Jump to content

Welcome to the new Traders Laboratory! Please bear with us as we finish the migration over the next few days. If you find any issues, want to leave feedback, get in touch with us, or offer suggestions please post to the Support forum here.

  • Welcome Guests

    Welcome. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest which does not give you access to all the great features at Traders Laboratory such as interacting with members, access to all forums, downloading attachments, and eligibility to win free giveaways. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. Create a FREE Traders Laboratory account here.

TheNegotiator

Risk On, Risk Off is Bull

Do phrases used by market commentators annoy you?  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Do phrases used by market commentators annoy you?

    • Yes, they annoy the hell out of me!
      13
    • No, I like them as they are good keywords to look out for.
      0
    • I don't really care.
      5


Recommended Posts

I'd like to see what others think about the phrase which has been used more and more recently. Anyone with even a slight interest in the markets has probably heard this phrase. "Today is risk on as stocks soar" or "We're very clearly risk off as flight to quality continues". What the hell does it really mean though? Right now markets right now are highly sensitized to risk due to ongoing systematic problems throughout the world. Some specific stocks and assets are seen as more defensive than others and so when risk is off, these stocks should relatively speaking outperform more speculative investments.

 

So what is annoying me more than anything is that some guys have started using it as a replacement phrase for "stocks are up" or "stocks are down". For example, the stock indices may have moved higher yet overall it's not based on riskier stocks, yet someone might say "it's risk on today". Well that's pretty misleading imo. Anyway, does anyone else have any thoughts on that or any other phrases they'd like to complain about??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote
What the hell does it really mean though?

Excellent question!

Didn’t it used to be almost a purely foreign exchange concept? Generally Risk on = higher yield currencies. Risk off = lower yield currencies. Hopefully someone has a better explanation than that. Most forum talk will not get specific at all.

 

Seems to me, it’s assimilation into routine ‘wall street’ lexicon is only a recent happening. … months old? “Switching”, into more or less “beta” ,etc were the stock trading world’s words for it. But I may be wrong… the only time I see CNBC is inside the bank when doing a bankwire or something and I read no WSJ, etc. The sources that pre-inform that they are going ‘risk on’ or ‘risk off’ continue to have some value. The sources reporting post flow that today is ‘risk on’ or ‘risk off’ are useless.

 

Maybe the uptick in the whole planetary financial system’s going singular / correlated has something to do with the phrase catching on?

 

Will have to figure out how to anwer your poll. I don't really care and sometimes (like if I'm exposed to it more than about 5 minutes) the 'phrasing' of bs does annoy the heck out of me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  zdo said:
Maybe the uptick in the whole planetary financial system’s going singular / correlated has something to do with the phrase catching on?

.

 

Could be. But also I find that due to the vastness and non-regulated nature of the internet as a news/idea delivery method, you have to take into account the 'Chinese whisper' effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they annoy the heck out of me....but ultimately like Zdo...i dont care.

You have to remember that most of this is perpetuated by news people who are just parroting the brokers, who have nothing better to do.

Remember what a risk free asset was - it was a government backed security.....now these are riskier than corporate bonds!!

 

Other jargon that drives me nuts as its miss/over used....

"bargain hunters",

when a market pulls back --"profit taking in the market today"

and the continual - this is the biggest up day in X weeks, X days, whatever.....usually nothing significant.

and the best is....

"long term" :haha:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

way back when - before the talking heads co-opted it and it became Bull -

what did it really mean in the banks when the desks got the edict

risk on

or

risk off

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that those terms are complete bullshit.

 

The way the talking heads use the term "risk on" is when stocks are going up therefore meaning traders are buying the market. This infers that going long the market is risky and going short the market (i.e., risk off) is getting out to risk assets. I think if the talking heads thought about the message that they are conveying for just a second they would stop using the term because it seems as though that is the exact opposite message that they want to convey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to clarify. I am not inferring that there is no risk in going long or short. There is certainly risk in going long or short. I am simply making the observation that the talking heads tend to be cheerleaders for the market and using the term "risk on" and "risk off" seems to be at odds with the cheerleading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My peeve is when I go to marketwatch or some other BS site, and there was news 15 minutes ago , and it just now gets posted... like, I could have created a freaking web site and announced the headline in less time than it took for you to just post it.

