Media Appearence: Cavuto on Business (7/3/04)


A heads up: I’ll be appearing on on Fox Saturday (Cavuto on Business @ 10:30am EST).

The topics will be the Fed interest rate hikes, energy dependence, Jobs and (of course) the markets. This is a full half hour show (a sopposed to a 9 minute market segment), so perhaps I’ll be able to spit out something more than a snappy soundbite.

In addition to the usual suspects, Uber-Bear Bill Fleckenstein will be on the show — he has a terrific track record, so I suggest at least listening to his arguments. Also, Stephen Moore, president for the Club for Growth, discusses his recent conversion to Socialism. Turns out that a recently discovered math error led to some conclusions which turned out to be incorrect. that’s my warped attempt at humor

Should be fun . . .

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web:
  1. skeptic commented on Jul 2

    How did you con people into paying you for writing this crap?

    “we will likely enjoy an excellent earnings season, and strong employment numbers tomorrow.”

    two days later:

    “Jobless numbers came in quite light this morning at 112,000…the economy needs to add about 150,000 jobs per month just to keep up with the population growth of the labor pool.”

    Seriously, Barry, I have nothing at all against you, and I really enjoy reading your stuff, but you are no more or less accurate than most of the posters on the Yahoo stock message boards. The difference being, you apparently get paid for it as “Chief Market Strategist for a global money management firm” (Ka Chingo!) whereas they just get their blood pressure up.

    Do you ever have to be right to be a “Chief Market Strategist for a global money management firm”? Or do you just have to get publicity by spouting your nonsense on Cavuto?

    One last point; hopefully you agree that in addition to the underlying fundementals of the economy and the actual performance of specific companies, investor psychology plays a big role in actual market fluctuations. Given that there are fundementally different players involved in today’s markets (most notably small investors, hedge funds and foreign investors) than those of even 20 years ago, doesn’t that make the historical comparisons you are so fond of even more suspect?

  2. Barry Ritholtz commented on Jul 2

    “Often wrong, rarely in doubt.”

    Look, I get paid to make market calls — and my track record in that respect has been pretty damned good — indeed, better than most.

    And, I’ve made enough calls recently (more than most) that i caught many of the little squiggles, not just the big trend: From Bullish in May 2003 to cautious in October to outright negative on January 22 2004, then Bullish March 22, Neutral Mid-April, to Bullish on May 17, to 3 days ago when I wrote we could see the an intermediate low sometime in July.

    Those are the calls I get paid for (and not nearly enough, IMHO)

    There’s nothing wrong with being wrong; There is however, something very wrong with staying wrong. The facts changed, conditions were altered, so I changed my perspective. What do you do?

    Lastly, I’m happy to discuss these issues with anyone who uses an email address or lists theiur website. I will not spend time debating anonymous trolls.

    If you want to challenge me — the last time you did about NRO, you were wrong without nary a “My Bad” — that’s fine, but at least have the courage of your convictions (show a little spine).

    Real email addresses in the future . . .

  3. Pete Harrigan commented on Jul 2

    I don’t always agree with what you write, especially with regard to the war, but this bears saying:

    Being right is hard.

    I’ve always thought the easiest job would be to be one of those guys who explains why the market did what it did AFTER the close. Publicly guessing about the future, on the other hand, guarantees you will be wrong sometime.

    Keep swingin’, Barry.

  4. Barry Ritholtz commented on Jul 2

    Hey Pete,

    Thanks for the encouraging thoughts. A kind word is always appreciated.

    Just so you know from whence my views are coming from on the War,
    its somewhat nuanced and has shifted over the past 18 months.

    I was pro-invasion — but have been deeply disappointed at the incompetent execution by the civilian leadership.

    Not the military, who did a superb job — but those non-military personnel who failed to learn many of the simple lessons of Viet nam: Don’t micromanage, give the military clear military (not political) goals, give the Pentagon what they say they need and get out of the way so they can do their jobs. That didn’t happen.

    Take a look at this pre-war report I did for the office in March 2003
    that may give you some insight into my perspectives.

    I’m frustrated that we did such a half-assed job. As a strategist, I cannot understand such an undertaking with essentially no strategy for the post-war occupation. Its dumbfounding to me . . .

    Have a happy and safe 4th of July weekend!

  5. NeoDude commented on Jul 2

    “Also, Stephen Moore, president for the Club for Growth, discusses his recent conversion to Socialism. Turns out that a recently discovered math error led to some conclusions which turned out to be incorrect.”

    you had me…

  6. Rosemarie Schottenbauer commented on Apr 23

    All this talk about privatizing SS accounts. Although I am 72 and retired, I am fully vested in Soc Sec, and also retired from Civil Service. However, because I get a civil service retirement check, I cannot get SS. I get a big, fat, $117 a month. Had I had the opportunity of investing instead of paying into SS I would certainly have been further ahead, don’t you think?

  7. Barry Ritholtz commented on Apr 23

    Why Rosemarie is commenting on a year old post? Me thinks this is a troll posting — or maybe a big fat prevaricator:

    $117 a month for fully vested? That sounds like a bunch of hooey. What sort of an absurd pension pays $1500 per year?

    If you are civil service and assuming your claim that “you are ineligible for Social Security,” well that means that you didn’t pay FICA, a healthy chunk of everyone else’s payroll. How did you invest that money?

    Unless your collective bargaining agreement was so bad that you paid into a system that you were unable to collect from.

    Either way, someting is wrong with this picture . . .

    As to whether you “certainly have been further ahead” — how did you do in the markets otherwise? Lemme guess — you bought late in 1998, rode some hot bubble stocks up, and then all the way down for a huge net loss. You are still sitting in AOL, SUNW, CSCO plus a half dozen worthless dotcoms.

  8. Rosemarie Schottenbauer commented on Dec 16

    I just did a google search on myself and found this!! Yes Barry Ritholtz, my SS check is still $117! The small raises I got in 2005 and 2006 were so teeny that increases in Medicare premiums ate them up. So I got $117 in 2005 and $117 in 2006. Yes I was working in high school and college and paying FICA, so I had more than my 40 quarters, which made me fully vested in Social Security, but I retired from Federal Civil Service, I am penalized because according to SS, I cannot get 2 government checks even if I earned them. Had I been retired from XYZ company and receiving a pension check from them, I still would have been able to get a SS check. BTW I may be fat, but I am not a liar!! Sorry this is so late, but I just found it.

Posted Under