Jeff Miller's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/55431/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/180292/comments?source=feed#comment-837058 837058
Jeff]]> Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:02:15 -0500
Jeff]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/180292/comments?source=feed#comment-837057 837057
Valuation would take an entire article to cover, but if you search, you'll see some more detail in past articles, including one last March.

Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

Jeff]]> Thu, 07 Jan 2010 01:01:05 -0500
Valuation would take an entire article to cover, but if you search, you'll see some more detail in past articles, including one last March.

Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

Jeff]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/180292/comments?source=feed#comment-837052 837052
So far, the earnings growth has kept my price target well ahead of the actual price, but that could certainly change. You have to live with a fair amount of news-generated volatility, as I have written a few times.

Thanks for the question!

Jeff]]> Thu, 07 Jan 2010 00:51:46 -0500
So far, the earnings growth has kept my price target well ahead of the actual price, but that could certainly change. You have to live with a fair amount of news-generated volatility, as I have written a few times.

Thanks for the question!

Jeff]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/180614/comments?source=feed#comment-831084 831084
I really don't object to your general argument. It has been an announced matter of government policy to do everything possible to help the economy. Whatever we think of specific programs, some of the actions had an effect.

I don't really see how day trading lifts the market (don't these guys close out positions?) but I agree that everything from cash for clunkers to the Fed buying agency paper is bolstering the economy.

That is why I have written on several occasions that it is crazy to fight it -- at least right now.

But at least you and I are discussing substantive policy, openly revealed and debated. In some countries that would not be the case.

Thanks again,

Jeff]]> Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:30:11 -0500
I really don't object to your general argument. It has been an announced matter of government policy to do everything possible to help the economy. Whatever we think of specific programs, some of the actions had an effect.

I don't really see how day trading lifts the market (don't these guys close out positions?) but I agree that everything from cash for clunkers to the Fed buying agency paper is bolstering the economy.

That is why I have written on several occasions that it is crazy to fight it -- at least right now.

But at least you and I are discussing substantive policy, openly revealed and debated. In some countries that would not be the case.

Thanks again,

Jeff]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/180614/comments?source=feed#comment-831076 831076
It goes with the territory as a blogger that anonymous critics who post no biographical information are free to say whatever they want, but you should know that it does not enhance your argument or make you seem more persuasive.

So let's compare. I have a PhD in political science from a top school, taught at other top schools, worked in government, have students and friends who work in government, and I have analyzed public policy issues for forty years. I have served on numerous government and private boards. I try to help people by explaining what I have learned from this experience. And by the way -- -I have lived in the Chicago area for over 20 years. I am well aware that not all politics is squeaky clean!

You seem to come to the discussion with your mind made up because --- of what? You have a list of scandals which are all known. That is exactly my point. There is no way that this stuff could go on without some revelations.

The Fed has been making transcripts -- not minutes as you talk about, but full transcripts -- available for all meetings. If there was every any market manipulation up through 2004, we would see it in the transcripts. If you want to do a little real research, you should take a look. That was the challenge I made.

If you think that the Fed bought S&P futures in 2009, and the fifty people in the meeting all agreed to ignore the official minutes, we'll have the full transcript in five years.

Do you want to bet a beer? I'm on!

Meanwhile, let's put aside the name calling. You are someone on my "follow" list because I enjoy reading your comments on many articles.

Jeff]]> Sun, 03 Jan 2010 20:20:55 -0500
It goes with the territory as a blogger that anonymous critics who post no biographical information are free to say whatever they want, but you should know that it does not enhance your argument or make you seem more persuasive.

So let's compare. I have a PhD in political science from a top school, taught at other top schools, worked in government, have students and friends who work in government, and I have analyzed public policy issues for forty years. I have served on numerous government and private boards. I try to help people by explaining what I have learned from this experience. And by the way -- -I have lived in the Chicago area for over 20 years. I am well aware that not all politics is squeaky clean!

You seem to come to the discussion with your mind made up because --- of what? You have a list of scandals which are all known. That is exactly my point. There is no way that this stuff could go on without some revelations.

