Stock Market CRASH Thread....Are we all doomed?

[elgordo38]

^Asiantravel

^{So you dont think the Dow Jones will be higher in lets say 5 months time than now ? at the current price of 16500 you would prefer to go short than long if you had to take a position ?}

if anyone needs to spend time even deliberating that question, why don't they simply save time and go and have a splutter at the casino and possibly enjoy even bigger gains? I see absolutely no difference between the two.

you tell me where has there been any connection between the stock market since 2008 and economic fundamentals?

You don't? Hmmm. Go to school at Oxford or Harvard School of Economics and study the market and upon graduation get $100,000 dollars to start first job. Go to school for gambling at .........wait there is none? Whoaa. I guess there must be a difference.

Not that you asked but my advice is don't drop out of school.

LOL

The graduates who get $100,000 a year then go on to join the likes of Goldman Sachs who are far more interested in exploiting their own fee paying clients as they did in 2013 advising clients to do one thing while GS themselves did the direct opposite. They even went on to call their own clients “ Muppets “ for believing them.

And that is a measure of how much integrity there is in today’s so-called “ markets “.

And incidentally you are wrong about there not being a gambling school..........

http://www.londongaming.net/

Was it Goldman Sachs that sold their clients a bunch of risky bundled garbage and then bet against them winning both ways. Yes they total scumbags but they seem to have the blessing of the US government in how they operate.

[Asiantravel]

Ok so I hear what is been said.

In the situation now of having a share portfolio that is down a bit but not too much what is the best course of action.

1: Sell all now and take the real loss.

2: Collect the dividends, and hope for the share prices to come back to break even and then sell

3: Wait / hope for the shares prices to come back and wait for a profit before selling.

4: Buy more shares now while the prices are still down compared to months ago

I think that is all the options covered

I would suggest that a better option is to think in terms of years and decades and just continue to invest, diversify and maintain a reasonable asset allocation. When investing over the long term these kinds of market blips are non issues. If necessary, as one ages and his/her investment goals change, make slight asset allocation course changes.

I have a question for you Spokanal.

it looks like central banks are desperately trying to hold off deflation which of course happened in Japan.

When you say it's a non issue over the long term what if 2015/ 2016 is equivalent to 1989 in Japan? would you agree this continues to be a very big issue because those investors still more than 50% below their original investment after 25 years?

[Lukecan]

I'm quite experienced in EM markets, I've witnessed many crashes.

In january 2000 the Turkish stock market traded at $37000

Fast forward to 2002, it was down to $5000

Imagine the loss involved.

Then fast forward again to 2007 October, it was back up to $50,000

Now it trades at $25,000

During the 2008 global crisis, it came to a low of $14,000

Price flunctiations happen a lot with EM's, its best to accumulate during tough times.

Same goes with Thailand, look what happened after 1998.

But Thailand took some time to recover in dollar terms, maybe it didnt even make a full recovery.

[SpokaneAl]

I don't know. I do suspect that your charts are not telling the entire story. If an investor had dollar cost averaged over that period while reinvesting dividends and capital gains, I suspect that his/her total return would be significantly better than the market.

I claim to have no insight as to future market returns and direction. I also have no interest in expending the time and effort necessary to pick and choose individual equities. That is why I am a pure mutual fund investor with the majority of our investments in index funds.

I am also a believer in asset allocation, and find comfort in some studies that seem to indicate a large portion of a portfolio's performance comes from that allocation, although later studies have disagreed on the precise performance portion that can be attributed to that allocation.

I also believe that very few of us will get wealthy via investing. As I said in a previous post, over the past three decades or so we have spent less than we earned and invested the rest. Pick a career that you love and that hopefully pays well and pack it away over decades. If I can get a six or seven percent return over the long term I am happy.

My only purpose with my posts here is to not brag but share what worked for me. I have my own personal financial policy statement and I, by and large, stick with it. Others have different ideas - good for them - there is always more than one road and destination.

We seem to be situated to arrive at our destination - I sincerely hope the same can be said about the many other posters in this thread.

Cheers.

