Latest news with #WilliamGoldman
Yahoo
18-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Hiltzik: Most of what you've heard about the stock market's gyrations is wrong, probably
With the stock market experiencing gyrations that haven't been seen in, well, months, investors are fretting about the future of their portfolios and the prospects of a recession triggered by Donald Trump's will-he-or-won't-he follow through with his tariff threats. This isn't the place to come for advice on how to trade the stock market. When I scan the market prognostications coming to me via email and the investment websites I regularly visit, I find that they fall into two equally balanced categories: Those counseling, "Don't worry, be happy"; and those forecasting a cataclysmic crash, or at least a recession bulking large on the horizon. Since that's what I usually hear whether the market is on a bull tear or a slump, I am reminded of the observation that William Goldman, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of "The Princess Bride" and "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid," made about Hollywood: "Nobody knows anything." Sell down to the sleeping point. J.P. Morgan's advice to a friend who said he was so nervous about his stocks that he couldn't sleep at night That said, it may be useful to place the most recent stock market action in perspective. We can start with volatility of recent days and weeks. On Monday, Mar. 10, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 890 points, or 2.8%; the broader Standard & Poor's 500 index fell by 2.7% and the Nasdaq composite index, which tracks tech stocks, fell 4%. The day before, Trump had refused to rule out that his economic policies might produce a recession. The market's sentiment was sour all week. On Thursday, the S&P 500 entered "correction" territory — a 10% drop from its recent high, which in this case had been recorded Feb. 19. The pullback inspired some market commentators to dust off an antique market indicator known as the Dow Theory. That indicator posits that any move in the Dow Industrials must be matched by a similar move in the Dow transportation index. Both were falling last week, "deepening fears of a broader market correction," wrote James Gordon of the Daily Mail. Yet whether the Dow Theory is relevant to today's economy is questionable. It was coined at the turn of the last century, when industrial output was in heavy machinery and physical goods that had to be shipped by the railroad companies dominating the transportation sector. Today, more than one-third of the 30 companies in the Dow industrials deal in finance, insurance or high-tech and don't make products that need to be physically transported. Read more: Hiltzik: Bitcoin, NFTs, SPACs, meme stocks — all those pandemic investment darlings are crashing In any event, Friday brought a relief rally, with the Dow rising 674.62 points, or 1.7%, the S&P 500 rising 2.1% and the Nasdaq rising 2.6%. That wasn't enough to erase the full week's losses, but it was followed by another surge Monday, when the Dow rose by 353.44 points, or 0.85%, the S&P by 0.64% and the Nasdaq by 0.31%. None of this means that the downdraft that has pared the Dow by 1.65%, the S&P by 3.5% and the Nasdaq by 7.8% so far this year won't resume or get worse. But it points to the inadequacy of tracking the stock market by short-term moves. Market commentators typically advise investors to hang tough during periods of volatility like this one. That has been sound advice historically, though isn't equally sound for everyone. It works better for those with more distant horizons, such as households at the start of or midway into their earning years, which have more time to capture the long-term growth in stock prices and to recover from the inevitable periodic downturns. For those in or near retirement, the environment may look more worrisome. A 65-year-old who was counting on a stock portfolio to see him or her into an impending retirement in 2023 had to confront a stock market pullback of nearly one-fifth in 2022 — enough to force many such households to reconsider their retirement options. Politicians who try to reassure voters and investors about a market downturn often sound as though they're sugarcoating the downside of their own policies, but that doesn't always mean they're wrong. Trump's Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, walked into that buzzsaw Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," when he declared, "Corrections are healthy. They're normal. What's not healthy is straight up, that you get these euphoric markets. That's how you get a financial crisis." Axios reported that with these remarks, Bessent, a veteran Wall Street executive, "broke with orthodoxy." Actually, his view of corrections was entirely consistent with Wall Street orthodoxy. His implication that "euphoric markets" invariably produce financial crises, however, is questionable — markets can sustain their euphoria for years without provoking anything like a crisis. Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan warned of the stock market's "irrational exuberance" in 1996, but even despite the pricking of the dot-com bubble in 2000, a financial crisis didn't occur until 2008, a full 12 years after Greenspan's remark — and it was triggered by an overheated housing market, not the stock market. Anyway, Bessent's remark has been viewed as a tone-deaf defense of Trump's unpopular economic policies. Read more: Hiltzik: Millions of Americans are fixated on stock prices. They shouldn't pay such close attention The same phenomenon greeted President Nixon's declaration in May 1970 that "if I had any money I'd be buying stocks right now.' Coming as it did in the teeth of a 17-month bear market (the longest and steepest since World War II) and during a recession that had started the previous December, it looked as if he was trying to rescue his reputation as a steward of the U.S. economy. But he was prescient: The market turned in positive returns in seven of the next 10 years, and embarked on a record-breaking bull run that may not yet have run its course. As I wrote recently, a propos of whether White House insiders might be playing the market by front-running Trump's announcements