The Pessimistic Lefties at MarketWatch.com

[BigBrandonAllenFan]

I read MarketWatch daily for market numbers, even though the website is full of pessimistic left wing writers.  I pay no attention to their market predictions, and no one else should either.  Although they do have one or two writers that live in the real world.
This is just a sample of their daily left winger doomsday market talk.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/enjoying-the-calm-market-dont-expect-it-to-last-forever-2017-10-03

By Ryan Vlastelica
Published: Oct 3, 2017 10:06 a.m. ET

Enjoying the calm market? Don't expect it to last forever

The U.S. stock market has been good to investors this year—not only has it hit a series of records, but dips as small as even 3% have been in incredibly short supply—but anyone wanting to jump into the market should realize the good times may not last.

Wells Fargo Investment Institute warned that investors "shouldn't become too complacent" because the current environment is atypical in its lack of volatility and share-price declines, noting it has been much longer than was usual since the market saw a pronounced dip (a decline of at least 5% from a peak), let alone a correction (a 10% drop).

"Historically speaking, on average, the domestic equity market corrects every 11 months—the last correction was in November 2015," wrote Chris Haverland, a global asset allocation strategist at Wells Fargo Investment Institute. "Meanwhile, on average, the U.S. equity market dips three to four times per year. The last dip was in June 2016."

In addition to the nearly nonexistent downside, market volatility has also been hard to come by. Thus far this year, the S&P 500 SPX, +0.11%  has only closed with a 1% move in either direction in eight sessions. That's on track to be the fewest such moves since 1995, when there were 13, according to data from LPL Financial. A larger move, such as a 4% swing in a day, hasn't occurred in nearly six years.

Complacency is difficult to measure, and there are mixed signals about how investors are viewing the market. Analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, looking at an analysis of sell-side optimism and pessimism levels, recently noted that a four-year rolling average of this metric was flashing a clear sell signal. However, Goldman Sachs wrote that investor euphoria was "nonexistent," which suggested that "an imminent start of a long decline seems unlikely."

According to the latest AAII Investor Sentiment Survey, 33.3% of investors are bullish—meaning they expect the market will be higher in the next six months—while 37.9% of investors are neutral on stocks and 28.7% are bearish.

Historically, 38.5% of investors are bullish, 37.9% are neutral, and 30.5% are bearish.

Throughout 2017, Wall Street has been supported by signs of improving economic conditions, including better-than-expected earnings and strong data, as well as by hopes that the U.S. government would enact tax-reform legislation that is expected to be business friendly. Small-capitalization stocks in particular have rallied on this idea, propelling the Russell 2000 RUT, -0.28%  up more than 11% from a recent closing low hit on Aug. 21.

Such factors could continue to provide upside support to stocks, even with valuations seen as stretched by many metrics. Haverland forecast the uptrend would persist through both the end of 2017 and throughout 2018, and said that in the view of Wells Fargo Investment Institute, "a recession is not on the horizon—and therefore, [we] believe this should not be a concern for markets in the near term."

Despite that, he said the cycle "is closer to the end than the beginning," and that "trying to time a bear market, correction or market dip is nearly impossible."

Haverland said the Wells Fargo Investment Institute's portfolio positioning was "slightly defensive from a tactical perspective," and that it was underweight on such riskier assets as small stocks and high-yield bonds.

"As the U.S. equity bull market enters its final stages, we see a greater role for private hedge funds (especially equity hedge and relative value strategies) as a way to remain engaged in the markets while seeking to reduce downside risk," he wrote.

My posted comment to the article> Keep on living in the past, Ryan, while the real world passes you by.  You won't be alone though, you have Brett Arends back there in time with you. 

And it isn't a "calm market", as you defined it...It is a BULL market!

A prophecy of a 30,000 DOW in the next three years is much more realistic than a dive back into the teens.  If you refuse to get on the bus and ride at 40 mph, then by all means, enjoy your walk.

But you are right in one sense, in that it won't last forever.  Sooner or later a democrat will be elected President.  I will indeed bail out when it looks like that may happen!!  Lest we always remember the March of 2010 SUPER CRASH, in which the US Markets lost literally half of their value shorty after Obama was inaugurated for his first term.

