] [comments]

Whale Watch: 68 New Whales Join ETH Network, BTC Holds Lowest Concentration of Whales

Whale Watch: 68 New Whales Join ETH Network, BTC Holds Lowest Concentration of Whales
Whale Watch: 68 New Whales Join ETH Network, BTC Holds Lowest Concentration of Whales
Onchain data shows that during the market carnage this past weekend the number of ethereum whales increased significantly, while ETH prices dropped by 30%. Analytics from the data firm Santiment shows 68 new whales joined the network during the last three days.
During the last three days, cryptocurrency prices dropped considerably but ethereum (ETH) and a handful of defi tokens took some deeper losses in comparison. Over the weekend after the Sushiswap fiasco, ETH and a number of ERC20 token prices plummeted, losing 30% in value.
The lower prices of ETH sparked a buying frenzy and according to Santiment data, 68 new whales (1,000 to 10,000 ETH) joined the ETH ecosystem.
“Santiment‘s holder distribution chart shows that as ethereum was falling, there was a spike in the number of addresses with millions of dollars in ETH, colloquially known as whales,” the crypto proponent Ali Martinez tweeted on Sunday. “Roughly 68 new whales holding 1K to 10K ETH have joined the network in the past three days.”
At the time of publication, the entire market cap of 6,700+ crypto assets is just above the $300 billion mark losing 7% in value during the last 24 hours. Looking at the top ten digital assets, in terms of market valuation, ETH’s concentration of large holders is 40% according to Intotheblock’s onchain metrics.
In contrast to ETH’s concentration of large holders, bitcoin (BTC) has around 10%.
ETH’s holders’ composition by time held is 56% today, while BTC’s time held aggregate is roughly 65%. Holders’ composition by time held is the classification of addresses according to their weighted average holding period.
Meanwhile, tether (USDT) has a decent concentration of whales equal to ethereum at 40% but of course holders composition by time held for USDT is much less. Chainlink’s (LINK) concentration of whales is by far much larger, resting at 82% today.
Bitcoin cash (BCH) whales on Monday is around 30% and holders’ composition by time held stands at 93%.
Bitcoinsv (BSV) the fork of BCH has a touch lower concentration of whales at 28% today and holders’ composition by time held is around 89%.
Litecoin (LTC) has a bigger concentration of large holders in contrast to BSV and BCH with 48% today. Holders’ composition by time held is resting at 66% for litecoin as well.
Lastly, the tenth market position held by cardano (ADA) has 33% a concentration of whales and ADA’s time held holders’ composition is only 37% on Monday.
The top ten’s onchain data shows that BTC has the least number of whales, while Chainlink (LINK) has the most concentration of large holders.
What do you think about the concentration of large holders in the crypto asset economy? Let us know what you think in the comments below.
👉 Telegram TOTBTC: https://t.me/TOTBTCofficial👉 Register at: https://www.totbtc.com/register
#TOTBTC #BTC #ETH #WHALES #LARGEHOLDERS
https://preview.redd.it/xh6dhscqnam51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=c4128996da84dd6365bd1c3ce2cbb669a6f3c992
submitted by TOTBTC-Official to u/TOTBTC-Official [link] [comments]

XOM dropped from the DOw

For Trading August 25th
XOM, PFE, & RTX DROPPED FROM DJIA
More New Highs for NAZ & S&P-500
TSLA TOPS $2,100!!
Today’s market was higher from the start and leveled off around +240 -250 until the last 45 minutes when it powered higher into the close finishing +378.13 (1.35%), NASDAQ +67.92 (.60%), S&P 500 34.12 (1%), The Russell +15.90 (1.03%), and the big winner the DJ Transports +208.17 (1.9%). Internals were positive at 2.5:1 NYSE and 1.4:1 on the NAZ with NYSE volume 5:1 UP ! The DJIA was 5:1 higher and this will be the last time that AAPL will affect the average at the rates of the past since it is price-weighted and AAPL will no be a $100 stock, not $500. The only big loser today was UNH falling $36 DP’s and the gainers BA +74, AAPL +41, and GS +33 DP’s.
Our “open forum” on Discord, which allows me to interact with subscribers and others to allow direct questions and chart opinions on just about any stock, continues to grow with more participants every day. It is informative and allows me to share insights as the market is open and moving. The link is: https://discord.gg/ATvC7YZ and I will be there and active from before the open and all day. It’s a great place to share ideas and gain some insights, and we’ve grown to almost 3000 members. I also did this video over the weekend on a day-trade, (actually 2) that I made in AAPL on Friday. I think it’s highly informative as a guide to under what conditions these kind of trades in expiring options make sense. The link is https://youtu.be/qIV0G-hP3aM Enjoy!!
Tonight’s closing comment video: https://youtu.be/eMCD4wjOVh4
SECTORS: While it isn’t necessarily my focus, it’s difficult to not key in on TESLA breaking $2,100 today, trading $2129 and then selling off to $1927 before turning back up to close $2014 -35.78 (1.75%). A week ago, someone in the Discord room asked what I thought, and I gave them an opinion that once we closed over $1,643 that we were headed directly to $2,000-2,100 on a straight shot. I really had a high degree of certainty but thought it would take more than 7 trading days to get to that range! The “possible” vaccine news this morning lit a fire under the airlines; AAL +1.28 (10.5%), DAL +2.53 (9.28%), LUV +2.22 (6.4%), and UAL +3.28 (9.9%). Next were the cruise lines with CCL +1.49 (10%), RCL +2.90 (4.7%), and NCHL +1.18 (7.6%). Personally, I don’t see these names holding up with DAL announcing that unless they get further financial assistance that they will have to fire an additional 1941 pilots. These guys just want us to foot the bill for their disgraceful actions when they could have been preparing for a downturn rather than just lined their own pockets and bought back stock. PaloAlto Networks beat both top and bottom lines but gave soft guidance on next quarters revenues and after closing $267.07 -2.26 it fell further to $254.68 -12.77 (4.7%). The big news on the DJIA is that Dow Jones is making 3 major changes. I could be wrong, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen more than one at a time, but here are the names: Salesforce (CRM) replaces XOM, Amgen (AMGN) replaces Pfizer (PFE), and Honeywell (HON) replaces Raytheon (RTX) which also includes UTX.
FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN was HIGHER with TSN +.67, BGS +.44, FLO +.23, CPB +.15, CAG +.44, MDLZ +.51, KHC +.67, CALM -.63, JJSF +3.45, SAFM +.01, HRL -.05, SJM +1.15, PPC +.38, KR +.15, and PBJ $34.31 +.15 (.44%).
BIOPHARMA was LOWER with BIIB -.51, ABBV -.26, REGN -10.72, ISRG +2.05, GILD -.48, MYL +.34, TEVA -.14, VRTX -3.78, BHC +.61, INCY -.07, ICPT -.71, LABU -3.91, AND IBB $131.60 -1.00 (.75%).
CANNABIS: was HIGHER with TLRY +.10, CGC +.33, CRON +.18, GWPH -3.04, NBEV -.10, CURLF +.47, KERN unch., and MJ $12.40 unch.
DEFENSE: was HIGHER with LMT +5.43, GD +3.29, TXT +1.69, NOC +6.14, BWXT +1.51, TDY +6.52, RTX -.22, and ITA $169.39 +5.27 (3.21%).
RETAIL: was HIGHER with M +.36, JWN +1.15, KSS +1.54, DDS +2.13, WMT -.31, TGT -.56, TJX +1.32, RL +3.37, UAA +.51, LULU +7.56, TPR +.81, CPRI +1.36, and XRT $52.88 +.92 (1.77%).
FAANG and Big Cap: were HIGHER with GOOGL +10.13, AMZN +22.78, AAPL +8.62, FB +4.69, NFLX -3.51, NVDA +1.91, TSLA -49.96, BABA +11.20, BIDU +.74, CMG -9.84, BA +11.00, CAT +3.45, DIS +3.26, and XLK $118.96 +1.02 (.86%). PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THESE PRICES ARE LATE MARKET QUOTES AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE 4:00 CLOSES.
FINANCIALS were HIGHER with GS +5.22, JPM +2.93, BAC +.76, MS +1.31, C +1.84, PNC +3.51, AIG +1.25, TRV +3.07, AXP +3.83, V +2.47, and XLF $24.89 +.58 (2.39%).
OIL, $42.62 +.28. Oil was higher in today’s trading before we rose further in the afternoon closing up at the top end of the day’s range. The stocks were HIGHER across the board with XLE $37.02 +.99 (2.75%).
GOLD $1,939.20 -7.80, rose early in the session trading up thru the double tops at $1,963.10 to $1,970 before selling off and finishing near the lows. I am still a bull on the metal, and we have a September bull call spread on using NEM 65/70 calls with a cost of $1.45, which closed today @ $1.66.
BITCOIN: closed $11,770 +75. After breaking out over $10,000 we have had a “running correction” pushing prices toward $12,000, reaching a recovery high of $12220 Thursday, and after a day of rest in between, we resumed the rally touching $12,635. We had 750 shares of GBTC and sold off 250 last week at $13.93 and still have 500 with a cost of $8.45. GBTC closed $13.72 + .14 today.
Tomorrow is another day.
CAM
submitted by Dashover to OptionsOnly [link] [comments]

Lines of Navigation | Monthly Portfolio Update - July 202

Our little systems have their day;
They have their day and cease to be
- Tennyson, In Memoriam A.H.H.
This is my forty-fourth portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goal.
Portfolio goal
My objective is to reach a portfolio of $2 180 000 by 1 July 2021. This would produce a real annual income of about $87 000 (in 2020 dollars).
This portfolio objective is based on an expected average real return of 3.99 per cent, or a nominal return of 6.49 per cent.
Portfolio summary
Total portfolio value: $1 800 119 (+$34 376 or 1.9%)
Asset allocation
Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio.
[Chart]
Comments
The portfolio has substantially increased this month, continuing the recovery in portfolio value since March.
The strong portfolio growth of over $34 000, or 1.9 per cent, returns the value of the portfolio close to that achieved at the end of February this year.
[Chart]
This month there was minimal movement in the value of Australian and global equity holdings, There was, however, a significant lift of around 6 per cent in the value of gold exchange traded fund units, as well as a rise in the value of Bitcoin holdings.
These movements have pushed the value of gold holdings to their highest level so far on the entire journey. Their total value has approximately doubled since the original major purchases across 2009 to 2015.
For most of the past year gold has functioned as a portfolio stabiliser, having a negative correlation to movements in Australian equities (of around -0.3 to -0.4). As low and negative bond rates spread across the world, however, the opportunity cost of holding gold is reduced, and its potential diversification benefits loom larger.
The fixed income holdings of the portfolio also continued to fall beneath the target allocation, making this question of what represents a defensive (or negatively correlated to equity) asset far from academic.
This steady fall is a function of the slow maturing of Ratesetter loans, which were largely made between 2015 and 2017. Ratesetter has recently advised of important changes to its market operation, and placed a fixed maximum cap on new loan rates. By replacing market set rates with maximum rates, the peer-to-peer lending platform appears to be shifting to more of a 'intermediated' role in which higher past returns (of around 8 to 9 per cent) will now no longer be possible.
[Chart]
The expanding value of gold and Bitcoin holdings since January last year have actually had the practical effect of driving new investments into equities, since effectively for each dollar of appreciation, for example, my target allocation to equities rises by seven dollars.
Consistent with this, investments this month have been in the Vanguard international shares exchange-traded fund (VGS) using Selfwealth. This has been directed to bring my actual asset allocation more closely in line with the target split between Australian and global shares.
Fathoming out: franking credits and portfolio distributions
Earlier last month I released a summary of portfolio income over the past half year. This, like all before it, noted that the summary was prepared on a purely 'cash' basis, reflecting dividends actually paid into a bank account, and excluding consideration of franking credits.
Franking credits are credits for company tax paid at the company level, which can be passed to individual shareholders, reducing their personal tax liability. They are not cash, but for a personal investor with tax liabilities they can have equivalent value. This means that comparing equity returns to other investments without factoring these credits can produce a distorted picture of an investor's final after-tax return.
In past portfolio summaries I have noted an estimate for franking credits in footnotes, but updating the value for this recently resulted in a curiosity about the overall significance of this neglected element of my equity returns.
This neglect resulted from my perception earlier in the journey that they represented a marginal and abstract factor, which could effectively be assumed away for the sake of simplicity in reporting.
This is not a wholly unfair view, in the sense that income physically received and able to be spent is something definably different in kind than a notional 'pre-payment' credit for future tax costs. Yet, as the saying goes, because the prospect of personal tax is as certain as extinction from this world, in some senses a credit of this kind can be as valuable as a cash distribution.
Restoring the record: trends and drivers of franking credits
To collect a more accurate picture of the trends and drivers of franking credits I relied on a few sources - tax statements, records and the automatic franking credit estimates that the portfolio tracking site Sharesight generates.
The chart below sets out both the level and major different sources of franking credits received over the past eleven years.
[Chart]
From this chart some observations can be made.
The key reason for the rapid growth over the recent decade has been the increased investment holdings in Australian equities. As part of the deliberate rebalancing towards Australian shares across the past two years, these holdings have expanded.
The chart below sets out the total value of Australian shares held over the comparable period.
[Chart]
As an example, at the beginning of this record Australian equities valued at around $276 000 were held. Three years later, the holding were nearly three times larger.
The phase of consistently increasing the Australian equities holding to meet its allocated weighting is largely complete. This means that the period of rapid growth seen in the past few years is unlikely to repeat. Rather, growth will revert to be in proportion to total portfolio growth.
Close to cross-over: the credit card records
One of the most powerful initial motivators to reach financial independence was the concept of the 'cross over' point in Vicki Robins and Joe Dominguez's Your Money or Your Life. This was the point at which monthly expenses are exceeded by investment income.
One of the metrics I have traced is this 'cross-over' point in relation to recorded credit card expenses. And this point is now close indeed.
Expenditures on the credit card have continued their downward trajectory across the past month. The three year rolling average of monthly credit card spending remains at its lowest point over the period of the journey. Distributions on the same basis now meet over 99 per cent of card expenses - with the gap now the equivalent of less than $50 per month.
[Chart]
The period since April of the achievement of a notional and contingent form of financial independence has continued.
The below chart illustrates this temporary state, setting out the the extent to which to which portfolio distributions (red) cover estimated total expenses (green), measured month to month.
[Chart]
An alternative way to view the same data is to examine the degree to which total expenses (i.e. fixed payments not made on credit card added to monthly credit card expenses) are met by distributions received.
An updated version of this is seen in the chart below.
[Chart]
Interestingly, on a trend basis, this currently identifies a 'crossing over' point of trend distributions fully meeting total expenditure from around November 2019. This is not conclusive, however, as the trend curve is sensitive to the unusual COVID-19 related observations of the first half of this year, and could easily shift further downward if normal expense patterns resume.
One issue this analysis raises is what to do with the 'credit card purchases' measure reported below. This measure is designed to provide a stylised benchmark of how close the current portfolio is to a target of generating the income required to meet an annual average credit card expenditure of $71 000.
The problem with this is that continued falling credit card spending means that average credit card spending is lower than that benchmark for all time horizons - measured as three and four year averages, or in fact taken as a whole since 2013. So the set benchmark may, if anything, be understating actual progress compared the graphs and data above by not reflecting changing spending levels.
In the past I have addressed this trend by reducing the benchmark. Over coming months, or perhaps at the end of the year, I will need to revisit both the meaning, and method, of setting this measure.
Progress
Progress against the objective, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below.
Measure Portfolio All Assets
Portfolio objective – $2 180 000 (or $87 000 pa) 82.6% 111.5%
Credit card purchases – $71 000 pa 100.7% 136.0%
Total expenses – $89 000 pa 80.7% 109.0%
Summary
One of the most challenging aspects of closing in on a fixed numerical target for financial independence with risk assets still in place is that the updrafts and downdrafts of market movements can push the goal further away, or surprisingly close.
There have been long period of the journey where the total value of portfolio has barely grown, despite regular investments being made. As an example, the portfolio ended 2018 lower than it started the year. The past six months have been another such period. This can create a sense of treading water.
Yet amidst the economic devastation affecting real lives and businesses, this is an extremely fortunate position to be in. Australia and the globe are set to experience an economic contraction far more severe than the Global Financial Crisis, with a lesser capacity than previously for interest rates to cushion the impact. Despite similar measures being adopted by governments to address the downturn, it is not clear whether these are fit for purpose.
Asset allocation in this environment - of being almost suspended between two realities - is a difficult problem. The history of markets can tell us that just when assets seem most 'broken', they can produce outsized returns. Yet the problem remains that far from being surrounded by broken markets, the proliferation appears to be in bubble-like conditions.
This recent podcast discussion with the founder of Grant's Interest Rate Observer provided a useful historical context to current financial conditions this month. One of the themes of the conversation was 'thinking the unthinkable', such as a return of inflation. Similar, this Hoover Institute video discussion, with a 'Back from the future' premise, provides some entertaining, informed and insightful views on the surprising and contingent nature of what we know to be true.
Some of our little systems may well have had their day, but what could replace them remains obscured to any observer.
The post, links and full charts can be seen here.
submitted by thefiexpl to fiaustralia [link] [comments]

