The AntiCramer's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/270403/comments http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/27526?source=feed#comment-579172 579172
The mere fact that anyone thinks these economists have this much influence over the masses is a testament to how blind the "enlightened" actually are. ]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:40:55 -0400
The mere fact that anyone thinks these economists have this much influence over the masses is a testament to how blind the "enlightened" actually are. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/27513?source=feed#comment-578981 578981 Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:56:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/27069?source=feed#comment-569724 569724
But, if you weigh in the quality of Kneale's analysis you'd reach the conclusion that no, he doesn't spend time educating himself and yes, he does have time spare.]]> Wed, 01 Jul 2009 09:17:57 -0400
But, if you weigh in the quality of Kneale's analysis you'd reach the conclusion that no, he doesn't spend time educating himself and yes, he does have time spare.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/25406?source=feed#comment-531168 531168

On Jun 03 06:30 PM youngman442002 wrote:

> Lets take it the next step...say everyone but the treasury quits
> buying our debt...what happens...
>
> The dollar devalues...but how much 50%...100% 1000% that is what
> no one knows...
>
> I don't think interest rates will go up because the Fed will be the
> buyer of all debt....
>
> How about personal property? Homes. Food? Autos? Gas? Insurance?
> things you need to live?
>
> Gold?
>
> My personal opinion is to get into offshore gold..hard gold..not
> an etf..
>
> What about Volence from gangs and others like the new mafia that
> will control the new black markets in the USA?
>
> Lots of changes coming...and I don't think they are going to be good]]> Wed, 03 Jun 2009 22:22:11 -0400

On Jun 03 06:30 PM youngman442002 wrote:

> Lets take it the next step...say everyone but the treasury quits
> buying our debt...what happens...
>
> The dollar devalues...but how much 50%...100% 1000% that is what
> no one knows...
>
> I don't think interest rates will go up because the Fed will be the
> buyer of all debt....
>
> How about personal property? Homes. Food? Autos? Gas? Insurance?
> things you need to live?
>
> Gold?
>
> My personal opinion is to get into offshore gold..hard gold..not
> an etf..
>
> What about Volence from gangs and others like the new mafia that
> will control the new black markets in the USA?
>
> Lots of changes coming...and I don't think they are going to be good]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/25117?source=feed#comment-522989 522989

On May 29 11:30 AM Niner wrote:

> what is with you bears? It doesn't matter who tells the story.
> If it has a positive slant, it is a conspiracy and a cover up. If
> the same people/organization puts forth a story with a negative slant,
> it's the gospel.
>
> You remind me of my late ex-father-in-law (a very fine man) but in
> 30+ yrs I knew him he had a thousand conspiracy theories/coverups.
> In that 30 yrs not a one ever panned out.
>
> All data can be manipulated to support a given theory or idea.
> My question to you guys; what makes you think the negative data isn't
> manipulated just as much as the positive data?]]> Fri, 29 May 2009 12:09:18 -0400

On May 29 11:30 AM Niner wrote:

> what is with you bears? It doesn't matter who tells the story.
> If it has a positive slant, it is a conspiracy and a cover up. If
> the same people/organization puts forth a story with a negative slant,
> it's the gospel.
>
> You remind me of my late ex-father-in-law (a very fine man) but in
> 30+ yrs I knew him he had a thousand conspiracy theories/coverups.
> In that 30 yrs not a one ever panned out.
>
> All data can be manipulated to support a given theory or idea.
> My question to you guys; what makes you think the negative data isn't
> manipulated just as much as the positive data?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/25027?source=feed#comment-520985 520985
Now, with those events in the "distant" past the Treasury may be attempting to atone for its spinelessness by forcing the banks to raise more capital than publicly announced a month ago. ]]> Thu, 28 May 2009 09:09:39 -0400
Now, with those events in the "distant" past the Treasury may be attempting to atone for its spinelessness by forcing the banks to raise more capital than publicly announced a month ago. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139658-goodbye-gaap-hello-ifrs-will-you-be-ready?source=feed#comment-519222 519222
You also make the assumption that all markets must correct all of the time at some point in the future. This is a dangerous assumption.

I'll leave the pros and cons of M2M up for debate but you must concede that consistency is key. Otherwise how is an investor to discern fantasy from reality?


