A noted broker on Wall Street says that the market will be flat to down over the next decade due to rising interest rates, a trade imbalance, rising federal deficits and the retirement of the baby boom generation which is now picking up steam.
He fully expects to see a Dow 7000 sometime in the near future and a dow holding above 10000 not for at least a decade. He was very bearish obviously, but you can't seem to argue with his logic.
I was wondering if others have an opinion on this outlook.
Since I have over $400,000 in equities it worries me. I only have about $200,000 in bonds, cash, CDs and similar fixed.
I don't want to get caught on the short end here.
I too believe the equity market in aggregate is over priced and will either fall or just move sideways for years to come.
Here are some "broken" hyperlinks (copy, paste, and remove the space after the colon before executing) to articles written by some of the major investment people (3 of the 30 people listed by the Wall Street Journal as "Those Who Influence the Markets Most" see WSJ, November 10, 2003, pp. C9-C12) that share this same belief.
Jeremy Grantham, (the G in GMO, which has $48 billion under management) believes this may be the greatest sucker rally in history. He talks about it and the presidential cycle in his October 2003 newsletter:
Bill Gross, "The Bond King", actually called for a Dow 5,000 in September 2002:
Warren Buffett is siting on a pile of cash because he is finding it difficult to make good buys in the current market. He has hinted that the market could go sideways for more than a decade.
Here's what Buffett said (Fortune magazine, December 10, 2001):
Check out the graph at the bottom of page 10, "Total Market Value of U.S. Stocks vs. GNP".
The text next to it has his famous quote to the effect that buying stocks at a price equal to 70 to 80% of GNP is likely to work out very well for you!
I interpret that to mean a Price/Sales ratio of 0.7 to 0.8 for a market like basket of stocks (S&P500 or Wilshire 5000).
At the end of last month (11/30/2003) the Price/Sales ratio for the DJIA was 1.14, the S&P500 was 1.50. Not as ridiculous as March 2000, but still high enough to imply a mini bubble.
Now, only you can decide whether you are over or under weighed in equities. But the time to take money off the table is after you've won (an unjustifiable market rally) not after you've lost.
I know the French don't care whether I like them. However I do know that many are becoming concerned about the decline in American tourism.
I also know who my friends are, and who they are not. For example, I know that Islamic terrorists want us all dead. I know the French wouldn't lift a finger to stop that from happening. I also know that George W. Bush is doing his best to stop Islamic terrorists from killing each and every one of us, which is what they desire.
I know who wants to help me, and who wants to hurt me.
Unfortunately you don't have a clue.
"As usual, you liberals look at the constitution as an impedence to your agenda. It's obvious where you stand."
What in this libel slander to you see anything about my standpoint? Other then that you cannot admit you are a hypocrite for accusing liberals of doing the same thing as republicans did under Clinton.
It's all politics. But feel free to twist it into a a Ann Coulter treasonious liberal conspiracy. It reminds me of when Rush came back and said that although he now had done what he spoke ill of others (drugs) it doesn't by anyway change or diminish anything he said before.
There is a difference between conservative and a liberal stand point.
I'm for small government, less foreign involvement and a balanced budget. I don't know how un-liberal that can get.
Now what do you stand for?
Re"I'm a registred republican myself."
Like I said before, todays repuclicans are more liberal than the democrats of the 60's. You proved my point. My post said liberal, not democrat. Learn to read, word for word, and comprehend.
That might be so, but here you have Jake accusing the 'liberals' of doing something that the republicans did and worse, but since the republicans did so because they wanted to save America from itself and the 'liberals' just do it because they're trecherous mean spirited commies I guess that makes it right.
It's politics and to call it anything else is hypocracy.
Really? If you say so.
You liberals...there you go again. I'm a registred republican myself. Do you call anyone who highlights your BS liberal as kind of a labeling since you don't have the originality to discuss other then accuse?
I just wonder.
C'est l'atitude de l'Estat Unies en generale:
Baiser la monde!!!!! avec autre mots.
Fu*k the world, because we talk with our balls and our brains are inside the head of our
This may be so of French men, I don't know. But the French women I've have met in my life time, albeit just a handful, have all been most engaging, beautiful and very accomodating. I've not met a single French woman I didn't love almost immediately. Yes, self-confident, even a little arrogance, could be said of them, much as anyone else, regardless of nationality. But aloof, rude and condescending? Not hardly. Could the men be so different from a woman's perspective?
You're damn right they stopped Clintons appointments. If they had'nt, no telling how many more liberal activist lifers we would have on the bench making up laws and shoving them down America's throat.
I just wish they had the guts to admit it.