Where is Bitcoin Going and When?

Where is Bitcoin Going and When?

The Federal Reserve and the United States government are pumping extreme amounts of money into the economy, already totaling over $484 billion. They are doing so because it already had a goal to inflate the United States Dollar (USD) so that the market can continue to all-time highs. It has always had this goal. They do not care how much inflation goes up by now as we are going into a depression with the potential to totally crash the US economy forever. They believe the only way to save the market from going to zero or negative values is to inflate it so much that it cannot possibly crash that low. Even if the market does not dip that low, inflation serves the interest of powerful people.
The impending crash of the stock market has ramifications for Bitcoin, as, though there is no direct ongoing-correlation between the two, major movements in traditional markets will necessarily affect Bitcoin. According to the Blockchain Center’s Cryptocurrency Correlation Tool, Bitcoin is not correlated with the stock market. However, when major market movements occur, they send ripples throughout the financial ecosystem which necessary affect even ordinarily uncorrelated assets.
Therefore, Bitcoin will reach X price on X date after crashing to a price of X by X date.

Stock Market Crash

The Federal Reserve has caused some serious consternation with their release of ridiculous amounts of money in an attempt to buoy the economy. At face value, it does not seem to have any rationale or logic behind it other than keeping the economy afloat long enough for individuals to profit financially and politically. However, there is an underlying basis to what is going on which is important to understand in order to profit financially.
All markets are functionally price probing systems. They constantly undergo a price-discovery process. In a fiat system, money is an illusory and a fundamentally synthetic instrument with no intrinsic value – similar to Bitcoin. The primary difference between Bitcoin is the underlying technology which provides a slew of benefits that fiat does not. Fiat, however, has an advantage in being able to have the support of powerful nation-states which can use their might to insure the currency’s prosperity.
Traditional stock markets are composed of indices (pl. of index). Indices are non-trading market instruments which are essentially summaries of business values which comprise them. They are continuously recalculated throughout a trading day, and sometimes reflected through tradable instruments such as Exchange Traded Funds or Futures. Indices are weighted by market capitalizations of various businesses.
Price theory essentially states that when a market fails to take out a new low in a given range, it will have an objective to take out the high. When a market fails to take out a new high, it has an objective to make a new low. This is why price-time charts go up and down, as it does this on a second-by-second, minute-by-minute, day-by-day, and even century-by-century basis. Therefore, market indices will always return to some type of bull market as, once a true low is formed, the market will have a price objective to take out a new high outside of its’ given range – which is an all-time high. Instruments can only functionally fall to zero, whereas they can grow infinitely.
So, why inflate the economy so much?
Deflation is disastrous for central banks and markets as it raises the possibility of producing an overall price objective of zero or negative values. Therefore, under a fractional reserve system with a fiat currency managed by a central bank – the goal of the central bank is to depreciate the currency. The dollar is manipulated constantly with the intention of depreciating its’ value.
Central banks have a goal of continued inflated fiat values. They tend to ordinarily contain it at less than ten percent (10%) per annum in order for the psyche of the general populace to slowly adjust price increases. As such, the markets are divorced from any other logic. Economic policy is the maintenance of human egos, not catering to fundamental analysis. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is well-known not to be a measure of actual growth or output. It is a measure of increase in dollars processed. Banks seek to produce raising numbers which make society feel like it is growing economically, making people optimistic. To do so, the currency is inflated, though inflation itself does not actually increase growth. When society is optimistic, it spends and engages in business – resulting in actual growth. It also encourages people to take on credit and debts, creating more fictional fiat.
Inflation is necessary for markets to continue to reach new heights, generating positive emotional responses from the populace, encouraging spending, encouraging debt intake, further inflating the currency, and increasing the sale of government bonds. The fiat system only survives by generating more imaginary money on a regular basis.
Bitcoin investors may profit from this by realizing that stock investors as a whole always stand to profit from the market so long as it is managed by a central bank and does not collapse entirely. If those elements are filled, it has an unending price objective to raise to new heights. It also allows us to realize that this response indicates that the higher-ups believe that the economy could crash in entirety, and it may be wise for investors to have multiple well-thought-out exit strategies.

Economic Analysis of Bitcoin

The reason why the Fed is so aggressively inflating the economy is due to fears that it will collapse forever or never rebound. As such, coupled with a global depression, a huge demand will appear for a reserve currency which is fundamentally different than the previous system. Bitcoin, though a currency or asset, is also a market. It also undergoes a constant price-probing process. Unlike traditional markets, Bitcoin has the exact opposite goal. Bitcoin seeks to appreciate in value and not depreciate. This has a quite different affect in that Bitcoin could potentially become worthless and have a price objective of zero.
Bitcoin was created in 2008 by a now famous mysterious figure known as Satoshi Nakamoto and its’ open source code was released in 2009. It was the first decentralized cryptocurrency to utilize a novel protocol known as the blockchain. Up to one megabyte of data may be sent with each transaction. It is decentralized, anonymous, transparent, easy to set-up, and provides myriad other benefits. Bitcoin is not backed up by anything other than its’ own technology.
Bitcoin is can never be expected to collapse as a framework, even were it to become worthless. The stock market has the potential to collapse in entirety, whereas, as long as the internet exists, Bitcoin will be a functional system with a self-authenticating framework. That capacity to persist regardless of the actual price of Bitcoin and the deflationary nature of Bitcoin means that it has something which fiat does not – inherent value.
Bitcoin is based on a distributed database known as the “blockchain.” Blockchains are essentially decentralized virtual ledger books, replete with pages known as “blocks.” Each page in a ledger is composed of paragraph entries, which are the actual transactions in the block.
Blockchains store information in the form of numerical transactions, which are just numbers. We can consider these numbers digital assets, such as Bitcoin. The data in a blockchain is immutable and recorded only by consensus-based algorithms. Bitcoin is cryptographic and all transactions are direct, without intermediary, peer-to-peer.
Bitcoin does not require trust in a central bank. It requires trust on the technology behind it, which is open-source and may be evaluated by anyone at any time. Furthermore, it is impossible to manipulate as doing so would require all of the nodes in the network to be hacked at once – unlike the stock market which is manipulated by the government and “Market Makers”. Bitcoin is also private in that, though the ledge is openly distributed, it is encrypted. Bitcoin’s blockchain has one of the greatest redundancy and information disaster recovery systems ever developed.
Bitcoin has a distributed governance model in that it is controlled by its’ users. There is no need to trust a payment processor or bank, or even to pay fees to such entities. There are also no third-party fees for transaction processing. As the ledge is immutable and transparent it is never possible to change it – the data on the blockchain is permanent. The system is not easily susceptible to attacks as it is widely distributed. Furthermore, as users of Bitcoin have their private keys assigned to their transactions, they are virtually impossible to fake. No lengthy verification, reconciliation, nor clearing process exists with Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is based on a proof-of-work algorithm. Every transaction on the network has an associated mathetical “puzzle”. Computers known as miners compete to solve the complex cryptographic hash algorithm that comprises that puzzle. The solution is proof that the miner engaged in sufficient work. The puzzle is known as a nonce, a number used only once. There is only one major nonce at a time and it issues 12.5 Bitcoin. Once it is solved, the fact that the nonce has been solved is made public.
A block is mined on average of once every ten minutes. However, the blockchain checks every 2,016,000 minutes (approximately four years) if 201,600 blocks were mined. If it was faster, it increases difficulty by half, thereby deflating Bitcoin. If it was slower, it decreases, thereby inflating Bitcoin. It will continue to do this until zero Bitcoin are issued, projected at the year 2140. On the twelfth of May, 2020, the blockchain will halve the amount of Bitcoin issued when each nonce is guessed. When Bitcoin was first created, fifty were issued per block as a reward to miners. 6.25 BTC will be issued from that point on once each nonce is solved.
Unlike fiat, Bitcoin is a deflationary currency. As BTC becomes scarcer, demand for it will increase, also raising the price. In this, BTC is similar to gold. It is predictable in its’ output, unlike the USD, as it is based on a programmed supply. We can predict BTC’s deflation and inflation almost exactly, if not exactly. Only 21 million BTC will ever be produced, unless the entire network concedes to change the protocol – which is highly unlikely.
Some of the drawbacks to BTC include congestion. At peak congestion, it may take an entire day to process a Bitcoin transaction as only three to five transactions may be processed per second. Receiving priority on a payment may cost up to the equivalent of twenty dollars ($20). Bitcoin mining consumes enough energy in one day to power a single-family home for an entire week.

Trading or Investing?

The fundamental divide in trading revolves around the question of market structure. Many feel that the market operates totally randomly and its’ behavior cannot be predicted. For the purposes of this article, we will assume that the market has a structure, but that that structure is not perfect. That market structure naturally generates chart patterns as the market records prices in time. In order to determine when the stock market will crash, causing a major decline in BTC price, we will analyze an instrument, an exchange traded fund, which represents an index, as opposed to a particular stock. The price patterns of the various stocks in an index are effectively smoothed out. In doing so, a more technical picture arises. Perhaps the most popular of these is the SPDR S&P Standard and Poor 500 Exchange Traded Fund ($SPY).
In trading, little to no concern is given about value of underlying asset. We are concerned primarily about liquidity and trading ranges, which are the amount of value fluctuating on a short-term basis, as measured by volatility-implied trading ranges. Fundamental analysis plays a role, however markets often do not react to real-world factors in a logical fashion. Therefore, fundamental analysis is more appropriate for long-term investing.
The fundamental derivatives of a chart are time (x-axis) and price (y-axis). The primary technical indicator is price, as everything else is lagging in the past. Price represents current asking price and incorrectly implementing positions based on price is one of the biggest trading errors.
Markets and currencies ordinarily have noise, their tendency to back-and-fill, which must be filtered out for true pattern recognition. That noise does have a utility, however, in allowing traders second chances to enter favorable positions at slightly less favorable entry points. When you have any market with enough liquidity for historical data to record a pattern, then a structure can be divined. The market probes prices as part of an ongoing price-discovery process. Market technicians must sometimes look outside of the technical realm and use visual inspection to ascertain the relevance of certain patterns, using a qualitative eye that recognizes the underlying quantitative nature
Markets and instruments rise slower than they correct, however they rise much more than they fall. In the same vein, instruments can only fall to having no worth, whereas they could theoretically grow infinitely and have continued to grow over time. Money in a fiat system is illusory. It is a fundamentally synthetic instrument which has no intrinsic value. Hence, the recent seemingly illogical fluctuations in the market.
According to trade theory, the unending purpose of a market or instrument is to create and break price ranges according to the laws of supply and demand. We must determine when to trade based on each market inflection point as defined in price and in time as opposed to abandoning the trend (as the contrarian trading in this sub often does). Time and Price symmetry must be used to be in accordance with the trend. When coupled with a favorable risk to reward ratio, the ability to stay in the market for most of the defined time period, and adherence to risk management rules; the trader has a solid methodology for achieving considerable gains.
We will engage in a longer term market-oriented analysis to avoid any time-focused pressure. The Bitcoin market is open twenty-four-hours a day, so trading may be done when the individual is ready, without any pressing need to be constantly alert. Let alone, we can safely project months in advance with relatively high accuracy. Bitcoin is an asset which an individual can both trade and invest, however this article will be focused on trading due to the wide volatility in BTC prices over the short-term.

