Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Don't be sad....I can assure you will be at 20,000 before you know it.....in 2022......
So almost 3% annual growth over the next 6 years? Not great, but not bad. It's certainly better than what the pessimists are calling for.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Don't be sad....I can assure you will be at 20,000 before you know it.....in 2022......
So almost 3% annual growth over the next 6 years? Not great, but not bad. It's certainly better than what the pessimists are calling for.
Mango,
Agreed, if we get there.
The cyclical high in 2000 was March (1553), you did not get back to even until October 2007 (1576). The next point of back to even was March of 2013 (1570). The market then went on a run up to 2134 driven largely by Federal Reserve easy money programs.
So the pessimists projections may in the end be accurate.
Igy
You really have a hard time making up your mind.
Maserati wrote:Off for a week, to go laugh at an overpriced beachfront condo, and do some architecture and engineering, with time off for skiing and sailing.
Maybe I'll report live from la-la-land.
You in Vancouver this week? Me too.
Mango,
OK, I have made up my mind, from John Hussman's Weekly commentary 3/8/2016:
"Last week, the most historically reliable equity valuation measures we identify (having correlations of over 90% with actual subsequent 10-12 year S&P 500 total returns) advanced to more than double their reliable historical norms. When valuations have been near those historical norms, the S&P 500 has generally followed with average nominal total returns of about 10% annually. In contrast, current valuations are associated with expected 10-12 year total returns of about zero, with negative expected returns on both horizons after inflation."
Igy
It looks like Hussman made up your mind for you. If you could think for yourself you'd know Hussman's resume is not so hot.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Mango,
OK, I have made up my mind, from John Hussman's Weekly commentary 3/8/2016:
"Last week, the most historically reliable equity valuation measures we identify (having correlations of over 90% with actual subsequent 10-12 year S&P 500 total returns) advanced to more than double their reliable historical norms. When valuations have been near those historical norms, the S&P 500 has generally followed with average nominal total returns of about 10% annually. In contrast, current valuations are associated with expected 10-12 year total returns of about zero, with negative expected returns on both horizons after inflation."
Igy
I would guess that the correlation they found between high valuations and low returns...has broken down over the last 25 years.
Which is always the strange thing - something happened 20-30 years ago that have parked valuations fairly high historically. Sometimes they have led to poor returns, sometimes they haven't.
valuations are important but one thing they aren't is a hard and fast rule.
For the record and the win year-to-date it is........JOHN HUSSMAN:
Hussman Strategic Dividend Value +6.16%
Hussman Strategic Growth +2.57%
Dow Jones Industrial Average -1.64%
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
For the record and the win year-to-date it is........JOHN HUSSMAN:
Hussman Strategic Dividend Value +6.16%
Hussman Strategic Growth +2.57%
Dow Jones Industrial Average -1.64%
Igy
are you the troll igy?
I don't think Igy would have boosted Hussman's performance, since he has perhaps the worst record in the business.
Hussman Strategic Growth
10 years
-3.61% per year
bond benchmark: +4.74% per year
Sp500: +6.86% per yera
abysmal
"This time is truly different of course. That is why earnings are cratering, and we (Wall Street) still believe in the miraculous God given expansion of the second half. And of course it is why we maintain our more than constructive view on the market and our year end target of $120 earnings and S&P 500 2,175.
Please pay no mind that we have been wrong for the last fifteen months. Keep in mind that we always mark things up 8-10%. Well why? The equity markets always deliver 8-10% returns.
The evil nabobs of negativism are never right. The last fifteen years of 4% equity returns is an aberration. And for this year, we would be doing great if we could just eliminate any sector that wasn't performing. Like energy. And those consumers that aren't spending their oil savings windfall it is Trump and Sanders. Darn those guys.
Anyhow, keep the faith, buy and hold, dollar cost average, do what every it takes, but please don't sell your stocks."
Joe Throwsthedart, Wall Street Analyst
er, the last 15 years of the vanguard total stock market index have been much better than 4% - it's up to 5.72% per year. Not great but not hussman like at all.
agip,
No it's me. I am more interested in where things are going than where we have been.
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
agip,
No it's me. I am more interested in where things are going than where we have been.
Igy
unconvinced but ok.
but then why do you talk only about past earnings?
agip,
The trend in earnings says something about the direction of the market.
My comment about the Hussman funds was more about the investment process and the current environment. For example one poster was touting the Morgan Stanley Growth Fund several months ago. The fund managers is very good, and the retail fund was the top performing fund in 2014, somewhere in excess of 45% on the year. The managers process was to over weight momentum names, and typically ran better than 30% of the money into five holdings. Well that fund is down 10% on the year. That is not indictment of the investment per se, but more of an indication of the investment climate.
Today people will freely criticize Hussman, and I imagine some of that is the investment climate. I suppose many of the winners of the past cycle will find slim pickings and see plenty of criticism if we have a 2000 or 2009 market.
Igy
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
agip,
The trend in earnings says something about the direction of the market.
hasn't the market been up in recent weeks?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
agip,
The trend in earnings says something about the direction of the market.
Igy
sometimes. Sometimes not.
in 2009 earnings had gone negative. Meaning the sp500 LOST money. Unbelievable stuff. So by 'follow the earnings' logic, you would think that would a bad time to buy stocks. But actually it was the best time in years. Stocks doubled in four years or something like that.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
For the record and the win year-to-date it is........JOHN HUSSMAN:
Hussman Strategic Dividend Value +6.16%
Hussman Strategic Growth +2.57%
Dow Jones Industrial Average -1.64%
Igy
I think he had a good year in 2009 too. In between it's been utter carp.
agip,
Trend, my friend. Some facts:
3/2000 S&P 500 Top
09/2000 peak earnings
12/2001 trough earnings
10/2002 S&P 500 Bottom
06/2007 peak earnings
10/2007 S&P 500 Top
03/2009 trough earnings
03/2009 S&P 500 Bottom
09/2014 peak earnings
05/2015 S&P 500 Top
..? trough earnings
..? S&P 500 Bottom
Igy
There are already plenty of managers having in your words having an utterly crap year so far. In fact every Wall Street analyst had an utterly crap year in 2015 and so far in 2016.
So there you go.
Yurtre,
Earnings peaked 09/2015, market peaked 04/2015. Correlation?
Igy