Yahoo! Finance Morning Brief: The Most Ridiculous Of....

[WayDownSouth]

Yahoo! Finance Morning Brief (daily newsletter) is something I subscribe to because I do a lot of day trading. I've noticed some RIDICULOUS quotes, charts, stories, posts, opinions, and more than anything - simple headers or "shorts" over the past 2 years.

I'm not trying to pick apart every single thing they say which I disagree with. I'm simply here to post the most ridiculous of them.

Edited: I've posted a few examples below to get started... Will update with replies as time moves on. I don't think I'll have a shortage of material.

[WayDownSouth]

BLAMING WINTER FOR BAD ECONOMY

Link to article:
https://newsletters.yahoo.net/H/2/v60000018d1714de6687baa56e96c660a0/3726cc9e-f9b5-463c-ba21-2ff273d03aea/HTML

Quote from article:

"Ryan Sweet, chief US economist at Oxford Economics, wrote in a note Tuesday, “With weather in the US turning less favorable, it, along with the seasonal adjustment process, could cause big swings in some of the key data, causing misperceptions of how the underlying economy is truly doing.”

Going back years, the first quarter of the year has often presented a challenge in measuring the economy’s underlying health.

And with January already offering investors some surprising results, a volatile weather forecast isn’t likely to make things any easier.

[WayDownSouth]

GOOD NEWS IS BAD NEWS

Link to article:
https://newsletters.yahoo.net/H/2/v60000018d26879a5f90d47b6e96639818/019cef7e-baca-492e-8e9e-dca728cf27e0/HTML

Quote from article:

"Since December, the 10-year yield has jumped 30 basis points and keeps jumping whenever hot economic data about consumption comes out — like this week’s retail sales report that showed a Jack Reacher-like consumer.

It’s worrisome to some, as high yields often go hand-in-hand with high Fed rates and high inflation. But also positive, as rising rates reflect economic growth."

[WayDownSouth]

CHILDCARE COSTS POSE A THREAT TO THE ECONOMY

Link to article:
https://newsletters.yahoo.net/H/2/v60000018d54e1472c8c18f46e966a31b0/c4c7d31d-79cd-4a5f-978a-65b409df6495/HTML

From Article:

"Childcare costs pose a threat to the economy: Daycare costs have spiked since the pandemic and many parents are now concerned that they will spike again — this year. The reason? A pandemic-era safety net program has expired. If costs do spike, economists note that the effects would likely ripple across the economy."

[WayDownSouth]

Chart of the Week: Cisco stock still isn't back to its 2000 high

Link to article: https://view.newsletters.yahoo.net/messages/17105923067505ef1be6f61c0/raw

From Article:

"Twenty-four years ago, in March 2000, Cisco Systems was the most valuable company in the world.

At a valuation of $500 billion, the internet-plumbing company had powered the adoption of the new technology with routers, networks, servers, and switches — and thus, powered the dot-com boom.

Many readers will know what happened next. The boom was a bubble and, as our Chart of the Week shows, Cisco stock fell over 70% by April and almost 90% by October of that year".........

Also From the Article:

"The banal — and perhaps sanctimonious — lesson here is a reminder that stock indexes usually go up over time while many stocks do not."

[dandarc]

I mean, are you surprised by this? Mainstream financial media is close to universally terrible. "Bombastic nonsense works for Kramer to get viewers, lets try it too!" is the mantra.

[WayDownSouth]

I mean, are you surprised by this? Mainstream financial media is close to universally terrible. "Bombastic nonsense works for Kramer to get viewers, lets try it too!" is the mantra.

No, I agree 200% and literally nothing at all surprises me. This is the only thing "mainstream" thing I read and it helps me with trading by understanding what the masses are being programmed with each day, and over the long-haul.

[MayDay]

I don't understand why the childcare one is dumb. Childcare is crazy expensive,  and often just not available.  It's a real barrier to employment. 

[WayDownSouth]

I don't understand why the childcare one is dumb. Childcare is crazy expensive,  and often just not available.  It's a real barrier to employment.

Do you think they pose a legitimate threat to the economy?

[dandarc]

I don't understand why the childcare one is dumb. Childcare is crazy expensive,  and often just not available.  It's a real barrier to employment.

Do you think they pose a legitimate threat to the economy?

Lack of adequate childcare certainly does pose a threat to the economy.