Edited August 28, 2015 by SpokaneAl

[Lukecan]

Only idiots try to time the market, smart people dollar cost average. The people who try to time the market are the ones trying to get rich quick, but stock market aint about getting rich quick, its just the same like real estate, get rich slow unless you experience a bull market like the one from 1995-2000

[marquis22]

^Asiantravel

^{So you dont think the Dow Jones will be higher in lets say 5 months time than now ? at the current price of 16500 you would prefer to go short than long if you had to take a position ?}

NO ONE knows what it will be like in 5 months time, but in 5 years time it most likely will be higher...

It will fluctuate wildly during the next 5 months or more.

Hang on for the bucking bull ride!

[prorose]

T

[marquis22]

Its not the stocks that will sink ye old ship economy it will be something that is 10 times bigger than the entire world gross production and getting bigger every year. It is worth world wide between 710 TRILLION TO 1.2 QUADRILLION dollars. Any hands up yet with answers? The word starts with a D no not Death but something pretty close. They are called Derivatives.

A derivative is a contract between two parties whose value is determined by changes in the value of an underlying asset. Those assets could be bonds, equities, commodities or currencies. The majority of contracts are traded over the counter, where details about pricing, risk measurement and collateral, if any, are not available to the public.

Simply put, a derivative is a side bet.

So there my fellow TV'ers you have the answer the name of the next Black Swan event. Also throw in a attack on the internet which kills just about everything, electricity, Atm's imagine being unable to access your account for months. Without the internet the world would cease to function as we know it. Then if you throw in the carry trade you have a real ticking time B**b. The carry trade is another vulnerable investment but smaller than derivatives. Yes stocks have been good over the years if you hung in there but there are a few new "Bad Boys" on the block. Derivatives were the reason Lehman Bros. was vaporized and the world came within a whisker of crumbling. You can win big on derivatives if the music is still playing but if the music stops look out below.

Major Financial Institutions are the major players of Index Derivatives in the Australian market and following them is a way of "predicting" the short term future of the market.

They use the SPI as a way of insuring their portfolio when they know/think the market is ready to fall.

When the difference between the SPI futures and S&PASX cash is greater than -30 the stock market is seen by them to fall. (it was -80 13th August)

When the SPI is trading at a higher price than the S&PASX the market is most likely to rise. ( -9 on Aug 26th and -28 at 4 pm 28th.Aug)

Index futures are leveraged products that allow you to hedge, trade or gain exposure to an underlying index. On ASX, the most popular index future is the ASX SPI 200™ index futures contract over the S&P/ASX 200.

Index futures are mainly traded by institutions to achieve one of the following:

• protect a domestic equity portfolio from short term market falls,
• arrange cost-effective exposure to an index whilst purchasing the underlying shares,
• to take a trading view on the direction of the market.

[1BADDAT]

^Asiantravel

^{So you dont think the Dow Jones will be higher in lets say 5 months time than now ? at the current price of 16500 you would prefer to go short than long if you had to take a position ?}

if anyone needs to spend time even deliberating that question, why don't they simply save time and go and have a splutter at the casino and possibly enjoy even bigger gains? I see absolutely no difference between the two.

you tell me where has there been any connection between the stock market since 2008 and economic fundamentals?

You don't? Hmmm. Go to school at Oxford or Harvard School of Economics and study the market and upon graduation get $100,000 dollars to start first job. Go to school for gambling at .........wait there is none? Whoaa. I guess there must be a difference.

Not that you asked but my advice is don't drop out of school.

LOL

The graduates who get $100,000 a year then go on to join the likes of Goldman Sachs who are far more interested in exploiting their own fee paying clients as they did in 2013 advising clients to do one thing while GS themselves did the direct opposite. They even went on to call their own clients “ Muppets “ for believing them.

And that is a measure of how much integrity there is in today’s so-called “ markets “.

And incidentally you are wrong about there not being a gambling school..........

http://www.londongaming.net/

. The website you presented is to train dealers who sit on the winning side of the table (house side). If you can't even figure out that minor detail, what chance would you have to manage a stock portfolio. No wonder you want to stay out of the market.

[Asiantravel]

if anyone needs to spend time even deliberating that question, why don't they simply save time and go and have a splutter at the casino and possibly enjoy even bigger gains? I see absolutely no difference between the two.

you tell me where has there been any connection between the stock market since 2008 and economic fundamentals?

You don't? Hmmm. Go to school at Oxford or Harvard School of Economics and study the market and upon graduation get $100,000 dollars to start first job. Go to school for gambling at .........wait there is none? Whoaa. I guess there must be a difference.

