My portfolio is in the toilet. Thanks Joe.

Status
Not open for further replies.

ckDOG

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2007
8,234
2,566
113
Yeah I'm a bit surprised also

I don’t think that’s going to happen as much domestically as people think. Hope I’m wrong.

Seems optimistic to have the supply bump up that quickly in a year or so but the folks projecting know a lot more than I do. Hope they are right.
 

Bulldog Bruce

Well-known member
Nov 1, 2007
3,508
2,511
113
Seems to be cyclical than when Dems are in the white house and they want to impose clean energy immediately before it is ready and gas prices go up to make buying electric cars more attractive (Which they state is their goal).

A republican gets in there and eases the drilling hurdles, tries to build pipelines and gas prices go down. HMMMM?
 

ckDOG

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2007
8,234
2,566
113
2 reasons.

Maybe you could answer this. Why is Biden not trying to sell an orderly and seamless transition into diversifying our energy sources (as they should be) rather than waging an all out (as acknowledged by himself) war on fossil fuels before we've been able to establish even a fraction of the new energy production sources it will take to replace them ?

1) he's a terrible bumbling communicator. Probably has great interpersonal skills but he can't articulate points to large audiences at all

2) politicians are only capable of messaging in binary terms. Good bad. Clean dirty. Wall / open. And on. Nuance is dead. Not sure if they are the problem or symptom but it's true.
 

thatsbaseball

Well-known member
May 29, 2007
16,635
4,130
113
As a politician it looks like someone (perhaps another politician) could get Biden to see that his approach to energy "transitioning" (if that's the right word) is hurting his party and ironically helping big oil at this point. I just don't see the need for all of this chaos to initiate a movement (energy diversification) that most people probably would back if approached sensibly.
 

Uncle Ruckus

Well-known member
Apr 1, 2011
11,867
2,020
113
I do everything I Can to not watch the news because it’s all garbage now, so maybe you can fill me in. Is the war in Ukraine still going on? If it is then what’s the end game now seeing how Putin expected it to be over in a few days
 

horshack.sixpack

Well-known member
Oct 30, 2012
9,073
5,076
113
That's helpful. I think I'm pretty solid on allocation and investments and my insurance is suitable for me, but I still have an active term that will expire in the next few years. Maybe I'll pick my head up and think about more structured planning when that happens.
 

thatsbaseball

Well-known member
May 29, 2007
16,635
4,130
113
If you're saying nothing Biden does will affect oil prices why doesn't he back off his aggressive stance and rhetoric towards the fossil fuel and let people see for themselves that he's not the problem ? Seems like that would prove a point and relieve a lot of political pressure.
 

johnson86-1

Well-known member
Aug 22, 2012
12,235
2,465
113
That's a strange environment of future supply suppression.
Do you really not understand how things are impacted at the margins? I'm sure people are looking at Russia and OPEC anew and moving their target for what they think will be profitable investments now, but they're not going to be as aggressive as they would if we didn't have feckless politicians and bureaucrats that might decide to do everything they can to make their investment unprofitable after the investment is made.

But yes, Brandon did say some mean things and spouted off mean tweets about the oil industry. They don't care about political rhetoric. They care about returns and making things right after taking a bath in 20.
When there is demand for oil and gas, supply drilled here will follow..it's just not going to catch up as quickly...especially not after an abnormal demand disruption and resumption that Covid presented.

Do you think they care about things like killing pipelines after huge investments are made? Maybe about shutting down oil leasing and then making ignorant comments about all the leases that aren't productive? Threats of carbon taxes or cap & trade? Bureaucratically imposed financial burdens? The profitability of their investments are too dependent on the political cycle. Part of that is a structural problem because we have an administrative state that has usurped the authority of Congress, but it's not as big of a problem if you don't have politicians hell bent on doing destructive things. Oil and gas production is a capital intensive business and there is going to be a lag in changes in supply to match up with demand. We don't need to increase that lag by pumping up the necessary rate of return because of unnecessary political risk. It's already plenty risky as it is.
 
Last edited:

horshack.sixpack

Well-known member
Oct 30, 2012
9,073
5,076
113
Since it is political, sensible is out the window. It's OK to think that some things aren't good for the environment (sand oils from Canada for example) while also thinking it's crazy to hang your hat on Lithium, another tough to get consumable that is also not great for disposing of. It's OK to also see that unless all electric production is "clean", then you are just squeezing a balloon pushing emissions from discreet(cars) to consolidated(power plants). To ckDOG's point, all of this is very nuanced, but nuance and compromise don't make great headlines or fuel identity politics so we have no patience for them.
 

DesotoCountyDawg

Well-known member
Nov 16, 2005
22,159
9,540
113
The problem started well before Biden. You had an effort among many different groups to push a green agenda that in a perfect world would probably be feasible. The issues come when you throw the unknown variables in there like a global pandemic, war, etc… like what we are seeing now where energy demand just blasts your supplies out of the water and some of the previous supplies of energy are no longer there. Just look at Western Europe, specifically Germany. Their reliance on cheap Russian gas and an over the top effort to turn to renewables and “green” energy have put them in a tremendous bind. They are about to run their economy straight into the ground and heaven forbid this winter turns cold.