The Fed has been making transcripts -- not minutes as you talk about, but full transcripts -- available for all meetings. If there was every any market manipulation up through 2004, we would see it in the transcripts. If you want to do a little real research, you should take a look. That was the challenge I made.

If you think that the Fed bought S&P futures in 2009, and the fifty people in the meeting all agreed to ignore the official minutes, we'll have the full transcript in five years.

Do you want to bet a beer? I'm on!

Meanwhile, let's put aside the name calling. You are someone on my "follow" list because I enjoy reading your comments on many articles.

Jeff]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/179927/comments?source=feed#comment-824422 824422
I caught a few typos in my article last night before putting it up -- mostly homonyms, which seem to creep into everyone's work.. For me, it is always evening writing and the ETF update is the toughest article of the week. You get tired, and you make mistakes. I certainly do. My team proofreads in the morning, and they missed it also. This happened in spite of the fact that we have all spent many hours in discussions with a good friend who is an expert in Indian politics. The eye expects to see something, and moves along.

I am sorry for putting Michaels' work in the spotlight in this way. I am sure it was just a typo on his part, and it did not really affect the point of his helpful article. Having said this, I would have corrected it or left out the quote had I noticed it. I do not generally go with the "[sic]" routine, especially when I am highlighting good work.

There is a trade off at work in blogging. For some years I taught at a fine liberal arts school. Our students learned a lot about writing, and the faculty all graded thousands of Freshman Studies papers. There was a standard of excellence in everything we wrote.

As I moved into the business world, I noted that most of the writing was terrible. In blogging it is much the same. If you want the essence of the free content, you need to be a bit more forgiving about small errors.

To summarize, I agree with your point about accuracy, so I apologize to readers and to Michael. Perhaps I'll write another piece on this general subject. You raise an interesting question about what you need to know before investing or trading.

There is a difference between trading and investing. Some of my friends in the trading pits prefer to know nothing about the fundamentals. They claim they could trade anything, just by watching the flow of the paper. They are interested in news only when there is a break in normal trading. I have complained in past articles about how many "instant experts" there were on Dubai.

Those doing long-term investing should experts at a very detailed level. In these trading articles, I am trying to help readers to a solid overall perspective on the main issues, and I think I accomplished that.

But I do appreciate your point, and thanks. It is food for thought. I also like your style:)

Jeff


On Dec 28 05:46 PM sierranvin wrote:

> I find it unwise to follow advisors with a superficial knowledge
> of the countries about which they purport to offer expertise. Financial
> acumen is only part of the equation. I recently criticized a piece
> where the "provisional governments" of Canada were mentioned. If
> one truly understands Canada, one realizes there have been no coups
> and hence no provisional governments, only the constitutionally sanctioned
> provincial ones. In this article reference is made to the India Natural
> Party. This is hilarious, are they really doin' things naturally????
> Perhaps R. Crumb's cartoon icon Mr. Natural is their leader?
> But once again, when it's your money they're blogging about, we deserve
> writers who intuitively grasp that the Indian National Congress,
> aka Congress Party, is the party of Nehru, Ghandi, etc., and the
> party which led India to freedom from British colonial rule. Those
> who don't make, or quote gaffes of this nature but rather understand
> the nation being scrutinized and its political system are surely
> better qualified to evaluate political risk and offer advice on investing
> there.]]> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 21:38:27 -0500
I caught a few typos in my article last night before putting it up -- mostly homonyms, which seem to creep into everyone's work.. For me, it is always evening writing and the ETF update is the toughest article of the week. You get tired, and you make mistakes. I certainly do. My team proofreads in the morning, and they missed it also. This happened in spite of the fact that we have all spent many hours in discussions with a good friend who is an expert in Indian politics. The eye expects to see something, and moves along.

I am sorry for putting Michaels' work in the spotlight in this way. I am sure it was just a typo on his part, and it did not really affect the point of his helpful article. Having said this, I would have corrected it or left out the quote had I noticed it. I do not generally go with the "[sic]" routine, especially when I am highlighting good work.