Not that you asked but my advice is don't drop out of school.

LOL

The graduates who get $100,000 a year then go on to join the likes of Goldman Sachs who are far more interested in exploiting their own fee paying clients as they did in 2013 advising clients to do one thing while GS themselves did the direct opposite. They even went on to call their own clients “ Muppets “ for believing them.

And that is a measure of how much integrity there is in today’s so-called “ markets “.

And incidentally you are wrong about there not being a gambling school..........

http://www.londongaming.net/

. The website you presented is to train dealers who sit on the winning side of the table (house side). If you can't even figure out that minor detail, what chance would you have to manage a stock portfolio. No wonder you want to stay out of the market.

I'm sorry your comprehension skills are not so good because where in the statement ” Go to school for gambling at .........wait there is none? “ does it distinguish between the two positions ?

..........................and some reading material for you (the author was Director of the office of Management and budget under president Ronald Reagan)

Why The Stock Market Casino Is Dangerous: The Case Of Looney Tunes In the Sand Dunes

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/why-the-stock-market-casino-is-dangerous-the-case-of-looney-tunes-in-the-sand-dunes/

Edited August 29, 2015 by Asiantravel

[1BADDAT]

You don't? Hmmm. Go to school at Oxford or Harvard School of Economics and study the market and upon graduation get $100,000 dollars to start first job. Go to school for gambling at .........wait there is none? Whoaa. I guess there must be a difference.

Not that you asked but my advice is don't drop out of school.

LOL

The graduates who get $100,000 a year then go on to join the likes of Goldman Sachs who are far more interested in exploiting their own fee paying clients as they did in 2013 advising clients to do one thing while GS themselves did the direct opposite. They even went on to call their own clients “ Muppets “ for believing them.

And that is a measure of how much integrity there is in today’s so-called “ markets “.

And incidentally you are wrong about there not being a gambling school..........

http://www.londongaming.net/

. The website you presented is to train dealers who sit on the winning side of the table (house side). If you can't even figure out that minor detail, what chance would you have to manage a stock portfolio. No wonder you want to stay out of the market.

I'm sorry your comprehension skills are not so good because where in the statement ” Go to school for gambling at .........wait there is none? “ does it distinguish between the two positions ?

..........................and some reading material for you (the author was Director of the office of Management and budget under president Ronald Reagan)

Why The Stock Market Casino Is Dangerous: The Case Of Looney Tunes In the Sand Dunes

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/why-the-stock-market-casino-is-dangerous-the-case-of-looney-tunes-in-the-sand-dunes/

Your attempt to win an argument on a technicality is really pathetic. You stated:

"if anyone needs to spend time even deliberating that question, why don't they simply save time and go and have a splutter at the casino and possibly enjoy even bigger gains? I see absolutely no difference between the two.

you tell me where has there been any connection between the stock market since 2008 and economic fundamentals?"

This is what started the conversation about gambling schools which you are still wrong about. The don't teach gambling. They teach how to deal the casino games. The employees of the casino do not gamble, as they are not risking any of their own money.

Here is the definition of "gamble"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble

: to play a game in which you can win or lose money or possessions : to bet money or other valuable things

: to risk losing (an amount of money) in a game or bet

: to risk losing (something valuable or important) in order to do or achieve something

Edited August 29, 2015 by 1BADDAT

[Asiantravel]

LOL

The graduates who get $100,000 a year then go on to join the likes of Goldman Sachs who are far more interested in exploiting their own fee paying clients as they did in 2013 advising clients to do one thing while GS themselves did the direct opposite. They even went on to call their own clients “ Muppets “ for believing them.

And that is a measure of how much integrity there is in today’s so-called “ markets “.

And incidentally you are wrong about there not being a gambling school..........

http://www.londongaming.net/

. The website you presented is to train dealers who sit on the winning side of the table (house side). If you can't even figure out that minor detail, what chance would you have to manage a stock portfolio. No wonder you want to stay out of the market.

I'm sorry your comprehension skills are not so good because where in the statement ” Go to school for gambling at .........wait there is none? “ does it distinguish between the two positions ?