Technical Indicator Analysis of Bitcoin

Technical indicators are often considered self-fulfilling prophecies due to mass-market psychology gravitating towards certain common numbers yielded from them. They are also often discounted when it comes to BTC. That means a trader must be especially aware of these numbers as they can prognosticate market movements. Often, they are meaningless in the larger picture of things.
  • Volume – derived from the market itself, it is mostly irrelevant. The major problem with volume for stocks is that the US market open causes tremendous volume surges eradicating any intrinsic volume analysis. This does not occur with BTC, as it is open twenty-four-seven. At major highs and lows, the market is typically anemic. Most traders are not active at terminal discretes (peaks and troughs) because of levels of fear. Volume allows us confidence in time and price symmetry market inflection points, if we observe low volume at a foretold range of values. We can rationalize that an absolute discrete is usually only discovered and anticipated by very few traders. As the general market realizes it, a herd mentality will push the market in the direction favorable to defending it. Volume is also useful for swing trading, as chances for swing’s validity increases if an increase in volume is seen on and after the swing’s activation. Volume is steadily decreasing. Lows and highs are reached when volume is lower.
Therefore, due to the relatively high volume on the 12th of March, we can safely determine that a low for BTC was not reached.
  • VIX – Volatility Index, this technical indicator indicates level of fear by the amount of options-based “insurance” in portfolios. A low VIX environment, less than 20 for the S&P index, indicates a stable market with a possible uptrend. A high VIX, over 20, indicates a possible downtrend. VIX is essentially useless for BTC as BTC-based options do not exist. It allows us to predict the market low for $SPY, which will have an indirect impact on BTC in the short term, likely leading to the yearly low. However, it is equally important to see how VIX is changing over time, if it is decreasing or increasing, as that indicates increasing or decreasing fear. Low volatility allows high leverage without risk or rest. Occasionally, markets do rise with high VIX.
As VIX is unusually high, in the forties, we can be confident that a downtrend for the S&P 500 is imminent.
  • RSI (Relative Strength Index): The most important technical indicator, useful for determining highs and lows when time symmetry is not availing itself. Sometimes analysis of RSI can conflict in different time frames, easiest way to use it is when it is at extremes – either under 30 or over 70. Extremes can be used for filtering highs or lows based on time-and-price window calculations. Highly instructive as to major corrective clues and indicative of continued directional movement. Must determine if longer-term RSI values find support at same values as before. It is currently at 73.56.
  • Secondly, RSI may be used as a high or low filter, to observe the level that short-term RSI reaches in counter-trend corrections. Repetitions based on market movements based on RSI determine how long a trade should be held onto. Once a short term RSI reaches an extreme and stay there, the other RSI’s should gradually reach the same extremes. Once all RSI’s are at extreme highs, a trend confirmation should occur and RSI’s should drop to their midpoint.

Trend Definition Analysis of Bitcoin

Trend definition is highly powerful, cannot be understated. Knowledge of trend logic is enough to be a profitable trader, yet defining a trend is an arduous process. Multiple trends coexist across multiple time frames and across multiple market sectors. Like time structure, it makes the underlying price of the instrument irrelevant. Trend definitions cannot determine the validity of newly formed discretes. Trend becomes apparent when trades based in counter-trend inflection points continue to fail.
Downtrends are defined as an instrument making lower lows and lower highs that are recurrent, additive, qualified swing setups. Downtrends for all instruments are similar, except forex. They are fast and complete much quicker than uptrends. An average downtrend is 18 months, something which we will return to. An uptrend inception occurs when an instrument reaches a point where it fails to make a new low, then that low will be tested. After that, the instrument will either have a deep range retracement or it may take out the low slightly, resulting in a double-bottom. A swing must eventually form.
A simple way to roughly determine trend is to attempt to draw a line from three tops going upwards (uptrend) or a line from three bottoms going downwards (downtrend). It is not possible to correctly draw a downtrend line on the BTC chart, but it is possible to correctly draw an uptrend – indicating that the overall trend is downwards. The only mitigating factor is the impending stock market crash.

Time Symmetry Analysis of Bitcoin

Time is the movement from the past through the present into the future. It is a measurement in quantified intervals. In many ways, our perception of it is a human construct. It is more powerful than price as time may be utilized for a trade regardless of the market inflection point’s price. Were it possible to perfectly understand time, price would be totally irrelevant due to the predictive certainty time affords. Time structure is easier to learn than price, but much more difficult to apply with any accuracy. It is the hardest aspect of trading to learn, but also the most rewarding.
Humans do not have the ability to recognize every time window, however the ability to define market inflection points in terms of time is the single most powerful trading edge. Regardless, price should not be abandoned for time alone. Time structure analysis It is inherently flawed, as such the markets have a fail-safe, which is Price Structure. Even though Time is much more powerful, Price Structure should never be completely ignored. Time is the qualifier for Price and vice versa. Time can fail by tricking traders into counter-trend trading.
Time is a predestined trade quantifier, a filter to slow trades down, as it allows a trader to specifically focus on specific time windows and rest at others. It allows for quantitative measurements to reach deterministic values and is the primary qualifier for trends. Time structure should be utilized before price structure, and it is the primary trade criterion which requires support from price. We can see price structure on a chart, as areas of mathematical support or resistance, but we cannot see time structure.
Time may be used to tell us an exact point in the future where the market will inflect, after Price Theory has been fulfilled. In the present, price objectives based on price theory added to possible future times for market inflection points give us the exact time of market inflection points and price.
Time Structure is repetitions of time or inherent cycles of time, occurring in a methodical way to provide time windows which may be utilized for inflection points. They are not easily recognized and not easily defined by a price chart as measuring and observing time is very exact. Time structure is not a science, yet it does require precise measurements. Nothing is certain or definite. The critical question must be if a particular approach to time structure is currently lucrative or not.
We will measure it in intervals of 180 bars. Our goal is to determine time windows, when the market will react and when we should pay the most attention. By using time repetitions, the fact that market inflection points occurred at some point in the past and should, therefore, reoccur at some point in the future, we should obtain confidence as to when SPY will reach a market inflection point. Time repetitions are essentially the market’s memory. However, simply measuring the time between two points then trying to extrapolate into the future does not work. Measuring time is not the same as defining time repetitions. We will evaluate past sessions for market inflection points, whether discretes, qualified swings, or intra-range. Then records the times that the market has made highs or lows in a comparable time period to the future one seeks to trade in.
What follows is a time Histogram – A grouping of times which appear close together, then segregated based on that closeness. Time is aligned into combined histogram of repetitions and cycles, however cycles are irrelevant on a daily basis. If trading on an hourly basis, do not use hours.
  • Yearly Lows (last seven years): 1/1/13, 4/10/14, 1/15/15, 1/17/16, 1/1/17, 12/15/18, 2/6/19
  • Monthly Mode: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4, 12
  • Daily Mode: 1, 1, 6, 10, 15, 15, 17
  • Monthly Lows (for the last year): 3/12/20 (10:00pm), 2/28/20 (7:09am), 1/2/20 (8:09pm), 12/18/19 (8:00am), 11/25/19 (1:00am), 10/24/19 (2:59am), 9/30/19 (2:59am), 8/29,19 (4:00am), 7/17/19 (7:59am), 6/4/19 (5:59pm), 5/1/19 (12:00am), 4/1/19 (12:00am)
  • Daily Lows Mode for those Months: 1, 1, 2, 4, 12, 17, 18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30
  • Hourly Lows Mode for those Months (Military time): 0100, 0200, 0200, 0400, 0700, 0700, 0800, 1200, 1200, 1700, 2000, 2200
  • Minute Lows Mode for those Months: 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 09, 09, 59, 59, 59, 59
  • Day of the Week Lows (last twenty-six weeks):
Weighted Times are repetitions which appears multiple times within the same list, observed and accentuated once divided into relevant sections of the histogram. They are important in the presently defined trading time period and are similar to a mathematical mode with respect to a series. Phased times are essentially periodical patterns in histograms, though they do not guarantee inflection points
Evaluating the yearly lows, we see that BTC tends to have its lows primarily at the beginning of every year, with a possibility of it being at the end of the year. Following the same methodology, we get the middle of the month as the likeliest day. However, evaluating the monthly lows for the past year, the beginning and end of the month are more likely for lows.
Therefore, we have two primary dates from our histogram.
1/1/21, 1/15/21, and 1/29/21
2:00am, 8:00am, 12:00pm, or 10:00pm
In fact, the high for this year was February the 14th, only thirty days off from our histogram calculations.
The 8.6-Year Armstrong-Princeton Global Economic Confidence model states that 2.15 year intervals occur between corrections, relevant highs and lows. 2.15 years from the all-time peak discrete is February 9, 2020 – a reasonably accurate depiction of the low for this year (which was on 3/12/20). (Taking only the Armstrong model into account, the next high should be Saturday, April 23, 2022). Therefore, the Armstrong model indicates that we have actually bottomed out for the year!
Bear markets cannot exist in perpetuity whereas bull markets can. Bear markets will eventually have price objectives of zero, whereas bull markets can increase to infinity. It can occur for individual market instruments, but not markets as a whole. Since bull markets are defined by low volatility, they also last longer. Once a bull market is indicated, the trader can remain in a long position until a new high is reached, then switch to shorts. The average bear market is eighteen months long, giving us a date of August 19th, 2021 for the end of this bear market – roughly speaking. They cannot be shorter than fifteen months for a central-bank controlled market, which does not apply to Bitcoin. (Otherwise, it would continue until Sunday, September 12, 2021.) However, we should expect Bitcoin to experience its’ exponential growth after the stock market re-enters a bull market.
Terry Laundy’s T-Theory implemented by measuring the time of an indicator from peak to trough, then using that to define a future time window. It is similar to an head-and-shoulders pattern in that it is the process of forming the right side from a synthetic technical indicator. If the indicator is making continued lows, then time is recalculated for defining the right side of the T. The date of the market inflection point may be a price or indicator inflection date, so it is not always exactly useful. It is better to make us aware of possible market inflection points, clustered with other data. It gives us an RSI low of May, 9th 2020.
The Bradley Cycle is coupled with volatility allows start dates for campaigns or put options as insurance in portfolios for stocks. However, it is also useful for predicting market moves instead of terminal dates for discretes. Using dates which correspond to discretes, we can see how those dates correspond with changes in VIX.
Therefore, our timeline looks like:
  • 2/14/20 – yearly high ($10372 USD)
  • 3/12/20 – yearly low thus far ($3858 USD)
  • 5/9/20 – T-Theory true yearly low (BTC between 4863 and 3569)
  • 5/26/20 – hashrate difficulty halvening
  • 11/14/20 – stock market low
  • 1/15/21 – yearly low for BTC, around $8528
  • 8/19/21 – end of stock bear market
  • 11/26/21 – eighteen months from halvening, average peak from halvenings (BTC begins rising from $3000 area to above $23,312)
  • 4/23/22 – all-time high
Taken from my blog: http://aliamin.info/2020/
submitted by aibnsamin1 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Testing the Tide | Monthly FIRE Portfolio Update - June 2020