 

My REAL peeve though, is how they try to attribute some fundamental reason to ever single move they report. "Dow moves higher on euro debt concerns" and yada yada. Sometimes it's legit. But sometimes the market just moves. The funniest was the other day when unemployment report was the high of the globex day, then proceeded to sell off the entire day. Yet, because globex traded higher than the last day's close, the headline was "Stocks soar on positive unemployment, ..." Despite the fact that the report was released AFTER a whole globex trading of up, up, up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The worst to me is when markets drops and they say it is to do with "profit taking" but then it raises again next day. I guess "profit-taking"is always a one day event. ;)

 

Doh! :doh:

 

They got to say something, Most of the time it is meaningless made up stuff. I don't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SunTrader said:
They got to say something, Most of the time it is meaningless made up stuff. I don't care.

 

Unfortunately, I think you're right. Media don't like no news and so tend to look to sensationalise anything, to the point of idiocy.

 

Interestingly though, right now the thread poll(although only 10 voters admittedly) has zero votes for option 2!

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=26860&stc=1&d=1323690401

5aa710bb629dd_RiskOnRiskOffisBull-Page2-TradersLaboratoryForums-GoogleChrome_2011-12-12_06-43-.jpg.14972dc0b8195dd47db512fd54d7e84f.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  TheNegotiator said:
Unfortunately, I think you're right. Media don't like no news and so tend to look to sensationalise anything, to the point of idiocy.......
Not just sensationalize but fill news pages or airtime.

 

Like reporting the weather these days. All we want to know, with some kind of certainty if possible, what will tomorrow will brings us? They spend 15 minutes to tell us what has already happened today before they get to the actual forecast (30 seconds worth) for the following day. Sheesh! :doh:

 

:)

Edited by SunTrader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  MightyMouse said:
There is a wealth of information being distributed here.

 

Problem is, for every good piece of information that is helpful to someone, there are another ten pieces of information which distract and delay the learning process... I'm not excluding my own posts from the "useless" or "harmful" category if the shoe fits of course. And of course some information may be factually correct but mislead one trader while it helps another. The challenge is to personally find what works for each of us. Just my :2c: , which should be noted, may not be worth anything to the reader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When first reading this thread, I answered the poll as "don't really care"... though there was a time that I would've answered differently.

 

As a newbie CNBC was on all day long. It didn't take long before I started turning it off when Larry Kudlow and the mid day crew aired (wow... what BS). Then I started turning it off when Cramer came on... then I dropped the "fast money" crew. Now, CNBC is relegated to "sound off... through the economic numbers"... then the TV is shut down for the day... listen to music... some days silence feels good... just me, the chart, and my money.

 

I must admit to some irritation at hearing catch phrases such as: "risk on / risk off". I get the same notion of bruised sensibility when hearing politicos speak about "jobs, jobs, jobs". Although; the latter probably irritates me more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what about as a social experiment.....collectively we come up with a new term OR a few terms as its generally a numbers game.

 

Once it has been decided on....then proceed to drop them into everyday conversation, or threads etc with others and see how long it takes to possibly get one of the catchy terms to be said by a broker or newscaster on TV.

 

Off the top of the head I might suggest...

 

"Eurocronies" - the banks, governments - anyone - who wont toe the line and will keep breaking their obligations to the Eurozone treaties.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  MightyMouse said:
There is a wealth of information being distributed here.

 

It was said with tongue in cheek, but they are not that different to one another. Filtering and sifting through the chaff and double talk on a forum is not that easy when your own knowledge is weak. I've been led up many a trading garden path.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  jpennybags said:
When first reading this thread, I answered the poll as "don't really care"... though there was a time that I would've answered differently.

 

As a newbie CNBC was on all day long. It didn't take long before I started turning it off when Larry Kudlow and the mid day crew aired (wow... what BS). Then I started turning it off when Cramer came on... then I dropped the "fast money" crew. Now, CNBC is relegated to "sound off... through the economic numbers"... then the TV is shut down for the day... listen to music... some days silence feels good... just me, the chart, and my money.

 

I must admit to some irritation at hearing catch phrases such as: "risk on / risk off". I get the same notion of bruised sensibility when hearing politicos speak about "jobs, jobs, jobs". Although; the latter probably irritates me more.

 

I had the same experience also, first on CNBC and I am fast approaching the same on Bloomberg.

I keep reminding myself what Mark Douglas said, and that is that "the only job these commentators have is to sound reasonable", nothing else and (IMHO) real informative content be dammed.

Other peeves I have besides some of the annoying visuals and Ginzu knife commercials is the constant flaunting of sexual images. I always click the sound back on when I see what one might call a "not so good looking" preferably older woman or man for that matter, because they might actually only be there because they have something to say.

