Down goes the Dow

No, you are a dope with nothing to offer than the usual bull. Get it? Or is that too deep for you?

All you have is insults and lies. You are pathetic.

Oh, Snap!

K5 detector wrote:

Hey, K5, have you seen the movie "Norman"? I think you'd like it.

Now why would you "think" (to use that word loosely) that?

Explain to us again how someone moving out of the stock market to cash today, would have been better off following your assessment of the market 3 years ago.

mellon wrote:

Explain to us again how someone moving out of the stock market to cash today, would have been better off following your assessment of the market 3 years ago.

"By the completion of the current cycle, investors will likely relearn how erroneous and irrelevant it was to worry about “selling too early” in an extremely overvalued market. It’s worth remembering now that by the end of the 2000-2002 decline, the entire total return of the S&P 500, in excess of Treasury bills, had been wiped out all the way back to May 1996. By the end of the 2007-2009 collapse, the entire total return of the S&P 500, in excess of Treasury bills, had been wiped out all the way back to June 1995. Likewise, my expectation is that the completion of the current market cycle will wipe out the total returns of the S&P 500, in excess of Treasury bill returns, all the way back to roughly October 1997 (from the standpoint of of the recent bull market advance, that would also erase the entire total return of the S&P 500, in excess of Treasury bill returns, since late-2009). This outcome would not even require the most reliable valuation measures to breach historical norms that they have revisited in virtually every market cycle, even those associated with very low interest rates. See Durable Returns, Transient Returns for a reminder of how all of this works."

--John Hussman, Weekly Commentary 7/31/2017

Speaking of nothing, that's exactly what Hussman gives us. He's guessing again and, if his track record is any indication, he'll be wrong again. Or is it different this time?

One hundred and thirty years of market history says I am right and you are wrong.

Your history of being wrong says you are wrong --- again.

Walrus Gumboot wrote:

Your history of being wrong says you are wrong --- again.

"At the height of the technology bubble, the median of the most reliable market valuation measures we follow (those most strongly correlated with actual subsequent S&P 500 total returns) briefly reached an apex 178% above historical norms that had been regularly approached or breached over the completion of every market cycle in history. That level of valuation implied a prospective market loss of (1/(1+1.78)-1 = ) -64% as the bubble collapsed. In real-time, I suggested, based on related measures, that prospective market losses would likely be tiered, with tech stocks losing about -83%, the S&P 500 losing more than half of its value. As it happened, the 2000-2002 collapse took the S&P 500 down by 50%, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq 100 Index lost an oddly precise -83%. Smaller capitalization stocks suffered less extensive losses due to better valuations, as they had materially lagged the large-cap indices during the late-stages of that bubble."

John Hussman, Weekly Commentary 7/31/2017

Walrus Gumboot wrote:

Your history of being wrong says you are wrong --- again.

"In April 2007, I estimated that an appropriate valuation for the S&P 500 stood about 850, roughly -40% lower than prevailing levels. By the October peak, the prospective market loss to normal valuation had increased to about -46%. As it happened, the subsequent collapse of the housing bubble took the S&P 500 about -55% lower."

--John Hussman, Weekly commentary 7/31/2017

How can selling today be selling to late? You can't read.

Clearly selling 3 years ago vs today was not better. I'm sure your investors realize it.

It is impossible for the broad group known as investors to exit the market. Someone has to own each share of stock through each moment in time. So what happened even seven years ago matters little. And that is an average reversion to mean.

Johnny Hussman wrote:

And that is an average reversion to mean.

Once again Igy displays his lack of understanding of basic mathematics and statistics.

Walrus Gumboot wrote:

Speaking of nothing, that's exactly what Hussman gives us. He's guessing again and, if his track record is any indication, he'll be wrong again. Or is it different this time?

Hussman has made a couple of well-publicized predictions that were correct. However, given his propensity for incorrect predictions, those that were correct would have to be chalked up to "dumb luck." Even a blind squirrel occasionally finds an acorn.

Johnny Hussman wrote:

It is impossible for the broad group known as investors to exit the market. Someone has to own each share of stock through each moment in time. So what happened even seven years ago matters little. And that is an average reversion to mean.

So I assume the message you are trying to convey is, "Yes" being out of the market for the past 3 years was better than getting out today.

No comment needed!!

mellon wrote:

Johnny Hussman wrote:

It is impossible for the broad group known as investors to exit the market. Someone has to own each share of stock through each moment in time. So what happened even seven years ago matters little. And that is an average reversion to mean.

So I assume the message you are trying to convey is, "Yes" being out of the market for the past 3 years was better than getting out today.

No comment needed!!

Yes!! Especially when you say something irrelevant.

Igy, you sound more stupid every day.