[Vantage 8 dude]

I read MarketWatch daily for market numbers, even though the website is full of pessimistic left wing writers.  I pay no attention to their market predictions, and no one else should either.  Although they do have one or two writers that live in the real world.
This is just a sample of their daily left winger doomsday market talk.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/enjoying-the-calm-market-dont-expect-it-to-last-forever-2017-10-03

My posted comment to the article> Keep on living in the past, Ryan, while the real world passes you by.  You won't be alone though, you have Brett Arends back there in time with you. 

And it isn't a "calm market", as you defined it...It is a BULL market!

A prophecy of a 30,000 DOW in the next three years is much more realistic than a dive back into the teens.  If you refuse to get on the bus and ride at 40 mph, then by all means, enjoy your walk.

But you are right in one sense, in that it won't last forever.  Sooner or later a democrat will be elected President.  I will indeed bail out when it looks like that may happen!!

Uhh.....not to make this discussion a political one, however, what's more important to the market is the economy, not the party of the President. As long as the economy is growing then generally the financial markets will do alright as well.

[HawgWild]

BBAF, just curious, what year did you first buy stock, mutual fund and/or an ETF?

[BigBrandonAllenFan]

BBAF, just curious, what year did you first buy stock, mutual fund and/or an ETF?

1999.

[BigBrandonAllenFan]

Uhh.....not to make this discussion a political one, however, what's more important to the market is the economy, not the party of the President. As long as the economy is growing then generally the financial markets will do alright as well.

I have read the writers material at MarketWatch for a good period of time.  Trust me, some are flat out anti-Trump.  Brett Arends is #1.  The only reason I can figure they still employ him is because he does an excellent job of stirring up controversy.  Ryan Vlastelica isn't far behind.  Believe this, there is nothing more that MarketWatch's Brett Arends would rather see that a market crash just so he could say, "I told you Trumponomics was a farce".

[Vantage 8 dude]

I have read the writers material at MarketWatch for a good period of time.  Trust me, some are flat out anti-Trump.  Brett Arends is #1.  The only reason I can figure they still employ him is because he does an excellent job of stirring up controversy.  Ryan Vlastelica isn't far behind.  Believe this, there is nothing more that MarketWatch's Brett Arends would rather see that a market crash just so he could say, "I told you Trumponomics was a farce".

Never said that COMMENTATORS/PUNDITS are certainly not political. Have them all the time, on both sides and on many channels. However, what I do mean, and I'm most certainly of the conservative leaning, is that having a particular person from either party in the White House doesn't necessarily have that much direct impact on the economy/markets. It still comes down to the economy, earnings, interest rates and other factors primarily out of the control of most pols.

As far as the "learned" spoutings of most financial "experts", most of it is hot air and conjecture. The vast majority of these clowns have absolutely zero, none, nada, zip clue as to what they're saying or why.

[BigBrandonAllenFan]

As far as the "learned" spoutings of most financial "experts", most of it is hot air and conjecture. The vast majority of these clowns have absolutely zero, none, nada, zip clue as to what they're saying or why.

No doubt.  Pretty sure they majored in journalism and economics wasn't even their minor.

[BigBrandonAllenFan]

Today's gloom and doom report from MarketWatch's Ryan Vlastelica.  It is day after day, yet the markets are up 30% after Trump took office and climbing.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-stock-market-records-may-just-be-a-mirage-caused-by-dollar-weakness-2017-10-04

Why stock market records may just be a mirage caused by dollar weakness

By Ryan Vlastelica
Published: Oct 4, 2017 11:25 a.m. ET
Adjusting for dollar weakness, Wall Street's rally looks a lot less impressive (Please explain to me how a 30% surge doesn't look impressive in any form?
This guy is laughable, and a lefty.)

The U.S. stock market has hit dozens of all-time highs in 2017, but that run may be obscuring a factor that has Wall Street's rally looking less impressive from an outside perspective.

Stocks have gained for a number of reasons this year, including a strong second-quarter earnings season, improving economic data, and prospect for tax cuts, which if enacted is expected to be beneficial for corporate profits and share prices.

Those are all obvious tailwinds, but another major factor has a more complicated relationship with the economic environment. The U.S. dollar DXY, -0.15%  has trended lower throughout the year, down 8.6% in what could be its biggest annual decline since 2003. A weak dollar tends to benefit stocks, especially large multinational companies, which see their profits erode in periods of dollar strength due to currency headwinds. Such global stocks, including Apple AAPL, -0.47%  and Boeing BA, -0.25% have been among the market's leaders so far this year.

