[quote=NASD Newbie]

How many shaky summers have you witnessed in order to have such certainty--do you suppose legends like Peter Lynch would think you're naive?

[/quote]

What was Peter Lynch doing on the board of Morrison Knudsen "back in the day" as the company sunk into the hellhole of bankruptcy and eventual extinction while making cute TV ads for Fidelity?

Answer: Keeping busy with his rubber stamp!  What a poser.

[quote=Soothsayer][quote=NASD Newbie]

How many shaky summers have you witnessed in order to have such certainty--do you suppose legends like Peter Lynch would think you're naive?

[/quote]

What was Peter Lynch doing on the board of Morrison Knudsen "back in the day" as the company sunk into the hellhole of bankruptcy and eventual extinction while making cute TV ads for Fidelity?

Answer: Keeping busy with his rubber stamp!  What a poser.

[/quote]

Poor Soothsayer, reading your posts seems like a bad trip down memory road.  Baldwin United, Morrison Knudsen--got  some Polaroid to whine about?  How about Itel?

In case you missed it the last three times you avoided responded to it



You state someone’s IRA portfolio could fall from 700K to 300K,then what? but you see no value in using a VA inside of an IRA, you clearly stated it is a bad idea, could you please explain your rationale. I have been kind enough to answer your questions, now answer that one?

No sour grapes here.  I wasn’t in the business when MK went tits.  But I do know who was the premier name on their board of directors when they went tits.  Fact or fiction, Newbie?  I just don"t think Peter Lynch was ever all that he was cracked up to be.

[quote=Soothsayer]No sour grapes here.  I wasn't in the business when MK went tits.  But I do know who was the premier name on their board of directors when they went tits.  Fact or fiction, Newbie?  I just don"t think Peter Lynch was ever all that he was cracked up to be.[/quote]

Also Peter Uberoth.

There is a vast difference between being a good stock picker and being one of a several on a corporate board of directors.

I have no doubt that he was chosen for name recognition, but it's nonsensical to argue that he was somehow responsible for the demise of the company.

I am not inclinded to defend Peter Lynch, however I suspect that an impartial review of his record as stock picker would be spectacular.

In case you missed it the last 4 times you avoided responded to it



You state someone’s IRA portfolio could fall from 700K to 300K,then what? but you see no value in using a VA inside of an IRA, you clearly stated it is a bad idea, could you please explain your rationale. I have been kind enough to answer your questions, now answer that one?

You can all tell me to go to hell on this one.  I don't care.  I am totally with nasd on this one.  All the points he makes are relevent.

I think the vast majority of you are naive and uninformed. Bankrep for you to say the market cannot be timed shows you are absolutely ignorant.  Are you also telling me technical analysis does not work?That's is god awful ignorance.  Fundamental analysis is the biggest pile of crap that was ever invented.  If anything, it is a LAGGING INDICATOR.  The crap your firms feed you that you have been indoctrinated with is all over Wall Street.  It has turned most of your minds to mush.

This economy and country are so screwed up right now that just about anything could happen.  Will the economy collapse?  Probably not.  The rest of the world has too much to loose to let that happen.   

I have to get to work now.  I have so much more to say but I am busy doing technical analysis making money for my clients. 

Who was it "Indy" I think that told me a couple months ago I was crazy for being mostly short and cash with only around 30% long.     

The market tells us what to do if we learn how to read it. 

[quote=bankrep1]Of course. I am using your stupid scenarios. If something costs $1 and now costs $1.20 cents the company made more money than it did in the past and so did every other company that supplied the goods. Hence the stock price would rise.

This would be true even if stocks trade at a PE of 1 times earnings[/quote] Bank: I actually purchased a stock @ 1.2X earn. way back in 1974. Avco. Paid 3.60/sh and their running 12 was 3.00. One caveat…the earnings were not fully taxed due to tax carry fwd., so I actually pd. 2.4X fully taxed earnings. (corp rates were 50% back then.) I get somewhat amused/bemused when I read about “cheap stocks/low mkt. PE”. I’m here to tell y’all that stocks can sell for ANY PE that the “market” deems appropriate. 

Cool! Post # 300. (Now 301)

[quote=Malcolm]You can all tell me to go to hell on this one.  I don’t care.  I am totally with nasd on this one.  All the points he makes are relevent.

I think the vast majority of you are naive and uninformed. Bankrep for you to say the market cannot be timed shows you are absolutely ignorant.  Are you also telling me technical analysis does not work?That's is god awful ignorance.  Fundamental analysis is the biggest pile of crap that was ever invented.  If anything, it is a LAGGING INDICATOR.  The crap your firms feed you that you have been indoctrinated with is all over Wall Street.  It has turned most of your minds to mush.