his plans to impose, or withdraw, tariffs, it's dangerous to attribute stock market moves to news developments. That may be true especially given Trump's tendency to announce policies that don't get implemented. My favorite stock market commentator, asset manager Barry Ritholtz, urges his followers to "tune out the noise, turn off the TV, and avoid the trolling, wild gesticulations, and chaos" produced by Trump. "Instead, focus on what is truly happening." The tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods are a moving target, and mostly haven't been implemented, Ritholtz points out. Elon Musk's claims for mass layoffs and sharp budget cutting by his DOGE operation have been wildly overstated. Among the policies likeliest to actually happen, in Ritholz's view, are an extension of the tax cuts Trump signed in 2017, which favored corporations and the wealthy, and a Federal Trade Commission that looks kindlier on big mergers than did Biden's FTC. It's fair to expect that Trump's policies will have an effect on economic growth, including in California. A favorite insight by economists and business leaders is that what he's done so far is inject "uncertainty" into economic planning. Read more: Hiltzik: GameStop isn't the first stock market mania, and it won't be the last Of course, the future is always uncertain. Back in 2010, when Republicans complained that the "uncertainty" produced by Barack Obama's developing plans for tax, healthcare and financial reforms had business leaders sheltering in terror under their beds, I observed that the U.S. spent three decades facing the threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union. That was uncertainty, and it hovered over the most prosperous period in our history. We may be at the peak uncertainty stage of the current Trump term. Referring to the dithering over tariffs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce quotes a member fretting that 'the threats and uncertainty have made it hard to make business decisions." Earlier this month, Clement Bohr of the UCLA Anderson economic forecast noted that "at this level of uncertainty, firms stop hiring. They're going to wait it out." That suggests that the waiting period will last only until the picture of Trump's policies becomes clearer (assuming that it will in time). The stock market, after all, is a mechanism to gauge future expectations. No one can be sure, however, how far it is looking ahead — only that it generally looks further ahead than tomorrow. Almost everyone with a stock or bond portfolio has a different mental picture of what they want to accomplish with their investments, if not how to get there. How much risk are you willing to take? What do you want the money for? How long is your investment horizon? J.P. Morgan was impatient with acquaintances who wished to compress all these considerations into a single all-purpose maxim. Told by a friend that he was so worried about his stocks that he couldn't sleep at night. He asked, what should he do? Morgan's reply may be apocryphal, but it encompasses the truism that investors should divorce their emotional response to the markets from the cold analysis that should underlie investment decisions, if possible. According to the story, Morgan replied, "Sell down to the sleeping point." Get the latest from Michael HiltzikCommentary on economics and more from a Pulitzer Prize me up. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times. Sign in to access your portfolio
Los Angeles Times
18-03-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Most of what you've heard about the stock market's gyrations is wrong, probably
With the stock market experiencing gyrations that haven't been seen in, well, months, investors are fretting about the future of their portfolios and the prospects of a recession triggered by Donald Trump's will-he-or-won't-he follow through with his tariff threats. This isn't the place to come for advice on how to trade the stock market. When I scan the market prognostications coming to me via email and the investment websites I regularly visit, I find that they fall into two equally balanced categories: Those counseling, 'Don't worry, be happy'; and those forecasting a cataclysmic crash, or at least a recession bulking large on the horizon. Since that's what I usually hear whether the market is on a bull tear or a slump, I am reminded of the observation that William Goldman, the Oscar-winning screenwriter of 'The Princess Bride' and 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,' made about Hollywood: 'Nobody knows anything.' That said, it may be useful to place the most recent stock market action in perspective. We can start with volatility of recent days and weeks. On Monday, Mar. 10, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 890 points, or 2.8%; the broader Standard & Poor's 500 index fell by 2.7% and the Nasdaq composite index, which tracks tech stocks, fell 4%. The day before, Trump had refused to rule out that his economic policies might produce a recession. The market's sentiment was sour all week. On Thursday, the S&P 500 entered 'correction' territory — a 10% drop from its recent high, which in this case had been recorded Feb. 19. The pullback inspired some market commentators to dust off an antique market indicator known as the Dow Theory. That indicator posits that any move in the Dow Industrials must be matched by a similar move in the Dow transportation index. Both were falling last week, 'deepening fears of a broader market correction,' wrote James Gordon of the Daily Mail. Yet whether the Dow Theory is relevant to today's economy is questionable. It was coined at the turn of the last century, when industrial output was in heavy machinery and physical goods that had to be shipped by the railroad companies dominating the transportation sector. Today, more than one-third of the 30 companies in the Dow industrials deal in finance, insurance or high-tech and don't make products that need to be physically transported. In any event, Friday brought a relief rally, with the Dow rising 674.62 points, or 1.7%, the S&P 500 rising 2.1% and the Nasdaq rising 2.6%. That wasn't enough to erase the full week's losses, but it was followed by another surge Monday, when the Dow