Jeff Miller

The Bernanke Circus: What Does It Mean for Investors?

Tony - Whatever we think about the merits of a Bernanke reappointment, Diane Swonk was accurate in her discussion of the market impact in the video Iinked above. Markets hate uncertainty. Bernanke represents continuity. Most do not expect any better alternative from Pres. Obama.

Peter Boockvar, a Bernanke opponent, was interviewed on the subject today on CNBC and agreed that the market would sell of if the appointment is blocked.

If we stick to our investor role, we should expect selling if it appears that Bernanke will not be re-confirmed.

Thanks for your question, and I hope this clarifies things a bit.

Jeff


On Dec 18 09:21 AM Tony Petroski wrote:

> Mr. Miller. I was curious to see what I, as an investor, should
> do despite the Bernanke Circus. I noticed the market sold off post-confirmation
> although it wasn't a big sell-off. Perhaps a future article could
> get specific.
>
> This from the article:
>
> "It is pretty easy for a Senator to posture and assign blame. There
> are obvious issues and plenty of room for second-guessing."
>
> You are right about that, and it would have been fascinating to see
> the Democrats voting down Bernanke after having been nominated by
> McCain. Perhaps this easy posturing by senators is one of the reasons
> Americans so seldom elect them to run the country. It's because
> they are all talk and no action and most have no practical experience
> running anything larger than a senate staff.

Individual Investor Challenge: Can You Succeed by Going It Alone?

Nice going, Value Added. I really teed that one up for you, didn't I?

Jeff


On Dec 16 09:01 AM Value Added wrote:

> You wrote: "My favorite knowledge test is that more people can name
> the Three Stooges than can name the three branches of government."
>
>
> I would argue there is not sufficient difference to distinguish between
> the two groups!

Individual Investor Challenge: Can You Succeed by Going It Alone?

Thanks to everyone for some great comments. There are some other important attributes to add to the list.

Individual investors who have not done as well as this group can see the challenge and the work required.

It is helpful to learn from the comments.

Jeff

Thoughts on the Dumbing Down of News (and the Effect on Investing)

I appreciate the thoughtful and helpful comments from everyone. I realize that the general concept is not new. It is something that I have followed carefully and written about occasionally. My impression is that the economy has exacerbated and accelerated the process.

I will keep these comments in mind as I develop the theme.

And BTW, pieces like this do not get 50 comments, but perhaps it is better to get a few good ones:)

Thanks again --

Jeff

Economic Data Showing Signs of Negative Trends

Old Trader --

The Naperville Macy's (Chicago burb, as you know but others may not) was very busy yesterday when my wife and son were out shopping for his new suit. They had to compete for their sales person, and overall activity was high.

There was a sale, of course, and people had coupons. I don't know about their inventory or profitability.


On Nov 01 09:55 AM Old Trader wrote:

> apppro,
>
> I'm glad to hear things are going well at your particular location,
> but a couple of questions.
>
> First, I wonder how representative your location is? For example,
> here in Chicago, Macy's acquisition of Marshall Fields has not gone
> very well.
>
> Second, what SORT of merchandise is flying off of the shelves? What
> I've heard from various retail analysts is that the consumer is being
> VERY selective in where/how they're spending their dollars. "Value
> priced" items are doing relatively well....the rest, not so much.
>
>
> Thanks for providing a "worm's eye" view!
>
> On Nov 01 09:44 AM apppro wrote:

Evaluating Investment Predictions

Thanks for the comments. I hope it is clear that I am spoofing some of those who make vague predictions with no time frames.

And Tom, thanks for appreciating the effort at getting a smile along the way. The announcer in the video could hardly believe it himself!

Politicizing the Olympic Decision

I was highlighting their actions at the time they held office and their countries pursued Olympic bids, something that some have come to expect. See this, for example, from USA Today content.usatoday.com/c...:

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair played a key role in landing the 2012 Olympics for London. So did Russian President Vladimir Putin when the IOC awarded the 2014 winter games to Sochi."


On Oct 05 12:33 AM Hmm?! wrote:

> Mr. Miller,
>
> You make somewhat of a point, ......... however neither Blair or
> Putin, is currently the leader of his nation.
>
> In the case of Putin, some would say not officially the leader. Saying
> "the critics would have been loud" paints with a pretty broad political
> brush, ...... well beyond Mr. Kudlow.
>
> It really comes down to...what else would President Obama have likely
> done with his time? Given Obama's history, I see nothing that would
> get the investment community or his critics jumping for joy.

Politicizing the Olympic Decision

Mr. Hmmm.

I am always interested in well-researched comments. I suggest that you check out some additional information:

www.universalsports.co...

IOC president Jacques Rogge said disputes with the U.S. Olympic Committee will have "no negative effects whatsoever" on Chicago's chances of landing the 2016 Summer Games.

and later...