This economy and country are so screwed up right now that just about anything could happen.  Will the economy collapse?  Probably not.  The rest of the world has too much to loose to let that happen.   

I have to get to work now.  I have so much more to say but I am busy doing technical analysis making money for my clients. 

Who was it "Indy" I think that told me a couple months ago I was crazy for being mostly short and cash with only around 30% long.     

The market tells us what to do if we learn how to read it.[/quote]

Don't know if it was me or not, but yes, I'll admit that I'm not a big believer in technical analysis.  I think it is, at best, a short-term self-fulfilling prophecy.   Show me someone with real, long-term results using technicals as the primary investment strategy (none of that 20/20 hindsight backtested crap) and I'll be happy to reconsider my view.  If it works for you, fine, but I see it as a short-term solution at best.  I've seen too many folks miss 40% of the run-up waiting for technicals to "confirm a breakout".  Now if you avoid the last half of the decline, but miss the first half of the recovery, what have you really gained?  I don't always stay 100% invested, but I've seen enough to know that a lot of people much smarter than you and me have tried and failed to consistently time the market, so, generally, I'm at least 80% invested, and I tend to go to 95% when a bunch of chicken littles are screaming doom & gloom, and back down some when everyone agrees that the sky is the limit.

Charts may rule the day on a temporary basis, but fundamentals always win over the long haul.  If you remember nothing else from this post, keep this in mind...many stocks are at the same level they were at in the late 90's, and yet, these same companies have 75% higher earnings...hmmmmmmm...

"many stocks are at the same level they were in the late 90's, and yet, these same companies have 75% higer earning

YOU JUST MADE MY POINT BETTER THAN I EVER COULD HAVE.  FUNDAMENTAL ANALYSIS DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE IF IT DID, THESE COMPANIES STOCK PRICES WOULD BE HIGHER...RIGHT??

THEIR EARNING ARE UP SO THE PRICE SHOULD BE UP. 

When I have the time Indy, i will get you a list of long term successful traders.  There are many many to name..

[quote=Indyone]

I don't always stay 100% invested, but I've seen enough to know that a lot of people much smarter than you and me have tried and failed to consistently time the market, so, generally, I'm at least 80% invested, and I tend to go to 95% when a bunch of chicken littles are screaming doom & gloom, and back down some when everyone agrees that the sky is the limit.

[/quote]

Is it ever appropriate to be 100% in cash and cash equivalents?

One of the major complaints about commission or fee driven advisors is that they rarely conclude that the appropriate place to be is on the sidelines.

Seeing as you earn your income from advising clients to be "In" can you ever imagine telling them to get "out," even though it would mean that your income would disappear?

In other words, are you truly putting your clent ahead of yourself?

At least one major wire now has a fee based account in which the advisor gets paid to be in cash.  Just an fyi

It's called an Advisory Account.

How about this market.  There you go.  We broker the 200 day on the S&P and what happens?  It's tanking.  

When will brokers learn how to short?   I just don't understand why this arrow is not added to everyones quiver.     

[quote=Malcolm] 

When will brokers learn how to short?   I just don't understand why this arrow is not added to everyones quiver.     

[/quote]

When you can't write a coherent sentence your brain overheats if you try to understand it.

I hear the Dow is off another 120 right now--but not to worry the bank reps is bullish and has proclaimed that the market will go up because it's driven by corporate earnings which, as we all know, never go down.

Seriously, I think most advisors have a difficult time keeping their enthusiasm if they're shorting.  When I was in production--which admittedly was long ago--I had a major client who loved to short.

He'd call me and whisper things like, "I phucking love wars."  But that goes against our better angels, or something else Father O'Malley might say.

[quote=Malcolm]

"many stocks are at the same level they were in the late 90's, and yet, these same companies have 75% higer earning

YOU JUST MADE MY POINT BETTER THAN I EVER COULD HAVE.  FUNDAMENTAL ANALYSIS DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE IF IT DID, THESE COMPANIES STOCK PRICES WOULD BE HIGHER...RIGHT??

THEIR EARNING ARE UP SO THE PRICE SHOULD BE UP. 

When I have the time Indy, i will get you a list of long term successful traders.  There are many many to name..[/quote]

The only point I made is that relatively speaking, stocks are undervalued campared to the late 90's (when they were apparently overvalued).  Your charts may be right temporarily, but eventually improving fundamentals mean better stock prices.