rose by 353.44 points, or 0.85%, the S&P by 0.64% and the Nasdaq by 0.31%. None of this means that the downdraft that has pared the Dow by 1.65%, the S&P by 3.5% and the Nasdaq by 7.8% so far this year won't resume or get worse. But it points to the inadequacy of tracking the stock market by short-term moves. Market commentators typically advise investors to hang tough during periods of volatility like this one. That has been sound advice historically, though isn't equally sound for everyone. It works better for those with more distant horizons, such as households at the start of or midway into their earning years, which have more time to capture the long-term growth in stock prices and to recover from the inevitable periodic downturns. For those in or near retirement, the environment may look more worrisome. A 65-year-old who was counting on a stock portfolio to see him or her into an impending retirement in 2023 had to confront a stock market pullback of nearly one-fifth in 2022 — enough to force many such households to reconsider their retirement options. Politicians who try to reassure voters and investors about a market downturn often sound as though they're sugarcoating the downside of their own policies, but that doesn't always mean they're wrong. Trump's Treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, walked into that buzzsaw Sunday on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' when he declared, 'Corrections are healthy. They're normal. What's not healthy is straight up, that you get these euphoric markets. That's how you get a financial crisis.' Axios reported that with these remarks, Bessent, a veteran Wall Street executive, 'broke with orthodoxy.' Actually, his view of corrections was entirely consistent with Wall Street orthodoxy. His implication that 'euphoric markets' invariably produce financial crises, however, is questionable — markets can sustain their euphoria for years without provoking anything like a crisis. Former Fed Chair Alan Greenspan warned of the stock market's 'irrational exuberance' in 1996, but even despite the pricking of the dot-com bubble in 2000, a financial crisis didn't occur until 2008, a full 12 years after Greenspan's remark — and it was triggered by an overheated housing market, not the stock market. Anyway, Bessent's remark has been viewed as a tone-deaf defense of Trump's unpopular economic policies. The same phenomenon greeted President Nixon's declaration in May 1970 that 'if I had any money I'd be buying stocks right now.' Coming as it did in the teeth of a 17-month bear market (the longest and steepest since World War II) and during a recession that had started the previous December, it looked as if he was trying to rescue his reputation as a steward of the U.S. economy. But he was prescient: The market turned in positive returns in seven of the next 10 years, and embarked on a record-breaking bull run that may not yet have run its course. As I wrote recently, a propos of whether White House insiders might be playing the market by front-running Trump's announcements his plans to impose, or withdraw, tariffs, it's dangerous to attribute stock market moves to news developments. That may be true especially given Trump's tendency to announce policies that don't get implemented. My favorite stock market commentator, asset manager Barry Ritholtz, urges his followers to 'tune out the noise, turn off the TV, and avoid the trolling, wild gesticulations, and chaos' produced by Trump. 'Instead, focus on what is truly happening.' The tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods are a moving target, and mostly haven't been implemented, Ritholtz points out. Elon Musk's claims for mass layoffs and sharp budget cutting by his DOGE operation have been wildly overstated. Among the policies likeliest to actually happen, in Ritholz's view, are an extension of the tax cuts Trump signed in 2017, which favored corporations and the wealthy, and a Federal Trade Commission that looks kindlier on big mergers than did Biden's FTC. It's fair to expect that Trump's policies will have an effect on economic growth, including in California. A favorite insight by economists and business leaders is that what he's done so far is inject 'uncertainty' into economic planning. Of course, the future is always uncertain. Back in 2010, when Republicans complained that the 'uncertainty' produced by Barack Obama's developing plans for tax, healthcare and financial reforms had business leaders sheltering in terror under their beds, I observed that the U.S. spent three decades facing the threat of nuclear annihilation from the Soviet Union. That was uncertainty, and it hovered over the most prosperous period in our history. We may be at the peak uncertainty stage of the current Trump term. Referring to the dithering over tariffs, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce quotes a member fretting that 'the threats and uncertainty have made it hard to make business decisions.' Earlier this month, Clement Bohr of the UCLA Anderson economic forecast noted that 'at this level of uncertainty, firms stop hiring. They're going to wait it out.' That suggests that the waiting period will last only until the picture of Trump's policies becomes clearer (assuming that it will in time). The stock market, after all, is a mechanism to gauge future expectations. No one can be sure, however, how far it is looking ahead — only that it generally looks further ahead than tomorrow. Almost everyone with a stock or bond portfolio has a different mental picture of what they want to accomplish with their investments, if not how to get there. How much risk are you willing to take? What do you want the money for? How long is your investment horizon? J.P. Morgan was impatient with acquaintances who wished to compress all these considerations into a single all-purpose maxim. Told by a friend that he was so worried about his stocks that he couldn't sleep at night. He asked, what should he do? Morgan's reply may be apocryphal, but it encompasses the truism that investors should divorce their emotional response to the markets from the cold analysis that should underlie investment decisions, if possible. According to the story, Morgan replied, 'Sell down to the sleeping point.'