"I think I can make a bet today and say that it's probably going to be a couple of votes, two, three, four," Rogge said, echoing his comments in an Associated Press interview last week. "Something like four, five votes is only the situation of a change of mind of two or three persons. You see how close it is. You can convince two people more and you might win."

If you google "Obama not going to Copenhagen" you will see many stories. Things have changed since the last US bid, with Blair and Putin both making personal appeals.

I have provided a strong message in many articles that investors should not play politics with their investments. This article makes the point very clearly.

Those who think that the Olympic loss has some grand implications for investments are looking in the wrong direction.


On Oct 04 11:03 PM Hmm?! wrote:

> Your comment "No one knows what would have happened if Obama had
> not made the trip, but the critics would have been loud." ......is
> way off the mark!
>
> President Obama announced well in advance that the First Lady would
> be making the trip and there was no public criticism. Never has a
> US president made such a trip in the past. Therefore the President
> may have taken a risk in going.
>
> "we should be focused on investments, agnostic about politics .........
> Overtly partisan messages do not fit." You are right, so hopefully
> you do not do it again.

Liz Ann Sonders: Job Gains Possible by Year-End

Old Trader -- I think Tom is correct on this one. I agree with your facts, but not the conclusion.

The response to an improving economy will certainly be reflected in hours worked, but there will also be new hires. It remains to be seen how many of each.

As to the CEO survey, the primary source is even more dramatic, since it reports that 87% say "flat to down." Of course 60% say "flat to up." It is an old trick to lump the flat in with the changes as did the report you saw. If you go to the primary source, www.businesswire.com/p... you will see that the expectations in this survey have improved dramatically since last quarter. More importantly, CEO's don't know what they will be doing in six months. The CEO outlook collapsed after the Lehman fall. It is now improving rapidly. Also, this approach does not capture the behavior of firms that are not a part of their sample -- an important source of new job growth.

A fair conclusion would be that not all companies are the same. Some will lay off more. Some will go out of business. Some will hire. Some will increase hours. Thinking about labor dynamics as a distribution of workers and firms is much more productive than trying to portray complex behavior in terms of a single generalization.


On Sep 29 11:20 AM Old Trader wrote:

> Tom,
>
> I wish I could agree, but I can't. You seem to have overlooked the
> fact that many firms have cut hours, rather trhan completely laying
> off workers. Consequently, there could very well be a rebound in
> demand, due to inventory restocking, or whatever, that isn't going
> to translate into higher employment.
>
> Within the last half hour, or so, Bloomberg TV had the results of
> a survey of CEOs on future hiring, over the next quarter, and just
> under 70% said it would be flat, to down.

Is This a Sucker's Rally?

tom -- Thanks for your comment. I know that many people read these articles without making a comment. I hope that many share your approach.

You may have noticed that I have been, for some time, one of your "followers" on Seeking Alpha. I have been impressed by your observations and often go to articles where you have made a comment. These are topics that I might otherwise have missed.

Thanks for your contribution.

Jeff


On Sep 22 03:40 PM Tom Armistead wrote:

> Jeff, the reason I read SA is to get exposure to well-reasoned opinions
> on macro issues and market level. I appreciate your approach which
> is resolutely factual.
>
> As this situation has developed new information comes out every day
> and visibilty is improving. Jim Grant's change of stance is an important
> indication, he has a very good track record of looking at the facts
> and arriving a reliable conclusions.
>
> The bear market seems to have given some people the idea that extremely
> negative views on the economy and the market were somehow hip or
> stylish, but a bad attitude will only take you so far in investing.

Is This a Sucker's Rally?

untrusting--

As I explained the last time you made a similar comment, there are legal rules for disclosing performance on a web site. I notice that you have dropped your assertions about Doug Kass and John Mauldin, who, like me, do not have mutual funds and do not post website performance.

John Hussman is a wise and experienced investment advisor, who has done well versus the market. He has a sound investment product. Any legitimate investor can get a complete report of how our program has done. Just send us an email. I invite comparisons with Hussman and also the performance of the overall market, but we cannot post it on the website.

Of course, that is not really the point. I am trying to write articles that discuss current issues of interest. Instead of commenting on the content of these articles, you attack the author or his service. I note that you have done the same in your comments on other authors.

We are supposed to be engaged in a discussion of issues, with emphasis on the merits of the article. Some of the most prominent SA authors have been wrong on the markets for many months, but we still consider their analysis on the merits -- as we should.

That should be our objective on this site. Just a thought....

