Comments on Dean Morel's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/dean-morel/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/145107-could-crocs-be-a-turnaround-play?source=feed#comment-637496 637496 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 01:21:21 -0400
I hope your business is rockin' and Crocs are walking out the door. If you're right about the 2010 then you and Croc shareholders should have a good start to the new decade.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156466-great-depression-vs-great-bubble?source=feed#comment-633711 633711 Mon, 17 Aug 2009 16:22:56 -0400
So do I and I know its the structure and culture that produced the former earnings streams. I think that whatever happens the rate of investment by both individuals and institutional retirement plans will decline steadily to overall lower levels of wealth/income. The overall market of stocks will decline as small businesses are taxed out of existence, and the market multiple will decline on average, so earnings will be lower, below Shiller's long run yield.

So market must decline. How long? About as long as it took to get into this situation; say 20 years. It will be known as the Ice Age similar to the period Japan has been living out. Plan for having less and living more simply, its destiny. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156466-great-depression-vs-great-bubble?source=feed#comment-633262 633262 Mon, 17 Aug 2009 13:06:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/156466-great-depression-vs-great-bubble?source=feed#comment-633148 633148 "In short I see a higher probability of being able to buy at lower > valuations sometime over the next five years" > > great prediction but useless in a market focused on the next 5 minutes]]> Mon, 17 Aug 2009 12:12:33 -0400

On Aug 17 07:42 AM jeandit75 wrote:

> "In short I see a higher probability of being able to buy at lower
> valuations sometime over the next five years"
>
> great prediction but useless in a market focused on the next 5 minutes]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156466-great-depression-vs-great-bubble?source=feed#comment-632925 632925 "In short I see a higher probability of being able to buy at lower > valuations sometime over the next five years" > > great prediction but useless in a market focused on the next 5 minutes]]> Mon, 17 Aug 2009 10:06:13 -0400 In the face of no significant INNOVATIONS, I am calling it now, that the "exponential Econonmic Growth Fairy" is no more, it died of "shortages of natural commodities (oil), in 2005.

I gave the longer version of this answer in a post at -
seekingalpha.com/artic...

Shorter term, the markets will retrace their March lows, between now & the end of November, 2009!

On Aug 17 07:42 AM jeandit75 wrote:

> "In short I see a higher probability of being able to buy at lower
> valuations sometime over the next five years"
>
> great prediction but useless in a market focused on the next 5 minutes]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156466-great-depression-vs-great-bubble?source=feed#comment-632738 632738 Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:42:51 -0400
great prediction but useless in a market focused on the next 5 minutes]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145107-could-crocs-be-a-turnaround-play?source=feed#comment-623456 623456 Mon, 10 Aug 2009 12:33:18 -0400
OldiesLover]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145107-could-crocs-be-a-turnaround-play?source=feed#comment-607854 607854 Thu, 30 Jul 2009 10:11:49 -0400
Again, they're called, "Plastic, Rubber and Foam Clogs." Which of course means... the authors are downright ignorant. All they talk about is the Original Clogs (Beach/Caymans), which is only one style of over 60 different styles CROCS offers.

They produced a wedge sandal for this Summer's Season, that I CANNOT keep in stock. (It's called, Patricia by the way.) They have additional new styles such as the Havana, Electro, Santa Cruz, Yucon, Cove... need I go on(?), and they are all selling very very well. No other shoeline comes close these days. Plus their Work Shoes continues to sell too, especially Bistro.

Yes, there continues to be a shake-out of dealers, but that's OK.

By the way, CROCS came up and spent a full day with us last week reviewing all sorts of things, including their 2010 line-up, which by the way, in my opinion (And I'll match my expertise with this line with any other retailer out there, let alone Blogger.)... Is the STRONGEST assortment I've ever seen from them.

Additionaly, one of the things these articles are talking about is the "supposed" fact that CROCS don't wearout. This cannot be further from the truth. They do wearout over about the same length of time as a Nike, and just as important, children outgrow them and are right back year-after-year for a new pair (Or 2 or 3 pairs.).