[TWEET]1544709859194683394[/TWEET]
 
Last edited:

dorndawg

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2012
7,029
5,141
113
If you're saying nothing Biden does will affect oil prices why doesn't he back off his aggressive stance and rhetoric towards the fossil fuel and let people see for themselves that he's not the problem ? Seems like that would prove a point and relieve a lot of political pressure.

I get that we all live in a bubble to one degree or another, but do realize there is a substantial number of Americans who are furious at Biden for not doing enough to combat climate change via reduction in fossil fuel reliance. You can completely disagree but it is a political reality. Biden isn't in an easy spot. Hell, nothing is ever easy for any President; if there was an easy political solution to any problem it's getting solved way before it hits the POTUS desk.
 

paindonthurt

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
Deman drove the price through the floor in early COVID.

Demand and supply are playing a huge part now. Inflation and a war are doing another huge part.

BUT Joe Biden and the Democratic Party aren’t helping. And it’s either on purpose to push green energy or absolute stupidity or both.
 

archdog

New member
Aug 22, 2012
1,882
0
0
The S&P is up 161% since July of 2007. +10% per year

US median home prices are up 80% in the same time span (equivalent of 400% if you used a conventional mortgage with 20% down.) + 26% per year


Gold is up over 214% since July 2007. +14% per year

Bitcoin didn't exist until a few years later, but it's up a zillion percentage points since it began.

If your portfolio sucks, you can't blame Joey... Or Donny... Or Barry... Or Georgie. You have a Scotchie problem.

https://www.letsmakeaplan.org/

This is the correct perspective.
Noted, we had the first world wide pandemic since 1920. Both parties spent money, because the risk of not spending money would be greater than a 20% drop in your make believe Stock Market money.
It is make believe, until you sell it for the loss. Hold until they rebound. Dems / Republicans are not passing any more gigantic hand out spending bills regardless for the foreseeable future. The money already passed is making its way through the economy in ESSER and ARRPA right now with a two year time table.

If you want to be mad at the economy, fine. But it isn't one parties issue, it is an entire planet issue.

You can be mad at Biden about gas prices, but republican controlled oil producers do this every time a democrat is in office because it is easy to slow production of processed goods, drive the price up, and get public sentiment against the dems in the process. Same with companies that remove their money from the market the second democrats get elected, and putting it back in when republicans get elected.
 

PooPopsBaldHead

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2017
7,964
5,062
113
My CFP had very little input on investing advice, it was much more about budgetary stuff. I guess a lot of CFP's are investment advisors, but a financial plan from a CFP is 90% about income, spending, insurance, taxes, assets, liabilities, etc. 10% is geared to generic asset return models (aggressive for the next 10 years, moderate for the following 10, then conservative until end of life... etc.)
 
Last edited:

horshack.sixpack

Well-known member
Oct 30, 2012
9,073
5,076
113
THAT is a complete puzzle to me, and frustrating, particularly because I really don't understand what is behind that? Is there some geopolitical argument to be made for it? I have no idea. Also, the business climate behind exporting gas that we need is not easy for me to understand on the surface. Admittedly, I've not dug into the reason we've always exported so much of what we produce, but it sure seems that we would export out of surplus only. Perhaps one day I'll take time to learn something behind the headlines on that issue but it won' t be today...
 

PooPopsBaldHead

Well-known member
Dec 15, 2017
7,964
5,062
113
Can you, in a few bullets, offer your opinions on the benefits of using a CFP? Never done it before, not sure where their advice would fit in with my general investment advice from my investment firm or where the two overlap, etc.


So it's way more in depth than I previously imagined. It starts around goals. I have two young elementary aged kids and we want to be able to retire when the youngest is off to college and we hit our mid-late 50's. We want a decent travel budget at that point and maintain our current standard of living, minus the expenses of having kids in the house. Between now and then we will stay on our current trajectory. New cars every 5 years or so, keep socking away for savings and retirement, etc.

All of that information was plugged in along with our current investments, income, expenses, assets, liabilities, insurance, healthcare coverage, and our monthly discretionary spending. Our family medical history and life expectancies were calculated into the model to know how long our money needs to last. It was all run through a Monte Carlo simulation that tested the inputs against 1000 possible scenarios of future market returns. The goal was to be between 70-90% success rate. (Over 90% means you're probably being too conservative.) Our's spit out an 82% probability of success.

The action items for us were to get an umbrella insurance policy above home and auto to protect our assets for a few hundred dollars a year and update our estate planning since we have moved to another state. Both are items I have not really considered.

The CFP just accounted for everything. Things I would not have and I like to consider myself fairly savvy on things like this. Stuff like bridging healthcare from early retirement until medicare. Factoring in 401k/IRA required minimum distributions down the road. Not messing with ROTH while we are in a higher tax bracket and instead converting a traditional IRA that 1st year after retirement when our income is much lower.

These were just our little nuggets, I am sure everyone will find some. The end result was a 52 page report that gives us a real good baseline for our financial future. As things change along the way, we can make updates to the plan. Here is a screenshot of the table of contents.