The dollar's weakness in 2017 could mean that Wall Street's records are just "a domestic perception," according to Robert Michaud, chief investment officer at New Frontier Advisors.

"While the market has risen year-to-date, the dollar has fallen relative to other currencies. Therefore, international investors may not perceive the U.S. at a market high," he wrote in a research report. He added that on a dollar-adjusted basis, the S&P 500 was "significantly below" a high hit in the first quarter of the year, even as the unadjusted benchmark has trended higher.

"From a purchasing power perspective, the U.S. stock market peaked at the beginning of March," Michaud wrote. "This calls into question how much of the recent rise of the stock market is associated with expectations of future growth and the health of the economy. The global economy is not valuing the U.S. equity market as much as the market high would suggest."

The dollar's decline this year has been particularly pronounced against the euro EURUSD, +0.1022% which has benefited from improving economic data throughout the eurozone. Separately, some analysts said the dollar's rally in the immediate aftermath of President Donald Trump's election had been overdone.

The buck has shown a modest recovery over the past month, having risen 2.8% since an intraday low hit on Sept. 8, which represented the lowest level for the currency since January 2015.

My comment: A 30% surge in the US markets since November starting the day after Trump won the election doesn't look impressive?  The NASDAQ was at about 5000 then, now over 6500. I'm definitely impressed!  I stopped reading after your headlines.  I couldn't read the article because I fell out of my chair laughing at you.
Ryan, you are a laughable lefty indeed.  Gloom, despair, and agony on you. Lol

[HawgWild]

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day." These guys will eventually be right. 

[BigBrandonAllenFan]

"Even a broken clock is right twice a day." These guys will eventually be right. 

I don't think we will ever see a 5000 NASDAQ again.  Those days are gone forever.  I guess when it hits 7500 and maybe drops back to 7000 they can say I told you so, though it will be too little too late at that point.

[Biggus Piggus]

Why do you assign political motivations to this? These guys were equally doomy in Obama days.

[BigBrandonAllenFan]

Why do you assign political motivations to this? These guys were equally doomy in Obama days.

They had good reason in the Obama days.  After Obama was sworn into office in January 2009, by March, in only two months, the US markets literally plunged to half their value.  Retirement account holders were livid.  It took the entire next 8 years to get back where they started before the 2009 train wreck.

Why are these writers blind to the facts that Trumponomics is not even sparsely related to Obamanomics?  The business policies of the two Presidents is as different as night and day.  The markets went straight down when Obama took office, while they went and continue to go straight up under Trump.  It isn't rocket science.

And if you read MarketWatch regularly, it is not at all difficult to pick up on most of the writer's partisan left wing interjections. Even though, there are two of them that lean to the right.  The rest are lefties.

[Vantage 8 dude]

They had good reason in the Obama days.  After Obama was sworn into office in January 2009, by March, in only two months, the US markets literally plunged to half their value.  Retirement account holders were livid.  It took the entire next 8 years to get back where they started before the 2009 train wreck.

Why are these writers blind to the facts that Trumponomics is not even sparsely related to Obamanomics?  The business policies of the two Presidents is as different as night and day.  The markets went straight down when Obama took office, while they went and continue to go straight up under Trump.  It isn't rocket science.

And if you read MarketWatch regularly, it is not at all difficult to pick up on most of the writer's partisan left wing interjections. Even though, there are two of them that lean to the right.  The rest are lefties.

While I may not personally agree with them, and everyone does still have the right to his/her own opinion, my one comment/question would be: if they irritate and anger you so much why do you even bother listening to their tripe? I mean one still retains the choice/option of either tuning these clowns out or not wasting their time to begin with. Simple solution and no further frustration. So in the end it appears to me that YOU have the real power of control here.

[HawgWild]

FWIW the market's downward spiral started before election day in 2008 and continued for several months. The Dow was around 8100 when O took office and 19800 when he left. That's about 145% increased.

[Vantage 8 dude]

FWIW the market's downward spiral started before election day in 2008 and continued for several months. The Dow was around 8100 when O took office and 19800 when he left. That's about 145% increased.

