Business Analytics Concentration

first_rodeo

first_rodeo

Active member
working with the IRS or the FBI in acct would blow in my opinion. its the definition of a desk job. you push paper. if thats for you then i'd go for it. not for me so im out.
 
If you like analytics that much your better off doing something like finance major and math minor or accounting major and finance minor.
 
idk why everybody is focusing on the FBI/IRS thing...it's just one avenue of MANY that you go pursue, as you know OP.

it's a strong dual major to have
 
in all truth any field in the business sector will not grow in the current economy. Until the debt issue is resolved the US has no growth possability.
 
Yeah I'd listen to this guy, he sounds like he has a clue about what he's talking about.

1378095315_laughter.gif


ari3_2.gif


Keep using those buzzwords you see in the newspaper bro, but learn how to spell first
 
I would rather look at unemployment than S&P. The biggest of the big companies will always perform better than the little guys, which isn't a great indication of how the economy as a whole is doing. They will find ways to make profits and make themselves look like theyre doing well.

But the business sector will do well, but it will take time.
 
Unemployment is so rigged. The real unemployment rate is way higher than obummers actual numbers he reports. They also changed the GDP calculation recently so it look like we have more growth than we cactually do
 
fuck i had nice response all written and deleted it by mistake, i don't feel like rewriting it so here is the condensed version.

unemployment is down 30% from its peak in 2010 and down 10% this year

The Russell 2000 has a one year return of 42% currently which is roughly 10% higher than the Russell 3000

how about instead of just reading the headlines of newspaper articles you actually look at the facts yourself and come to your own opinion

Quoting KravtZ$:

Unemployment is so rigged. The real unemployment rate is way higher than obummers actual numbers he reports.

i hate when people try and use this to show how much higher the unemployment rate is right now then ever before by comparing the"correct" unemployment rate now with the "rigged" unemployment rate from before. That is like trying to say Michael Jordan was a better athlete than Gretzky look at how many more points he scored every game! Yes, Jordan did score more points but it was a completely different game.

i am going to presume you are referring to the u6 rate which is at a staggering 13% right now almost double the current unemployment rate, but what you also need to consider is back in may 2007 when the official unemployment rate was 4.4% the u6 rate was 8.3%, higher than the official rate today.

There is nothing wrong with using the u6 rate, there are many strong arguments showing how t it better portrays unemployment, but if you going to use you cant compare it back the current official rate and act like the sky is falling

 
Look I am not saying anything about the current state of the economy, I am just stating I would trust unemployment over S&P. Regardless, there will be statistics and facts from both sides of the political system trying to prove certain points. I just dont trust S&P
 
please give me one reason why the s&p is not trust worthy? Do you think it is just chance that it is considered to be the most accurate representation of the economy?

 
The reason why the S&P 500 isn't the most accurate economic indicator, is because all it shows is an increase or decrease in stock prices. Sure, an increase shows high expectations for the future of the economy. But that's about it.. Low interest rates allow and greater and risker speculations to go on.

In this current environment, I don't think it's a good indicator. Why wouldn't the Federal Reserve taper if it believed that the economy is strong enough? It's because it's looking at unemployment and the labour participation rate.
 
There is this, and it is only involving the top 500 companies. The US economy is much more than 500 companies. These 500 companies may have felt SOME of the effects of the 2008 Crisis, but to believe that they were deeply affected like other smaller corporations is naive. Many have the power to bounce back quite quickly because many of these companies are multinational and have more than just the US as their consumers. Yes they may help drive the economy, but thats like saying the engine is the only important component of a car. You need much more for it to actually run. You need axels, wheels, gas, etc. Is it a helpful indicator? Sure. Is it the best? I would say in todays economy, no. You cannot look at one sole factor to judge the current economic state.

 
The entire economy is based on what people expect the future to be. Whenever someone hires an employee, builds a new factory, designs a new product, or invest in a company it is the belief that their will be demand for that product or service tomorrow.

Also the fed has started talks about tapering, they cant just start tapering at the first sign of recovery because the market doesnt like surprises and what they are doing right is making it so when they do start the taper it is as little of a shock as possible
 
Uhh...they didnt just have talks about tapering. They had talks about staving off tapering I believe. They dont want people to panic again. Could be wrong but this is what I recall from the October Fed Minutes.
 
Excuse me but is that english?

I believe Bernanke said he would not taper the monetary expansion. If you meant in your original post to say they discussed what to do, then yes. If you meant that they discussed tapering the monetary expansion, then I believe you are wrong. But please, if you want to listen to 40 minutes of them talking or read the 60? pages then be my guest.
 
They did say they will hold off currently.

"Also the fed has started talks about tapering,"

No where in that did i say they will be tapering simply that they have started talking about it. If they didn't discuss tapering monetary policy how would they come to conclusion to hold off temporarily?

 
I missed the Russell 2000 remarks earlier and I read too much into your statement about tapering. My mistake.

Still, I dont think two indications are indicative of how the general public feels. Remember, only a certain portion of the US can hold stocks due to monetary constraints.
 
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

this is the most absurd thing I have read in a long time.

most of our debt is owned by the us itself anyways

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top