Express Tribune
12-03-2025
- Entertainment
- Express Tribune
10 Hilarious Comedy Movies Based on Books
Hollywood's love for book adaptations is undeniable, but when it comes to comedy, things can get tricky. Comedy novels don't always translate well to the big screen, and sometimes filmmakers take creative liberties, turning serious books into laugh-out-loud comedies. Here are 10 hilarious comedy movies based on books that show how well literature can pair with humor: 1. Mrs. Doubtfire (1993) Based on Madame Doubtfire by Anne Fine Robin Williams shines as a divorced father who, in an attempt to spend more time with his kids, disguises himself as an elderly Scottish nanny. This hilarious role reversal plays with heart and humor, but the novel Madame Doubtfire is much darker in tone, dealing with issues of divorce and identity. The film lightens the mood with Williams' iconic charm. 2. The Princess Bride (1987) Based on The Princess Bride by William Goldman A whimsical mix of romance, adventure, and comedy, The Princess Bride has become a cult classic. The novel, by William Goldman, offers a parody of classic fairy tales and is as witty as it is adventurous. The movie adaptation, starring Cary Elwes and Robin Wright, balances action and humor while keeping the quirky spirit of the original book. 3. The Graduate (1967) Based on The Graduate by Charles Webb This film might not seem like your typical comedy, but its dry, satirical tone makes it a classic. The novel centers around a young man's affair with an older woman, which leads to a series of misadventures. The film adaptation, starring Dustin Hoffman, leans into the awkward humor of the situation, bringing a fresh comedic lens to the serious themes of the book. 4. The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (2005) Based on The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams An absurd and wildly imaginative tale, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy follows Arthur Dent as he navigates space after Earth's destruction. Douglas Adams' novel is a hilarious sci-fi adventure, and the film adaptation keeps that wry humor intact, with a quirky cast of characters and offbeat scenarios that are pure comedic gold. 5. Bridget Jones's Diary (2001) Based on Bridget Jones's Diary by Helen Fielding Renée Zellweger plays the loveable, self-deprecating Bridget Jones in this adaptation of Helen Fielding's bestseller. The book's witty exploration of single life and romantic misadventures comes to life on screen with laugh-out-loud moments. The film is full of awkward situations, but at its heart, it's about embracing who you are—no matter how messy life gets. 6. Clueless (1995) Based on Emma by Jane Austen A modern take on Jane Austen's classic novel Emma, Clueless follows Cher Horowitz, a wealthy high school student who fancies herself a matchmaker. The film's humor plays with the themes of social class and romantic misunderstandings, just as the book does, but it's given a fun 90s makeover that keeps things fresh and hilarious. 7. Dr. Strangelove (1964) Based on Red Alert by Peter George Stanley Kubrick's dark comedy Dr. Strangelove turns a serious Cold War thriller into a laugh-out-loud political satire. The novel Red Alert is a tense, realistic portrayal of nuclear war, but Kubrick's adaptation takes a satirical approach, focusing on the absurdity of the situation and the personalities involved, all while delivering a sharp comedic edge. 8. Mean Girls (2004) Based on Queen Bees and Wannabes by Rosalind Wiseman A high school comedy that is still quoted today, Mean Girls is based on Rosalind Wiseman's non-fiction book about teenage girls and the social cliques they form. The film, written by Tina Fey, amplifies the humor by exaggerating the drama of high school life, all while capturing the book's insight into the social dynamics of adolescent girls. 9. Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) Based on Fantastic Mr. Fox by Roald Dahl This stop-motion animation from Wes Anderson brings Roald Dahl's children's book to life in the most whimsical way possible. The story of a clever fox who outwits his animal enemies is filled with quirky humor and heartfelt moments. While the book is shorter and simpler, the film gives it a playful and distinctly Andersonian twist, making it a family comedy masterpiece. 10. Submarine (2010) Based on Submarine by Joe Dunthorne A quirky coming-of-age comedy, Submarine follows 15-year-old Oliver Tate as he navigates the trials of adolescence, relationships, and family. The novel has a dry, witty tone, and the film captures that perfectly, blending offbeat humor with heartfelt moments. It's an exploration of growing up, making mistakes, and finding humor in awkward situations. Whether they're turning a serious novel into a laugh-fest or bringing the humor of a comedy book to life, these adaptations show that literature and comedy make a perfect match. So, next time you're looking for a good laugh, why not check out the book first?