We would rather be ruined than changed.
-W H Auden, The Age of Anxiety
This is my forty-third portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goal.
Portfolio goal
My objective is to reach a portfolio of $2 180 000 by 1 July 2021. This would produce a real annual income of about $87 000 (in 2020 dollars).
This portfolio objective is based on an expected average real return of 3.99 per cent, or a nominal return of 6.49 per cent.
Portfolio summary
Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund – $726 306
Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund – $42 118
Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund – $78 730
Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund – $111 691
Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) – $201 745
Vanguard International Shares ETF (VGS) – $39 357
Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) – $231 269
Telstra shares (TLS) – $1 668
Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) – $7 310
NIB Holdings shares (NHF) – $5 532
Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) – $117 757
Secured physical gold – $18 913
Ratesetter (P2P lending) – $10 479
Bitcoin – $148 990
Raiz app (Aggressive portfolio) – $16 841
Spaceship Voyager app (Index portfolio) – $2 553
BrickX (P2P rental real estate) – $4 484
Total portfolio value: $1 765 743 (+$8 485 or 0.5%)
Asset allocation
Australian shares – 42.2% (2.8% under)
Global shares – 22.0%
Emerging markets shares – 2.3%
International small companies – 3.0%
Total international shares – 27.3% (2.7% under)
Total shares – 69.5% (5.5% under)
Total property securities – 0.3% (0.3% over)
Australian bonds – 4.7%
International bonds – 9.4%
Total bonds – 14.0% (1.0% under)
Gold – 7.7%
Bitcoin – 8.4%
Gold and alternatives – 16.2% (6.2% over)
Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio.
[Chart]
Comments
The overall portfolio increased slightly over the month. This has continued to move the portfolio beyond the lows seen in late March.
The modest portfolio growth of $8 000, or 0.5 per cent, maintains its value at around that achieved at the beginning of the year.
[Chart]
The limited growth this month largely reflects an increase in the value of my current equity holdings, in VAS and A200 and the Vanguard retail funds. This has outweighed a small decline in the value of Bitcoin and global shares. The value of the bond holdings also increased modestly, pushing them to their highest value since around early 2017.
[Chart]
There still appears to be an air of unreality around recent asset price increases and the broader economic context. Britain's Bank of England has on some indicators shown that the aftermath of the pandemic and lockdown represent the most challenging financial crisis in around 300 years. What is clear is that investor perceptions and fear around the coronavirus pandemic are a substantial ongoing force driving volatility in equity markets (pdf).
A somewhat optimistic view is provided here that the recovery could look more like the recovery from a natural disaster, rather than a traditional recession. Yet there are few certainties on offer. Negative oil prices, and effective offers by US equity investors to bail out Hertz creditors at no cost appear to be signs of a financial system under significant strains.
As this Reserve Bank article highlights, while some Australian households are well-placed to weather the storm ahead, the timing and severity of what lays ahead is an important unknown that will itself feed into changes in household wealth from here.
Investments this month have been exclusively in the Australian shares exchange-traded fund (VAS) using Selfwealth.* This has been to bring my actual asset allocation more closely in line with the target split between Australian and global shares.
A moving azimuth: falling spending continues
Monthly expenses on the credit card have continued their downward trajectory across the past month.
[Chart]
The rolling average of monthly credit card spending is now at its lowest point over the period of the journey. This is despite the end of lockdown, and a slow resumption of some more normal aspects of spending.
This has continued the brief period since April of the achievement of a notional and contingent kind of financial independence.
The below chart illustrates this temporary state, setting out the degree to which portfolio distributions cover estimated total expenses, measured month to month.
[Chart]
There are two sources of volatility underlying its movement. The first is the level of expenses, which can vary, and the second is the fact that it is based on financial year distributions, which are themselves volatile.
Importantly, the distributions over the last twelve months of this chart is only an estimate - and hence the next few weeks will affect the precision of this analysis across its last 12 observations.
Estimating 2019-20 financial year portfolio distributions
Since the beginning of the journey, this time of year usually has sense of waiting for events to unfold - in particular, finding out the level of half-year distributions to June.
These represent the bulk of distributions, usually averaging 60-65 per cent of total distributions received. They are an important and tangible signpost of progress on the financial independence journey.
This is no simple task, as distributions have varied in size considerably.
A part of this variation has been the important role of sometimes large and lumpy capital distributions - which have made up between 30 to 48 per cent of total distributions in recent years, and an average of around 15 per cent across the last two decades.
I have experimented with many different approaches, most of which have relied on averaging over multi-year periods to even out the 'peaks and troughs' of how market movements may have affected distributions. The main approaches have been:
Each of these have their particular simplifications, advantages and drawbacks.
Developing new navigation tools
Over the past month I have also developed more fully an alternate 'model' for estimating returns.
This simply derives a median value across a set of historical 'cents per unit' distribution data for June and December payouts for the Vanguard funds and exchange traded funds. These make up over 96 per cent of income producing portfolio assets.
In other words, this model essentially assumes that each Vanguard fund and ETF owned pays out the 'average' level of distributions this half-year, with the average being based on distribution records that typically go back between 5 to 10 years.
Mapping the distribution estimates
The chart below sets out the estimate produced by each approach for the June distributions that are to come.
[Chart]
Some observations on these findings can be made.
The lowest estimate is the 'adjusted GFC income' observation, which essentially assumes that the income for this period is as low as experienced by the equity and bond portfolio during the Global Financial Crisis. Just due to timing differences of the period observed, this seems to be a 'worst case' lower bound estimate, which I do not currently place significant weight on.
Similarly, at the highest end, the 'average distribution rate' approach simply assumes June distributions deliver a distribution equal to the median that the entire portfolio has delivered since 1999. With higher interest rates, and larger fixed income holdings across much of that time, this seems an objectively unlikely outcome.
Similarly, the delivery of exactly the income suggested by long-term averages measured across decades and even centuries would be a matter of chance, rather than the basis for rational expectations.
Central estimates of the line of position
This leaves the estimates towards the centre of the chart - estimates of between around $28 000 to $43 000 as representing the more likely range.
I attach less weight to the historical three-year average due to the high contribution of distributed capital gains over that period of growth, where at least across equities some capital losses are likely to be in greater presence.
My preferred central estimate is the model estimate (green) , as it is based in historical data directly from the investment vehicles rather than my own evolving portfolio. The data it is based on in some cases goes back to the Global Financial Crisis. This estimate is also quite close to the raw average of all the alternative approaches (red). It sits a little above the 'adjusted income' measure.
None of these estimates, it should be noted, contain any explicit adjustment for the earnings and dividend reductions or delays arising from COVID-19. They may, therefore represent a modest over-estimate for likely June distributions, to the extent that these effects are more negative than those experienced on average across the period of the underlying data.
These are difficult to estimate, but dividend reductions could easily be in the order of 20-30 per cent, plausibly lowering distributions to the $23 000 to $27 000 range. The recently announced forecast dividend for the Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) is, for example, the lowest in four years.
As seen from chart above, there is a wide band of estimates, which grow wider still should capital gains be unexpectedly distributed from the Vanguard retail funds. These have represented a source of considerable volatility. Given this, it may seem fruitless to seek to estimate these forthcoming distributions, compared to just waiting for them to arrive.
Yet this exercise helps by setting out reasoning and positions, before hindsight bias urgently arrives to inform me that I knew the right answer all along. It also potentially helps clearly 'reject' some models over time, if the predictions they make prove to be systematically incorrect.
Progress
Progress against the objective, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below.
Measure Portfolio All Assets
Portfolio objective – $2 180 000 (or $87 000 pa) 81.0% 109.4%
Credit card purchases – $71 000 pa 98.8% 133.5%
Total expenses – $89 000 pa 79.2% 106.9%
Summary
The current coronavirus conditions are affecting all aspects of the journey to financial independence - changing spending habits, leading to volatility in equity markets and sequencing risks, and perhaps dramatically altering the expected pattern of portfolio distributions.
Although history can provide some guidance, there is simply no definitive way to know whether any or all of these changes will be fundamental and permanent alterations, or simply data points on a post-natural disaster path to a different post-pandemic set of conditions. There is the temptation to fit past crises imperfectly into the modern picture, as this Of Dollars and Data post illustrates well.
Taking a longer 100 year view, this piece 'The Allegory of the Hawk and Serpent' is a reminder that our entire set of received truths about constructing a portfolio to survive for the long-term can be a product of a sample size of one - actual past history - and subject to recency bias.
This month has felt like one of quiet routines, muted events compared to the past few months, and waiting to understand more fully the shape of the new. Nonetheless, with each new investment, or week of lower expenditure than implied in my FI target, the nature of the journey is incrementally changing - beneath the surface.
Small milestones are being passed - such as over 40 per cent of my equity holdings being outside of the the Vanguard retail funds. Or these these retail funds - which once formed over 95 per cent of the portfolio - now making up less than half.
With a significant part of the financial independence journey being about repeated small actions producing outsized results with time, the issue of maintaining good routines while exploring beneficial changes is real.
Adding to the complexity is that embarking on the financial journey itself is likely to change who one is. This idea, of the difficulty or impossibility of knowing the preferences of a future self, is explored in a fascinating way in this Econtalk podcast episode with a philosophical thought experiment about vampires. It poses the question: perhaps we can never know ourselves at the destination? And yet, who would rationally choose ruin over any change?
The post, links and full charts can be seen here.
submitted by thefiexpl to fiaustralia [link] [comments]

Gold and Oil Rally

For Trading JUNE 5th
JUST ANOTHER MANIPULATED DAY
U.S. DOLLAR CONTINUES TO WEAKEN
Today’s market was just another that looked like it was going to have a nice steady decline into some well establish support and take a rest. Then, with just the last 40 minutes left it managed to move from the low of the day -180 or so it rallied straight up to finish the day +11.93 (.05%). Does the Orange Emperor really think that people don’t realize that the Dow is only 30 heavily weighted stocks that are easily manipulated at whim? Not the NASDAQ -67.10 (.69%) OR THE S&P 500 -10.52 (.34%), nobody really cares about the Russell -.03 (0%), or the Transports, which never made a new high since 2018, +134.48 (1.42%). Market internals were just okay with NYSE 4:1 up and the NAZ just 1:1, although volume was up a bit. As far as the manipulation goes, there were 3 big movers, BA +79 DPs, GS +29 and TRV +24DPs. 8 of 11 S&P sectors were lower with the winner’s financials, Industrials, and materials while the biggest losers were utilities, real estate, health-care and information technology. The DJIA was split 16/14, doesn’t even matter which way (down).
Our “open forum” on Discord, which allows me to interact with subscribers and others to allow direct questions and chart opinions on just about any stock, continues to grow with more participants every day. It is informative and allows me to share insights as the market is open and moving. The link is: https://discord.gg/ATvC7YZ and I will be there and active from before the open and all day. It’s a great place to share ideas and gain some insights, and we’ve grown to almost 1900 members. I also did this video titled “How to survive being an options trader and not blow up your account,” over the long weekend. I think it’s very informative as a guide to stock selection and option choices. The link is https://youtu.be/Y7H9RpWfLlo Enjoy!!
Tonight’s closing comment video https://youtu.be/Z7KUiEnqLMo
SECTORS: The big news was initial claims up less than expected but still up 1.88million and continuing claims 21,487 vs 20,838. When did it become so “well, it’s not as bad as we thought,” let’s take the NAZ100 to a new high? I mean, the Trade balance was “only up” another $5 billion over last month. On the earnings front we had Smartsheet (SMAR) beat on earnings and revenues but was a touch light on billings for the next Q and they took it down to $47.52 -11.56 (19.6%). Slack (WORK) also beat top and bottom, and gave solid guidance, just not solid enough and they took it to task and sent it from $40.00 to $32.00, pretty harsh, I thought.
On the defensive side, SJM reported too, it too beat but made mention that there might have been some rush buying ahead of the pandemic when PB&J looked like a good idea and sent the stock lower finishing $109.30 -5.29 (4.62%).
And last, I mentioned this in this mornings video, Genius Brands International (GNUS) a firm that produces animated TV for kids has been on a tear. It started in May @ $ .31, by 5/15 it was $1.95 and after a 10 or 11-day consolidation it took off on a 4-day run to 11.73 before closing $6.73 -1.20 after falling to 4.25 during the day.
FOOD SUPPLY: was MIXED with TSN +4.15, BGS +.38, FLO 0.04, CAG -.47, MDLZ -.80, KHC +.29, CALM +.84, JJSF +1.65, SAFM +1.65, LANC +.67, GO -.83, HRL +.06, SJM -5.39, and PBJ $32.41 -.24 (,76%).
BIOPHARMA was LOWER with BIIB -2.95, ABBV +2.11, REGN -5.74, ISRG -8.80, GILD +2.85, MYL +.12, TEVA -.12, VRTX -4.19, BHC +.25, INCY -5.03, ICPY +.33, LABU -2.45, and IBB $131.25 -1.40 (1.06%). CANNABIS: was LOWER with TLRY -.07, CGC +.08, CRON +.27, GWPH -1.23, ACB -.13, PYX -.08, NBEV -.01, CURLF +.01, KERN -.07 and MJ $14.03 -.03 (,21%).
DEFENSE was HIGHER with LMT + 1.85, GD +1.58, TXT +2.23, NOC -.21, BWXT -.85, TDY +7.34, RTX +.06, and ITA $178.80 +3.30 (1.88%).
RETAIL was MIXED with M +.40, JWN +2.07, KSS +1.35, DDS -.50, WMT -1.32, TGT -1.48, TJX -.24, RL +.24, UAA +.20, LULU -6.52, TPR +.72, CPRI +2.23, and XRT $43.32 +.14 (.32%).
FAANG and Big Cap: were LOWER with GOOGL -24.95, AMZN -16.72, AAPL -2.87, FB -3.91, NFLX -7.37, NVDA -.63, TSLA -16.46, BABA -.61, BIDU -3.15, CMG -2.71, CAT +1.87, BA +11.19, DIS +1.51, and XLK $98.90 -.73 (.73%).
FINANCIALS were HIGHER with GS +3.58, JPM +2.20, BAC +1.02, MS +1.77, C +2.47, PNC +3.29, AIG +2.06, TRV +3.53, AXP +1.34, V -3.17, and XLF $25.30 +.54 (2.18%).,
OIL, $37.41 +.12. Oil has managed to trade $37.62 today and has run into the 100-day MA and not even blinked. I will be on watch to get back into the USO puts for a move back to $30-31.00. The stocks were mixed and XLE was $41.74 +.01 (.02%).
METALS, GOLD: $1,1727.40 +22.60. After trading 1761 overnight the gold traded down to 1728 and closed near the lows. The action in the US$ is projecting higher prices for the metals, but it certainly didn’t happen today. Support is just below 1721. We bought back the 3rd and final lot of NEM yesterday @ $58.86.
BITCOIN: closed $9,895 +240. After breaking down from just over 10,000 and trading as low as 8630 last Tuesday we have been clawing our way back toward 10,000. Last night and this morning we traded over $10500 but fell all the way back to the lows. We added 350 shares of GBTC last Wednesday @ $10.02 to our position of 400 @ $8.06, bringing our average price to $8.97. GBTC closed $11.70 + .39 today.
Tomorrow is another day.
CAM
submitted by Dashover to OptionsOnly [link] [comments]

TRUE historical data on yearly lows (correcting repetitive historical false information spread on reddit and twitter)

Recently, wrong historical data on the alleged Bitcoin yearly lows could be repetitively read in ill-researched or "blindly copy-pasted" posts and tweets, e.g. falsely claiming a yearly low for 2013 of $65, where $13 is the correct value (wrong by a factor of 5)!
Here is the correct data:
TRUE yearly lows (first historically recorded trade occurred at MtGox exchange on 17th July 2010; bitstamp exchange started operation on 13 Sep 2011*):
*not included: Bitcoin prices of around $0.003 on Bitcoin USD markets recorded since 25th April 2010, consistent with famous two Bitcoin pizzas from 22nd May 2010 worth $30 for 10,000 BTC.
Yearly absolute lows (just omitting obvious implausible data flaws) - not recommended because short outliers of very low trade volumes can bias the view of the real market situation:
Yearly lows of daily weighted averages - more useful because short outliers with very low volumes are not biasing the statistics:
  • 2010: $0.05 (MtGox, 17th & 24th & 25th & 26th July)
  • 2011: $0.29 (MtGox, 4th January)
  • 2011: $2.24 (bitstamp, 21st October)
  • 2012: $4.33 (bitstamp, 19th February)
  • 2013: $13.01 (bitstamp, 1st January)
  • 2014: $305.81 (bitstamp, 5th October)
  • 2015: $189.84 (bitstamp, 14th January)
  • 2016: $370.21 (bitstamp, 3rd February)
  • 2017: $783.46 (bitstamp, 12th January)
  • 2018: $3171.72 (bitstamp, 15th December)
  • 2019: $3365.06 (bitstamp, 7th February)
  • 2020: <= $7030.21 (bitstamp, 2nd January)
Change rates:
  • 2011: x 5.8 (+480%)
  • 2012: x 14.9 (+1390%)
  • 2013: x 3.0 (+200%)
  • 2014: x 23.5 (+2250%)
  • 2015: x 0.6 (-40%)
  • 2016: x 2.0 (+100%)
  • 2017: x 2.1 (+110%)
  • 2018: x 4.0 (+300%)
  • 2019: x 1.1 (+10%)
  • 2020: <= x 2.1 (<= +110%)
How to do this yourself:
Example for 2013:
https://bitcoincharts.com/charts/bitstampUSD#rg60zczsg2013-01-01zeg2013-12-31ztgSzm1g10zm2g25zv
Click on "Load raw data" below the chart, copy-paste to spreadsheet like Libre Calc or MS Excel or Google documents, apply "min" function on the column of daily lows or daily weighted averages.
For year 2013 on bitstamp, the yearly low was reached on 1st January 2013: - Daily absolute low = $12.77 - Daily weighted average = $13.01
submitted by Amichateur to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Gold and Oil Rally

