UBS make ridiculous market prediction

Quote from NY_HOOD:

Stocks to rise in ’09, UBS says; S&P 500 may gain 53% - Bloomberg.com

Bloomberg.com reports global stocks will withstand a "full-blown" recession and surge in 2009 as cheap valuations and efforts by governments to restore confidence in the financial system lure investors back to equities, UBS said. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index may rally 53% to 1,300 by the end of 2009, David Bianco wrote in a note dated yesterday. The New York-based strategist, who a year ago predicted a 2008 advance of 16% for the S&P 500, is now forecasting a gain that would exceed the index's best annual performance on record.


after being so wrong in 2008,they are coming out with this ridiculous prediction! why make such a forecast,has'nt abby joseph cohen taught them anything about wild predictions?

The prediction for market to go up is not ridiculous at all. What may be optimistic/"ridiculous" is the 1300 level.

1150 area is reasonable in the next 12 months.
 
Quote from richrf:

I think it does matter. Underlying longer term trends certainly bias shorter trends. I would rather trade with longer trends than against them - but of course, I am stress adverse. Health matters to me as much as profits - actually more. :-)

I'm talking about TRADING.
Not "investing".

There's a big difference.
A distinction that seems to get lost on a lot of ET posters.
 
Landis,
what was the benefit to your post? why waste time posting by printing nonsense. my post caught some interest evidenced by the number of responses. it was a legitimate post as a guy from UBS predicted a 50% run up. you come on and then post a bunch of garbage wise ass comments! you must of been abused at a time in your life.
 
Quote from Landis82:

I'm talking about TRADING.
Not "investing".

There's a big difference.
A distinction that seems to get lost on a lot of ET posters.

You did not understand what he wrote---Trade with the big trend (the big trend is changing to UP).
 
Quote from Landis82:

I'm talking about TRADING.
Not "investing".

There's a big difference.
A distinction that seems to get lost on a lot of ET posters.

I am talking about trading also. Underlying long term cycles do affect the bottoms and tops of short term cycles - whether they be hourly, daily, weekly .... I much rather trade with trend. Of course, there is always the possibility of trading against trend - but as I said, I then have to also factor in the cost to my health. I have no medical bills. There is some profit in that. :-)
 
Quote from richrf:

I am talking about trading also. Underlying long term cycles do affect the bottoms and tops of short term cycles - whether they be hourly, daily, weekly .... I much rather trade with trend. Of course, there is always the possibility of trading against trend - but as I said, I then have to also factor in the cost to my health. I have no medical bills. There is some profit in that. :-)

I understand what you are saying.

In my opinion, the big problem with such a philosophy is that we are having "counter-trend" moves that are significantly tradeable . . . there are incredible percentage moves out there that are occurring on a daily and multi-daily basis that are tremendous opportunities.

To simply sit back and NOT trade ( from the long-side ) because the indexes are in a very bearish multi-month trend doesn't make a lot of sense to a TRADER.

For example, BTU traded from a low of 19.27 this morning up to a high of 22.67

As TRADERS, are we not suppose to take advantage of that 17% move, even though the trend in the indexes is down???

Again, it's unfortunate but I think that a lot of people here on ET fail to make a distinction between those that TRADE ( and trade for a living ) vs those that are investors.

In that same vein, the OP creates a thread with a "cut and paste" article about a Wall Street analyst that really has nothing to do with TRADING.
 
Quote from NY_HOOD:

Stocks to rise in ’09, UBS says; S&P 500 may gain 53% - Bloomberg.com

Bloomberg.com reports global stocks will withstand a "full-blown" recession and surge in 2009 as cheap valuations and efforts by governments to restore confidence in the financial system lure investors back to equities, UBS said. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index may rally 53% to 1,300 by the end of 2009, David Bianco wrote in a note dated yesterday. The New York-based strategist, who a year ago predicted a 2008 advance of 16% for the S&P 500, is now forecasting a gain that would exceed the index's best annual performance on record.


Couldn't have said it better myself. A 50% rally is very feasible. Once the funds realize that the fed's actions are working they will abruptly bid up stocks in anticipation of years of renewed economic growth .
 
Quote from Landis82:

In my opinion, the big problem with such a philosophy is that we are having "counter-trend" moves that are significantly tradeable . . .

For example, BTU traded from a low of 19.27 this morning up to a high of 22.67

As TRADERS, are we not suppose to take advantage of that 17% move, even though the trend in the indexes is down???

If someone is able to take advantage of counter trend moves, the of course they should trade both ways. I certainly would. But, for myself, I have found it is less stressful, and just as profitable to stay with the trend. Either buy-sell on swings, or just buy on dips for longer trends. It is just my experience, that the overall profitability is about the same.

Of course, I accept that others have found a way to trade in both directions and still maintain their health. Unfortunately, I personally know several traders who died early from all of the action. They just burnt out. It is a question of how one wants to live their life.
 
Back
Top