abcde_98

Will Najarian's Prediction of a Stock Market Explosion Come True?

Re "Mad Hedge Fund Trader" comments:

1. The Swiss hedge fund manager who says we entered a bear market in 2000? I think that hedge fund manager got his info from the same source as RBC Global Asset Management who indicates we are in a "secular bear market which started in 2000. Secular bear markets last about 18 years".


2. S&P index valuation. P = Earnings x p/e we all agree on that. About 6-8 weeks ago, investment community was anticipating Earnings of $50 to 60 for the S&P500 companies, and anticipating a p/e more towards the norm of 10 to 15.

IF we take the maximum of those anticipated ranges we get S&Pindex = $60 earnings x 15 p/e = 900.

Quick aside: many insurance companies indicated when they reported Q4 numbers, that they assumed the S&P500 would AVERAGE 900 to 950 in 2009.


Now the reality: actual p/e = 8.03 and Earnings i could not locate but let's, conservatively, say are $55.... then we are at S&P500 index = 55 x 8 p/e = 440

Based on the actual results, sure seems the S&P can go lower from 700. Insurance companies which sell Variable Annuities and assumed 900-950, whoa, it sure seems they have under-estimated the AVERAGE for the year.

Will Najarian's Prediction of a Stock Market Explosion Come True?

I suggest reading Martin Wolf articles (he's raised issues and been correct on outcomes many times on many issues). Latest article, amongst many things, asks whether the US administration is asking/addressing the proper issue. Also, he mentions actions such as conversion of debt into equity will hurt pension funds, insurers, etc.

Re M2M, the G20 has been discussing / taking steps to implement transparency. Also, international accounting standards (IFRS) mandate fair value. Is the USA going to back away from all this forward progress in the world? It would be a significant blow to the USA.

M2M is an emotional item being made into a scape-goat, and is not the cause of the situation, it is just the rules for presenting financial results. Only way it gets suspended is on politics which seems to be against Obama's theme of cutting through red-tape, etc.

This appears to be more hype than of substance. There goes more tax-payer money on involving and debating with Congress.

The technology exists for quick referendums with voting rights available to all people. Why not use it on issues such as bailouts? So much time/money/GDP wasted by politicians.