Who?
Who?
Hussman has been calling for a bear market since 2009. Anyone who listened to him missed a big opportunity.
I have heard that statement from numerous posters here. That says nothing about the high quality of information on his site.
Igy
"Noting that Hussman was calling stocks “overvalued†back in 2003 in the period following the 2001-2002 tech collapse, (Servo's Eric) Nelson calculates that Hussman’s fund earned a total of 3% from January 2003 until October of (2014).
A balanced 65/35 fund earned nearly 183% net of fees during the same period.
Nelson calls this 14-year-plus result “one of the worst stock market performances in modern history.â€"
To the bears on the thread (Igy, Maserati), is the past few weeks' trend just a glitch in their downward trend, or are the markets headed back steadily upward?
Face,
You are like a lot of investors, it reminds me of the Wayne Gretsky quote: "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been."
By the way here is Hussman's YTD performance:
Hussman Strategic Dividend +4.53%
Hussman Strategic Growth +3.91%
S&P 500 -5.09%
Good luck with your views though.
Igy
If his investments reflect the information on his site, then it's not high quality.
" Hussman’s persistently poor performance is an object lesson in the futility of trying to outsmart the market, a temptation to which some very smart people succumb either through security selection or market timing.
So while Hussman, seeking to avoid an overvalued market, minimized shareholder damage with a mere 9% loss in 2008 compared to the nearly 26% loss of a balanced 65% stock / 35% bond portfolio, the hubris of market timing ultimately redounded to the disadvantage of Hussman’s shareholders.
That, Nelson illustrates through the 29.1% loss Hussman’s shareholders have suffered over the period January 2008 through October 2014. In other words, Hussman won the battle of 2008, avoiding the worst market carnage that year, while losing the war played out over a lengthy recovery in which that same balanced fund gained 43.5%, a performance gap of greater than 70%."
long time,
Don't look at the direction of the market as an indicator of future returns. Look at valuations and earnings. Earnings peaked 3rd Quarter 2014, 4th Quarter 2015 earnings are 17.5% lower. Analyst earnings projections continue to be lowered. Stock valuations remain at a historically high level. Markets are currently being driven by short term trading.
Igy
Face,
Read my Gretsky quote one more time. Look at Hussman's current performance one more time.
Draw your own conclusions.
And good luck.
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:long time,
Don't look at the direction of the market as an indicator of future returns. Look at valuations and earnings. ...
Igy
That completely avoids my question. Glitch in downward slide, or indicative of real upward trend?
Reading between the lines I think you are saying this is a glitch, and markets are headed steadily lower. But I just want to be clear on what you think.
long time idiot investor wrote:
To the bears on the thread (Igy, Maserati), is the past few weeks' trend just a glitch in their downward trend, or are the markets headed back steadily upward?
I'm not "a bear", but I am risk-averse as far as my market participation goes.
In the current environment, IMO risk is not priced appropriately, especially in higher-risk bonds. Are you kidding me? I would need 35-50% on many of those issues to make them worth even thinking about.
I see risks in equities, too, but not to the same extent. As far as equities are concerned, big risks arise from currency exposure, and debt servicing, and that's real companies. When it comes to glam companies (story stocks), an added risk is that investor sentiment falls and people take profits.
I just don't think it's priced properly. In moving that 401k to a CD fund, I took some risk off for the next while. My guess for the year was 16k-17k range. The bottom of that range has held up very well so far, and the top is being tested at the moment. When I got out, it was at about 16.9k level.
I won't rebalance back into equities until I see something sustained above maybe 17.3k, not just a few forays into the mid-17 region.
Do I think that kind of sustained gain will happen? Many people believe this reprieve is due to shorts, and certainly there is some of that--but there is also the fact that money has nowhere else to go. EM's are screwed, bonds are screwed, RE takes work, derivatives are overloaded, etc. So people/institutions/funds look for reasons to be in the market, and to help the market higher. There is a huge bias in favor of market participation, IMO.
So do I think the required gain will happen? I don't know, and I won't have to know until the election cycle is complete. I can afford to sit on the sidelines with that account until then. I might lose out on a bit of gain, but that is the price for the peace of mind I gain.
And even if such a gain does manifest, and I did get back in, I would likely get out before the election in the fall--again, because it is a riskier time.
So not bearish, but risk-averse. If you want to characterize as bearish my belief that risk is underpriced, then yes I am bearish.
Here's another Gretzky quote: "You miss 100% of the shots you never take."
Follow Hussman's proven failed advice to sit on the sidelines and risk missing more positive returns.
long time,
Sure. My apologies. Earnings are trending down. So, I view the rise in the market as short term institutional traders riding each other's trades. So I think the next big move is down.
Igi
some charts on the improving employment situation
Face,
Quote from Igy: "Believe what you wish, but be prepared to bear the consequences."
Igy
Stop it agip, you're driving me insane.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-04/over-80-jobs-added-january-were-minimum-wage-earners
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-04/over-80-jobs-added-january-were-minimum-wage-earners
I thought I could count on your agreement to not do this, but apparently I was mistaken.
Take-home pay down, withholding taxes down, people not making living wage. As far as labor force participation rates go, like I said, they are at historic lows. The micronic "uptick" we just recently saw in the government figure could easily be due to discouraged workers looking for a job for the first time in a long time, NOT because people are actually employed.
BOTH employed and unemployed but looking are included in the labor force figure.
Stop it, you're driving me insane! You are the one who just throws your sunny side out there, apparently without thinking about it on any level deeper than simple validation.
I know you're a bright guy, but I think that sometimes you let your optimism get the better of you. A more balanced, or nuanced (gag) view might serve you better.
Or not! What do I know.
BTW I'm all for optimism, if it leads to periodic rate hikes.
Like I said, sometimes policy should lead, not follow.
It's funny that you chastise agip while your counterargument is a mishmash of "ifs", "maybes", and "mights". You don't have a leg to stand on.
Maserati wrote:
Stop it agip, you're driving me insane.
.
right back at you, M
Maserati,
The economy is in the process of rolling over. It will be apparent to all soon enough.
Igy