There is a trade off at work in blogging. For some years I taught at a fine liberal arts school. Our students learned a lot about writing, and the faculty all graded thousands of Freshman Studies papers. There was a standard of excellence in everything we wrote.

As I moved into the business world, I noted that most of the writing was terrible. In blogging it is much the same. If you want the essence of the free content, you need to be a bit more forgiving about small errors.

To summarize, I agree with your point about accuracy, so I apologize to readers and to Michael. Perhaps I'll write another piece on this general subject. You raise an interesting question about what you need to know before investing or trading.

There is a difference between trading and investing. Some of my friends in the trading pits prefer to know nothing about the fundamentals. They claim they could trade anything, just by watching the flow of the paper. They are interested in news only when there is a break in normal trading. I have complained in past articles about how many "instant experts" there were on Dubai.

Those doing long-term investing should experts at a very detailed level. In these trading articles, I am trying to help readers to a solid overall perspective on the main issues, and I think I accomplished that.

But I do appreciate your point, and thanks. It is food for thought. I also like your style:)

Jeff


On Dec 28 05:46 PM sierranvin wrote:

> I find it unwise to follow advisors with a superficial knowledge
> of the countries about which they purport to offer expertise. Financial
> acumen is only part of the equation. I recently criticized a piece
> where the "provisional governments" of Canada were mentioned. If
> one truly understands Canada, one realizes there have been no coups
> and hence no provisional governments, only the constitutionally sanctioned
> provincial ones. In this article reference is made to the India Natural
> Party. This is hilarious, are they really doin' things naturally????
> Perhaps R. Crumb's cartoon icon Mr. Natural is their leader?
> But once again, when it's your money they're blogging about, we deserve
> writers who intuitively grasp that the Indian National Congress,
> aka Congress Party, is the party of Nehru, Ghandi, etc., and the
> party which led India to freedom from British colonial rule. Those
> who don't make, or quote gaffes of this nature but rather understand
> the nation being scrutinized and its political system are surely
> better qualified to evaluate political risk and offer advice on investing
> there.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/178791/comments?source=feed#comment-812872 812872
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.]]> Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:26:11 -0500
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/178378/comments?source=feed#comment-808879 808879
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!]]> Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:10:57 -0500
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!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/178378/comments?source=feed#comment-808876 808876
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]]> Wed, 16 Dec 2009 15:09:57 -0500
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]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177512/comments?source=feed#comment-802481 802481
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]]> Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:53:55 -0500
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]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177277/comments?source=feed#comment-799748 799748
As I suggested in the article, you cannot just take a website P/E with trailing earnings. For companies with a lot of cash you need to back that out first. Then make sure you are looking at future earnings that include the AT&T payments. When you have a number, compare it to the earnings growth rate. That is the method used by the fundamental analysts I cited, and it is a strong approach.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

Thanks.

Jeff


On Dec 10 03:59 AM Windsun33 wrote:

> "...Perhaps I acted too soon, since the technical traders are driving
> the stock lower. "
>
> Or perhaps they are looking at the PE of 32'ish and starting to worry.]]> Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:06:37 -0500
As I suggested in the article, you cannot just take a website P/E with trailing earnings. For companies with a lot of cash you need to back that out first. Then make sure you are looking at future earnings that include the AT&T payments. When you have a number, compare it to the earnings growth rate. That is the method used by the fundamental analysts I cited, and it is a strong approach.

I hope this clarifies things a bit.

Thanks.