..........................and some reading material for you (the author was Director of the office of Management and budget under president Ronald Reagan)

Why The Stock Market Casino Is Dangerous: The Case Of Looney Tunes In the Sand Dunes

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/why-the-stock-market-casino-is-dangerous-the-case-of-looney-tunes-in-the-sand-dunes/

Your attempt to win an argument on a technicality is really pathetic. You stated:

"if anyone needs to spend time even deliberating that question, why don't they simply save time and go and have a splutter at the casino and possibly enjoy even bigger gains? I see absolutely no difference between the two.

you tell me where has there been any connection between the stock market since 2008 and economic fundamentals?"

This is what started the conversation about gambling schools which you are still wrong about. The don't teach gambling. They teach how to deal the casino games. The employees of the casino do not gamble, as they are not risking any of their own money.

Here is the definition of "gamble"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gamble

: to play a game in which you can win or lose money or possessions : to bet money or other valuable things

: to risk losing (an amount of money) in a game or bet

: to risk losing (something valuable or important) in order to do or achieve something

The Sydney morning Herald is a pretty reputable newspaper and described the Shanghai Composite last week as the worlds biggest casino. (Link below) if you think the US market (or any other) is based more on genuine economic fundamentals please tell us why?

What is the difference between the Chinese government intervening to support the market and the Federal reserve intervening with QE 1,2 and 3?

Do you believe actions of the Federal reserve will affect the direction of US stock markets? Do you know precisely what the Federal reserve is likely to do in the short and medium term and if you don’t is that not gambling on what actions the Fed will take(as opposed to economic fundamentals)?

The Chinese stock market is the world's biggest casino

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/the-chinese-stock-market-is-the-worlds-biggest-casino-20150708-gi7q1f.html

[lostoday]

The Sydney morning Herald is a pretty reputable newspaper and described the Shanghai Composite last week as the worlds biggest casino. (Link below) if you think the US market (or any other) is based more on genuine economic fundamentals please tell us why?

What is the difference between the Chinese government intervening to support the market and the Federal reserve intervening with QE 1,2 and 3?

Do you believe actions of the Federal reserve will affect the direction of US stock markets? Do you know precisely what the Federal reserve is likely to do in the short and medium term and if you don’t is that not gambling on what actions the Fed will take(as opposed to economic fundamentals)?

The Chinese stock market is the world's biggest casino

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/the-chinese-stock-market-is-the-worlds-biggest-casino-20150708-gi7q1f.html

The Chinese stock market has no relationship to Chinese industry and/or economic conditions hence it is just like a casino. Even the numbnuts on CNN have reported this, this week. No one with any brains in the West invests in the Chinese stock market.

Edited August 29, 2015 by lostoday

[topt]

The Chinese stock market has no relationship to Chinese industry and/or economic conditions hence it is just like a casino. Even the numbnuts on CNN have reported this, this week. No one with any brains in the West invests in the Chinese stock market.

So Anthony Bolton had no brains.........along with dozens of other past and present fund managers......

Unfortunately it is lame generalisations like that that detract from anything else you say that may be of relevance......

[johnson36]

Ok so I hear what is been said.

In the situation now of having a share portfolio that is down a bit but not too much what is the best course of action.

1: Sell all now and take the real loss.

2: Collect the dividends, and hope for the share prices to come back to break even and then sell

3: Wait / hope for the shares prices to come back and wait for a profit before selling.

4: Buy more shares now while the prices are still down compared to months ago

I think that is all the options covered

Dow five years ago 10,000. Today 16,581. How do you figure a loss?

WHAT ? how do I figure a loss ?

because I bought shares over the last 18 months at higher prices than they are today ! if I spent £100k on shares 1 year ago and they are worth £90k today then I have a loss of £10k minus any dividends I have received.

This is quite simple maths. What you bought for minus what they are worth now = your profit or Loss ( must take into account dividends received )

What the <deleted>> has 5 years ago got to do with my shares ? I didn't own any shares 5 years ago

Lostoday

You have not answered my Question

[lostoday]

The Chinese stock market has no relationship to Chinese industry and/or economic conditions hence it is just like a casino. Even the numbnuts on CNN have reported this, this week. No one with any brains in the West invests in the Chinese stock market.

So Anthony Bolton had no brains.........along with dozens of other past and present fund managers......

Unfortunately it is lame generalisations like that that detract from anything else you say that may be of relevance......