A female "Presenter,Reporter or whatever they prefer to be called, sitting on a four foot high bar stool with only a clipboard to hide her privates is something I prefer to be only confronted with while being served a Dirty Martini by someone with only a serving tray to......but I ramble....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  SIUYA said:
what about as a social experiment.....collectively we come up with a new term OR a few terms as its generally a numbers game.

 

Once it has been decided on....then proceed to drop them into everyday conversation, or threads etc with others and see how long it takes to possibly get one of the catchy terms to be said by a broker or newscaster on TV.

 

Off the top of the head I might suggest...

 

"Eurocronies" - the banks, governments - anyone - who wont toe the line and will keep breaking their obligations to the Eurozone treaties.

 

Great idea Siuya! Let me refine it slightly though. In addition to standard terms for things in the media, why don't we coin terms for when crap is written by the media(and various other people).

 

For example, in the forum a classic is the "Noob-baiter".(or even maybe the "Noobinator" if they're really good at it lol!)

 

In the media could be a "Keyword Clown" who writes an article.

 

Or maybe there is a ZIBSO article (Zero Idea - Bull Shit Only).

 

These three are especially common due to the proliferation of the internet and retail trading/investing.

 

I'll have another think about some more mainstream terms we could implant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Thx for reminding us... I don't bang that drum often enough anymore Another part for consideration is who that money initially went to...
    • TDUP ThredUp stock, watch for a top of range breakout above 2.94 at https://stockconsultant.com/?TDUP
    • How long does it take to receive HFM's withdrawal via Skrill? less than 24H?
    • My wife Robin just wanted some groceries.   Simple enough.   She parked the car for fifteen minutes, and returned to find a huge scratch on the side.   Someone keyed her car.   To be clear, this isn’t just any car.   It’s a Cybertruck—Elon Musk's stainless-steel spaceship on wheels. She bought it back in 2021, before Musk became everyone's favorite villain or savior.   Someone saw it parked in a grocery lot and felt compelled to carve their hatred directly into the metal.   That's what happens when you stand out.   Nobody keys a beige minivan.   When you're polarizing, you're impossible to ignore. But the irony is: the more attention something has, the harder it is to find the truth about it.   What’s Elon Musk really thinking? What are his plans? What will happen with DOGE? Is he deserving of all of this adoration and hate? Hard to say.   Ideas work the same way.   Take tariffs, for example.   Tariffs have become the Cybertrucks of economic policy. People either love them or hate them. Even if they don’t understand what they are and how they work. (Most don’t.)   That’s why, in my latest podcast (link below), I wanted to explore the “in-between” truth about tariffs.   And like Cybertrucks, I guess my thoughts on tariffs are polarizing.   Greg Gutfield mentioned me on Fox News. Harvard professors hate me now. (I wonder if they also key Cybertrucks?)   But before I show you what I think about tariffs… I have to mention something.   We’re Headed to Austin, Texas This weekend, my team and I are headed to Austin. By now, you should probably know why.   Yes, SXSW is happening. But my team and I are doing something I think is even better.   We’re putting on a FREE event on “Tech’s Turning Point.”   AI, quantum, biotech, crypto, and more—it’s all on the table.   Just now, we posted a special webpage with the agenda.   Click here to check it out and add it to your calendar.   The Truth About Tariffs People love to panic about tariffs causing inflation.   They wave around the ghost of the Smoot-Hawley Tariff from the Great Depression like it’s Exhibit A proving tariffs equal economic collapse.   But let me pop this myth:   Tariffs don’t cause inflation. And no, I'm not crazy (despite what angry professors from Harvard or Stanford might tweet at me).   Here's the deal.   Inflation isn’t when just a couple of things become pricier. It’s when your entire shopping basket—eggs, shirts, Netflix subscriptions, bananas, everything—starts costing more because your money’s worth less.   Inflation means your dollars aren’t stretching as far as they used to.   Take the 1800s.   For nearly a century, 97% of America’s revenue came from tariffs. Income tax? Didn’t exist. And guess what inflation was? Basically zero. Maybe 1% a year.   The economy was booming, and tariffs funded nearly everything. So, why do people suddenly think tariffs cause inflation today?   Tariffs are taxes on imports, yes, but prices are set by supply and demand—not tariffs.   Let me give you a simple example.   Imagine fancy potato chips from Canada cost $10, and a 20% tariff pushes that to $12. Everyone panics—prices rose! Inflation!   Nope.   