Anyways, thought this info might be helpful to you.

Thanks,

OldiesLover ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150372-the-rebirth-of-long-term-buy-and-hold?source=feed#comment-597984 597984 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 11:10:35 -0400
Honestly now.

So sad that people wanting to invest in their country were instead giving boys chips to play at the craps tables with.

If Wall Street doesn't understand they've lost the trust of several generations than they need to get real jobs.

Tar and feathering is in order.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150372-the-rebirth-of-long-term-buy-and-hold?source=feed#comment-597671 597671 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:48:22 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/150372-the-rebirth-of-long-term-buy-and-hold?source=feed#comment-597662 597662 Wed, 22 Jul 2009 07:38:29 -0400
also, the country faces so many economic challenges in the coming years that defy any long term strategy. once out i will wait for the secular bear to end and begin buying large cap in small amounts bginning in 2016. year 16 of the seclar bear. secular bears last an average of 16 years.






]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148608-digging-deeper-into-historical-market-data-1871-2009?source=feed#comment-588584 588584 Market data back to 1871! I wonder what I would have said and/or > done if one of my finance students had come up with this idea. Probably > made a note to do everything possible to give him or her a failing > grade.]]> Wed, 15 Jul 2009 04:02:31 -0400
On Jul 14 08:18 AM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

> Market data back to 1871! I wonder what I would have said and/or
> done if one of my finance students had come up with this idea. Probably
> made a note to do everything possible to give him or her a failing
> grade.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148608-digging-deeper-into-historical-market-data-1871-2009?source=feed#comment-588559 588559 Wed, 15 Jul 2009 03:19:20 -0400
Anyone who shorts the market is not playing 'short and hold'. Shorting the market is a timing game. Going long in the market is obviously also a timing game.

If you had 'bought the market' at its bottom in September 1934 (90.99) and held through the subsequent rallies and declines, holding for life, in April 1942 (95.83), 7+ years later you would have been up 4.84 points or about 1% per year.

That's what a Bear Market is.


On Jul 14 01:16 PM Fred Voetsch wrote:

Had you stayed short after July 1932 I believe you would have gone broke very quickly.

Shorting the market is a bad strategy for almost everyone almost all the time. A better strategy is to identify a potential crash and be very conservative and on the lookout for the signs that always preceed a crash - breaking through the 50 day moving average, for instance.

As a rule, anytime a major panic has taken place the worst has been priced in and a long position in the market will pay off in the long-term, if not the short.

Vastly overpriced stock markets don't come along all that often and are not that hard to identify as long as you don't count anyone from CNBC as an investment adviser.

The typical investor simply needs to learn to identify high risk situations and avoid them to dramatically increase their returns. Tuning out greed is the answer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148608-digging-deeper-into-historical-market-data-1871-2009?source=feed#comment-587818 587818 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:49:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/148608-digging-deeper-into-historical-market-data-1871-2009?source=feed#comment-587734 587734 If this current fiasco plays out anything like the 1929 mess (and > so far both eras have striking similarities), then you have to note > two things. 1.) the width of the bands in Figure 2 are quite variable > and our current down month band could increase by up to 50%. Also, > 2.) note that 1929 was followed by more than a decade of down months, > so ones money would have had best odds going short the market for > over a decade rather than trying to catch rather brief rallies.
If > you are a player of odds, you have to recognize which direction the > main current is flowing, rather than trying to catch minor eddies. Had you stayed short after July 1932 I believe you would have gone broke very quickly. Shorting the market is a bad strategy for almost everyone almost all the time. A better strategy is to identify a potential crash and be very conservative and on the lookout for the signs that always preceed a crash - breaking through the 50 day moving average, for instance. As a rule, anytime a major panic has taken place the worst has been priced in and a long position in the market will pay off in the long-term, if not the short. Vastly overpriced stock markets don't come along all that often and are not that hard to identify as long as you don't count anyone from CNBC as an investment adviser. The typical investor simply needs to learn to identify high risk situations and avoid them to dramatically increase their returns. Tuning out greed is the answer.]]> Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:16:02 -0400
> If this current fiasco plays out anything like the 1929 mess (and
> so far both eras have striking similarities), then you have to note
> two things. 1.) the width of the bands in Figure 2 are quite variable
> and our current down month band could increase by up to 50%. Also,
> 2.) note that 1929 was followed by more than a decade of down months,
> so ones money would have had best odds going short the market for
> over a decade rather than trying to catch rather brief rallies.
If
> you are a player of odds, you have to recognize which direction the
> main current is flowing, rather than trying to catch minor eddies.