You're a funny guy.

Quote Anthony Bolton, "Star manager Anthony Bolton has admitted he was wrong about the Chinese stock market, as he hung up his fund management hat after 35 years.

The most disappointing thing for me – and I am happy to admit it – is that I was wrong about the market in China,” the manager said during a press briefing on his last day in the office on March 31. .......I thought it would go up for four years but it has gone down for more than four years.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6aaf2efe-bf28-11e3-a4af-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3kDUZw3ln

[lostoday]

Dow five years ago 10,000. Today 16,581. How do you figure a loss?

WHAT ? how do I figure a loss ?

because I bought shares over the last 18 months at higher prices than they are today ! if I spent £100k on shares 1 year ago and they are worth £90k today then I have a loss of £10k minus any dividends I have received.

This is quite simple maths. What you bought for minus what they are worth now = your profit or Loss ( must take into account dividends received )

What the <deleted>> has 5 years ago got to do with my shares ? I didn't own any shares 5 years ago

Lostoday

You have not answered my Question

You are trying to time the market. Never works. Long term 5,10, 20 years is the only sound investment strategy. 18 months? Ask me in 5 years.

Edited August 29, 2015 by lostoday

[topt]

The Chinese stock market has no relationship to Chinese industry and/or economic conditions hence it is just like a casino. Even the numbnuts on CNN have reported this, this week. No one with any brains in the West invests in the Chinese stock market.

So Anthony Bolton had no brains.........along with dozens of other past and present fund managers......

Unfortunately it is lame generalisations like that that detract from anything else you say that may be of relevance......

You're a funny guy.

Quote Anthony Bolton, "Star manager Anthony Bolton has admitted he was wrong about the Chinese stock market, as he hung up his fund management hat after 35 years.

The most disappointing thing for me – and I am happy to admit it – is that I was wrong about the market in China,” the manager said during a press briefing on his last day in the office on March 31. .......I thought it would go up for four years but it has gone down for more than four years.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6aaf2efe-bf28-11e3-a4af-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3kDUZw3ln

To you that means he hasn't got any brains....? I think you are deliberately missing the point

[lostoday]

The Chinese stock market has no relationship to Chinese industry and/or economic conditions hence it is just like a casino. Even the numbnuts on CNN have reported this, this week. No one with any brains in the West invests in the Chinese stock market.

So Anthony Bolton had no brains.........along with dozens of other past and present fund managers......

Unfortunately it is lame generalisations like that that detract from anything else you say that may be of relevance......

You're a funny guy.

Quote Anthony Bolton, "Star manager Anthony Bolton has admitted he was wrong about the Chinese stock market, as he hung up his fund management hat after 35 years.

The most disappointing thing for me – and I am happy to admit it – is that I was wrong about the market in China,” the manager said during a press briefing on his last day in the office on March 31. .......I thought it would go up for four years but it has gone down for more than four years.

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6aaf2efe-bf28-11e3-a4af-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3kDUZw3ln

To you that means he hasn't got any brains....? I think you are deliberately missing the point

An investment manager being wrong every year for 4 years? What do you call that?

[elgordo38]

The following is a statement by one economist that I follow. As a logical person(in my mind anyways) this makes sense to me.

We are exiting the eye of the giant financial hurricane that we entered in 2007, and we’re going into its trailing edge. It’s going to be much more severe, different, and longer lasting than what we saw in 2008 and 2009… The U.S. created trillions of dollars to fight the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. Most of those dollars are still sitting in the banking system and aren’t in the economy.”

[SpokaneAl]

The following is a statement by one economist that I follow. As a logical person(in my mind anyways) this makes sense to me.

We are exiting the eye of the giant financial hurricane that we entered in 2007, and we’re going into its trailing edge. It’s going to be much more severe, different, and longer lasting than what we saw in 2008 and 2009… The U.S. created trillions of dollars to fight the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. Most of those dollars are still sitting in the banking system and aren’t in the economy.”

So many regular folks and pundits generate opinions going forward. Some will be right and the majority will be wrong. Chasing markets based on some "expert's" opinion is a foolish game.