On May 26 08:07 PM Lummox wrote:

> I am adamantly opposed to Mark to market, because it can have no
> relationship to reality. In the long run the Market will eventually
> correct, but in the short term, it can be drastically wrong. Just
> because no one wants to buy at a particular time doesn't mean that
> the asset has no value. Or while because one asset sold below market
> all assets should valused below market.
>
> Aas an example, I know of houses and condo's selling 70% belowmarket,
> They were abandoned, stripped of all fixtures, plumbing, furnishings,
> and moved into by squatters. The only people willing to buy a house
> like this, are those that are willing to gut the house to the frame,
> and rebuild. For this will they bid low to cover their investment,
> risk, and guarantee a profit. Also a mansion is appraised at twice
> everyone else's house in the area. Now why should your house be
> appraised at the same value as either the abandoned house or the
> mansion. The answer is they aren't, so why should we apply the same
> rule to financial investments.
>
> In financial markets the same can be true. A bank has a portfolio
> of building loan packages. Someone or several someones bid up a
> package. Suddenly all the packages in the portfolio are worth more,
> the bank has more money to loan as its assets have no gone up. They
> in turn start bidding on more loan packages, because the price on
> them is going up. Soon everyone starts doing this. This is a bubble
> because the actual worth of the package is not what someone wants
> to pay. But how much money are the loans for, what is the interest
> rate being paid on the loans. Also if there is a chance of the loan
> being defaulted will you lose money. In a downturn, when no one
> wants to buy, the price drops, but the value of the loan is still
> dependent on amount of money loande, rate of return, and risk.
>
>
> The mark to market rule, was made illegal after the Great Depression,
> because it contributed to the stock market crash. We re-instated
> it, and it caused problems. All assets should be valued based upon
> their cash value. This confusion come because the finacial market
> packaged loans together, and labeled the as securities. If you have
> a million dolar COD in the bank, that is an asset and is worth one
> million dollars. I f you have a million dollars in stock, that is
> a security and is worth what some is willing to pay you.]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 08:24:22 -0400
You also make the assumption that all markets must correct all of the time at some point in the future. This is a dangerous assumption.

I'll leave the pros and cons of M2M up for debate but you must concede that consistency is key. Otherwise how is an investor to discern fantasy from reality?


On May 26 08:07 PM Lummox wrote:

> I am adamantly opposed to Mark to market, because it can have no
> relationship to reality. In the long run the Market will eventually
> correct, but in the short term, it can be drastically wrong. Just
> because no one wants to buy at a particular time doesn't mean that
> the asset has no value. Or while because one asset sold below market
> all assets should valused below market.
>
> Aas an example, I know of houses and condo's selling 70% belowmarket,
> They were abandoned, stripped of all fixtures, plumbing, furnishings,
> and moved into by squatters. The only people willing to buy a house
> like this, are those that are willing to gut the house to the frame,
> and rebuild. For this will they bid low to cover their investment,
> risk, and guarantee a profit. Also a mansion is appraised at twice
> everyone else's house in the area. Now why should your house be
> appraised at the same value as either the abandoned house or the
> mansion. The answer is they aren't, so why should we apply the same
> rule to financial investments.
>
> In financial markets the same can be true. A bank has a portfolio
> of building loan packages. Someone or several someones bid up a
> package. Suddenly all the packages in the portfolio are worth more,
> the bank has more money to loan as its assets have no gone up. They
> in turn start bidding on more loan packages, because the price on
> them is going up. Soon everyone starts doing this. This is a bubble
> because the actual worth of the package is not what someone wants
> to pay. But how much money are the loans for, what is the interest
> rate being paid on the loans. Also if there is a chance of the loan
> being defaulted will you lose money. In a downturn, when no one
> wants to buy, the price drops, but the value of the loan is still
> dependent on amount of money loande, rate of return, and risk.
>
>
> The mark to market rule, was made illegal after the Great Depression,
> because it contributed to the stock market crash. We re-instated
> it, and it caused problems. All assets should be valued based upon
> their cash value. This confusion come because the finacial market
> packaged loans together, and labeled the as securities. If you have
> a million dolar COD in the bank, that is an asset and is worth one
> million dollars. I f you have a million dollars in stock, that is
> a security and is worth what some is willing to pay you.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/24763?source=feed#comment-514626 514626 Fri, 22 May 2009 12:58:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/24783?source=feed#comment-514196 514196 Fri, 22 May 2009 09:22:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/24173?source=feed#comment-502581 502581

On May 13 03:51 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> it's been that way since 2002]]> Wed, 13 May 2009 16:06:06 -0400