For Trading JUNE 5th
JUST ANOTHER MANIPULATED DAY
U.S. DOLLAR CONTINUES TO WEAKEN
Today’s market was just another that looked like it was going to have a nice steady decline into some well establish support and take a rest. Then, with just the last 40 minutes left it managed to move from the low of the day -180 or so it rallied straight up to finish the day +11.93 (.05%). Does the Orange Emperor really think that people don’t realize that the Dow is only 30 heavily weighted stocks that are easily manipulated at whim? Not the NASDAQ -67.10 (.69%) OR THE S&P 500 -10.52 (.34%), nobody really cares about the Russell -.03 (0%), or the Transports, which never made a new high since 2018, +134.48 (1.42%). Market internals were just okay with NYSE 4:1 up and the NAZ just 1:1, although volume was up a bit. As far as the manipulation goes, there were 3 big movers, BA +79 DPs, GS +29 and TRV +24DPs. 8 of 11 S&P sectors were lower with the winner’s financials, Industrials, and materials while the biggest losers were utilities, real estate, health-care and information technology. The DJIA was split 16/14, doesn’t even matter which way (down).
Our “open forum” on Discord, which allows me to interact with subscribers and others to allow direct questions and chart opinions on just about any stock, continues to grow with more participants every day. It is informative and allows me to share insights as the market is open and moving. The link is: https://discord.gg/ATvC7YZ and I will be there and active from before the open and all day. It’s a great place to share ideas and gain some insights, and we’ve grown to almost 1900 members. I also did this video titled “How to survive being an options trader and not blow up your account,” over the long weekend. I think it’s very informative as a guide to stock selection and option choices. The link is https://youtu.be/Y7H9RpWfLlo Enjoy!!
Tonight’s closing comment video https://youtu.be/Z7KUiEnqLMo
SECTORS: The big news was initial claims up less than expected but still up 1.88million and continuing claims 21,487 vs 20,838. When did it become so “well, it’s not as bad as we thought,” let’s take the NAZ100 to a new high? I mean, the Trade balance was “only up” another $5 billion over last month. On the earnings front we had Smartsheet (SMAR) beat on earnings and revenues but was a touch light on billings for the next Q and they took it down to $47.52 -11.56 (19.6%). Slack (WORK) also beat top and bottom, and gave solid guidance, just not solid enough and they took it to task and sent it from $40.00 to $32.00, pretty harsh, I thought.
On the defensive side, SJM reported too, it too beat but made mention that there might have been some rush buying ahead of the pandemic when PB&J looked like a good idea and sent the stock lower finishing $109.30 -5.29 (4.62%).
And last, I mentioned this in this mornings video, Genius Brands International (GNUS) a firm that produces animated TV for kids has been on a tear. It started in May @ $ .31, by 5/15 it was $1.95 and after a 10 or 11-day consolidation it took off on a 4-day run to 11.73 before closing $6.73 -1.20 after falling to 4.25 during the day.
FOOD SUPPLY: was MIXED with TSN +4.15, BGS +.38, FLO 0.04, CAG -.47, MDLZ -.80, KHC +.29, CALM +.84, JJSF +1.65, SAFM +1.65, LANC +.67, GO -.83, HRL +.06, SJM -5.39, and PBJ $32.41 -.24 (,76%).
BIOPHARMA was LOWER with BIIB -2.95, ABBV +2.11, REGN -5.74, ISRG -8.80, GILD +2.85, MYL +.12, TEVA -.12, VRTX -4.19, BHC +.25, INCY -5.03, ICPY +.33, LABU -2.45, and IBB $131.25 -1.40 (1.06%). CANNABIS: was LOWER with TLRY -.07, CGC +.08, CRON +.27, GWPH -1.23, ACB -.13, PYX -.08, NBEV -.01, CURLF +.01, KERN -.07 and MJ $14.03 -.03 (,21%).
DEFENSE was HIGHER with LMT + 1.85, GD +1.58, TXT +2.23, NOC -.21, BWXT -.85, TDY +7.34, RTX +.06, and ITA $178.80 +3.30 (1.88%).
RETAIL was MIXED with M +.40, JWN +2.07, KSS +1.35, DDS -.50, WMT -1.32, TGT -1.48, TJX -.24, RL +.24, UAA +.20, LULU -6.52, TPR +.72, CPRI +2.23, and XRT $43.32 +.14 (.32%).
FAANG and Big Cap: were LOWER with GOOGL -24.95, AMZN -16.72, AAPL -2.87, FB -3.91, NFLX -7.37, NVDA -.63, TSLA -16.46, BABA -.61, BIDU -3.15, CMG -2.71, CAT +1.87, BA +11.19, DIS +1.51, and XLK $98.90 -.73 (.73%).
FINANCIALS were HIGHER with GS +3.58, JPM +2.20, BAC +1.02, MS +1.77, C +2.47, PNC +3.29, AIG +2.06, TRV +3.53, AXP +1.34, V -3.17, and XLF $25.30 +.54 (2.18%).,
OIL, $37.41 +.12. Oil has managed to trade $37.62 today and has run into the 100-day MA and not even blinked. I will be on watch to get back into the USO puts for a move back to $30-31.00. The stocks were mixed and XLE was $41.74 +.01 (.02%).
METALS, GOLD: $1,1727.40 +22.60. After trading 1761 overnight the gold traded down to 1728 and closed near the lows. The action in the US$ is projecting higher prices for the metals, but it certainly didn’t happen today. Support is just below 1721. We bought back the 3rd and final lot of NEM yesterday @ $58.86.
BITCOIN: closed $9,895 +240. After breaking down from just over 10,000 and trading as low as 8630 last Tuesday we have been clawing our way back toward 10,000. Last night and this morning we traded over $10500 but fell all the way back to the lows. We added 350 shares of GBTC last Wednesday @ $10.02 to our position of 400 @ $8.06, bringing our average price to $8.97. GBTC closed $11.70 + .39 today.
Tomorrow is another day.
CAM
submitted by Dashover to options [link] [comments]

Two Roads Diverge | Monthly FIRE Portfolio Update - May 2020

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not travel both And be one traveler, long I stood And looked down one as far as I could To where it bent in the undergrowth
Robert Frost, The Road Not Taken
This is my forty-second portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goal.
Portfolio goal
My objective is to reach a portfolio of $2 180 000 by 1 July 2021. This would produce a real annual income of about $87 000 (in 2020 dollars).
This portfolio objective is based on an expected average real return of 3.99 per cent, or a nominal return of 6.49 per cent.
Portfolio summary
Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund – $727 917
Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund – $42 128
Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund – $78 569
Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund – $110 009
Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) – $187 003
Vanguard International Shares ETF (VGS) – $39 987
Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) – $225 540
Telstra shares (TLS) – $1 726
Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) – $7 741
NIB Holdings shares (NHF) – $5 652
Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) – $117 714
Secured physical gold – $18 982
Ratesetter (P2P lending) – $11 395
Bitcoin – $159 470
Raiz app (Aggressive portfolio) – $16 357
Spaceship Voyager app (Index portfolio) – $2 492
BrickX (P2P rental real estate) – $4 477
Total portfolio value: $1 757 159 (+$62 325 or 3.7%)
Asset allocation
Australian shares – 41.4% (3.6% under)
Global shares – 22.2%
Emerging markets shares – 2.3%
International small companies – 3.0%
Total international shares – 27.4% (2.6% under)
Total shares – 68.8% (6.2% under)
Total property securities – 0.3% (0.3% over)
Australian bonds – 4.4%
International bonds – 9.7%
Total bonds – 14.1% (0.9% under)
Gold – 7.8%
Bitcoin – 9.1%
Gold and alternatives – 16.9% (6.9% over)
Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio.
[Chart]
Comments
This month featured a further recovery in the overall portfolio, continuing to effectively reduce the size of the large losses across the first quarter.
The portfolio has increased by around $62 000, leading to a portfolio growth of 3.7 per cent. This means that around half of the large recent falls have been made up, and the portfolio sits around levels last reached in October of last year.
[Chart]
Leading the portfolio growth has been increases in Australian shares - particularly those held through the Betashares A200 and Vanguard VAS exchange traded funds, with both gaining over four per cent. Most other holdings remained steady, or fell slightly.
Markets appear to be almost entirely disconnected from the daily announcements of the sharp effects of the global coronavirus pandemic and the resulting restrictions. Bond and equity markets seem to have different and competing expectations for the future, and equity markets - at best - are apparently intent on looking through the immediate recovery phase to a new period of strong expansion.
[Chart]
On some metrics, both major global and Australian equity markets can be viewed as quite expensive, especially as reduced dividends announced have largely yet to be delivered. Yet if historically low bond yields are considered, it can be argued that some heightening compared to historical equity market valuations may be sustainable.
Reflecting this moment of markets holding their breath before one of two possible futures plays out, gold and Bitcoin remain elevated, and consequently above their target weightings.
Perhaps the same contending forces are in evidence in a recent Australian Securities and Investment Commission study (pdf) which has found that average Australian retail investors have reacted to uncertainty by activating old brokerage accounts, trading more frequently, and holding securities for shorter periods. My own market activity has been limited to purchases of Vanguard Australian shares ETF (VAS) and the international share ETF (VGS), to bring the portfolio closer to its target allocations.
Will Australia continue to be lucky through global slow downs?
Despite this burst of market activity in the retail market, it is unclear how Australian markets and equities will perform against the background of a global economic slowdown. A frequently heard argument is that a small open trade exposed commodities provider such as Australia, with a more narrowly-based economy, may perform poorly in a phase of heightened risk.
This recent Bank of England paper (pdf) makes the intriguing suggestion that this argument is not borne out by the historical record. In fact, the paper finds that industrial production in Australia, China and a mere handful of other economies has tended to increase following global risk shocks.
A question remaining, however, is whether the recovery from this 'risk shock' may have different characteristics and impacts than similar past events. One key question may be the exact form of government fiscal and monetary responses adopted. Another is whether inflation or deflation is the likely pathway - an unknown which itself may rely on whether long-term trends in the velocity of money supply continue, or are broken.
Facing all uncertainties, attention should be on tail risks - and minimising the odds of extreme negative scenarios. The case for this is laid out in this moving reflection by Morgan Housel. For this reason, I am satisfied that my Ratesetter Peer-to-Peer loans have been gradually maturing, reducing some 'tail risk' credit exposures in what could be a testing phase for borrowers through new non-bank lending channels in Australia. With accrued interest of over $13 000, at rates of around 9 per cent on average, over the five years of the investment, the loans have performed relatively well.
A temporary sheltering port - spending continues to decline
This month spending has continued to fall even as lockdown and other restrictions have slowly begun to ease. These extraordinary events have pushed even the smoothed average of three year expenditure down.
[Chart]
On a monthly basis credit card spending and total expenses have hit the lowest levels in more than six years. Apparently, average savings rates are up across many economies, though obviously individual experiences and starting points can differ dramatically.
Total estimated monthly expenditure has also fallen below current estimates of distributions for the first time since a period of exceptionally high distributions across financial year 2017-18.
The result of this is that I am briefly and surprisingly, for this month, notionally financially independent based on assumed distributions from the FIRE portfolio alone - at least until more normal patterns of expenditure are resumed.
Following the lines of drift - a longer view on progress made
Yet taking a longer view - and accounting for the final portfolio goal set - gives a different perspective. This is of a journey reaching toward, but not at, an end.
The chart below traces in purely nominal dollar terms the progress of the total portfolio value as a percentage of the current portfolio goal of $2.18 million over the last 13 years.
It also shows three labels, with the percentage progress at the inception of detailed portfolio data in 2007, at the start of this written record in January 2017, and as at January 1 of this year.
[Chart]
Two trend lines are shown - one a polynomial and the other exponential function - and they are extended to include a projection of future progress out to around 18 months.
The line of fit is close for the early part of the journey, but larger divergences from both trend lines are evident in the past two years as the impact of variable investment returns on a larger portfolio takes hold.
There are some modest inaccuracies introduced by the nominal methodology adopted - such as somewhat discounting early progress. A 2007 dollar had greater 'real' value and significance than is assigned to it by this representation. The chart does demonstrate, however, the approximate shape and length of the early journey - with it taking around 5 years to reach 20 per cent of the target, and 10 years to reach around half way.
Progress
Progress against the objective, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below.
Measure Portfolio All Assets
Portfolio objective – $2 180 000 (or $87 000 pa) 80.6% 108.4%
Credit card purchases – $71 000 pa 98.3% 132.3%
Total expenses – $89 000 pa 78.8% 106.0%
Summary
With aspects of daily life slowly and incrementally adjusting to a 'new normal', the longer-term question for the portfolio remains around how markets and government actions interact in a recovery phase.
The progress of the portfolio over the past 13 years has seemed, when viewed from afar as in chart above, predictable, and almost inevitable. Through the years it has felt anything but so smoothly linear. Rather, tides and waves have pushed and pulled, in turn stalling progress, or pushing it further ahead than hopes have dared.
It is possible that what lays ahead is a simple 'return leg', or more of the same. That through simple extrapolation around 80 per cent of the challenges already lay behind. Yet that is not the set of mind that I approach the remainder of the journey with. Rather, the shortness of the distance to travel has lent an extra focus on those larger, lower probability, events that could delay the journey or push it off-course. Those 'third' risks types of tail risks which Morgan Housel points out.
In one sense the portfolio allocation aims to deal - in a probabilistic way - with the multiple futures that could occur.
Viewed in this way, a gold allocation (and also Bitcoin) represents a long option on an extreme state of the economic world arising - as it did in the early 1980s. The 75 per cent target allocation to equities can be viewed as a high level of assurance around a 'base case' that human ingenuity and innovation will continue to create value over the long term.
The bond portfolio, similarly, can be seen as assigning a 15 per cent probability that both of these hypotheses are incorrect, and that further market falls and possible deflation are ahead. That perhaps even an experience akin to the lengthy, socially dislocating, post-bubble phase in Japan presided over by its central bank lays in store.
In other interesting media consumed this month, 'Fire and Chill', the brand new podcast collaboration between Pat the Shuffler and Strong Money Australia got off to an enjoyable start, tackling 'Why Bother with FIRE' and other topics.
Additionally, investment company Incrementum has just published the latest In Gold We Trust report, which gives an arrestingly different perspective on potential market and policy directions from traditional financial sources.
The detailed report questions the role and effectiveness of traditionally 'risk-free' assets like government bonds in the types of futures that could emerge. On first reading, the scenarios it contains appear atypical and beyond the reasonable contemplation of many investors - until it is recalled that up to a few years ago no mainstream economics textbook would have entertained the potential for persistent negative interest rates.
As the paths to different futures diverge, drawing on the wisdom of others to help look as far as possible into the bends in the undergrowth ahead becomes the safest choice.
The post, links and full charts can be seen here.
submitted by thefiexpl to fiaustralia [link] [comments]