Jeff


On Dec 10 03:59 AM Windsun33 wrote:

> "...Perhaps I acted too soon, since the technical traders are driving
> the stock lower. "
>
> Or perhaps they are looking at the PE of 32'ish and starting to worry.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/98115-john-lounsbury/35717-unemployment-and-three-bad-recessions?source=feed#comment-760988 760988
Jeff


On Nov 15 01:22 AM John Lounsbury wrote:

> Jeff - - -
>
> I had most of my clients from 40-60% in stocks - basically indexed,
> not many individual stocks - by the end of March and have not yet
> started to lighten up. This puts everyone between about 57% and 78%
> stocks today. I am expecting the rally to stall, because of a variety
> of technical readings and because I believe that forward earnings
> projections may have gotten too high. I'm not resigned to a double
> dip yet, but I expect economic activity to be far less robust than
> some very astute advisors (like James Grant and ECRI, for two examples)
> are projecting. So I am going to be moving most of the stock gains
> back to cash before year end.
>
> My strategy since March was not to take any action until the S&P
> 500 had pulled back at least 10% and that has not happened yet. So
> the stock index funds and ETFs have just been riding the wave. I
> haven't decided how to "take profits", but, unless there is a market
> break in the next two weeks, I will be selling 5% of stock index
> positions each week for four weeks starting the week after Thanksgiving.
>
>
> If the market pulls back 15% I will take another 5% off the table
> and at 20% another 5%. I will look at any rally carefully and not
> start considering adding back to stocks until there is a 10% rally
> from where I last sold, or a huge down day on large volume.
>
> What I am telling my clients now is that I am ready, if necessary
> to go back into serious cash preservation mode as we did starting
> in January 2008. I was systematically selling stocks throughout the
> year, and didn't start nibbling back in until February 2009. At the
> beginning of 2009, my clients were all between 10% and 25% in stocks,
> very few bonds or commodities and mostly cash. I'm advising clients
> to be ready for that to happen again - not highly probable, but it
> is more possible than most of them believe.
>
> I have been doing more trading recommendations for clients in 2009
> than I have done before, especially in tax deferred accounts. We
> have done some short term ETF trades (EWZ, FXI, DIG, DUG, GLD, and
> GLL have been used a number of times) that have always been held
> less than 2 months and often less than 1 month). For my more risk
> tolerant clients, we have sometime used as much as half of their
> cash. For my more risk adverse clients, we have stayed below 10%
> of cash in these trading "adventures" most of the time. I have been
> able to add between 3% and 20% to the performance of portfolios by
> trading. I don't normally do this sort of thing, but I have not had
> the confidence to re-establish my longer term valuation based stock
> picking strategies. I am afraid I do not believe that the economic
> situation will be stable enough to get back into that mode in 2010,
> either.
>
> I have a couple of older clients in their 80's who still want to
> invest heavily in stocks. In one case, the spouse is 70 and the longer
> view is justified on that basis. The other case is quite irrational
> because both spouses are about the same age. These are the two clients
> who have given me the most flack for not being aggressive enough.
> They have both been with me for more than 15 years. I have to keep
> reminding them that they have between 2 and 3 times the money today
> compared to what they would have had if they put their money in the
> S&P 500 10 years ago and just left it there. That usually assuages
> them. In one case though, I had to offer to fire the client a few
> months ago. He didn't want to be fired and we are chugging along
> on an even keel again.
>
> Sorry to make this such an informal ramble, but its Saturday night
> - er, Sunday morning - and I'm just unwinding before going to bed.
> ]]> Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:26:36 -0500
Jeff


On Nov 15 01:22 AM John Lounsbury wrote:

> Jeff - - -
>
> I had most of my clients from 40-60% in stocks - basically indexed,
> not many individual stocks - by the end of March and have not yet
> started to lighten up. This puts everyone between about 57% and 78%
> stocks today. I am expecting the rally to stall, because of a variety
> of technical readings and because I believe that forward earnings
> projections may have gotten too high. I'm not resigned to a double
> dip yet, but I expect economic activity to be far less robust than
> some very astute advisors (like James Grant and ECRI, for two examples)
> are projecting. So I am going to be moving most of the stock gains
> back to cash before year end.
>
> My strategy since March was not to take any action until the S&P
> 500 had pulled back at least 10% and that has not happened yet. So
> the stock index funds and ETFs have just been riding the wave. I
> haven't decided how to "take profits", but, unless there is a market
> break in the next two weeks, I will be selling 5% of stock index
> positions each week for four weeks starting the week after Thanksgiving.
>
>
> If the market pulls back 15% I will take another 5% off the table
> and at 20% another 5%. I will look at any rally carefully and not
> start considering adding back to stocks until there is a 10% rally
> from where I last sold, or a huge down day on large volume.
>
> What I am telling my clients now is that I am ready, if necessary
> to go back into serious cash preservation mode as we did starting
> in January 2008. I was systematically selling stocks throughout the
> year, and didn't start nibbling back in until February 2009. At the
> beginning of 2009, my clients were all between 10% and 25% in stocks,
> very few bonds or commodities and mostly cash. I'm advising clients
> to be ready for that to happen again - not highly probable, but it
> is more possible than most of them believe.
>
> I have been doing more trading recommendations for clients in 2009
> than I have done before, especially in tax deferred accounts. We
> have done some short term ETF trades (EWZ, FXI, DIG, DUG, GLD, and
> GLL have been used a number of times) that have always been held
> less than 2 months and often less than 1 month). For my more risk
> tolerant clients, we have sometime used as much as half of their
> cash. For my more risk adverse clients, we have stayed below 10%
> of cash in these trading "adventures" most of the time. I have been
> able to add between 3% and 20% to the performance of portfolios by
> trading. I don't normally do this sort of thing, but I have not had
> the confidence to re-establish my longer term valuation based stock
> picking strategies. I am afraid I do not believe that the economic
> situation will be stable enough to get back into that mode in 2010,
> either.
>
> I have a couple of older clients in their 80's who still want to
> invest heavily in stocks. In one case, the spouse is 70 and the longer
> view is justified on that basis. The other case is quite irrational
> because both spouses are about the same age. These are the two clients
> who have given me the most flack for not being aggressive enough.
> They have both been with me for more than 15 years. I have to keep
> reminding them that they have between 2 and 3 times the money today
> compared to what they would have had if they put their money in the
> S&P 500 10 years ago and just left it there. That usually assuages
> them. In one case though, I had to offer to fire the client a few
> months ago. He didn't want to be fired and we are chugging along
> on an even keel again.
>
> Sorry to make this such an informal ramble, but its Saturday night
> - er, Sunday morning - and I'm just unwinding before going to bed.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/98115-john-lounsbury/35717-unemployment-and-three-bad-recessions?source=feed#comment-760636 760636
Can you share how this translates into your investment advice?

Some of these indicators are not going to improve for a long time. What are the investment implications?

Thanks --

Jeff]]> Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:09:35 -0500
Can you share how this translates into your investment advice?

Some of these indicators are not going to improve for a long time. What are the investment implications?

Thanks --

Jeff]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170339/comments?source=feed#comment-739237 739237
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:]]> Sun, 01 Nov 2009 11:32:56 -0500
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:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/165945/comments?source=feed#comment-713281 713281
If we had followed this strategy last week, when things looked about the same, we would have missed a nice week.

Meanwhile, I am compiling data on how the penalty box and the index package have done as macro indicators.

Thanks for taking the time to make your thoughtful comment.

Jeff


On Oct 12 08:30 AM enigmaman wrote:

> Jeff, seems like your trying to thread the eye of a needle as it
> relates to finding some additional green shoots in a garden full
> of weeds. You said "95% (up from 86%) of our sectors are in the "penalty
> box." This means that they are currently disqualified from the buy
> list for technical reasons." At this point in the game wouldn't it
> be wiser for most to just sit on the bench to see how the game plays
> out in the near term, at this level only the seasoned well disciplined
> investor should be sitting at the table.
>
> Why not discuss some other strategies, a holding pattern, an exit
> strategy, some alternative plan, or how to react when there is a
> significant bump in the road, that would seem to be the prudent course
> at this stage of the game and very helpful, that is unless you believe
> we are just in the first few inning of a new ball game with plenty
> of upside. Im not saying think the worst just what if, pays to be
> ready just in case]]> Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:09:58 -0400
If we had followed this strategy last week, when things looked about the same, we would have missed a nice week.