On May 13 03:51 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> it's been that way since 2002]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137009-the-federal-reserve-can-not-account-for-9-trillion-in-off-balance-sheet-transactions?source=feed#comment-499883 499883
1) Say the word "um" more than once per day
2) Answer a question with "we're in the process of doing ____"
3) Appear so absolutely clueless when responding to a simple question
4) Evade a question for 30 seconds then ask for the question to be repeated (all the while searching for an answer (s)he never finds)
5) Have no clue what has happened to millions of dollars
6) Have no clue what has happened to billions of dollars
7) Have no clue what has happened to trillions of dollars
8) Be completely and totally raked over the coals with so little effort

But hey. Seems like she is trying. I'm sure she'd be secure in a private sector job where incompetence does not merit penalty. ]]> Tue, 12 May 2009 00:41:48 -0400
1) Say the word "um" more than once per day
2) Answer a question with "we're in the process of doing ____"
3) Appear so absolutely clueless when responding to a simple question
4) Evade a question for 30 seconds then ask for the question to be repeated (all the while searching for an answer (s)he never finds)
5) Have no clue what has happened to millions of dollars
6) Have no clue what has happened to billions of dollars
7) Have no clue what has happened to trillions of dollars
8) Be completely and totally raked over the coals with so little effort

But hey. Seems like she is trying. I'm sure she'd be secure in a private sector job where incompetence does not merit penalty. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137009-the-federal-reserve-can-not-account-for-9-trillion-in-off-balance-sheet-transactions?source=feed#comment-499879 499879

On May 11 10:26 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> There is no conspiracy. I don't fear my government and I have trust
> in the federal reserve. The stock market does too, which is why it
> keeps going up. Lets stop pointing fingers.]]> Tue, 12 May 2009 00:33:52 -0400

On May 11 10:26 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> There is no conspiracy. I don't fear my government and I have trust
> in the federal reserve. The stock market does too, which is why it
> keeps going up. Lets stop pointing fingers.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136514-job-numbers-from-the-bureau-of-spurious-statistics?source=feed#comment-495890 495890

On May 08 01:02 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> Why is everything a hoax or a conspiracy? Why can't we accept that
> maybe things are improving?]]> Fri, 08 May 2009 14:32:51 -0400

On May 08 01:02 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> Why is everything a hoax or a conspiracy? Why can't we accept that
> maybe things are improving?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/23785?source=feed#comment-494500 494500

On May 07 03:58 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> I'll file this story under 'minutia']]> Thu, 07 May 2009 16:14:14 -0400

On May 07 03:58 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> I'll file this story under 'minutia']]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/23764?source=feed#comment-493856 493856
The powers that be have a vested interest in massaging the data.


On May 07 11:21 AM old boat guy wrote:

> Yea, sure. These figures are all manipulated to suit the gov't's
> purpose. How about U6? We are getting to a point that all these
> statistical releases are doctored shams; thank god for Durden and
> Lee.]]> Thu, 07 May 2009 11:23:57 -0400
The powers that be have a vested interest in massaging the data.


On May 07 11:21 AM old boat guy wrote:

> Yea, sure. These figures are all manipulated to suit the gov't's
> purpose. How about U6? We are getting to a point that all these
> statistical releases are doctored shams; thank god for Durden and
> Lee.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133955-examining-the-sell-in-may-go-away-axiom?source=feed#comment-484796 484796

On Apr 29 09:20 PM Donkey Kong wrote:

> Where do you find the time to post 1,359 comments Mr. Perma Bull?
>
> ]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 19:57:25 -0400

On Apr 29 09:20 PM Donkey Kong wrote:

> Where do you find the time to post 1,359 comments Mr. Perma Bull?
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133945-the-gdp-report-mostly-bad-news?source=feed#comment-482851 482851

On Apr 29 01:30 PM arthurofchicago wrote:

> So why is the market going up? The ability of the market to shrug
> off negative news is most surprising to me. It is one thing to "fooled"
> by the change in the accounting rules and GS changing their calender
> year but how does one just ignore this. Sure, the economy will
> recover...eventually but how many companies are going ot have a breakout
> year in 2009?]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:36:45 -0400

On Apr 29 01:30 PM arthurofchicago wrote:

> So why is the market going up? The ability of the market to shrug
> off negative news is most surprising to me. It is one thing to "fooled"
> by the change in the accounting rules and GS changing their calender
> year but how does one just ignore this. Sure, the economy will
> recover...eventually but how many companies are going ot have a breakout
> year in 2009?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/22945?source=feed#comment-482681 482681

On Apr 29 11:22 AM RiRe wrote:

> Does that make any sense?
>
> GDP down 6.1
>
> Consumer Spending up 2.2
>
> and the market goes nuts?]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 11:50:36 -0400

On Apr 29 11:22 AM RiRe wrote:

> Does that make any sense?
>
> GDP down 6.1
>
> Consumer Spending up 2.2
>
> and the market goes nuts?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/22927?source=feed#comment-482365 482365 Wed, 29 Apr 2009 09:13:41 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/133669-bank-of-america-needs-70-billion-fbr?source=feed#comment-481642 481642

On Apr 28 04:40 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> Do keep in mind that the reason why this isn't impacting the stock
> market is because the fed can print an arbitrary amount of money
> to negate toxic assets.
>
> ----------------------...
> How much capital does BAC need? The Wall Street Journal is reporting
> that BAC needs additional capital following the results of the government's
> stress test. Using our 12% unemployment rate scenario from last week's
> report ("Stress Testing Nine Banks—It's All About Unemployment,"
> April 22, 2009), we estimate that BAC needs at least $60 billion
> to $70 billion in capital to maintain a TCE ratio above 3% at the
> end of 2010.]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 17:21:53 -0400

On Apr 28 04:40 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> Do keep in mind that the reason why this isn't impacting the stock
> market is because the fed can print an arbitrary amount of money
> to negate toxic assets.
>
> ----------------------...
> How much capital does BAC need? The Wall Street Journal is reporting
> that BAC needs additional capital following the results of the government's
> stress test. Using our 12% unemployment rate scenario from last week's
> report ("Stress Testing Nine Banks—It's All About Unemployment,"
> April 22, 2009), we estimate that BAC needs at least $60 billion
> to $70 billion in capital to maintain a TCE ratio above 3% at the
> end of 2010.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/22574?source=feed#comment-476864 476864

On Apr 24 08:17 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> This lacks merit, sorry.]]> Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:10:41 -0400

On Apr 24 08:17 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> This lacks merit, sorry.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131974-deteriorating-housing-backdrop-why-wells-fargo-rally-won-t-last?source=feed#comment-472047 472047
I find myself wondering about the powers that be. To me, no matter how inept they make themselves seem, I can't help but think that they have to realize the magnitude of the crises we are facing. Granted, they can never be honest and admit the size of the problem.

Lets assume that they are fully aware and can't admit the size of the problem (obvious reasons). What are the options? There is no feasible way to cleanse the system by printing money and guaranteeing bad assets without wreaking unsustainable havoc on the US balance sheet. Their other option? Keep putting wads of chewed gum in the cracks in the damn and hope it holds.

Or, for another illustration, imagine being the captain of Titanic realizing too late that you're heading for an iceberg. Your only solution? Hit the gas, veer like hell and hope you survive.

So, I'm sure Tyler could summon the courage to do a bull article. But, as you yourself said, you look for logic in the markets. Unfortunately, for fans of logic and reason, all signs point to more bearish articles as inevitability sets in.

Looking forward to Cetin's response. ]]> Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:28:01 -0400
I find myself wondering about the powers that be. To me, no matter how inept they make themselves seem, I can't help but think that they have to realize the magnitude of the crises we are facing. Granted, they can never be honest and admit the size of the problem.

Lets assume that they are fully aware and can't admit the size of the problem (obvious reasons). What are the options? There is no feasible way to cleanse the system by printing money and guaranteeing bad assets without wreaking unsustainable havoc on the US balance sheet. Their other option? Keep putting wads of chewed gum in the cracks in the damn and hope it holds.

Or, for another illustration, imagine being the captain of Titanic realizing too late that you're heading for an iceberg. Your only solution? Hit the gas, veer like hell and hope you survive.

So, I'm sure Tyler could summon the courage to do a bull article. But, as you yourself said, you look for logic in the markets. Unfortunately, for fans of logic and reason, all signs point to more bearish articles as inevitability sets in.

Looking forward to Cetin's response. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130711-rolling-buy-ins-and-assorted-other-market-factors?source=feed#comment-462197 462197
Here is a favorite of mine, from Sept 2008:

"Google stock is surging again. I HIIIIGHHLYYY recommend buying google. Google and Facebook are leading the transition to the type one civilization. And Facebook is still worth $30 billion and Web 2.0 is not a bubble.