One thing to keep in mind is that his '08 election was around the time things bottomed in the economy. The Fed continued to aggressively lower rates for another 7+ years AND they were also adding tons of liquidity into the markets. This in turn led to the beginnings of the long bull market that has run almost unabated until this day. Wouldn't give the credit to Obama nor necessarily the blame if things went wrong. The President, while obviously very powerful, ultimately doesn't have nearly as much power/sway over the economy and markets as many would like to say or think.

[BigBrandonAllenFan]

FWIW the market's downward spiral started before election day in 2008 and continued for several months. The Dow was around 8100 when O took office and 19800 when he left. That's about 145% increased.

I'll buy all that.

On Oct 29 2007, the NASDAQ was at 2817.  Over 5 years later, on Nov 13, 2012, the NASDAQ was at 2897.  Then the climb from the Oct 2007 mark finally began.  It was a long time rebounding, almost into Obama's second term.  Of sourse for anyone who timed it right, the chips were rolling in.  Problem is, people with retirement accounts don't even have a clue to what actively managing their funds mean.  They just sit on them, so it took them 5 years to recoup their losses.

By Oct of 2007, it was already a no-brainer Obama would win.  Mile high stadium and 80,000 fans there for Obama nailed that down for anyone that was paying attention to the crowds he was drawing.

[BigBrandonAllenFan]

One thing to keep in mind is that his '08 election was around the time things bottomed in the economy. The Fed continued to aggressively lower rates for another 7+ years AND they were also adding tons of liquidity into the markets. This in turn led to the beginnings of the long bull market that has run almost unabated until this day. Wouldn't give the credit to Obama nor necessarily the blame if things went wrong. The President, while obviously very powerful, ultimately doesn't have nearly as much power/sway over the economy and markets as many would like to say or think.

I'll buy all that too.

[Karma]

They had good reason in the Obama days.  After Obama was sworn into office in January 2009, by March, in only two months, the US markets literally plunged to half their value.  Retirement account holders were livid.  It took the entire next 8 years to get back where they started before the 2009 train wreck.

Why are these writers blind to the facts that Trumponomics is not even sparsely related to Obamanomics?  The business policies of the two Presidents is as different as night and day.  The markets went straight down when Obama took office, while they went and continue to go straight up under Trump.  It isn't rocket science.

And if you read MarketWatch regularly, it is not at all difficult to pick up on most of the writer's partisan left wing interjections. Even though, there are two of them that lean to the right.  The rest are lefties.

Man, that is so short-sighted. The great recession started before Obama took office and within months it bottomed out and more than doubled while he was president. Does he deserve all the credit? Of course not, but you are giving him blame for something that happened before he got there.

[BigBrandonAllenFan]

Man, that is so short-sighted. The great recession started before Obama took office and within months it bottomed out and more than doubled while he was president. Does he deserve all the credit? Of course not, but you are giving him blame for something that happened before he got there.

I'll buy all that.

[HognotinMemphis]

I consider MarketWatch.com to be my sin reading...like wanting to grab a National Enquirer at the K-Roger checkout. It's silly, not reliable, and grossly embellished. Great headlines though.

[BigBrandonAllenFan]

I consider MarketWatch.com to be my sin reading...like wanting to grab a National Enquirer at the K-Roger checkout. It's silly, not reliable, and grossly embellished. Great headlines though.

Well put.  That pretty much answers the question that V-8 posed to me that I have been pondering upon when he asked why I even read MarketWatch..

[HotlantaHog]

I don't read MarketWatch but there is a good reason to be cautious about future returns.

Shiller Ratio (10-year trailing PE) is above 30, which is at minimum a warning that future returns are going to be lower ....and if you believe in timing, you should have a little bit more than usual in cash for when a decline does happen.

[HognotinMemphis]

I don't read MarketWatch but there is a good reason to be cautious about future returns.

Shiller Ratio (10-year trailing PE) is above 30, which is at minimum a warning that future returns are going to be lower ....and if you believe in timing, you should have a little bit more than usual in cash for when a decline does happen.

Haha.

[Biggus Piggus]

They had good reason in the Obama days.  After Obama was sworn into office in January 2009, by March, in only two months, the US markets literally plunged to half their value.  Retirement account holders were livid.  It took the entire next 8 years to get back where they started before the 2009 train wreck.

Good lord, your world view is warped. Do you even know why the Great Recession happened? Would be pleased to teach you, whenever I have that much time to waste.

[Vantage 8 dude]

I'll buy all that.

Is there anything you won't