Meanwhile, I am compiling data on how the penalty box and the index package have done as macro indicators.

Thanks for taking the time to make your thoughtful comment.

Jeff


On Oct 12 08:30 AM enigmaman wrote:

> Jeff, seems like your trying to thread the eye of a needle as it
> relates to finding some additional green shoots in a garden full
> of weeds. You said "95% (up from 86%) of our sectors are in the "penalty
> box." This means that they are currently disqualified from the buy
> list for technical reasons." At this point in the game wouldn't it
> be wiser for most to just sit on the bench to see how the game plays
> out in the near term, at this level only the seasoned well disciplined
> investor should be sitting at the table.
>
> Why not discuss some other strategies, a holding pattern, an exit
> strategy, some alternative plan, or how to react when there is a
> significant bump in the road, that would seem to be the prudent course
> at this stage of the game and very helpful, that is unless you believe
> we are just in the first few inning of a new ball game with plenty
> of upside. Im not saying think the worst just what if, pays to be
> ready just in case]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164936/comments?source=feed#comment-707738 707738
And Tom, thanks for appreciating the effort at getting a smile along the way. The announcer in the video could hardly believe it himself!]]> Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:09:49 -0400
And Tom, thanks for appreciating the effort at getting a smile along the way. The announcer in the video could hardly believe it himself!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164881/comments?source=feed#comment-705595 705595
Note also how some comments are confusing JOLTS (which shows job openings) with Business Dynamics (which describes job creation). Not everyone finds it all as obvious as you do.

My guess is that most of the people writing on employment issues could not come within an order of magnitude if asked the number of new jobs created in a month.

More generally, I am disappointed that readers cannot accept an article like this for what it provides. If you already understood everything in it, well good for you.

Personally, I think Bob's visual aid is badly needed and should get more air time. Here's another one. How many jobs are lost in a year? If you think in gross terms, as Bob suggests, you will reach an answer of 30 million or more. This is a much better read on the devastating impact of the recession, since it makes clear how many are touched.

I am a big fan of Bob's work, and I respect his right to pick topics that he thinks would be helpful. I might add that the SA editorial staff thought the piece was worth a front-page feature. I strongly agree.


On Oct 06 01:30 PM Josh Dowlut wrote:

> Pardon me for throwing the Captain Obvious flag on this but I'd be
> shocked if the average Seeking Alpha reader doesn't already know
> that the net figure is derived by weighing gross gains against gross
> losses. Do you really think anyone actually thinks when we hear
> the net figures that not a single job was created anywhere last month?
> We don't all have a PHD in economics but most of us have IQ's over
> 100. Is there a point you are trying to make? Apparently you find
> this fascinating as you even invented your own visual aid to demonstrate
> this novel concept.
>
> Are you trying to argue that it's really not that bad because there
> are jobs being created? Can you honestly imagine a time when it
> would get so bad that there would never be any GROSS jobs created?
> If you can't then can you admit just how preposterous your suggestion
> is?]]> Tue, 06 Oct 2009 14:53:18 -0400
Note also how some comments are confusing JOLTS (which shows job openings) with Business Dynamics (which describes job creation). Not everyone finds it all as obvious as you do.

My guess is that most of the people writing on employment issues could not come within an order of magnitude if asked the number of new jobs created in a month.

More generally, I am disappointed that readers cannot accept an article like this for what it provides. If you already understood everything in it, well good for you.

Personally, I think Bob's visual aid is badly needed and should get more air time. Here's another one. How many jobs are lost in a year? If you think in gross terms, as Bob suggests, you will reach an answer of 30 million or more. This is a much better read on the devastating impact of the recession, since it makes clear how many are touched.

I am a big fan of Bob's work, and I respect his right to pick topics that he thinks would be helpful. I might add that the SA editorial staff thought the piece was worth a front-page feature. I strongly agree.