Jeff


On Sep 22 10:37 PM untrusting investor wrote:

> Battman,
> Exactly correct. This author has zero performance results on his
> site. He probably held all the way down and is now back to only 30%
> down. Meanwhile, the author is pumping his advice to try and raise
> more "assets under management" so he can collect some more management
> fees.
>
> When compared to top managers like John Hussman, who have stellar
> track records, and have the exact opposite opinion, we think we will
> give Hussman a lot more credibility.

Is This a Sucker's Rally?

Archman -- The Fed has substituted for what I call normal and sensible lending. The level of liquidity (measured by money supply) is not higher than normal. The Fed balance sheet is smaller than when Obama took office. Check out the wise comments from Bob McTeer, whom I often cite.

The rally is liquidity driven only in the sense that there was no liquidity after Lehman -- not even normal commercial paper -- and now that has been restored.

You are correct in noting that we should be watching for the exit strategy. As McTeer said today on CNBC, the Fed should show some awareness of this, but not act like the time is near.

Thanks for highlighting this issue.

Jeff


On Sep 22 09:36 AM Archman Investor wrote:

> I think it is a bit late to be wondering if it is a "suckers rally".
> I think worrying about that item has long past.
>
> The real question is: Since this is a "FED. liquidity driven, looking
> for a home rally" how long and high does this rally go? If you were
> in at
> S & P 700, then all you need to worry about it locking in profits.
>
> If you have missed this rally, well my friend, then you have a lot
> more to lose should the rally stop. At this point, we need to keep
> watching the FED for signs they are truly taking the money away.
>
>
> To me, that is the best indicator of this current rally's future
> strength.

Is This a Sucker's Rally?

rrtzmd -- I am curious about how you define "credibility." Unlike most others, I post a weekly update on trading positions and market outlook. The outlook changes as we get new information. It is not always correct, but it does adjust. This is exactly the point of my article -- looking for criteria that change with the times. What do you think I should do differently?

About expanding the universe --- we have had many requests for additional ETF's in our rankings. Many do not qualify for trading because of liquidity issues and wide bid/ask spreads. For those who have taken advantage of our weekly update email, we also make available the complete rankings. We are constantly trying to improve our methods and also to provide more useful information.

We also have documented the entry and exit date of each trade, living with the bad periods along with the winners. No position that we bought "miraculously disappeared."

To summarize, your allegations are completely incorrect.

I try very hard to find something constructive in each comment -- and I always read them. I understand that no matter how much I try to be helpful, there will be some who do not find value from my work. That's fine. I don't really understand smarmy personal attacks like "snake oil."

I am not giving your comment a "thumbs down" because I do not rate comments on my own articles. I do hope that you will try to elevate both the content and tone of what you write.

Jeff


On Sep 22 09:35 AM rrtzmd wrote:

> ...you lack credibility...July 1, you say go short:
>
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
> ...oops!!...big mistake!...so what do you do?...you change your "universe":
>
>
> seekingalpha.com/artic...
>
>
> ...and, oh, look!!...with this new "expanded universe," your previous
> selections have miraculously disappeared!!...and, lo, but the markets'
> best performers are suddenly at the top of your list!!...hark, methinks
> I perceive the dripping of snake oil...

Is This a Sucker's Rally?

buyitcheap -- I have written about a number of stock ideas in the past, but I am happy to oblige again. In fact, I am working on a piece suggesting how to look for new candidates. I'll try to get it out this week.

Thanks for the good suggestion.

Jeff


On Sep 22 09:31 AM buyitcheap wrote:

> Good stocks below pre-Lehman levels? Care to list a few for we investors
> who frankly are lacking ideas right now? All the really cheap/deepvalue
> stuff is gone, where to next?

Straightforward Answers to Recent, Thorny Investment Questions

untrusting -- This is a pretty aggressive statement for someone who has not done his homework. I also do not see the need for any name-calling.

Here are a couple of things to think about. Informed investors know that there are rules concerning advertising performance on one's website, particularly those open only to accredited investors. We provide information, upon request, to any potential investor. I also speak personally with everyone, discussing risk and the suitability of any investments.

I will say this much -- individual investors in our Great Stocks program have beaten the market by a wide margin during it's eleven-year history, and for most time intervals.

Contrary to your assertion, and which you could easily have found out by reading one of our weekly ETF updates, we review and publish our official investment posture each week. This is based upon a one-month trading horizon. It is very transparent -- much more than most would be willing to share about a trading program.

Finally, you won't find any track record on a website for Doug Kass or John Mauldin. If you asked, Doug, he would cite the same restrictions I did. If you have a valid interest in investing with Doug, he'll send material. Mutual funds like Hussman's have different rules.

I see that you are a top commentator on Seeking Alpha, meaning that most people applaud your contributions. I do not vote on comments on my own articles. It doesn't feel right to me. I do think that your comment here is unfair and ill-founded. I hope you will reconsider it.

Thanks,

Jeff