Ted, note from my post that I predicted that bulls would try to dismiss the message because the messenger is a well known bear. That doesn't change the fact of what Graham wrote in 1934 and how eerily similar the arguments made in 1927-9 are to those made now for paying limitless prices for not only Internet and other tech stocks, but also branded consumer product companies like KO and other must own sectors.
To "Kingpin", who the hell are you to try "to pin him down on CNBC to find out exactly how much money he has lost over this period"? Are you one of his clients? What does his past performance have to do with the future prospects for the market in general? Are you arguing that because the market has been up unusually strongly for the last three years, it, therefore, can't go down? Can't you come up with any rational argument to debate the points Graham made in 1934 about developments that seem to be repeating themselves now? Instead, you only smear the messenger.
Ted, I do consider Granville's bullishness somewhat bearish, but mostly just ignore anything he says. His brand of TA doesn't just focus on TA over FA, but totally dismisses the value of fundamental analysis even to the point of saying repeatedly, in nearly every interview I have seen, that he doesn't even want to know what a company he is "analyzing" does for a living much less how well or how profitably they do it. But at least he doesn't try to rationalize extreme valuations with such unquantifiable arguments as "brand leadership justifies premium valuations" or by trying to project a one or two year old company's track record in an industry just as young out five or more years, assuming away all potential competition and other risks. It is these rationalizations, addressed by Graham in 1934, that have brought us to the current levels of the market.
One who cannot learn from the mistakes of the past is doomed to repeat them.
Bob |
