Ignore the Pundits

On a slow day / week, I tend to gaze at CNBC more often. Lately, there have been a couple of things that annoy me. First are these so-called pundits who come on and say they expect the market to be "not as bad" next year as 2008.

Duh! 2008 was one of the worst years in history. I expect 2009 to be a double-digit up year, albeit it with above-average volatility. That is far better than "not as bad".

Second, many of these strategists say very matter of factly that "the market could go down a bit and retest the lows" in the near-term. Let's clarify. The lows on the SPX were 741. That means it would take a -18% plunge to retest those lows. I'm not saying that won't happen, but since when is an 18% dive a "little retest"?

Last, to me the notion that Madoff could have pulled off this whole ponzi scheme by himself is ludicrous. I can barely keep up with all the trades, reconciliation, statements, reports, etc. for my small firm. For one person to accomplish this while managing tens of billions of dollars is simply not humanly possible. Especially for a guy like Madoff who was always travelling, marketing, socializing, etc.

Memo to CNBC: get a clue.

Now that I got that off my chest, I want to wish a Happy New Year to everyone.

long SSO

Comments

[Ferdinand E...:]

Ignore the pundits you say. That reminds me of something Professor Kenneth Arrow of Stanford University once said. He did some weather forecasting in Europe for the Air Force during WW2, and on one occasion his superior told him: "Yes, we know that the forecasts are terrible, but what would we do without them."

Jan 01 09:17 AM

[Randy Miller:]

I am getting more and more annoyed with CNBC. The only person I find reliable in their lineup is Erin Burnett. When we are looking for calm rational analysis, we get screaming entertainers like Cramer, or the fawning questions of the guys on Squawk box. When they interviewed Liddy from AIG, he kept saying the retention bonuses were necessary because they needed to bribe these guys to stay with AIG, and portrayed the retention bonuses as different than regular bonuses. Liddy must think we are idiots, because ALL bonuses are for the purpose of retaining talent. He is simply sliding the word retention in there to distract us from the fact that AIG is still giving people big bonuses while facing huge losses, losses financed by our tax dollars. DId the Squawk box interviewers bore in on that. No, they just let him repeat his rationale four times, and NEVER challenged him. I would think we could find some objective business reporters out there, but apparently the people running CNBC cannot do that.

Jan 01 05:45 PM

[Randy Miller:]

I am getting more and more annoyed with CNBC. The only person I find reliable in their lineup is Erin Burnett. When we are looking for calm rational analysis, we get screaming entertainers like Cramer, or the fawning questions of the guys on Squawk box. When they interviewed Liddy from AIG, he kept saying the retention bonuses were necessary because they needed to bribe these guys to stay with AIG, and portrayed the retention bonuses as different than regular bonuses. Liddy must think we are idiots, because ALL bonuses are for the purpose of retaining talent. He is simply sliding the word retention in there to distract us from the fact that AIG is still giving people big bonuses while facing huge losses, losses financed by our tax dollars. DId the Squawk box interviewers bore in on that. No, they just let him repeat his rationale four times, and NEVER challenged him. I would think we could find some objective business reporters out there, but apparently the people running CNBC cannot do that.

Jan 01 05:45 PM

[Moon Kil Woong:]

Watching CNBC or other such newscasts for financial help is like watching a soap opera to get advice on your social and family life. That is, unless you just want to watch the delayed ticker....

As for Madoff, hmmm family and friends. What a coincidence they are all involved in managing money. What a coincidence. Why investigate them? Yah they turned him in after all the $50 billion magically dissapeared. They must be white as little old lambs. They must not know a bit. Clueless all their life. Pleaseeeeee....

I'm not Sherlock Holmes but I can still tell a crime occured when there is 10 bodies in makeshift graves rotting in the hot sun a gun with people saying they heard gunshots and a car speeding off with cash flying out of the window. It must be that awful smell.

Jan 01 07:53 PM

[DougM:]

Here's the answer to watching CNBC - just turn off the sound! Then enjoy the likes of Melissa Francis, Rebecca Jarvis, Becky Quick, Margaret Brennan, Erin Burnett, and guests like Saskia Scholtes.

Jan 01 09:01 PM

[jepittman:]

CNBC is financial entertainment. They will reflect the emotion of the moment. There is good content there but it generally is not where one should go for investment counsel.

Jan 01 09:38 PM

[auto44:]

Now you know why Warren Buffett moved back to Omaha. Avoid the noise.

Jan 02 12:23 AM

[Kunst:]

"First are these so-called pundits who come on and say they expect the market to be "not as bad" next year as 2008."

How many of them predicted what happened in 2008 with any accuracy? Before the year, that is.

Most TV is a waste of time.

Jan 02 02:06 AM

[momomiester:]

I don't even travel much and can't even find the time to balance my check book let alone create fake books for a 50billion dollar scheme. There is no way that guy was doing this by himself expecially with paper records.

Jan 02 02:27 PM

[bobbobwhite:]

Just as with online movie reviews where you get slammed if you pan it, but praised if you praise it, writers who praise 2009 as being a good up year are merely looking for praise from readers with hope. I don't care what reader says, so I say it will be another challenging year as we have not yet corrected what caused 2008 to be such a bad year.

Hope may get you through a hard time, but it can also kill you when more practical sense than hope is necessary to do the job the right way.

Jan 02 03:08 PM