[WayDownSouth]

I don't understand why the childcare one is dumb. Childcare is crazy expensive,  and often just not available.  It's a real barrier to employment.

Do you think they pose a legitimate threat to the economy?

Lack of adequate childcare certainly does pose a threat to the economy.

Does the actual market reflect that potentially happening, or is it blown-out-of-proportion hypothesis? Can you ever truly envision the economy collapsing because child care prices rose? I can't. I can't even perceive it as being anything other than a mild inconvenience. And the economy is strong according to them, as is consumer confidence and the average person's ability to spend and continue to spend (supposedly). See the hypocrisy there? That's why it's funny, also because it poses no genuine threat.

[Telecaster]

Does the actual market reflect that potentially happening, or is it blown-out-of-proportion hypothesis? Can you ever truly envision the economy collapsing because child care prices rose? I can't.

The article said "ripple effect."    I can envision rising child care costs having a ripple effect.  For example, more caregivers choosing to stay home rather than pay for day care.   We just saw the opposite ripple effect with a record high percentage of women participating in the work force.   Seems entirely plausible it could work the other way too. 

That said, hot take financial news is less than useless for making financial decisions.   

[WayDownSouth]

Does the actual market reflect that potentially happening, or is it blown-out-of-proportion hypothesis? Can you ever truly envision the economy collapsing because child care prices rose? I can't.

The article said "ripple effect."    I can envision rising child care costs having a ripple effect.  For example, more caregivers choosing to stay home rather than pay for day care.   We just saw the opposite ripple effect with a record high percentage of women participating in the work force.   Seems entirely plausible it could work the other way too. 

That said, hot take financial news is less than useless for making financial decisions.

This bolded part is the point.

Apart from that, nearly anything and everything can cause a ripple effect. But how big of a ripple? How far will it spread? How long will it last? Is it avoidable? Childcare was never an issue before? Inflation was never an issue before? Unaffordable housing was never an issue before? The shortage of certain life-sustaining medications was never an issue before?

Literally everything in our lives has been twisted sideways, upwards, and pounded into the ground in the last 4 years because of a pandemic. The majority of things which were already a potential threat are now larger threats.

I'd say the non-stop war, neverending division among society, horrible educational standards, foolish and unnecessary papers being created by lawmakers, an out of control money printer, the fact that the survival of our currency literally depends on the issuance of debt, and much much more to be very noteworthy.

I literally laughed out loud when I read the thing about child care. Not because I don't think the prices are insane, but because they chose to publish it, and because they insist that it's a threat, which in the end turned out to be nothing more than a possible ripple effect... which when translated into the size of the real world of finance means the same sized ripple created from a fart while standing in the ocean. Hardly an economy-killer.

[RetiredAt63]

Re childcare, lack of it is having an effect.  It is just so consistent and old that no-one is noticing.

When Quebec introduced $5/day daycare, they found that provincial tax revenue  rose more than childcare subsidies cost, for a net gain.  Basically young mothers who had affordable daycare went back to work instead of saying home.  So more income, more income tax.

[MayDay]

I don't understand why the childcare one is dumb. Childcare is crazy expensive,  and often just not available.  It's a real barrier to employment.

Do you think they pose a legitimate threat to the economy?

Lack of adequate childcare certainly does pose a threat to the economy.

Does the actual market reflect that potentially happening, or is it blown-out-of-proportion hypothesis? Can you ever truly envision the economy collapsing because child care prices rose? I can't. I can't even perceive it as being anything other than a mild inconvenience. And the economy is strong according to them, as is consumer confidence and the average person's ability to spend and continue to spend (supposedly). See the hypocrisy there? That's why it's funny, also because it poses no genuine threat.

The fact that you view it as not possible to be more than an inconvenience indicates that you are wildly uneducated on the subject. 

"Ripple effect" can't be quantitavely defined so I won't try.

[WayDownSouth]

I don't understand why the childcare one is dumb. Childcare is crazy expensive,  and often just not available.  It's a real barrier to employment.

Do you think they pose a legitimate threat to the economy?

Lack of adequate childcare certainly does pose a threat to the economy.

Does the actual market reflect that potentially happening, or is it blown-out-of-proportion hypothesis? Can you ever truly envision the economy collapsing because child care prices rose? I can't. I can't even perceive it as being anything other than a mild inconvenience. And the economy is strong according to them, as is consumer confidence and the average person's ability to spend and continue to spend (supposedly). See the hypocrisy there? That's why it's funny, also because it poses no genuine threat.