When you put up your list of successful traders, just realize that there are many more successful traders who don't use technicals as their primary strategy.  We can go back and forth ad nauseum, and I truly am not interested in that (especially since it's slow going with one good hand).  I know what's worked for me over the years, and it's not studying charts.  It's paying attention to what's going on in the world around us (which admittedly is a mixed bag at the moment), buying good companies at good prices (and knowing when to take a profit-I base it on the fundamental trends of the company), and hiring fund managers when I realize that they are better at buying and selling than almost any advisor out there (myself included).  I mostly make decisions on where and to a small degree, when to buy...and then let the real professionals decide what and for the most part, when to buy.  I know that I would be hard pressed to provide quality service to a growing client base if I spent a large part of my day studying charts.  If it works for you, I'm glad for you...I just can't help having my doubts and two months of lackluster market performance is no surprise to me and doesn't change my long view of where clients should be invested.

[quote=Indyone]

The only point I made is that relatively speaking, stocks are undervalued campared to the late 90's (when they were apparently overvalued).  Your charts may be right temporarily, but eventually improving fundamentals mean better stock prices.

[/quote]

How long is "eventually?"  Can Mr. Jones--the 58 year old client whose $1 million is now at $600,000 wait that long?

When you sit there and tell him, "Bill, the market will eventually come back" do you think he finds that to be reassuring?

[quote=Indyone]

I base it on the fundamental trends of the company), and hiring fund managers when I realize that they are better at buying and selling than almost any advisor out there (myself included).

[/quote]

How many managers have been in the business long enough to have ever met "The Bear?"

Don't tell me about what a horrible time it was when the Nasdaq crashed in 2002, or the terrible week or two in October of 1987 and October 1989.  Wonder how those happened in October, didn't BankRep tell us that the summers are often terrible but the third quarters are a bull's dream?

There are a whole lot of sixtyish brokerage vets--active and retired--who look at anybody who has come into the business since 1980 as the proverbial babe in the woods.

It is possible to have hundreds of weeks in a row where the Friday Night talking heads say, "Wall Street lost ground again this week.  It has now been eight months since we had an up week....."

Meanwhile, kids who don't know how to conjugate verbs are telling their clients, "Hold on, the market is driven by earnings and earnings never go down."  Never being in their frame of reference.

Those who do not recognize the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

As I discuss this stuff it occurs to me that the emotions of the aging Baby Boomers may have a signficantly negative affect on the market's psycholgoy.

There are zillions of us, and most are facing retirement very undercapitalized.  We are the children of the inflationary years--where we bought what we could not afford for fear that we could definitely not afford it later.  Consequently most of the boomer generation does not really have enough liquidity to retire.

Add that a great many of us know damn well the market can lose huge portions of its value--which makes us less trusting than the kids who make innane statements like "Earning always go up."

Prices can fall, and fall, and fall, for no reason other than nobody is interested in buying shares of that company.

Part of the challenge is to keep people from losing faith in making investments in stocks--either directly or by paying a "manager" a fee to do it for them.

I dissagree nasd on keeping ones enthusiasm when shorting.

There is nothing more exciting for me at least than growing clients accounts with shorts especially when the market is going down as a whole.  At least for me, it is a very satisfying thing to see my portfolios go up on big down days.  Clients love it also.  And just like any long position, you can put your stop losses in and protect yourself if you are wrong.  "up and down gaps excluded."  

The banks and wirehouses hate when you short and we have been brainwashed into thinking it is something exotic, speculative, etc. 

Not so. Brokers need to get off the Wall Street band wagon and learn how to protect clients money.  Shorting is one way of many to do that.  And by the way, most of the big banks and brokerage firms employ traders for their own accounts. 

No hard feelings I hope Indy.  Nothing wrong with not agreeing all the time.  Now I have to get off this site and get some work done.

I wish a good weekend to everyone.  I'm out.    

[quote=Malcolm]

I dissagree nasd on keeping ones enthusiasm when shorting.

[/quote]

I am in complete accord with the idea of being very enthusiastic when your client's accounts are growing on days when the market tanks.

And I also understand that clients love it.

However, the reality is that selling short is a "dark side" activity--you're betting things are going to be bad and get worse.

That goes against the grain of most people.

Look at the ridiculous "emoticons"--they're all variations of that smile face.  Everybody likes the bright yellow smile face--it's good for our mental health and all that.

Selling short is telling the smile face to phuck off--it's just not what most folks are going to want to do.

So to appeal to them, brokers have to have their smile face on--and when they do it's difficult to sell short.

Best Regards,

Frasier Crane