Am I missing something??? There's no balance
in this article, which technically is an SEC violation.
Maybe you pulled just a selected portion of
an article, or the writer is not registered?
Well, anything's possible in this market. But
the author starts, muddles and ends with the
basic technical assumption that the market may go
higher. Where is the word risk mentioned??
Not once were earnings mentioned, nor that
companies had difficulties meeting Q4 earnings during
an extraordinary period of low rates and 6.1% real growth.
Also ignored was the danger that the Fed is no longer in
an easing posture. Yet the author tantalizes the reader
with the notion that Internet valuation, arguably an
oxymoron, "could affect many or even most stocks all the
way from GE at the top down to the smallest microcap at the
bottom of the entire spectrum." Hogwash. Will all stocks be
valued at 200 times earnings??? I gotta get some of what
that guy is taking!
Maybe earnings don't matter, or dividends, or the Fed
or competition from higher bond yields or that crude is
up a buck from last week. Shorts should be on the lookout
for the scenario described. But I won't buy into it other
on some sort of protected basis. And I don't dream of
sugar plums and dancing fairies either. It's incredibly
difficult to earn 30% year after year in any business. One
should certainly consider the downside as equities expand
on every previous valuation limit and remember that money doesn't
grow on trees.
One should also definitely consider the source of the information
provided. Whoever wrote this biased article using terms such as "strong tendency", "extremely bullish", "soaring into the
stratosphere", "mother of all rallies", "extra intense fuel"???
Reminds me of illicit land sales brochures and telemarketing
ploys or Nigerian deposit and Russian coal scams.
RISK....don't invest without considering it. |