The fact that you view it as not possible to be more than an inconvenience indicates that you are wildly uneducated on the subject. 

"Ripple effect" can't be quantitavely defined so I won't try.

Everything is a financial inconvenience when the dollar loses its buying power and the economy is crap. I'm not wildly uneducated on it you're possibly giving child care too high of a level of significance regarding the economy as a whole though.. (economy being detatched from the stock market here so I'm not considering the stock market FYI).

You're right you can't define ripple effect in that manner that's why it's even more silly.

[RetiredAt63]

Re childcare, as I said earlier, when Quebec started its $5/day daycare program, young mothers went back to work sooner.  They did not drop out of the workforce becasue their income would not cover daycare.  That meant more employment, more purchasing power for the families, more income taxes for the government.  Long-term it meant those women were contributing to pension plans so had better income as seniors.

Are these not all good for the economy?

[WayDownSouth]

Re childcare, as I said earlier, when Quebec started its $5/day daycare program, young mothers went back to work sooner.  They did not drop out of the workforce becasue their income would not cover daycare.  That meant more employment, more purchasing power for the families, more income taxes for the government.  Long-term it meant those women were contributing to pension plans so had better income as seniors.

Are these not all good for the economy?

I would agree with you that it could have a positive consequence, which I failed to bring up in my response above. I was responding in regard to it being a legitimate threat to the economy.

[RetiredAt63]

Re childcare, as I said earlier, when Quebec started its $5/day daycare program, young mothers went back to work sooner.  They did not drop out of the workforce becasue their income would not cover daycare.  That meant more employment, more purchasing power for the families, more income taxes for the government.  Long-term it meant those women were contributing to pension plans so had better income as seniors.

Are these not all good for the economy?

I would agree with you that it could have a positive consequence, which I failed to bring up in my response above. I was responding in regard to it being a legitimate threat to the economy.

I suppose it isn't a NEW threat to the economy since the economy is already suffering from lack of affordable daycare.  Affordable daycare would be an IMPETUS for the economy though.

[Metalcat]

"threat to the economy" doesn't mean "existential threat to the economy"

It's very reasonable to say that an expense that could drive women out of the workforce *is* a threat to the economy, and worth raising awareness about, and the voting public should care a hell of a lot more about this.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that financial news is generally just fear-mongering for fun and profit.

[ChpBstrd]

This is the only thing "mainstream" thing I read and it helps me with trading by understanding what the masses are being programmed with each day, and over the long-haul.

IDK. I'd be reluctant to intentionally consume any of the ultra-low-quality content out there. My reason is the mere exposure effect. That is, the more you expose yourself to these baseless ideas, the more you develop a liking to them, making you more likely to be sympathetic to the dumb ideas just adjacent to the dumbest ideas. This could affect your investing decisions.

It's sorta the same phenomena as all the people who think "advertising doesn't work on me" and yet when you look at their lives you can see they've sabotaged their own goals by buying a bunch of shit they don't need. They still think ads don't affect them, but an objective person can see the effects - the Starbucks cup in the trash, the garage/closet/attic full of unused merch, the unenjoyed subscriptions, the off-road vehicle used as an office commuter, the sugary food next to the dieting/exercise products, etc.

If you think you can consume garbage information and not be affected by it... sounds much the same.

[WayDownSouth]

This is the only thing "mainstream" thing I read and it helps me with trading by understanding what the masses are being programmed with each day, and over the long-haul.

IDK. I'd be reluctant to intentionally consume any of the ultra-low-quality content out there. My reason is the mere exposure effect. That is, the more you expose yourself to these baseless ideas, the more you develop a liking to them, making you more likely to be sympathetic to the dumb ideas just adjacent to the dumbest ideas. This could affect your investing decisions.

It's sorta the same phenomena as all the people who think "advertising doesn't work on me" and yet when you look at their lives you can see they've sabotaged their own goals by buying a bunch of shit they don't need. They still think ads don't affect them, but an objective person can see the effects - the Starbucks cup in the trash, the garage/closet/attic full of unused merch, the unenjoyed subscriptions, the off-road vehicle used as an office commuter, the sugary food next to the dieting/exercise products, etc.

If you think you can consume garbage information and not be affected by it... sounds much the same.

