Media Appearance: Kudlow & Company (2/1/07)



Back in the studio tonite, at 5:15
– 5:30pm
.  The topics will include earnings, as well as the big post Fed market rally, GDP, Chicago PMI and other amusing economic data.

The positives:

The overall earnings picture, the rally in the Transports, strength in Industrials;

The negatives:

Weak technology showing, disappointing guidance, suspect  GDP strength (weak business spending, inventory build up, consumer spending issues); Poor Chicago PMI, ISM, bad GM/Ford sales, the ratio of Household debt to disposable income is now at 131%.

Other panelists include the Fritz Meyer, senior investment officer with A I M Advisors, and the very bullish J.J. Burns, of JJ Burns & Company.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

What's been said:

Discussions found on the web:
  1. Fred commented on Feb 1

    It looks like you stopped early on the “positives”…let me add:

    -benign inflation
    -resilient consumer
    -falling inventories
    -robust commercial paper market
    -tight spreads (credit sound)
    -pristine corp balance sheets
    -ginourmous liquidity (global)
    -RISING tax reciepts
    -stable dollar
    -huge short interest and put call

    Shall I continue?

  2. Fred commented on Feb 1

    And don’t forget the (now positive) January Effect.

  3. Eclectic commented on Feb 1

    Here you go, BR… Here’s the deal, if you wish to accept it.

    If the 10-year U.S. Treasury Bond closes at a higher yield than 5.250% (be sure to notice the decimals) on the last business day of 2007, I’ll send you $100 worth of CDs or DVDs of your choice…


    If it closes **at or under** a yield of 5.250% on the last business day of 2007, you go on Kudlow and cluck like a chicken, waving your wings, and say it’s a payoff to Eclectic.

    Do we have a deal?

  4. Bob A commented on Feb 1

    Is Larry Kudlow’s show really about economics or is it just propoganda/marketing for the rightwing agenda of giveaways for the rich and takeaways from the poor?

    Somebody’s gonna have to explain to me someday why rich people spending their taxcuts on Hummers, Yachts, Vacation homes, or sending their daughters to Rio for their birthdays, is any better for the economy than middle class people spending tax cuts on consumer goods or lowering their credit card balances, or poor people spending their minimum wage increase on rent, food or cigarettes.

  5. BDG123 commented on Feb 1

    Fred, you need to do a little investigation before you post things you cannot defend. You are called on the map yet you keep doing it. You really come across as …….. well ….. not on the ball. The put/call ratio is not bullish right now. Go to Stockcharts and look. You have no evidence the consumer is resilient. Especially from the recent economic data which gives a fair amount of anecdotal evidence that statement is suspect. If this cycle’s growth was based on positive inflation, now that it is gone, how does that mean global growth is ok? Tight credit spreads mean nothing. They never give anything away until the shit hits the fan and you keep quoting it. Where do you find in history that liquidity always props up stock markets? That is absolutely false and I can prove it with historical evidence time and again. Similarly, where do balance sheets point to stock returns? I could give you many examples where that is invalid. Frankly, your list is worthless and you just don’t seem to know a whole lot about factors that affect equities. You might think you look brilliant with this constant parroting but instead you sound like the Cockatoo named Fred on TV repeating the same ridiculous baloney. Baloney which cannot be proven to correlate to anything you are defending. I mean really. Do you ever endeavor to learn what you are talking about?

  6. Mr. Bubbles commented on Feb 1

    benign inflation, Fred?

    Inflation ain’t “benign” where I live. But if it makes you feel better to trust the garbage that comes out of the BLS, go right ahead.

    Interesting that you see both “ginourmous liquidity (global)” and “benign inflation”. Care to clarify?

  7. Teddy commented on Feb 1

    Fred, you seem to have a lot of zest for foreign trade and more specifically, US trade deficits. Did you ever consider applying for a job as a lobbyist in Washington for a major foreign government? Polly want a cracker?

  8. RB commented on Feb 1

    Could you please explain what you mean by this:

    “If this cycle’s growth was based on positive inflation, now that it is gone, how does that mean global growth is ok?”

  9. Barry Ritholtz commented on Feb 1


    I said IF it gets over 5.25, it could see 6.0%

    I don’t care where it is on December 31st —
    its how the 10 year travels the rest of the year

    But if you want to bet if it will break 5.249% — well, that is intriguing

  10. Craig commented on Feb 1

    Oh it can happen alright. You don’t need a chart, but logic works.
    For a plain language version Bill Cara does a nice job of explaining the scenario so I lifted his link.

    I hope he doesn’t mind the traffic. The timeline is subject to variation, but the process is the same, over and over again.

    I’m 52 today, unfortunately I’ve seen this happen a few times. It’s always the same and it’s never pretty.

  11. Clark Kent commented on Feb 2

    BDG…you are clearly one of the most stupid and angry people I have ever read. You constantly post unintelligible drivel. Do you actually read the shit you post? Try fininshing just one thought per post. Clearly you hit the acid one too many times.

    Do you beat your dog?

  12. BDG123 commented on Feb 2

    Why coming from Superman, I consider that a compliment. The all knowing protector of everything good coming to the defense of the parrot. How, pray tell, do you know if I’m angry? Because YOU read my writing style and INTERPRET it that way. Maybe that means you are angry. You know, it is those who appear to show now emotion who are the trouble makers in society. All of that pent up anger.

    Would you care to tell me what was unintelligible about stating none of the supporting post points have any correlation to an argument that is being defended repeatedly with the same data points? Would you care to defend the argument that those data points are historically accurate representations of anything valuable? Or, are you really the parrot in disguise?

Posted Under