On Oct 06 01:30 PM Josh Dowlut wrote:

> Pardon me for throwing the Captain Obvious flag on this but I'd be
> shocked if the average Seeking Alpha reader doesn't already know
> that the net figure is derived by weighing gross gains against gross
> losses. Do you really think anyone actually thinks when we hear
> the net figures that not a single job was created anywhere last month?
> We don't all have a PHD in economics but most of us have IQ's over
> 100. Is there a point you are trying to make? Apparently you find
> this fascinating as you even invented your own visual aid to demonstrate
> this novel concept.
>
> Are you trying to argue that it's really not that bad because there
> are jobs being created? Can you honestly imagine a time when it
> would get so bad that there would never be any GROSS jobs created?
> If you can't then can you admit just how preposterous your suggestion
> is?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164604/comments?source=feed#comment-703904 703904 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.]]> Mon, 05 Oct 2009 13:37:32 -0400 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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164604/comments?source=feed#comment-703142 703142
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.]]> Sun, 04 Oct 2009 23:20:43 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164211/comments?source=feed#comment-700859 700859
Thanks for following up.

Jeff


On Oct 02 10:05 AM Carlos Lam wrote:

> On Oct 01 10:16 AM Jeff Miller wrote:]]> Fri, 02 Oct 2009 20:00:18 -0400
Thanks for following up.

Jeff


On Oct 02 10:05 AM Carlos Lam wrote:

> On Oct 01 10:16 AM Jeff Miller wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164153/comments?source=feed#comment-698876 698876
That is not the BLS methodology -- not even close. The BLS imputes a lower rate of job creation for new businesses based upon the behavior of existing businesses. It then has a (much less important) birth/death adjustment. The overall process has been very accurate throughout the business cycle, improving forecasts in every quarter since it has been implemented.

Most commentators on this subject do not want to be confused by actual facts or data :) If you are otherwise, I summarized it here: oldprof.typepad.com/a_...


On Sep 30 07:30 PM Roger Knights wrote:

> "His latest analysis of daily income tax deposits to the U.S. Treasury
> projects 358,000 U.S. jobs lost in September, almost double the consensus
> estimate."
>
> This has an important implication about the unemployment rate at
> the end of the year. It suggests that the BLS may have to revise
> its estimated-employment numbers for earlier in the year sharply
> downward. (Its birth/death-of-businesses estimates are being made
> based on the pattern of previous recession-recoveries and are therefore
> probably unrealistic.)
>
> "When investors realize how weak the economy truly is, stock prices
> are going to plunge."
>
> Sharply revised BLS numbers would strongly revise investors' perceptions.
> The green-shoot beanstalk would wilt under the weight of all the
> Jacks atop it.]]> Thu, 01 Oct 2009 15:38:06 -0400
That is not the BLS methodology -- not even close. The BLS imputes a lower rate of job creation for new businesses based upon the behavior of existing businesses. It then has a (much less important) birth/death adjustment. The overall process has been very accurate throughout the business cycle, improving forecasts in every quarter since it has been implemented.

Most commentators on this subject do not want to be confused by actual facts or data :) If you are otherwise, I summarized it here: oldprof.typepad.com/a_...


On Sep 30 07:30 PM Roger Knights wrote:

> "His latest analysis of daily income tax deposits to the U.S. Treasury
> projects 358,000 U.S. jobs lost in September, almost double the consensus
> estimate."
>
> This has an important implication about the unemployment rate at
> the end of the year. It suggests that the BLS may have to revise
> its estimated-employment numbers for earlier in the year sharply
> downward. (Its birth/death-of-businesses estimates are being made
> based on the pattern of previous recession-recoveries and are therefore
> probably unrealistic.)
>
> "When investors realize how weak the economy truly is, stock prices
> are going to plunge."
>
> Sharply revised BLS numbers would strongly revise investors' perceptions.
> The green-shoot beanstalk would wilt under the weight of all the
> Jacks atop it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164211/comments?source=feed#comment-698410 698410 oldprof.typepad.com/a_...

The data and results from these articles has not been challenged. B/D critics just say the same thing every month, never looking at research data to see if they were correct.

Thanks for helping me to highlight this.