My target is 600-650 easily.
And in one decade: $4000 a share
AND MAYBE $14,000 LATER
google will have a market cap of 3 trillion
And control all media through all mediums on plant earth
And revenue will be bigger than all other media and internet companies combined.
100 billion yearly revenue. Market cap 1-3 trillion.

I KNOW EVERYTHING"

And you have the gall to criticize an SA contributor who posts valuable, lucid, and relevant information? Further, getting 5 weeks in a row correct is hardly something to brag about. Check back with us in 10 years.


On Apr 13 04:08 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> lets see..tyler publishes at least four articles a day (the limit
> should be two according to the seeking alpha rules) and they are
> all bearish and this is in spite of a huge rally that has lifted
> the S&P 500 30% from its lows. So far, while my posts may seem
> redundant they are no more redundant than Tyler's articles have been
> in interms of bearishness, and at least I've been right so far.
> ]]> Mon, 13 Apr 2009 20:53:06 -0400
Here is a favorite of mine, from Sept 2008:

"Google stock is surging again. I HIIIIGHHLYYY recommend buying google. Google and Facebook are leading the transition to the type one civilization. And Facebook is still worth $30 billion and Web 2.0 is not a bubble.

My target is 600-650 easily.
And in one decade: $4000 a share
AND MAYBE $14,000 LATER
google will have a market cap of 3 trillion
And control all media through all mediums on plant earth
And revenue will be bigger than all other media and internet companies combined.
100 billion yearly revenue. Market cap 1-3 trillion.

I KNOW EVERYTHING"

And you have the gall to criticize an SA contributor who posts valuable, lucid, and relevant information? Further, getting 5 weeks in a row correct is hardly something to brag about. Check back with us in 10 years.


On Apr 13 04:08 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> lets see..tyler publishes at least four articles a day (the limit
> should be two according to the seeking alpha rules) and they are
> all bearish and this is in spite of a huge rally that has lifted
> the S&P 500 30% from its lows. So far, while my posts may seem
> redundant they are no more redundant than Tyler's articles have been
> in interms of bearishness, and at least I've been right so far.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130111-understanding-triple-leveraged-etfs?source=feed#comment-460463 460463
You'll probably get it right though. Cheers.

Shorting two inverse ETFs that are comprised of all kinds of frankenstein securities isn't arbitrage. Its a wolf in sheep's clothing.


On Apr 10 12:10 PM arthatek wrote:

> short them both and make 81% in 5 months. what could go wrong ?]]> Sun, 12 Apr 2009 10:50:12 -0400
You'll probably get it right though. Cheers.

Shorting two inverse ETFs that are comprised of all kinds of frankenstein securities isn't arbitrage. Its a wolf in sheep's clothing.


On Apr 10 12:10 PM arthatek wrote:

> short them both and make 81% in 5 months. what could go wrong ?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128768-why-this-is-just-another-bear-market-rally?source=feed#comment-447438 447438
There appears to be more cash because as a percentage of portfolios cash has increased. This isn't necessarily because investors are hoarding cash waiting for the opportune moment. Their other assets have PLUMMETED in value therefore increasing the percentage of cash held.

Further, how many investors do you really believe are dying to put all their precious cash back into the market? These are the very same people who just lost 50% or more of their net worth via housing and asset losses. Many of these same people are worried about their jobs, are scalp deep in debt, and face further losses in net worth due to the asset deflation the Fed and Treasury are desperately trying to combat.

Just because you read something in Barron's doesn't make it the an incontrovertible truth. Those saps are permabulls who only benefit professionally when you are fully invested. Listening to their (or CNBC's advice) thusfar sets you back to the early 90's.

Talk about a weak bullish argument.


On Mar 31 04:17 PM dharmabob wrote:

> stock prices aren't based on today's situation, but on expectations,
> so an analysis of the current economic status isn't necessarily a
> good indicator of which way stock prices are going. There's a lot
> of cash out there waiting to come back in.]]> Tue, 31 Mar 2009 23:43:31 -0400
There appears to be more cash because as a percentage of portfolios cash has increased. This isn't necessarily because investors are hoarding cash waiting for the opportune moment. Their other assets have PLUMMETED in value therefore increasing the percentage of cash held.