Earnings Galore

For Trading JULY 23rd
EARNINGS GALORE!
MSFT & CMG BEAT, STOCKS LOWER
TSLA is Eligible for S&P-500
Today’s market got off to a mixed start with DJIA & S&P-500 up slightly and the NASDAQ down. It didn’t take long for the DJIA to move higher dragging the S&P with it but it took most of the day to get the NASDAQ to go up and stay there. At the close the DJIA was +165.44 (.62%), S&P-500 +18.72 (.57%) and the NAZ +25.77 (.24%), the Russell +2.63 (.18%) and the DJ Transports -13. Volume was light and the A/D were 1.5:1 up on the NYSE and 6:5 Down on the NASDAQ. Real estate, Utilities and materials were the strongest and energy and financials the weaker. On the DJIA we were 23:7 higher but without much action and the biggest winner was MCD +39, and GS -42DP’s each. Tomorrow MSFT will probably take 50 DP’s off the averages based on the extended hours trading after the earnings report.
Our “open forum” on Discord, which allows me to interact with subscribers and others to allow direct questions and chart opinions on just about any stock, continues to grow with more participants every day. It is informative and allows me to share insights as the market is open and moving. The link is: https://discord.gg/ATvC7YZ and I will be there and active from before the open and all day. It’s a great place to share ideas and gain some insights, and we’ve grown to almost 3000 members. I also did this video titled “How to survive being an options trader and not blow up your account,” over the long weekend. I think it’s highly informative as a guide to stock selection and option choices. The link is https://youtu.be/Y7H9RpWfLlo Enjoy!!
Tonight’s closing comment video https://youtu.be/GwDLF8SI16k
SECTORS: Earnings were the feature this week and last night TXN reported and had been up a few, but after the conference call it fell and finished today $132.53 -2.97. SNAP beat top and bottom lines but gave poor guidance for next quarters growth of Daily Active Users (DAU’s) and the stock finished $23.20 -1.54 (6.2%). This afternoon’s numbers were better, but MSFT, which beat, disappointed the market by not “blowing away” the numbers after its recent rise and after a brief move up to just over $212, fell back to $204.51 and the last is $207.30 -4.55. The same was true for CMG, which has doubled since the March lows also beat but after a move to $1193 it too fell back, to 1140 before working its way back to $1167.50 -17.06. Whirlpool (WHR) went the other way with a beat of both earnings and revenues and after finishing the day $146.89 +3.13 ran all the way to 162 before falling back to $152.50 +5.61 for a gain on the day of almost $9.00. And TESLA (TSLA) beat on all metrics and after closing $1592 +24, moved to $1716 before it came back in and finished the day $1657 +$65. The numbers were impressive, especially the cash on hand and the 4th Quarter of earnings, but the most impressive point is that it now qualifies for the S&P 500 index with an 8% weighting.
FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN was LOWER with TSN -.29, BGS -.19, FLO -.29, CPB -50, CAG +.17, MDLZ +.51, KHC +.37, CALM -.07, JJSF +.53, SAFM -4.93, HRL _.,03, SJM +1.03, PPC -.08, KR +.37, and PBJ $33.01+.15 (.44%).
BIOPHARMA was HIGHER with BIIB +1.52, ABBV -1.11, REGN +14.15, ISRG +16.80, GILD +.51, MYL -.30, TEVA +.27, VRTX +7.47, BHC -.20, INCY +5.58, ICPT -.58, LABU +2.73, and IBB $145.78 +1.82 (1.26%).
CANNABIS: was LOWER with TLRY -.10, CGC -.33, CRON -.06, GWPH -2.96, ACB -.42, NBEV -.32, CURLF -.22, KERN -.29, and MJ $13.22 -.18 (1.34%).
DEFENSE: was HIGHER with LMT +17.93, GD +5.10, TXT +.34, NOC +7.31, BWXT +1.19, TDY +4.45, RTX +.69, and ITA $167.22 +2.25 (1.36%).
RETAIL: was LOWER with M -.40, JWN -.49, KSS -.86, DDS -1.43, WMT +.17, TGT +2.70, TJX -.07, RL -.16, UAA -.06, LULU +1.33, TPR -.03, CPRI +.07, and XRT $46.85 +.71 (1.54%).
FAANG and Big Cap: were MIXED with GOOGL +7.88, AMZN -55.19, AAPL +.30, FB -2.60, NFLX -1.30, NVDA +3.86, TSLA +88.64, BABA -6.20, BIDU -2.72, CMG +6.90, CAT +1.13, MSFT -1.74, BA +.58, DIS +.13, and XLK $108.93 +.47 (.43%). PLEASE BE AWARE THAT THESE PRICES ARE LATE MARKET QUOTES AND DO NOT REPRESENT THE 4:00 CLOSES.
FINANCIALS were LOWER with GS -6.05, JPM -.90, BAC -.15, MS -1.38, C -.13, PNC -1.07, AIG -.07, TRV +3.04, AXP +.21, V +2.34, and XLF $24.31 unchanged.
OIL, $40.90 -.02. Oil was lower in last night’s trading before we rallied in the morning. I mentioned in last night’s charts with comments section in the Weekly Strategies letter, that it is a toss-up for a move in either direction. The stocks were MIXED with XLE $37.79 -.47 (1.23%).
GOLD $1,865.10 +21.20. It was a continuation rally and a new recovery high of $1,871. I have only the NEM August 65 / 70 spread on in the Gold market. The spread was put on at $1.30 and finished the day @ $1.83.
BITCOIN: closed $9,425 +30. After trading back to 8985 we rallied back to close – only $5. Since last week we have closed between 9200 – 92.85 every day with narrow ranges and today was a good start to move higher. A break over 10,000 still sends us higher. We added 350 shares of GBTC @ $10.02 to our position of 400 @ $8.06, bringing our average price to $8.97. GBTC closed $10.10 +.23 today.
Tomorrow is another day.
CAM
submitted by Dashover to OptionsOnly [link] [comments]

Murmurs of the Sea | Monthly Portfolio Update - March 2020

Only the sea, murmurous behind the dingy checkerboard of houses, told of the unrest, the precariousness, of all things in this world.
-Albert Camus, The Plague
This is my fortieth portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goal.
Portfolio goal
My objective is to reach a portfolio of $2 180 000 by 1 July 2021. This would produce a real annual income of about $87 000 (in 2020 dollars).
This portfolio objective is based on an expected average real return of 3.99 per cent, or a nominal return of 6.49 per cent.
Portfolio summary
Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund – $662 776
Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund – $39 044
Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund – $74 099
Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund – $109 500
Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) – $150 095
Vanguard International Shares ETF (VGS) – $29 852
Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) – $197 149
Telstra shares (TLS) – $1 630
Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) – $7 855
NIB Holdings shares (NHF) – $6 156
Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) – $119 254
Secured physical gold – $19 211
Ratesetter (P2P lending) – $13 106
Bitcoin – $115 330
Raiz* app (Aggressive portfolio) – $15 094
Spaceship Voyager* app (Index portfolio) – $2 303
BrickX (P2P rental real estate) – $4 492
Total portfolio value: $1 566 946 (-$236 479 or -13.1%)
Asset allocation
Australian shares – 40.6% (4.4% under)
Global shares – 22.3%
Emerging markets shares – 2.3%
International small companies – 3.0%
Total international shares – 27.6% (2.4% under)
Total shares – 68.3% (6.7% under)
Total property securities – 0.2% (0.2% over)
Australian bonds – 4.8%
International bonds – 10.4%
Total bonds – 15.2% (0.2% over)
Gold – 8.8%
Bitcoin – 7.4%
Gold and alternatives – 16.2% (6.2% over)
Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio.
Comments
This month saw an extremely rapid collapse in market prices for a broad range of assets across the world, driven by the acceleration of the Coronavirus pandemic.
Broad and simultaneous market falls have resulted in the single largest monthly fall in portfolio value to date of around $236 000.
This represents a fall of 13 per cent across the month, and an overall reduction of more the 16 per cent since the portfolio peak of January.
[Chart]
The monthly fall is over three times more severe than any other fall experienced to date on the journey. Sharpest losses have occurred in Australian equities, however, international shares and bonds have also fallen.
A substantial fall in the Australia dollar has provided some buffer to international equity losses - limiting these to around 8 per cent. Bitcoin has also fallen by 23 per cent. In short, in the period of acute market adjustment - as often occurs - the benefits of diversification have been temporarily muted.
[Chart]
The last monthly update reported results of some initial simplified modelling on the impact of a hypothetical large fall in equity markets on the portfolio.
Currently, the actual asset price falls look to register in between the normal 'bear market', and the more extreme 'Global Financial Crisis Mark II' scenarios modelled. Absent, at least for the immediate phase, is a significant diversification offset - outside of a small (4 per cent) increase in the value of gold.
The continued sharp equity market losses have left the portfolio below its target Australian equity weighting, so contributions this month have been made to Vanguard's Australian shares ETF (VAS). This coming month will see quarterly distributions paid for the A200, VGS and VAS exchange traded funds - totalling around $2700 - meaning a further small opportunity to reinvest following sizeable market falls.
Reviewing the evidence on the history of stock market falls
Vladimir Lenin once remarked that there are decades where nothing happen, and then there are weeks in which decades happen. This month has been four such weeks in a row, from initial market responses to the coronavirus pandemic, to unprecedented fiscal and monetary policy responses aimed at lessening the impact.
Given this, it would be foolish to rule out the potential for other extreme steps that governments have undertaken on multiple occasions before. These could include underwriting of banks and other debt liabilities, effective nationalisation or rescues of critical industries or providers, or even temporary closure of some financial or equity markets.
There is a strong appeal for comforting narratives in this highly fluid investment environment, including concepts such as buying while distress selling appears to be occurring, or delaying investing until issues become 'more clear'.
Nobody can guarantee that investments made now will not be made into cruel short-lived bear market rallies, and no formulas exist that will safely and certainly minimise either further losses, or opportunities forgone. Much financial independence focused advice in the early stages of recent market falls focused on investment commonplaces, with a strong flavour of enthusiasm at the potential for 'buying the dip'.
Yet such commonly repeated truths turn out to be imperfect and conditional in practice. One of the most influential studies of a large sample of historical market falls turns out to provide mixed evidence that buying following a fall reliably pays off. This study (pdf) examines 101 stock market declines across four centuries of data, and finds that:
Even these findings should be viewed as simply indicative. Each crisis and economic phase has its unique character, usually only discernible in retrospect. History, in these cases, should inform around the potential outlines of events that can be considered possible. As the saying goes, risk is what remains after you believe you have thought of everything.
Position fixing - alternative perspectives of progress
In challenging times it can help to keep a steady view of progress from a range of perspectives. Extreme market volatility and large falls can be disquieting for both recent investors and those closer to the end of the journey.
One perspective on what has occurred is that the portfolio has effectively been pushed backwards in time. That is, the portfolio now sits at levels it last occupied in April 2019. Even this perspective has some benefit, highlighting that by this metric all that has been lost is the strong forward progress made in a relatively short time.
Yet each perspective can hide and distort key underlying truths.
As an example, while the overall portfolio is currently valued at around the same dollar value as a year ago, it is not the same portfolio. Through new purchases and reinvestments in this period, many more actual securities (mostly units in ETFs) have been purchased.
The chart below sets out the growth in total units held from January 2019 to this month, across the three major exchange trade funds holdings in the portfolio.
[Chart]
From this it can be seen that the number of securities held - effectively, individual claims on the future earnings of the firms in these indexes - has more than doubled over the past fifteen months. Through this perspective, the accumulation of valuable assets shows a far more constant path.
Though this can help illuminate progress, as a measure it also has limitations. The realities of falls in market values cannot be elided by such devices, and some proportion of those market falls represent initial reassessments of the likely course of future earnings, and therefore the fundamental value of each of those ETF units.
With significant uncertainty over the course of global lock-downs, trade and growth, the basis of these reassessments may provide accurate, or not. For anyone to discount all of these reassessments as wholly the temporary result of irrational panic is to show a remarkable confidence in one's own analytical capacities.
Similarly, it would be equally wrong to extrapolate from market falls to a permanent constraining of the impulse of humanity to innovate, adjust to changed conditions, seek out opportunities and serve others for profit.
Lines of position - Trends in expenditure
A further longer-term perspective regularly reviewed is monthly expenses compared to average distributions.
Monthly expenditure continues to be below average, and is likely to fall further next month as a natural result of a virus-induced reduction of shopping trips, events and outings.
[Chart]
As occurred last month, as a function some previous high distributions gradually falling outside of the data 'window' for the rolling three-year comparison of distributions and expenditure, a downward slope in distributions continues.
Progress
Progress against the objective, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below.
Measure Portfolio All Assets Portfolio objective – $2 180 000 (or $87 000 pa) 71.9% 97.7% Credit card purchases – $71 000 pa 87.7% 119.2% Total expenses – $89 000 pa 70.2% 95.5%
Summary
This month has been one of the most surprising and volatile of the entire journey, with significant daily movements in portfolio value and historic market developments. There has been more to watch and observe than at any time in living memory.
The dominant sensation has been that of travelling backwards through time, and revisiting a stage of the journey already passed. The progress of the last few months has actually been so rapid, that this backwards travel has felt less like a set back, but rather more like a temporary revisitation of days past.
It is unclear how temporary a revisitation current conditions will enforce, or exactly how this will affect the rest of the journey. In early January I estimated that if equity market fell by 33 per cent through early 2020 with no offsetting gains in other portfolio elements, this could push out the achievement of the target to January 2023.
Even so, experiencing these markets and with more volatility likely, I don't feel there is much value in seeking to rapidly recalculate the path from here, or immediately alter the targeted timeframe. Moving past the portfolio target from here in around a year looks almost impossibly challenging, but time exists to allow this fact to settle. Too many other, more important, human and historical events are still playing out.
In such times, taking diverse perspectives on the same facts is important. This Next Life recently produced this interesting meditation on the future of FIRE during this phase of economic hardship. In addition, the Animal Spirits podcast also provided a thoughtful perspective on current market falls compared to 2008, as does this article by Early Retirement Now. Such analysis, and each passing day, highlights that the murmurs of the sea are louder than ever before, reminding us of the precariousness of all things.
The post, links and full charts can be seen here.
submitted by thefiexpl to fiaustralia [link] [comments]