Had you stayed short after July 1932 I believe you would have gone broke very quickly.

Shorting the market is a bad strategy for almost everyone almost all the time. A better strategy is to identify a potential crash and be very conservative and on the lookout for the signs that always preceed a crash - breaking through the 50 day moving average, for instance.

As a rule, anytime a major panic has taken place the worst has been priced in and a long position in the market will pay off in the long-term, if not the short.

Vastly overpriced stock markets don't come along all that often and are not that hard to identify as long as you don't count anyone from CNBC as an investment adviser.

The typical investor simply needs to learn to identify high risk situations and avoid them to dramatically increase their returns. Tuning out greed is the answer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148608-digging-deeper-into-historical-market-data-1871-2009?source=feed#comment-587697 587697 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 13:04:23 -0400

That's my favorite line from the article.

I like this article because it makes me think. What do I think? Buy low and sell high.

We should all (including me) not get too wedded to our views. The market will do what it will do and it can say irrational much longer than you or I can stay solvent.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148608-digging-deeper-into-historical-market-data-1871-2009?source=feed#comment-587437 587437 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 11:00:15 -0400 If you are a player of odds, you have to recognize which direction the main current is flowing, rather than trying to catch minor eddies.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148362-odds-are-stacked-for-positive-gains?source=feed#comment-587230 587230 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:22:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/148608-digging-deeper-into-historical-market-data-1871-2009?source=feed#comment-587205 587205 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:10:55 -0400 I'm just a bit worried when smart guys come up with ways to beat the system.
Both horse racing aficionados and quants have lost a lot of money following 'infallible' systems.
The smarter the guy the more stubbornly they tend to double down.
Being dumb protects me quite a lot - I know what I don't know.
Insider information and sweet deals are the ways to get ahead, predicting the future is usually not a good idea - knowing when the bank robbery is taking place is the best idea.
How do you think Goldman Sachs execs get so much money? :-)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148362-odds-are-stacked-for-positive-gains?source=feed#comment-587185 587185 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:03:33 -0400 Apologies likewise to any who find this off-topic - but this thread is pretty old, so I will indulge myself once more.
As for small investors, I like Warren Buffet's comment:
If you have money but no experience, and invest it with the experts who have experience but no money, pretty soon you have experience but no money.
In my view the market is just Vegas on steroids, and the only way to beat it is to have insider knowledge, a sweet deal by being an insider and taking fees, or to follow value investing like Buffet.
Considering managed funds on average do no better than trackers and charge you a handsome commission for making random investments and stock churning to generate fees, then a low-fee tracker would seem to me to be the little guy's best option.
You can follow Buffet, but you don't get his sweet insider deals.
The cream is gone by the time the punter gets to play.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148608-digging-deeper-into-historical-market-data-1871-2009?source=feed#comment-587153 587153 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:52:11 -0400
Davewmart. Great first line, it made me laugh. The article ended up much longer than I first intended and good editing is not one of my strengths.
I find most information has utility, like you I'm not sure how much utility my information has, but I'm a sucker for confirmation bias and it sure does affirm what I believe will most probably transpire over the next year. ;-) Thanks for you indepth comments on this post and my last.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148608-digging-deeper-into-historical-market-data-1871-2009?source=feed#comment-587079 587079 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 08:18:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/148362-odds-are-stacked-for-positive-gains?source=feed#comment-587034 587034 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 07:42:35 -0400
I am not suggesting we are going to return to the 1990s soon, but to suggest the investing landscape will limp along for a generation is fringe at best. (And it ain't that bad today..as of quarter ending June 30th, I am ahead by 13.79% YTD, and the S&P was up 1.8%. There certainly are opportunities.)