The Guardian
02-03-2025
- Business
- The Guardian
Relentless hunt for profits still not matching global popularity
When William Goldman wrote in his memoir Adventures in the Screen Trade that in Hollywood 'nobody knows anything', he coined a phrase that spoke directly to the chaos at the heart of the movie industry. It was a remark made in 1983, the year of classic movies such as Tootsie, Trading Places and Local Hero and an era when the box office was booming. The phrase came to mind this past week in the ballroom of the Peninsula hotel in London, where the great and the good and the rest of the global football industry gathered for the latest FT Business of Football Summit. Just like Hollywood in the early 80s, the football industry has a lot to shout about today. There is the success of the expanded Champions League (at least in the sense it has increased income for a greater number of clubs and nations). There is more power for clubs within the European system, a response in part to the Super League plot. There is the ubiquitous refrain that, in a world of limitless content, nothing does what live sport can. For the Premier League, it can even point to continued growth in the value of its media rights. Despite all this, the background noise was one of people scratching their heads. For all the brand awareness, the eyeballs and the solidarity payments, most in the business of football are struggling to make the whole thing profitable. When it comes to a diagnosis of the problems and the solutions that should be pursued, opinions differ wildly. Todd Boehly was the headline act and gave a distinctly low-energy tour around his thinking. For the Chelsea co-owner, the future is Netflix. Or at least, it is the Premier League striking a worldwide media rights deal with a global brand (like the MLS has with Apple or the NFL with DAZN). A one-stop shop for every fan across the world, the scale of the opportunity, Boehly thinks, means it has to be an option the league considers and is, in his opinion, 'where we're headed'. That is all well and good for the richest domestic football league in the world, but for others such an opportunity may not be viable. For clubs such as Marseille there need to be 'new ideas'. For their president, Pablo Longoria, that involves turning the Stade Vélodrome into a destination outside matches and making better use of 'digital opportunities'. For Sporting in Portugal and their executive André Bernardo, dynamic ticket pricing needs to be on the table. For Giorgio Chiellini, the legendary defender turned head of football institutional relations at Juventus, more games are inevitable, but the proceeds from those games should be shared. 'It's hard to go back and the direction of travel is more games,' he says. 'The only answer is more redistribution.' While every executive appears to have an idea on how to make things better, there is not a consensus on which approach is most likely to work. Equally, there is no agreement about the other end of the money puzzle: what regulations are necessary to create the holy grail of financial sustainability and competitive balance. A topic at the heart of the debate over the independent regulator for English football, it is something everyone in European football (including its American owners) says they want, but in their own way. For Richard Masters and the Premier League, the imposition of an independent regulator will be overly restrictive, with the 'unintended consequences' an even greater risk. For Charlie Marshall, chief executive of the European Club Association, which speaks for more than 700 men's and women's clubs, the concern is also 'over-regulation' and 'rules that don't allow for dynamism'. Sign up to Football Daily Kick off your evenings with the Guardian's take on the world of football after newsletter promotion For Fausto Zanetton, an Inter board member and investor, however, the focus must be instead on stemming losses, and for Ian Lynam, a leading sports lawyer, concerns over tighter regulation are outweighed by the risks of laxer rules. 'You can't say that more competitive balance means a better league,' he says, 'but a complete absence of it leads to destruction.' The lack of agreement was striking, as was the tendency for speakers to use the same terms ('financial stability and competitive balance' among them) to mean very different things. This reflects the problems of a sport that has never been more globally popular but is not generating revenues to match. But perhaps it also reveals the complicated and complex reasons why investors get into football in the first place. For all that sportswashing and financialisation may play a part, listening to owners and executives you also hear very strong personal motivations: a desire for legacy, for excitement and, even, for affection. The human component in any business decision, especially a business as emotional as football, is perhaps undervalued.