Crossing the Ocean | Monthly FI Portfolio Update - February 2020

No one would have crossed the ocean if he could have gotten off the ship in the storm.
Charles Kettering
This is my thirty-ninth portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goal.
Portfolio goal
My objective is to reach a portfolio of $2 180 000 by 1 July 2021. This would produce a real annual income of about $87 000 (in 2020 dollars).
This portfolio objective is based on an expected average real return of 3.99 per cent, or a nominal return of 6.49 per cent.
Portfolio summary
Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund – $772 191
Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund – $44 099
Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund – $81 139
Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund – $111 360
Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) – $174 810
Vanguard International Shares ETF (VGS) – $32 294
Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) – $250 949
Telstra shares (TLS) – $1 844
Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) – $8 083
NIB Holdings shares (NHF) – $5 580
Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) – $114 375
Secured physical gold – $18 455
Ratesetter* (P2P lending) – $13 971
Bitcoin – $149 920
Raiz* app (Aggressive portfolio) – $17 424
Spaceship Voyager* app (Index portfolio) – $2 446
BrickX (P2P rental real estate) – $4 485
Total portfolio value: $1 803 425 (-$69 900 or -3.7%)
Asset allocation
Australian shares – 42.1% (2.9% under)
Global shares – 22.3%
Emerging markets shares – 2.3%
International small companies – 3.1%
Total international shares – 27.7% (2.3% under)
Total shares – 69.8% (5.2% under)
Total property securities – 0.2% (0.2% over)
Australian bonds – 4.6%
International bonds – 9.7%
Total bonds – 14.3% (0.7% under)
Gold – 7.4%
Bitcoin – 9.7%
Gold and alternatives – 15.7% (5.7% over)
Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio.
[Chart]
Comments
Equity markets fell significantly this month, resulting in a portfolio loss of around $70 000. This is the largest monthly fall across the three years of this record in dollar terms, and the third largest as a proportion of assets.
[Chart]
The falls follow a large increase in the portfolio value last month, and have occurred amidst increasing global impacts and fears from the spread of the Corona virus. The losses are mainly in Australian and global equities and have been concentrated in the last two weeks.
Overall, the portfolio fell around 6 per cent from a peak in mid-February. Amidst this downward movement, gold and Bitcoin have performed relatively positively, with the price of gold increasing and Bitcoin mostly maintaining its value. Consistent with their role of diversifying portfolio risks, the value of bond holdings slightly increased over the period.
[Chart]
The equity market losses have left the portfolio below its target Australian equity weighting, so contributions this month have been made to Vanguard's Australian shares ETF (VAS).
In better news, this month expenditure has been lower than over the summer holiday period, continuing the broader declining trend. The most significant development in looking at the rolling three-year comparison of distributions and expenditure, however, is a new downward slope in distributions.
[Chart]
This is the first in this particular record, and results from the three year averaging window starting to move beyond a period of exceptionally high distributions in 2017. So it is an artefact of the chosen time period, and, for example, the equivalent four year comparison does not show this.
Relocating the emergency stores
This month has also seen a small re-entry into exploration of the world of fintech, through opening an account with Neo-bank Xinja. The motivation was an interest rate of 2.25 per cent, with no complex bonus eligibility rules. Added to this was curiosity about the experience with the product.
The sign-up process was quick and easy, and I am planning to use it instead of a previous Ubank USaver online account - paying less than half of that in interest - for my emergency fund. So far the process has been smooth, and the pre-tax benefit of the switch from the improved rate is around $33 per month.
Worse things happen at sea - modelling future portfolio risks
With a range of markets at or close to highs, pushing progress towards my financial objective forwards in past weeks, I had been considering the issue of downside portfolio risk. Needless to say, the past week has reinforced the value of reflecting on that risk.
To keep this issue steadily in view I have for the past year kept a rough and ready data series, called 'Market Event', which rather crudely assumes a rapid 25 per cent fall in equity values. Over the past month I have spent time considering and building a slightly more sophisticated way of modelling the impact of market falls on the portfolio.
This allows some simple scenarios to be modelled, and recognises the potential for different behaviour of individual parts of the portfolio (for example, equities, bonds, gold and Bitcoin) in equity market falls. The value in this is that it allows better visibility of what the portfolio could look like after what are, in historical terms, quite regular occurrences.
The three illustrative scenarios modelled are:
These are imperfect simplifications of a myriad of possible events over different timeframes. Yet they are still sufficient to give a sense of the range of underlying risks in equity markets.
The question they help answer is: just how does diversification actually reduce risk and volatility? In the scenarios below it is assumed that losses in equities are partly offset by gains in alternative diversifying assets (such as bonds, gold or even - more speculatively - Bitcoin).
The reactions of these alternative assets to equity market falls are not a constant. In fact, research indicates (pdf) that from the early 2000s bonds have transitioned from being negatively correlated to equity (rising when equity prices fall), to be mildly positively correlated at times.
Therefore, populating the three scenarios in Figure 1 has included some assumptions, drawing typically on long-term historical averages and some judgement, rather than just extrapolating performance over the past 15 years.
Testing the waters - the scenarios results
The results of each of these scenarios are set out below.
Figure 1 - Illustrative Effect of Three Market Scenarios on the FI Portfolio
[Diagram]
Some observations on the scenarios and model outputs are:
Critically, the results of this thought experiment are sensitive to correlation assumptions.
Relationships between assets returns change over time, in both direction and magnitude. This means reliance on historical relationships is not a certain guide. In the case of Bitcoin, especially, no long historical pattern of relationship exists. Changing the magnitudes or the plus or minus sign from the correlation assumptions I have adopted produces quite different results.
Progress
Progress against the objective, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below.
Measure Portfolio All Assets Portfolio objective – $2 180 000 (or $87 000 pa) 82.7% 112.8% Credit card purchases – $71 000 pa 100.9% 137.6% Total expenses – $89 000 pa 80.9% 110.3%
Summary
This month has seen a transition from the heat of summer, smoke, into storms and an unsettled period. This has been reflected in both daily life as well as in the continuing volatility in markets and the portfolio. It has felt like a changing of perspective, and a shifting vantage point upon the world.
The last post sought to trace my shifting perceptions and actions while investing through the Global Financial Crisis. A barrier to this was reconstructing contemporaneous thoughts from the persistent embrace of hindsight bias. This record is partly designed to overcome that problem.
My perceptions on current falls are that they are unsurprising given the strong record of equity markets over the past decade, but that it is simply unknown and unknowable whether they represent a 'typical' pull back that routinely occurs, or the opening stages of a sustained downturn in equity markets lasting 12-24 months.
These times can lead to a sense of being a passive observer of events beyond our control. The potential loss analysis above - which was started before the recent downturn - is designed to at least start to put some boundaries around these uncertainties, and volatility. To 'practice' - as it were - facing possible outcomes before we come upon them. Regularly reviewing downside exposures helps re-check that the portfolio risk is at the right level, and avoid complacency from past market gains by reinforcing their potentially temporary nature.
Another method of addressing the same issue is to maintain flexibility around future spending rules or withdrawal rates. This paper (pdf) from Vanguard proposes a particular 'dynamic spending rule'. This places moving 'guardrails' around a spending level, partially recognising the value of market gains (or losses). As a concept, this is potentially a helpful update to simple 'rules of thumb' such as the 4.0 per cent safe withdrawal rate (or its 2012 updated version, the 4.5 per cent 'rule').
On the same topic, from a different direction, I have been interested in the findings of this research paper (pdf) based on a century of data of Australian equity returns. It makes a strong case for lowering expectations for future returns. Similarly, this interview provides an intriguing suggestion of how the next global financial crisis may originate from central banks, rather than private debt or equity markets.
Finally, Credit Suisse have released their annual yearbook of global investment. This year unfortunately only a partial snapshot of global returns is given. This work highlights the changing nature of global investment through time, as sectors and technologies change, and provides useful historical checks on past global equity returns (5.2 per cent on a geometric basis).
Backed by a century of data, it also reinforces the truism that most journeys are defined by their end, even though storms and uncertainties may assail us on the passage.
The post, links and full charts can be seen here.
submitted by thefiexpl to fiaustralia [link] [comments]

XLM can reach $0.10 soon – here's why

XLM can reach $0.10 soon – here's why
Stellar is firmly occupying the 13th spot on the list of the cryptocurrencies with the largest market cap. Last week, we witnessed yet another proof of lumens’ potential: as all the coins dropped on June 02, it was XLM to recover faster than others.
There was a veritable crypto massacre on June 2, when the price of Bitcoin fell by 8% in just five minutes. As usual, other coins followed, with Stellar also losing 8%:
https://xlmwallet.co/
The Bitcoin sell-off was predictable. As soon as BTC makes a move beyond the psychologically important $10,000 mark, whales start selling. Plus, we feel that there are still many miners who have been stashing their mining proceeds for the past few months, waiting for a rally. They decided to hold on to their coins just after the halving, when the expected price explosion didn’t happen.
In fact, data suggests that over 60% of all Bitcoins in active circulation haven’t moved for several months. This is a major indicator of a HODLing sentiment in the market. But as soon, as there’s a bullish move, HODLers jump on the opportunity and sell.
As we’ve said, XLM dropped 8% from $0.083519 to $0.076917. That was a major disappointment to many traders and investors, as Stellar had been on a roll for the whole preceding week since May 26. During that period, it gained an amazing 29%, going from $0.06459 to $0.08352. There were all the reasons to expect a move above $0.10 — a very important mark for XLM.
However, after the ‘massacre’ it was finally Stellar’s time to shine. If you look at the chart for the past month, you can see that the drop was just the deepest among the many recent corrections on the way to a local peak of $0.085514 on June 4:

https://xlmwallet.co/
This marked an overall rise by 32% in just 10 days — an amazing result for a top-20 coin.
What about the slight downward movement that came after? It represents another 7% slump, but from a much higher peak. In the opinion of the XLMwallet analysts, this is nothing more than a regular correction before a new bullish stretch.
The key resistance level to break through will be $0.088. If Stellar manages to overcome it, there’s hardly any obstacles on the way to $0.10.
On the fundamentals side of things, there isn’t much to report: the Stellar Foundation has kept quiet in the past couple of weeks. Therefore, we can expect the price of XLM to largely follow that of Bitcoin. Here, there are more reasons to expect further growth, as BTC miners are quickly returning to the network. The average block time is now at its lowest since 2014: a bit over 8.5 minutes. Of course, mining difficulty will be soon adjusted upward, but generally such ‘difficulty runs’ are a very bullish sign.
Bloomberg updated its BTC price forecast to $20,000 by the end of 2020. A doubling of the BTC price can produce a rise of at least 80% in the price of XLM, taking it all the way to $0.18 or even higher. Therefore, our advice to everyone who is holding lumens in their XLMwallet remains the same: hold.
Don’t get us wrong: we love it when you use our fast, light-weight wallet to send XLM to your friends or pay for goods and services online. Stellar is indeed one of the best cryptocurrencies for payments. But right now the wisest thing is to HODL. If you need to pay in crypto, rather pay in stablecoins.
Do you agree with our analysis? Write your own XLM price forecast in the comments! And if you don’t have an XLMwallet yet, hop over to https://xlmwallet.co/ and activate one right now — it takes only 10 seconds!
Website — https://xlmwallet.co/
Medium — https://medium.com/@XLMwalletCo
Teletype — https://teletype.in/@XLMwalletCo
Twitter — https://twitter.com/XLMwalletCo
Reddit — https://www.reddit.com/XLM_wallet/
submitted by Stellar__wallet to XLM_wallet [link] [comments]

Thoughts on cryptocurrency (design, function, quantitative analysis/market forecast) and the politics of aid in the new post-COVID-19 era/epoch

Cryptocurrency $1.4bn of $25bn financial reporting market/space.
ETFs at 25% of mutual funds, mutual funds at 40% of the stock market, FinViz.com market cap. as US-based, looking at near 38-40% discounting on population-based speculation (because of 40% worldwide markets under 3% since 1961-2018, and because of OTC derivatives compared with total money supply less inflation, over the past 20-30 years), because of the credit/debit cycle of recessions in less wealthy countries viz. WorldBank data, IMF rules about aid disbursements, etc.
FinViz: $41.55tn; at an average with market capitalization given proper weight, 1.95% gains on average, per a review of the total M1 money supply compared with FOREX trades, per day, compared with the commodities schedule, viz. ports and distribution centers/shipping and trucking companies (internal consistency test/check on the market); also, businesses and sectors totaling less than $1.4bn, or some multiplier of that, even accounting for growth, by 2025 or later.
Gold and other precious metals, etc., as a function of the BitCoin halving, as an institutional and technological hedge (use BitCoin as a hedge against inflation, or an indicator of it, after the halving, and gold/precious metals as a hedge on BitCoin, as empty money viz. real-perceived value of commodities, and as a way to financially exert institutional leverage on the development of perfect security for distribution supply-chains, AI-based coins, etc.
*
The U.S. and allies (OECD) stimulus to poorer nations; did the territories get stimulus checks?
*
Dollar, CryptoBuck, the $1 start-up currency; starts at $1, companies buy a % of that $1, the $1 is scheduled to have its return and discount the rest into charitable funds as the stock market does it’s martingale cycle, moving forward, to fight inflation; that is, every time the stock market does a martingale cycle, 50% less is released as a new coin offering, so initially $1, then $0.50, then $0.25, then $0.125, and so on, with the rest going to charity, thru X number of cycles; thus you have, at the outset, $1 dedicated to investments, and that is used as a tracker, sort of like a cookie, the shareholder % holdings are divided say, every year, or every two years, or every four years, not frequently, in other words, to emphasize the credit/debit cycle outside of the calendar year period, and say it’s pegged to the S&P500, or a section of NASDAQ, or a specific type of instrument, like a portfolio of risk-balanced ETFs, that could be it’s own project, when that doubles in market capitalization, or overall return % since the ICO, the amount of new buy-in to the coin is halved, no matter what the current price of the coin is, such that you can buy a new generation of coins, which are say less risk-averse because of the prior filtering of data through products like Yoga/Coil, of the initial $1 unit, at an additional $0.50, but with the other $0.50 going to charity, and see if you can reach a convention well past 3% of earnings, but in fact almost 100% of future earnings, asymptotically, on small amounts of money, really is the idea. So that as the coin shrinks in utility, the magnification between lending of point-to-point, cent loaned to cent owed, becomes obvious.
*
StarChart (qualitative sentiment index/NLP insights into music criticism/YouTube commentary, etc.). Art/music, charity, astrophysics. YieldShare, Tully, etc.
submitted by dougieschuschu to u/dougieschuschu [link] [comments]

Coinmarketcap Data Analysis: People are mostly just buying coins with cheap prices and large circulating supplies