I definitely do like to see how the market sometimes responds heavily to these things at times, and at other times no. It's kind of like studying or being an anthropologist in a way. I will admit as I said above it does help me in day-trading. Several times I've found easy snipes just by watching something shoot green at the open bell thanks to a message about a random stock from yahoo in the morning but I'm out of the trade in 10 seconds...

I worked in marketing and advertising my whole life so it doesn't affect me quite like you mentioned, but you have a very valid point. I avoid corporate stuff at all costs when possible. I buy local and support local business whenever possible. Have not been inside a wal-mart in 5 years. No starbucks in my garbage. I'm guilty of the occasional BK double cheeseburger. No amazon, no netflix, I don't even own a TV. If you have a TV you should burn it IMO.

[WayDownSouth]

"threat to the economy" doesn't mean "existential threat to the economy"

It's very reasonable to say that an expense that could drive women out of the workforce *is* a threat to the economy, and worth raising awareness about, and the voting public should care a hell of a lot more about this.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that financial news is generally just fear-mongering for fun and profit.

I haven't voted since I was 19. I don't play that game. Voting is a sham. Women are driving themselves out of the workforce if anything. I don't want to derail the thread. I respect women and I respect myself, I don't consume trash news although I may observe it (I don't take it seriously).. Anyway, I don't subscribe to the idea that the childcare thing is a legitimate potential economic problem at all. That's my opinion, you're entitled to yours. In my world my opinion is valid to me, I respect that in your world your opinion holds equal validity to you. Sounds pretty fair right?

[WayDownSouth]

This is the only thing "mainstream" thing I read and it helps me with trading by understanding what the masses are being programmed with each day, and over the long-haul.

IDK. I'd be reluctant to intentionally consume any of the ultra-low-quality content out there. My reason is the mere exposure effect. That is, the more you expose yourself to these baseless ideas, the more you develop a liking to them, making you more likely to be sympathetic to the dumb ideas just adjacent to the dumbest ideas. This could affect your investing decisions.

It's sorta the same phenomena as all the people who think "advertising doesn't work on me" and yet when you look at their lives you can see they've sabotaged their own goals by buying a bunch of shit they don't need. They still think ads don't affect them, but an objective person can see the effects - the Starbucks cup in the trash, the garage/closet/attic full of unused merch, the unenjoyed subscriptions, the off-road vehicle used as an office commuter, the sugary food next to the dieting/exercise products, etc.

If you think you can consume garbage information and not be affected by it... sounds much the same.

This kind of adds a twist... You're right I am affected by it but not in the way it's intended to affect me. It makes me laugh, it makes me curious of how others react/respond, but it doesn't really have the "oomph!" that I think you're talking about... If that makes sense. I'm pretty well trained to filter that crap.

You'd be an interesting guy to have a few whiskeys with and chat for a few hours. You may not feel the same way and that's okay with me.

[Metalcat]

"threat to the economy" doesn't mean "existential threat to the economy"

It's very reasonable to say that an expense that could drive women out of the workforce *is* a threat to the economy, and worth raising awareness about, and the voting public should care a hell of a lot more about this.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that financial news is generally just fear-mongering for fun and profit.

I haven't voted since I was 19. I don't play that game. Voting is a sham. Women are driving themselves out of the workforce if anything. I don't want to derail the thread. I respect women and I respect myself, I don't consume trash news although I may observe it (I don't take it seriously).. Anyway, I don't subscribe to the idea that the childcare thing is a legitimate potential economic problem at all. That's my opinion, you're entitled to yours. In my world my opinion is valid to me, I respect that in your world your opinion holds equal validity to you. Sounds pretty fair right?

I literally cannot make sense of this response...

[WayDownSouth]

"threat to the economy" doesn't mean "existential threat to the economy"

It's very reasonable to say that an expense that could drive women out of the workforce *is* a threat to the economy, and worth raising awareness about, and the voting public should care a hell of a lot more about this.

But that doesn't take away from the fact that financial news is generally just fear-mongering for fun and profit.

I haven't voted since I was 19. I don't play that game. Voting is a sham. Women are driving themselves out of the workforce if anything. I don't want to derail the thread. I respect women and I respect myself, I don't consume trash news although I may observe it (I don't take it seriously).. Anyway, I don't subscribe to the idea that the childcare thing is a legitimate potential economic problem at all. That's my opinion, you're entitled to yours. In my world my opinion is valid to me, I respect that in your world your opinion holds equal validity to you. Sounds pretty fair right?

I literally cannot make sense of this response...

Okay, thanks for your response!