View attachment 24686

If you have access to a free one. Do it. We probably put about 3-4 hours into it on our end and the CFP did everything else. I would liken it to getting a physical or hiring a home inspection. Even if you think everything is good to go, its comforting to have an expert double check everything for you.
 

Maroon Eagle

Well-known member
May 24, 2006
16,488
5,440
102
Agreed.

Double that number, subtract 3 or 4, and that might roughly be the percentage of Democratic leaning voters who are furious at Biden re: climate change?
 

horshack.sixpack

Well-known member
Oct 30, 2012
9,073
5,076
113
I can certainly see how national policy reality and plans that were negative towards fossil fuels could be an input to the equation, I just don't buy into laying all the blame on executive office which is what most headlines do and effectively what the OP did; blame all of his portfolio woes on the president...
 

dorndawg

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2012
7,029
5,141
113
man that umbrella policy is so key and I try to recommend to anyone I can. If you already have home/auto it'll run you $200-250 a year for $1M in additional coverage. It's amazing to me how many higher-income folks with a few assets have their asses exposed when it come to being under-insured.
 

ckDOG

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2007
8,234
2,566
113
I think you might be too emotional to have a conversation about this

Do you really not understand how things are impacted at the margins? I'm sure people are looking at Russia and OPEC anew and moving their target for what they think will be profitable investments now, but they're not going to be as aggressive as they would if we didn't have feckless politicians and bureaucrats that might decide to do everything they can to make their investment unprofitable after the investment is made.



Do you think they care about things like killing pipelines after huge investments are made? Maybe about shutting down oil leasing and then making ignorant comments about all the leases that aren't productive? Threats of carbon taxes or cap & trade? Bureaucratically imposed financial burdens? The profitability of their investments are too dependent on the political cycle. Part of that is a structural problem because we have an administrative state that has usurped the authority of Congress, but it's not as big of a problem if you don't have politicians hell bent on doing destructive things. Oil and gas production is a capital intensive business and there is going to be a lag in changes in supply to match up with demand. We don't need to increase that lag by pumping up the necessary rate of return because of unnecessary political risk. It's already plenty risky as it is.

You gripe about supply decrease, I point out they are projected to be record highs, and you flip out. Just show me where they are wrong about domestic supply increasing and I'll concede.

I agree with you on governments using existing approved capital investments as political bait. That's not a healthy investment environment. Feel free to kill a project before it starts based on some ideology or framework, but once it's approved it shouldn't be reneged on (assuming no fraud or criminal activity occurring).

The federal leasing aspect is an overblown gripe meant to get the best of folks' emotional response. There's plenty of drilling lands, private and federal, for production and exploration. There's no bottleneck there or even close to there being one. Lands are being auctioned off as we speak, albeit at levels that annoy both the industry and the environmentalists.

Related question...what levels of government intervention do you believe the federal government does or doesn't have on its owned lands? You seem to despise any bureaucratic process. Is that a libertarian principle based take or just a take on being skeptical that our bureaucrats are half decent at their job? If the latter, right on, brother. I'm with you, just not on the dramatic / easily spooked side that you are on.
 
Last edited:

dorndawg

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2012
7,029
5,141
113
Agreed.

Double that number, subtract 3 or 4, and that might roughly be the percentage of Democratic leaning voters who are furious at Biden re: climate change?

Approx 25-30% of Dem voters? I think that sounds reasonable. Now, as we all know, when presented with a head-to-head choice, a voter can be furious at a candidate and still vote for them.
 

dorndawg

Well-known member
Sep 10, 2012
7,029
5,141
113
I can certainly see how national policy reality and plans that were negative towards fossil fuels could be an input to the equation, I just don't buy into laying all the blame on executive office which is what most headlines do and effectively what the OP did; blame all of his portfolio woes on the president...

Some folks demand simple solutions to complex problems.
 

Maroon Eagle

Well-known member
May 24, 2006
16,488
5,440
102
I've mentioned it before in past threads related to this topic: a big key here is going to be the status of the Iran nuclear deal negotiations.

It's looking more and more like that's not going to happen. And if that ain't happening, there will be increased domestic oil production and exploration.
 

paindonthurt

Well-known member
Jun 27, 2009
9,529
2,045
113
So Biden isn’t making quality decisions that could help with fuel prices.

He’s doing the opposite.

It’s ok to say it. The truth shall set you free.
 

ckDOG

Well-known member
Dec 11, 2007
8,234
2,566
113
Basically this

Deman drove the price through the floor in early COVID.

Demand and supply are playing a huge part now. Inflation and a war are doing another huge part.

BUT Joe Biden and the Democratic Party aren’t helping. And it’s either on purpose to push green energy or absolute stupidity or both.

But I wish we could get a real good quantification of how much the market is jacked by normal supply/demand/recovery principles and Biden's mean tweeting and temporary lease moratorium on fed lands. Is the admins influence in the single digits on YoY increase or closer to the 100% increases we see at the pump? I'm going to guess the answer wouldn't please either party very much.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Get unlimited access today.

Pick the right plan for you.

Already a member? Login