I downloaded the coinmarketcap.com data for the top 100 cryptocurrencies as of a couple hours ago (source) and did some charts of which coins gained the most in the last 7 days. Note: These are not weighted averages but I doubt that makes any difference.
Top 100 CMC coins by price Here we're sorting by price-per-coin from the most expensive coins (BTC, BCH, DASH, ETH) to the least expensive (KIN, XP, BCN, DOGE). There's a pretty clear trend here that the expensive coins are up a little bit, but the cheaper the coin is the more likely it is to be up a huge amount.
Top 100 CMC coins by circulating supply This is sorted by the total number of coins in circulating supply, from fewest (GBYTE, GNO, BTCD, DGD) to the most (KIN, XP, BCN, DOGE). There's an even clearer trend here that the coins with smaller total supplies are up a little bit, but the more coins circulating the more likely that coin is to be up by a lot.
Top 100 CMC coins by market cap This is the top 100 coins by the value of their total market capitalization from lowest (WTC, POE, BLOCK, ITC) to highest (BTC, XRP, ETH, BCH). This time there's basically no trend. The coins with the highest market caps are up just about as much as the lowest market cap coins, and it's fairly random inbetween.
I'm neither a statistician nor a market analyst but this looks like pure market irrationality to me. The best recent predictor here for market performance of a coin is simply the size of its circulating supply, which is essentially a meaningless decision about where to put a decimal place. Satoshi could have just as easily capped bitcoin at 21 billion coins instead of 21 million, and maybe if he did the BTC market cap would be much higher because people would perceive it as "seeming cheap".
We're in a bull market and nearly everything has been up, so there's a lot of FOMO and throwing money at anything that moves. If this was the stock market I would knowingly tap the side of my monocle and say "Oh ho, fundamental valuations will catch up to you in the end, and then you'll be sorry you didn't do your due dilligence." In crypto, however, I've seen little evidence so far that fundamental valuation ever catches up to anybody.
submitted by JKadsderehu to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Coinmarketcap Data Analysis: People are mostly just buying coins with cheap prices and large circulating supplies

I downloaded the coinmarketcap.com data for the top 100 cryptocurrencies as of a couple hours ago (source) and did some charts of which coins gained the most in the last 7 days. Note: These are not weighted averages but I doubt that makes any difference.
Top 100 CMC coins by price Here we're sorting by price-per-coin from the most expensive coins (BTC, BCH, DASH, ETH) to the least expensive (KIN, XP, BCN, DOGE). There's a pretty clear trend here that the expensive coins are up a little bit, but the cheaper the coin is the more likely it is to be up a huge amount.
Top 100 CMC coins by circulating supply This is sorted by the total number of coins in circulating supply, from fewest (GBYTE, GNO, BTCD, DGD) to the most (KIN, XP, BCN, DOGE). There's an even clearer trend here that the coins with smaller total supplies are up a little bit, but the more coins circulating the more likely that coin is to be up by a lot.
Top 100 CMC coins by market cap This is the top 100 coins by the value of their total market capitalization from lowest (WTC, POE, BLOCK, ITC) to highest (BTC, XRP, ETH, BCH). This time there's basically no trend. The coins with the highest market caps are up just about as much as the lowest market cap coins, and it's fairly random inbetween.
I'm neither a statistician nor a market analyst but this looks like pure market irrationality to me. The best recent predictor here for market performance of a coin is simply the size of its circulating supply, which is essentially a meaningless decision about where to put a decimal place. Satoshi could have just as easily capped bitcoin at 21 billion coins instead of 21 million, and maybe if he did the BTC market cap would be much higher because people would perceive it as "seeming cheap".
We're in a bull market and nearly everything has been up, so there's a lot of FOMO and throwing money at anything that moves. If this was the stock market I would knowingly tap the side of my monocle and say "Oh ho, fundamental valuations will catch up to you in the end, and then you'll be sorry you didn't do your due dilligence." In crypto, however, I've seen little evidence so far that fundamental valuation ever catches up to anybody.
submitted by JKadsderehu to ethtrader [link] [comments]

A Grey Dawn Breaking? | Monthly Portfolio Update - June 2019

I must go down to the seas again, to the lonely sea and the sky, And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by; And the wheel’s kick and the wind’s song and the white sail’s shaking, And a grey mist on the sea’s face, and a grey dawn breaking. – John Masefield, Sea Fever
This is my thirty-first portfolio update. I complete this update monthly to check my progress against my goals.
Portfolio goals
My objectives are to reach a portfolio of:
Both of these are based on an expected average real return of 4.19%, or a nominal return of 7.19%, and are expressed in 2018 dollars.
Portfolio summary
Vanguard Lifestrategy High Growth Fund – $772 490 Vanguard Lifestrategy Growth Fund – $44 487 Vanguard Lifestrategy Balanced Fund – $80 006 Vanguard Diversified Bonds Fund – $107 352 Vanguard Australian Shares ETF (VAS) – $88 322 Betashares Australia 200 ETF (A200) – $260 499 Telstra shares (TLS) – $2 052 Insurance Australia Group shares (IAG) – $14 405 NIB Holdings shares (NHF) – $9 204 Gold ETF (GOLD.ASX) – $92 340 Secured physical gold – $14 807 Ratesetter* (P2P lending) – $22 011 Bitcoin – $186 350 Raiz* app (Aggressive portfolio) – $15 744 Spaceship Voyager* app (Index portfolio) – $1 991 BrickX (P2P rental real estate) – $4 643 Total value: $1 716 703 (+$118 079)
Asset allocation Australian shares – 40.2% (4.8% under) Global shares – 21.5% Emerging markets shares – 2.5% International small companies – 3.2% Total international shares – 27.2% (2.8% under) Total shares – 67.4% (7.6% under) Total property securities – 0.3% (0.3% over) Australian bonds – 5.2% International bonds – 10.0% Total bonds – 15.2% (0.2% over) Gold – 6.2% Bitcoin – 10.9% Gold and alternatives – 17.1% (7.1% over)
Presented visually, below is a high-level view of the current asset allocation of the portfolio.
[Chart]
Comments
The portfolio has experienced the strongest growth on record through this month, with a total increase of $118 000. This pushes the portfolio well beyond Objective #1 to over $1.7 million.
[Chart]
This has followed a period of unprecedented growth in the absolute value of the portfolio, with an increase of almost $400 000 since January. A remarkable consequence of this is that over 20 per cent of the entire value of the portfolio has come into existence in this short six month period.
[Chart]
This unbroken record instinctively invites expectations of a sharp - and possibly a quite sustained - reversal. I am determined, however, to act in accordance with my asset allocation decisions, not on the basis of overconfidence in my own capacity to predict or time markets.
The key contributors to growth this month have been continued appreciation in the price of Bitcoin, and even more significantly, increases in the value of Australian equities and gold. Lower official cash rates have strongly supported equity value growth, and a sharp increase in the price of gold has occurred. Combined, the gains in equities and gold accounted for over half of the total monthly increase.
New investments this month were focused on Australian equities. Following the lowering of the management fee of the Vanguard ETF VAS - tracking the ASX300 index - to 0.10 per cent from 1 July, I also made my first new investment in VAS for eighteen months. This lowering leads to the VAS ETF becoming significantly more competitive in fees with the Betashares A200 (which charges 0.07 per cent). It also offers some (small) additional diversification benefit through tracking an additional 100 smaller listed companies.
Accounting for volatility and Bitcoin in asset allocation
The sharp increase Bitcoin's value over the past month has brought the combination of alternatives (gold and Bitcoin) to just over 17 per cent of my portfolio, higher than sought. Bitcoin continues to serve a role providing portfolio diversification, but its recent increase has actually correlated with a rise in Australian equities. Recent price volatility leaves me conscious that the market value of these holdings could quite easily slip down to $50 000, its position a few short months ago.
If there is a star to steer by in such times, it is provided by the target asset allocation. Tracking back towards that in a time of intense volatility is the task at hand.
To ensure Bitcoin volatility is not unduly driving asset allocation decisions, however, I have started to test any new investment action I am considering taking on a 'with' and 'without' basis. This involves notionally backing Bitcoin completely out of the portfolio (or, more realistically, adopting a trailing average value) and assessing whether or not the asset allocation 'signal' for the direction of future investments changes.
The reason for doing this is to check that I am not undertaking hard to undo portfolio actions monthly merely as a response to Bitcoin's unique price variations. At one extreme if I remove Bitcoin from allocation considerations (e.g. assume it has no value), I have actually already achieved my target equity allocation of 75 per cent. Taking a less extreme approach, however, of attributing just a lower trailing average value results in a continued signal to make new equity investments.
Waiting for the next set of distributions
This period prior to July distributions being finalised and paid always has a quality of uncertainty and contingency about it. Distributions have been quite volatile over time, principally due to different distribution levels from Vanguard retail funds. In turn, these are likely due to maintaining asset allocations, and irregular distributions of underlying capital gains.
My current July distribution estimates are for around $2600 from the Betashares A200 ETF, $800 from Vanguard's VAS ETF, and around $16 000 to $23 000 from the Vanguard retail funds. These are based on median and average past distributions over the past 10 years for the funds and the already announced distributions in the case of the ETFs.
This could to mean that in early July I may have around $20 000 of newly available capital to re-invest in the market, however, these estimates are just that. In the past, distributions have at times been both dramatically less and more than anticipated. For example, the Vanguard High Growth fund has twice recently produced July distributions at levels above $30 000.
Following distributions being paid I will be looking to re-invest the capital in accordance with my target allocation. Two factors will likely drive these decisions. First, as discussed above the portfolio remains under its assigned equity allocation. Second, after a year of almost exclusive contributions to Australian equities, the target for that component is almost reached.
This means that a proportion of future contributions will be directed to international equities, to target the 60/40 per cent split I have set based on academic research on the historical record of the optimum balance of reducing volatility while maximising risk adjusted returns.
History of Australian equities research
This month the Reserve Bank of Australia issued a new research paper (pdf) on the history of Australian equities.
This draws on newly collected and analysed historical data on the past century of Australian share market returns, improving on previous incomplete or simplified data sets. Some of the key findings of this report have potential implications for my future portfolio planning. For example, the paper finds:
One implication of this is that in future investment policy reviews, I may need to lower my current estimate of long term real equity returns (currently 5.65 per cent).
Progress
Progress against the objectives, and the additional measures I have reached is set out below.
Measure Portfolio All Assets Objective #1 – $1 598 000 (or $67 000 pa) 107.4% 144.5% Objective #2 – $1 980 000 (or $83 000 pa) 86.7% 116.7% Credit card purchases - $73 000 pa 98.6% 132.6% Total expenses - $96 000pa 75.0% 100.9%
Summary
The rapid growth in the portfolio has been somewhat disorientating.
On an 'All Assets' basis, this has meant that all current expenses could theoretically be met from the portfolio and superannuation assets. Nonetheless, while this is pleasing, my focus remains on reaching my financial independence goals using just the portfolio assets.
The higher markets reach, the more interested I become in learning what I can from other periods of volatility. This has led to absorbing the book Wealth, War and Wisdom, a fascinating study of financial markets and returns through the convulsions of the twentieth century's world wars and Cold War tensions. It examines the challenge of the protection of real wealth in extreme conditions, finding that a diversified portfolio of real and paper assets, including a large weighting to equities, generally performed well.
The Australian FIRE community has also been sinking its teeth into launches of the 'Playing with FIRE' documentary. For those not able to make one of the premieres, AussieFireBug's most recent podcast provides a really enjoyable post-viewing conversation reflecting on its strengths and weaknesses. Also this month Big ERN has published an interesting guest post on safe withdrawal rates over 60 year periods. It makes the point that the 'rule' of 4 per cent can be risky and misleading over long time scales, with withdrawal rates of 3.5 per cent significantly decreasing the failure risk.
The passing of the winter solstice a week ago brings with it the promise of longer and lighter days ahead. The distributions to come also evoke a sense of a possible grey dawn breaking. In just a few days, the mists should lift and navigation of the portfolio towards my financial independence goals should be significantly clearer.
The post and full charts can be viewed here.
submitted by thefiexpl to fiaustralia [link] [comments]

TableauTip1 - How to perform weighted averages using ... Learn about Average True Range (ATR) and how to apply it, bitcoin/ethereum trading BitSeven Hull Moving Average trend indicator (2019) Best Moving Average Trading Strategy (MUST KNOW) - YouTube Bitcoin Price Chart with Python - Part 1

About Bitcoin VWAP Ratio. First created by Twitter user @icoexplorer, VWAP stands for volume weighted average price. In effect VWAP is an alternative method to Realised Price in determining average price the market paid for their coins. VWAP to Price ratio is therefore similar to MVRV Ratio and can be used to find market tops and bottoms. The ... Bitcoin Average block size Chart. Transactions Block Size Sent from addresses Difficulty Hashrate Price in USD Mining Profitability Sent in USD Avg. Transaction Fee Median Transaction Fee Block Time Market Capitalization Avg. Transaction Value Median Transaction Value Tweets GTrends Active Addresses Top100ToTotal Fee in Reward Weighted Moving Average (WMA) Simple Moving Average (SMA) Hull Moving Average (HMA) Kaufman's Adaptive Moving Average (KAMA) ... Don’t forget to “Follow” me and press “Likes”. I will begin BTCUSD Bybit Bitcoin Chart Analysis for July 7th . At the top, it is a 30-minute chart created yesterday. I checked the purple path in real time. Volume Weighted Average Price (VWAP) is a technical analysis tool used to measure the average price weighted by volume. ... We have seen a little pullback in the chart of Bitcoin on Coinbase, It has started to test the 9 EMA in yellow and the 18 EMA in blue... On the hourly chart, it should cross soon that is going to give us the 1st golden ... Transactions Block Size Sent from addresses Difficulty Hashrate Price in USD Mining Profitability Sent in USD Avg. Transaction Fee Median Transaction Fee Block Time Market Capitalization Avg. Transaction Value Median Transaction Value Tweets GTrends Active Addresses Top100ToTotal Fee in Reward

[index] [18834] [29539] [27346] [21225] [23577] [5762] [27385] [25277] [10734] [21470]

TableauTip1 - How to perform weighted averages using ...

We discuss a Bitcoin trading moving average strategy using the cross over of the 10 moving average, 20 moving average, 50 moving average, and 100 moving average on a bitcoin chart using Bityard ... How to use moving averages in trading? Using moving averages is a common strategy among traders, incorporating them in their stock trading techniques. When a... Hey guys, I have completed another trading video on bitcoin and ethereum. This one is going to be on Average True Range (ATR). This indicator is a little different because it measure the ... This video shows how to perform a weighted average calculation using tableau. Renko charts used by the traders mainly to avoid the noise. By combining renko charts with moving averages it is possible to enter into profitable trades. He...

#