Further, how many investors do you really believe are dying to put all their precious cash back into the market? These are the very same people who just lost 50% or more of their net worth via housing and asset losses. Many of these same people are worried about their jobs, are scalp deep in debt, and face further losses in net worth due to the asset deflation the Fed and Treasury are desperately trying to combat.

Just because you read something in Barron's doesn't make it the an incontrovertible truth. Those saps are permabulls who only benefit professionally when you are fully invested. Listening to their (or CNBC's advice) thusfar sets you back to the early 90's.

Talk about a weak bullish argument.


On Mar 31 04:17 PM dharmabob wrote:

> stock prices aren't based on today's situation, but on expectations,
> so an analysis of the current economic status isn't necessarily a
> good indicator of which way stock prices are going. There's a lot
> of cash out there waiting to come back in.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127213-why-the-fed-is-right-to-be-worried?source=feed#comment-435909 435909

On Mar 22 01:34 PM Sunnsea wrote:

> During WWII no one thought "how will we pay off this debt?" They
> did what they had to do to obtain victory and huge spending was part
> of it....and the results were extraodinary. We are in the midst
> of the destruction of the American crony capitalism system but it
> is not over yet and we are going to have to do what it will take
> to get ourselves out of this. Government spending and printing money
> is really the least of it.]]> Sun, 22 Mar 2009 20:09:57 -0400

On Mar 22 01:34 PM Sunnsea wrote:

> During WWII no one thought "how will we pay off this debt?" They
> did what they had to do to obtain victory and huge spending was part
> of it....and the results were extraodinary. We are in the midst
> of the destruction of the American crony capitalism system but it
> is not over yet and we are going to have to do what it will take
> to get ourselves out of this. Government spending and printing money
> is really the least of it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127105-10-reasons-why-we-still-haven-t-hit-bottom?source=feed#comment-434589 434589
I'd like your opinion on the almost immediate reversal of opinion by nearly all pundits and market participants. We went from hearing doom and gloom from everyone and then over the course of a weekend everything changed.

With shorts being squeezed and people jumping back into the market what will happen when Q1 earnings and GDP disappoint? ]]> Sat, 21 Mar 2009 15:39:51 -0400
I'd like your opinion on the almost immediate reversal of opinion by nearly all pundits and market participants. We went from hearing doom and gloom from everyone and then over the course of a weekend everything changed.

With shorts being squeezed and people jumping back into the market what will happen when Q1 earnings and GDP disappoint? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126020-bear-market-rally-or-did-we-hit-bottom?source=feed#comment-427094 427094

On Mar 15 10:11 PM William Cowie wrote:

> Rally, for a few reasons:
>
> 1. Too much of the impetus from short covering, as already pointed
> out
> 2. Insufficient volume
> 3. No "double bottom" yet
> 4. No locomotive to pull the train, i.e. stock or sector to draw
> in the cash from the sidelines.
>
> Of course, as the wife has pointed out a time or two, I have been
> wrong before :)]]> Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:10:22 -0400

On Mar 15 10:11 PM William Cowie wrote:

> Rally, for a few reasons:
>
> 1. Too much of the impetus from short covering, as already pointed
> out
> 2. Insufficient volume
> 3. No "double bottom" yet
> 4. No locomotive to pull the train, i.e. stock or sector to draw
> in the cash from the sidelines.
>
> Of course, as the wife has pointed out a time or two, I have been
> wrong before :)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/125920-not-a-day-to-dive-back-in?source=feed#comment-425052 425052

On Mar 13 02:31 PM Nuh-huh wrote:

> You're missing it. The market, particularly the banks and insurers,
> are oversold. If you think the banks are going to all blow up, take
> you cash and buy torches, pitchforks, guns and a tanker-truck full
> of gasoline. Otherwise, put your money back to work.]]> Fri, 13 Mar 2009 17:02:58 -0400

On Mar 13 02:31 PM Nuh-huh wrote:

> You're missing it. The market, particularly the banks and insurers,
> are oversold. If you think the banks are going to all blow up, take
> you cash and buy torches, pitchforks, guns and a tanker-truck full
> of gasoline. Otherwise, put your money back to work.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/125755-companies-facing-pension-deficits-and-eps-impact?source=feed#comment-423968 423968
All the government has to do is ease the funding regulations and pretend that everything will be fine. Problem solved.]]> Fri, 13 Mar 2009 00:05:02 -0400
All the government has to do is ease the funding regulations and pretend that everything will be fine. Problem solved.]]>