If I only have $100 to spend and the price of my favorite chips goes up, I either stop buying chips or I buy, say, fewer newspapers.   If everyone stops buying newspapers because they’re overspending on chips, newspapers lower their prices or go out of business.   Overall spending stays the same, and inflation doesn’t budge.   Three quick scenarios:   We buy pricier chips, but fewer other things: Inflation unchanged. Manufacturers shift to the U.S. to avoid tariffs: Inflation unchanged (and more jobs here). We stop buying fancy chips: Prices drop again. Inflation? Still unchanged. The only thing that actually causes inflation is printing money.   Between 2020 and 2022 alone, 40% of all money ever created in history appeared overnight.   That’s why inflation shot up afterward—not because of tariffs.   Back to tariffs today.   Still No Inflation Unlike the infamous Smoot-Hawley blanket tariff (imagine Oprah handing out tariffs: "You get a tariff, and you get a tariff!"), today's tariffs are strategic.   Trump slapped tariffs on chips from Taiwan because we shouldn’t rely on a single foreign supplier for vital tech components—especially if that supplier might get invaded.   Now Taiwan Semiconductor is investing $100 billion in American manufacturing.   Strategic win, no inflation.   Then there’s Canada and Mexico—our friendly neighbors with weirdly huge tariffs on things like milk and butter (299% tariff on butter—really, Canada?).   Trump’s not blanketing everything with tariffs; he’s pressuring trade partners to lower theirs.   If they do, everybody wins. If they don’t, well, then we have a strategic trade chess game—but still no inflation.   In short, tariffs are about strategy, security, and fairness—not inflation.   Yes, blanket tariffs from the Great Depression era were dumb. Obviously. Today's targeted tariffs? Smart.   Listen to the whole podcast to hear why I think this.   And by the way, if you see a Cybertruck, don’t key it. Robin doesn’t care about your politics; she just likes her weird truck.   Maybe read a good book, relax, and leave cars alone.   (And yes, nobody keys Volkswagens, even though they were basically created by Hitler. Strange world we live in.) Source: https://altucherconfidential.com/posts/the-truth-about-tariffs-busting-the-inflation-myth    Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/       
    • No, not if you are comparing apples to apples. What we call “poor” is obviously a pretty high bar but if you’re talking about like a total homeless shambling skexie in like San Fran then, no. The U.S.A. in not particularly kind to you. It is not an abuse so much as it is a sad relatively minor consequence of our optimism and industriousness.   What you consider rich changes with circumstances obviously. If you are genuinely poor in the U.S.A., you experience a quirky hodgepodge of unhelpful and/or abstract extreme lavishnesses while also being alienated from your social support network. It’s about the same as being a refugee. For a fraction of the ‘kindness’ available to you in non bio-available form, you could have simply stayed closer to your people and been MUCH better off.   It’s just a quirk of how we run the place and our values; we are more worried about interfering with people’s liberty and natural inclination to do for themselves than we are about no bums left behind. It is a slightly hurtful position and we know it; we are just scared to death of socialism cancer and we’re willing to put our money where our mouth is.   So, if you’re a bum; you got 5G, the ER will spend like $1,000,000 on you over a hangnail but then kick you out as soon as you’re “stabilized”, the logistics are surpremely efficient, you have total unchecked freedom of speech, real-estate, motels, and jobs are all natural healthy markets in perfect competition, you got compulsory three ‘R’’s, your military owns the sky, sea, space, night, information-space, and has the best hairdos, you can fill out paper and get all the stuff up to and including a Ph.D. Pretty much everything a very generous, eager, flawless go-getter with five minutes to spare would think you might need.   It’s worse. Our whole society is competitive and we do NOT value or make any kumbaya exception. The last kumbaya types we had werr the Shakers and they literally went extinct. Pueblo peoples are still around but they kind of don’t count since they were here before us. So basically, if you’re poor in the U.S.A., you are automatically a loser and a deadbeat too. You will be treated as such by anybody not specifically either paid to deal with you or shysters selling bejesus, Amway, and drugs. Plus, it ain’t safe out there. Not everybody uses muhfreedoms to lift their truck, people be thugging and bums are very vulnerable here. The history of a large mobile workforce means nobody has a village to go home to. Source: https://askdaddy.quora.com/Are-the-poor-people-in-the-United-States-the-richest-poor-people-in-the-world-6   Profits from free accurate cryptos signals: https://www.predictmag.com/ 
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.