Jeff


On Oct 01 09:08 AM Old Trader wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Thanks for an informative article, but a question. From what I read,
> one of the aspects that's most questioned by those critical of the
> way employment/unemployment statistics are compiled, is the birth/death
> component, and your article makes no mention of it. Any particular
> reason?]]> Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:16:06 -0400 oldprof.typepad.com/a_...

The data and results from these articles has not been challenged. B/D critics just say the same thing every month, never looking at research data to see if they were correct.

Thanks for helping me to highlight this.

Jeff


On Oct 01 09:08 AM Old Trader wrote:

> Jeff,
>
> Thanks for an informative article, but a question. From what I read,
> one of the aspects that's most questioned by those critical of the
> way employment/unemployment statistics are compiled, is the birth/death
> component, and your article makes no mention of it. Any particular
> reason?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164211/comments?source=feed#comment-698396 698396
The problem is in thinking that "the Administration" controls what is reported in most data releases. That assumption is incorrect. Most of the work is done by professional economists and statisticians who keep their jobs even as Presidents come and go. I covered that extensively in my article, "A Crib Sheet for Government Data" oldprof.typepad.com/a_....

Take a look there, and you will get some ideas both about data sources and the "spinning" of data from others.

Thanks for the good question.

Jeff


On Oct 01 07:17 AM Carlos Lam wrote:

> What you write may be correct, but it is always wise to view statistics
> and ask whether the provider somehow has an incentive to skew them.
> Any administration has the incentive to skew unemployment lower to
> attempt to make things look better. The same goes for GDP figures.
>
>
> Again, you may be right. The question that we have to ask ourselves
> is: How much do we trust political animals to produce accurate data?
> My answer is: not much. The political animals do not have the price
> system that is required to ensure that their data is accurate. Private
> data providers (i.e. ADP, TrimTabs) produce data for profit; they
> either prosper or fail based on the quality of their data. I trust
> their figures more.]]> Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:09:50 -0400
The problem is in thinking that "the Administration" controls what is reported in most data releases. That assumption is incorrect. Most of the work is done by professional economists and statisticians who keep their jobs even as Presidents come and go. I covered that extensively in my article, "A Crib Sheet for Government Data" oldprof.typepad.com/a_....

Take a look there, and you will get some ideas both about data sources and the "spinning" of data from others.

Thanks for the good question.

Jeff


On Oct 01 07:17 AM Carlos Lam wrote:

> What you write may be correct, but it is always wise to view statistics
> and ask whether the provider somehow has an incentive to skew them.
> Any administration has the incentive to skew unemployment lower to
> attempt to make things look better. The same goes for GDP figures.
>
>
> Again, you may be right. The question that we have to ask ourselves
> is: How much do we trust political animals to produce accurate data?
> My answer is: not much. The political animals do not have the price
> system that is required to ensure that their data is accurate. Private
> data providers (i.e. ADP, TrimTabs) produce data for profit; they
> either prosper or fail based on the quality of their data. I trust
> their figures more.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164211/comments?source=feed#comment-698382 698382 freakonomics.blogs.nyt.../

Sorry for the inconvenience.]]> Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:01:24 -0400 freakonomics.blogs.nyt.../

Sorry for the inconvenience.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164132/comments?source=feed#comment-697696 697696 Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:03:01 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/163820/comments?source=feed#comment-695448 695448
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.]]> Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:38:34 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163690/comments?source=feed#comment-694839 694839
The filter change announced this week includes faster stops via the penalty box, recognizing the hot money moves of hedge funds.

Thanks for the question.

Jeff]]> Mon, 28 Sep 2009 22:42:06 -0400
The filter change announced this week includes faster stops via the penalty box, recognizing the hot money moves of hedge funds.

Thanks for the question.

Jeff]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162652/comments?source=feed#comment-687009 687009
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.]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:50:44 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162652/comments?source=feed#comment-687006 687006
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.]]> Wed, 23 Sep 2009 00:45:35 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162652/comments?source=feed#comment-686319 686319
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.]]> Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:15:49 -0400
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.]]>