We’re Expecting Stocks to Rally

But . . .


An oldie but a goodie . . .

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web:
  1. Paul commented on Sep 12

    How are the trolls today?

  2. Michael C. commented on Sep 12

    It looks like oil is coming down and the market foresees more plasma TV’s being bought en masse to save the economy.

  3. Robert Coté commented on Sep 12

    I’m getting a plasma for my office. I’m tired of hearing about Barry’s latest bad haircut or thrift store tie. I wanna see for myself.

    Seriously, it is time to watch the Black Friday indicators for signs. Last year looked like a last gasp but people kept right on spending. Christmas was “lower than predicted” after the fact. Again. Just like the previous 4 years but not bad. This year… like I said watch the signs. Today’s little voice in my head is telling me that even with lower energy prices there just is no more blood in the consumer turnip. Particularly stagnant housing prices and mortgage adjustments. Stocks and retirement (stocks) contributions are going to deccline before people start missing house payments.

  4. Barry Ritholtz commented on Sep 12

    bad haircuts, yes – thrift store tie? NEVER

  5. saltwater commented on Sep 12

    Thinking of adding to gold position since Barry, Hussman and Mauldin (and evidently the Dallas Fed) believe inflation is higher than currently indicated. Only question is….. do I wade in or hold my nose and jump?

  6. Jdamon commented on Sep 12

    Anyone see a dead cat bounce on XLE?

    Also, be careful about underestimating the consumer. With oil down a good 50 cents per gallon in the last 3 -4 weeks, people are feeling a little better about spending some extra $$ on goodies like Ipods, PC peripherals, digi cams, etc. Lots of neat stuff out there and since no one is spending any money buying a bigger and better (read more expensive) house anytime soon, they may go a little crazy at Xmas. I predict a strong one.

  7. Jdamon commented on Sep 12

    Oh, forgot to mention the PS3 which I am definetly going to buy. $599.00 and $59.00 for each title is hefty, but if youv’e spent anytime looking at what the Next Gen console can do, you will be uterly amazed at the graphics and realism of this system. Virtua Tennis literaly looks like the real thing. As usual, the sports titles will rock, but it is the other games (RPG’s, FPS’ers, etc.) that will be blowing people away with their complexity and depth.

  8. KirkH commented on Sep 12

    Bah, Sony is dead in the water. Most people aren’t going to pay $600 in mid ’07 to play virtual tennis. As a programmer, word on the street is that it’s just too hard to get performance out of the box.

    Christmas is toast. People are using their credit cards to buy stuff because their house/ATM has finally run out of steam. That’s not a good sign any way you spin it.

  9. Tom W. commented on Sep 12


    It’s Debussy – Suite bergamasque, movement III – “Claire de lune”, or “Moonlight”

  10. Mike commented on Sep 12

    Michael C.,

    Could you please forward me the memo? I was unaware that we were still buying, what with all the looming dangers.

    Thanks in advance,

  11. JGarcia commented on Sep 12

    Question for the group:

    Which do you view as the “tougher” 6 month pair trade basket?

    Buy/Short: CSCO, C, and KBH


    Buy/Short: PD, CVX, RIO

  12. permabull commented on Sep 12

    The cartoon might better be reworded as:-

    We think some of the S&P 500 companies that have shown strong earnings and dividend growth over the last 10 to 15 years – and have good histories of constant double digit ROE and ROIC – represent the best value they’ve shown in the last 7 or 8 years.

    There’s only a handful, but anyone can work out which ones they are by doing a screen on the wonderful modern free internet software such as MSN Money.

    Regrettably, no one has any idea if any of these handful are going to rally any time soon.

    However, the long history of justified dividend increases for these companies should provide comfort – as the only aim is to acquire money to live on at a fair price.

  13. bgates commented on Sep 12

    Jason, of course that’s what he’s going to talk about. You’re at the UN, you talk about your commitment to human rights. You’re in the NAR, you talk about rising home values.

  14. Eclectic commented on Sep 12

    To: Tom W.

    Thanks! You’re a scholar and a gentleman…. and you saved me from going daffy trying to place where I’d heard it.


  15. ~ Nona commented on Sep 12

    Permabull, you make sense. As usual.

    Cherry, you disagreed with a comment I made re: salaries actually paid. Well, turns out you were (are) on target. In case you didn’t visit and read my amendment, I’ll summarize: I know the actual amounts that some people are accepting compared to what they earned in the past. Their skills, while strong, aren’t specialized. Their salaries? Lower — in two cases, substantially lower — than their past earnings.

    Mea culpa.

  16. ~SingingFirebird commented on Sep 12

    Saltwater, love to know what you finally decide re: gold. Don’t be shy about telling us!

    I’m in GLD and for better or worse (but for worse, right now) have decided to ride this bronco.

    I’ve endured worse….

  17. Eclectic commented on Sep 13

    Suppose the following:

    1 – Suppose you placed a used automobile for sale in your driveway, with a sign: ‘For Sale – $15,000’…

    2 – Suppose the vehicle had a book value of $11,000, at best, and that only when in top, near-perfect condition, and that there’d been thousands of them sold in your regional market area. Suppose no bank had ever loaned more than $11,000 for a used automobile like yours.

    Do you suppose anything I’ve written so far would deny you the possibility, even if small, that someone might just pay you the $15,000 you ask?

    However, let’s think and review a moment. Would your buyer have been foolish to offer and pay 15K?… in who’s opinion?… the buyer’s?…. yours?…. the market’s?

    Suppose the president of the United States, or the chairman of the Fed, or the secretary of the Treasury decided to intervene in this potential sale. Suppose any one of them, or all of them, were to come forward and make a statement about the pending sale; for example: about the price you’re asking, or the price your potential buyer is offering.

    Would it be justified for them to claim your asking price was fair?… and, whether it was or not in their personal and private view (possibly undisclosed by them), would it be justified for them to support you in obtaining it; that is, to encourage the buyer to pay your price?

    Would the market be better off or worse off for the expression of their optimism in support of you? It’s unquestionably true that you would be better off, but would the buyer be as well?

    What’s a worse outcome when a disinterested public authority figure intervenes in markets?… that you might fail to get your price, or that the buyer might overpay?

    Is there anything wrong with an individual when they say that the potential buyer would be foolish to offer and pay 15K?

    Having said that, should an individual have to endure claims that, because of their failure to agree with the seller’s offering price (and thus being viewed as failing in some way to be optimistic for the benefit of the seller) they are simply mocking the seller’s interpretation of value?

  18. permabull commented on Sep 13

    Not at all, anon.

    Sadly, unlike our cartoon broker, I’ve yet to meet an equities broker who was stumped for any sort of recommendation that would generate commission.

    The cartoon broker gets one point for uncharacteristic honesty – but loses it immediately for characteristic short termism.

    And, as you say, the markets will fall eventually – they always do.

    And when they do, good companies become good value once more.

    I’ve never thought of that as a problem.

Posted Under