You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Altucher- Bears ae dead wrong, S&P to 1300 in 2010
- Thread starter Clubber Lang
- Start date
Quote from shortie:
Altucher- Bears ae dead wrong, S&P to 1300 in 2010
+9% from today, 8 months to go - seems reasonable (maybe a bit optimistic but certainly reasonable)
Precisely. For the S&P to go to 1300 it has to rise a mere 120 points from where it is now, the same size increase it's had from the first week of February, two months ago.
An increase in over 8 months that's no more than what we've had in the past 2 months seems plausible to me. It also seems likely that there will be at least one big retreat between now and then.
It's nothing more than a "wind at your back" type of prediction after we've already rallied from 666 to 1180+. There is a very simple chart that displays Fed lending to primary dealers which corroborates literally the entire boom and bust cycle over the past 2 years. F**k fundamentals, the whole charade is all about Fed induced liquidity and the ability of a thinned out pool of bd's to corner the markets.
Why complicate something so simple.
Why complicate something so simple.
Quote from der_kommissar:
It's nothing more than a "wind at your back" type of prediction after we've already rallied from 666 to 1180+. There is a very simple chart that displays Fed lending to primary dealers which corroborates literally the entire boom and bust cycle over the past 2 years. F**k fundamentals, the whole charade is all about Fed induced liquidity and the ability of a thinned out pool of bd's to corner the markets.
Why complicate something so simple.
+1
Quote from der_kommissar:
It's nothing more than a "wind at your back" type of prediction after we've already rallied from 666 to 1180+. There is a very simple chart that displays Fed lending to primary dealers which corroborates literally the entire boom and bust cycle over the past 2 years. F**k fundamentals, the whole charade is all about Fed induced liquidity and the ability of a thinned out pool of bd's to corner the markets.
Why complicate something so simple.
Got the chart? Would be an eye opener to see.
not a million but the ones who stick to following trends are doing traditionally well. No blowups at least (please show me if you disagree, any with AUM of 200m+).
How is your reversal in AAPL doing? I take it you are aligned with the reversal boys otherwise you would not come out with below comments. BTW, I agree with you there are on the other side of your comment a million stocks that make for better shorts than AAPL.
How is your reversal in AAPL doing? I take it you are aligned with the reversal boys otherwise you would not come out with below comments. BTW, I agree with you there are on the other side of your comment a million stocks that make for better shorts than AAPL.
Quote from Ghost of Cutten:
If that were true then there would be 1 million hedge funds using MA crossovers and minting money.
Quote from asiaprop:
not a million but the ones who stick to following trends are doing traditionally well. No blowups at least (please show me if you disagree, any with AUM of 200m+).
How is your reversal in AAPL doing? I take it you are aligned with the reversal boys otherwise you would not come out with below comments. BTW, I agree with you there are on the other side of your comment a million stocks that make for better shorts than AAPL.
I'm still long AAPL. Why did you think otherwise? If a long is based on valuation and market action, then a steady rally of around 10% is hardly a sign to exit, let alone reverse and go short.
My comments were just that jumping on every single trend is not a great money-making strategy - if it were, then a simple MA crossover system would significantly outperform, and would be literally free money. Therefore blanket trend-following doesn't have any particular edge, and thus fading trends does not put the odds massively against you. Selective trend-following can indeed work well, I agree, but so can selective reversal trading, as many renowned value investors, relative value players, and global macro traders have proven.