[gk10002000]

I am not worried. I am pretty diversified between stocks and bonds and the stocks I own, ATT (T) for example I bought in at a low basis price. I invested mostly for dividends and interest as I coast into my final retirement phase and about 5 more years of work. I don't care too much if the items go up or down in price. I have no intention of selling. As long as the items remain liquid they will pay me the income I invested for. The price swings were greatly exaggerated by the computer high speed trading reactions and counter reactions. I hope they put a few more checks on those, but they won't. So I would not be surprised if large swings become more common.

As far as net worth and portfolio swings, well, I know many people simply buy stocks with no idea of their valuation. And usually they don't pick decent dividend yielding stocks. Yes, I am aware of Warren Buffet's opinion on such things. But most people will have a hard time as their net worth goes up and down. Unless they are trading actively, which is very hard to do profitably, when the dust clears their net worth hasn't moved much. They buy and just hope prices go up. That is a very narrow minded investment approach. I highly recommend more allocation to stocks or bonds or ETFs or whatever that pay some interest or dividend.

[MacWalen]

Markets long term will be ok but trader boys may suffer. Investors have nothing to worry about. Different thinking.

[VIPinthailand]

the next crisis will be terrible.... 10x worse than 2008. are you ready?

[suzannegoh]

The Chinese stock market has no relationship to Chinese industry and/or economic conditions hence it is just like a casino. Even the numbnuts on CNN have reported this, this week. No one with any brains in the West invests in the Chinese stock market.

Here's one such person "without a brain": http://jimtalksmarkets.blogspot.com/2015/08/china-bought-more-stocks-when-they.html

[lostoday]

The Chinese stock market has no relationship to Chinese industry and/or economic conditions hence it is just like a casino. Even the numbnuts on CNN have reported this, this week. No one with any brains in the West invests in the Chinese stock market.

Here's one such person "without a brain": http://jimtalksmarkets.blogspot.com/2015/08/china-bought-more-stocks-when-they.html

He said in that link, "10 years from now no one will be trading in US dollars." Ya right. I like Jim but when he moved to China he must have left his brain in NYC.

[Naam]

The Chinese stock market has no relationship to Chinese industry and/or economic conditions hence it is just like a casino. Even the numbnuts on CNN have reported this, this week. No one with any brains in the West invests in the Chinese stock market.

Here's one such person "without a brain": http://jimtalksmarkets.blogspot.com/2015/08/china-bought-more-stocks-when-they.html

He said in that link, "10 years from now no one will be trading in US dollars." Ya right. I like Jim but when he moved to China he must have left his brain in NYC.

Jim moved some of his investment to China but he lives in Singapore.

[lostoday]

The Chinese stock market has no relationship to Chinese industry and/or economic conditions hence it is just like a casino. Even the numbnuts on CNN have reported this, this week. No one with any brains in the West invests in the Chinese stock market.

Here's one such person "without a brain": http://jimtalksmarkets.blogspot.com/2015/08/china-bought-more-stocks-when-they.html

He said in that link, "10 years from now no one will be trading in US dollars." Ya right. I like Jim but when he moved to China he must have left his brain in NYC.

Jim moved some of his investment to China but he lives in Singapore.

My point was "10 years from now no one will be trading in US dollars" Jim said. You agree or think he left his brain in NYC?

[SpokaneAl]

Market rises and falls are a normal part of investing.

http://charts.stocktwits.com/production/original_41850486.PNG?1440527433

[F4UCorsair]

The Sydney morning Herald is a pretty reputable newspaper and described the Shanghai Composite last week as the worlds biggest casino. (Link below) if you think the US market (or any other) is based more on genuine economic fundamentals please tell us why?

What is the difference between the Chinese government intervening to support the market and the Federal reserve intervening with QE 1,2 and 3?

Do you believe actions of the Federal reserve will affect the direction of US stock markets? Do you know precisely what the Federal reserve is likely to do in the short and medium term and if you don’t is that not gambling on what actions the Fed will take(as opposed to economic fundamentals)?

The Chinese stock market is the world's biggest casino

http://www.smh.com.au/business/comment-and-analysis/the-chinese-stock-market-is-the-worlds-biggest-casino-20150708-gi7q1f.html

The Chinese stock market has no relationship to Chinese industry and/or economic conditions hence it is just like a casino. Even the numbnuts on CNN have reported this, this week. No one with any brains in the West invests in the Chinese stock market.

It may be worth checking whether Buffett has sunk any money into China before making such claims????