I'll leave you with this: If you study investing, among the points repeated again and again is that the retail investor (that's us responders here) is GENERALLY a poor investor. We are guilty of driving via their rear-view mirror; we typically buy what was hot in the last cycle or buy into a trend near the top; we consider our stock selections as reflections on ourselves and refuse to acknowledge we bought a loser and thus will hold it all the way down while swearing we will sell it when we again break even (thus missing a better opportunity); our vision is myopic as we think the present investment landscape (good or bad) will last indefinitely; and finally, women make better investors than men, as women (remember they are the ones willing to ask for directions when lost) are more flexible in their thinking, willing to listen to other voices, take a longer-term view, and don't see their performance as a reflection of their manhood (I am a man).

Most retail investors shouldn't be managing their portfolios. They don't have the time to devote to becoming a good investor, and just as important, they don't have the temperament for it and can't separate their emotional side from their analytical side (for example those who concentrate on the pain of unemployment, a well-known lagging indicator). They are ill-suited to compete with professionals, and would net greater returns if they paid the +/-2% fee for good professional management.

I apologize to those who find this off-topic...Dave, it's unfortunate there is no good way for us to have a sidebar conversation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148608-digging-deeper-into-historical-market-data-1871-2009?source=feed#comment-586998 586998 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:55:54 -0400 Of course the market is not truly random, but when we are unsure of the criteria which introduce non-randomness, this fact has limited utility.
It can be useful to have an idea of the usual boundaries of change, but the fact is that fit is almost impossible to predict when discontinuities will occur.
So, for instance, war with Iran and the blocking of the straights of Hormuz would have a profound influence on the stock market, amongst other things.
Now your graphs of change might have a useful function, in that it could look at the impact of major discontinuities such as the outbreak of WW2 and draw from that some idea of the likely scale of the impact.
Unfortunately however it is impossible from the charts to determine whether the war is going to happen in the first place.
You therefore have two radically different outcomes, with which happens determined by a quasi-random event, in the sense that we have no means of determining whether it is going to happen.
In that environment the graphs are going to have almost no utility.
They can do OK in normal circumstances, but get knocked for six when things
change, and when that is going to happen can't be foretold with any precision.
Betting on how you read your graphs seems a chancy procedure to bet the farm on then.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148608-digging-deeper-into-historical-market-data-1871-2009?source=feed#comment-586990 586990 Tue, 14 Jul 2009 06:43:10 -0400 Thanks for reading.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148362-odds-are-stacked-for-positive-gains?source=feed#comment-586550 586550 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:20:49 -0400 I am not one who thinks that the market is going down for the rest of my life!
OTOH the next 20 years or so could be a bit rough! ;-)
I basically see this as 1930, with a heck of a lot of debt unwinding to come, but I reserve the right to be wrong, and certainly hope I am!
I was just curious what other folks thought, as you seem a pretty level-headed sort of guy.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148362-odds-are-stacked-for-positive-gains?source=feed#comment-586479 586479 It not only needs to go up in the right period , it needs to go up > more than inflation, to be taking risk like that and you could have > it in the bank making the same.. so actually it needs to go up more > than inflation. And heres the other problem.. you only go back to > the 30s so you just see it has always gone up since then, and assume > it will keep going up into the future. This isn't neccesarily the > case. It could go down for the next 100 years. This is unlikely but > it needs to go up more than inflation. All in all this article is > ridiculous and unlikely to go as the author says.. again.. good luck > with your theory.]]> Mon, 13 Jul 2009 17:40:18 -0400

On Jul 13 04:53 PM grey road wrote:

> It not only needs to go up in the right period , it needs to go up
> more than inflation, to be taking risk like that and you could have
> it in the bank making the same.. so actually it needs to go up more
> than inflation. And heres the other problem.. you only go back to
> the 30s so you just see it has always gone up since then, and assume
> it will keep going up into the future. This isn't neccesarily the
> case. It could go down for the next 100 years. This is unlikely but
> it needs to go up more than inflation. All in all this article is
> ridiculous and unlikely to go as the author says.. again.. good luck
> with your theory.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148362-odds-are-stacked-for-positive-gains?source=feed#comment-586425 586425 Took at look at the DJ since 1930, always based on ten years results > ending February. > 1930-1940 -46% > 1940-1950 +40% (20 yrs dead money) > 1950-1960 +192% > 1960-1970 +29% > 1970-1980 +1% > 1980-1990 +234% > 1990-2000 +285% > 2000- present -20% > > What can you tell from these stats, depends on what you want to see, > in the long run the author is right the market will be up, but will > it be up during the time you need it to be up, that is the question, > if you look at the time frame 1930 to 1950 (before, during and after > the depression) the DJ was flat, dead money for long term investors > who were fully invested, since there are many similarities between > then and now whose can say if it will be any different going forward > the next 20 years, I guess it all depends on what you believe the > word "logical" means.]]> Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:53:37 -0400

On Jul 13 11:23 AM enigmaman wrote:

> Took at look at the DJ since 1930, always based on ten years results
> ending February.
> 1930-1940 -46%
> 1940-1950 +40% (20 yrs dead money)
> 1950-1960 +192%
> 1960-1970 +29%
> 1970-1980 +1%
> 1980-1990 +234%
> 1990-2000 +285%
> 2000- present -20%
>
> What can you tell from these stats, depends on what you want to see,
> in the long run the author is right the market will be up, but will
> it be up during the time you need it to be up, that is the question,
> if you look at the time frame 1930 to 1950 (before, during and after
> the depression) the DJ was flat, dead money for long term investors
> who were fully invested, since there are many similarities between
> then and now whose can say if it will be any different going forward
> the next 20 years, I guess it all depends on what you believe the
> word "logical" means.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148362-odds-are-stacked-for-positive-gains?source=feed#comment-586415 586415 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:47:49 -0400 Yours was a very reasonable question. My response was framed by my knowledge that most of the responders here are extremely negative on the market (it may be fair to say they think the market is going to hell for the remainder of their lifetime...or that may not be fair...but they certainly tend to pounce on all that is written in a positive tone.) We'll see what others post.

I am not looking for technical points, nor am I a chartist. I am a fundamentalist who (from prior experience) recalls that markets always start their recovery while the bad news is still coming...the S&P has always improved from a recession during the recession, and for NO OBVIOUS REASON other than (perhaps) that value reaches some kind of tipping point, and stocks go up in spite of an expected poor earnings quarter or even two (look it up). In my experience, the 4 most mistaken words in investing are "it's different this time". (One example you may recall was in the late1990s, when it was widely said Internet stocks could continue to go up in price because they didn't need to borrow money--they could just issue more shares to raise capital.)

Yes, the market is well aware that commercial real estate is forecast to suffer declining values (and we can cite a list of other real or potential problems). I think those fears are ALREADY priced in my bank stocks (USB, BAC, and speculative positions in HBAN and RF). It seems to me that if ever there was a time to take a 'flyer' on a few speculative stocks for huge gains, this is it!

The market just closed up about 22 S&P points, or 2.5%. None of my limit buy orders were executed today. For the moment, I'll accept that I have very nice gains in 28 positions (small loses in FXI and AMLN) and hope my buys never execute.

Good luck to you.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148362-odds-are-stacked-for-positive-gains?source=feed#comment-586270 586270 Mon, 13 Jul 2009 15:28:29 -0400 it was not a question designed to set you up.
I was genuinely curious.
It seems that you are looking at technical points, rather than anything like 'Commercial Real Estate won't wipe out the bank's earnings'.
I hope you are right.]]>