S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

[ASH]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

can't let that dog sleep, eh? selective memory... he was wrong about the dollar, deflation, etc.

Well, there aren't too many among us posting here who haven't been wrong about various things in the past. The issue isn't whether Lukester had a perfect batting average, but rather that his was a (strident) minority voice on the direction of the stock market coming out of the March 2009 lows -- and was a lot closer to being right than, say, I was. I regret that Lukester never articulated reasoning for his position that made sense to me, but perhaps if he'd been allowed to continue posting, he would have convinced me. If that had happened, I'd have had a much better trading year.

For that matter, choosing to respond to a "Lukester was right" post with a "Lukester was wrong" post doesn't really qualify as letting that dog sleep, either. I like you, MM, but you and Lukester actually share something in the tenacity department.

read back over fred's comments... he violated rule #1... disrespectful behavior. ignored warnings.

he wasn't kicked out. read fred's old notes... he was invited to mod his behavior... too many complaints... driving folks away. refused... adios.

He did piss a number of people off -- including paying customers -- and seemed particularly dogged about not letting disputes drop. Personally, I find the ignore feature to be adequate when there's someone I don't wish to hear from, but Lukester certainly didn't manage his relationship with the house well. I like the way iTulip is run, and since this isn't a publicly-owned space, I see everything about iTulip as being at management's discretion. Still, one should remember that we're not hearing Lukester's side of the story.

i thought he'd make his own blog... he's brainy & prolific... too bad. & his house, his rules... he'd be karl denniger #2... yell at anyone who disagrees with him & move posts that argue with his deflation diatribes (wrong) to 'tin foil hat' forums & ban them by the dozen!

It's a bit much to speculate how Lukester would conduct himself.

[LargoWinch]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

Although I enjoyed Lukester, MM's comments are spot on.

Given that Lukester is no longer able to post here and therefore defend himself, I suggest we consider this case closed until further notice from EJ.

FRED, can we please R&R this?

[ThePythonicCow]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

Personally, I find the ignore feature to be adequate when there's someone I don't wish to hear from

The ignore feature makes it a little more difficult to read someone else's post.

I've found I have better luck with not responding to someone else's post. My curiosity gets the better of me and I like to skim over the posts even of (sometimes especially of) those who bug me. But if I can suppress the urge to write an essay describing in fine detail the utterly stupid pig headed insanity of their doggerel (grin), then the mental damage is fire-walled at that point.

If we had a block replies feature that made one type in a CAPTCHA word wait and five minutes before being able to compose a reply to selected individuals, I would have made good use of it. (Yes, that suggestion should be posted on the vBulletin blog, not here, but I doubt it will be implemented either way.)

[goadam1]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

Ouch. I wasn't trying to put a stick in the hornets nest. Ash says what was getting at in a more eloquent way.

My point is the start of this old thread is that monetizing would drive up the market. The itulip orthodox said "harumph." It pays to have a dissenting voice around.

[goadam1]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

Also, poor Nero 3 was chased out of here. Granted, bulls should have a pretty good theory behind them around here. But...http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/...s/confused.gif

[goadam1]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

Edit out the Lukester stuff. But what is rr about this. The market did go up on reflation.

[FRED]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

Given that Lukester is no longer able to post here and therefore defend himself, I suggest we consider this case closed until further notice from EJ.

FRED, can we please R&R this?

I'll move the thread but he was not thrown out and there is nothing to prevent him from returning. He can return at any time if he agrees to behave in such a way that my mailbox will not fill up with complaints from paid subscribers who are leaving because they were tired of the behavior.

Bottom line, a customer who costs an establishment money is going to have to shape up or get out. As an experiment, try loudly and persistently badmouthing the food and services and patrons in a bar or restaurant and see how long you get to stay after the third or fourth warning.

[vinoveri]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

I'll move the thread but he was not thrown out and there is nothing to prevent him from returning. He can return at any time if he agrees to behave in such a way that my mailbox will not fill up with complaints from paid subscribers who are leaving because they were tired of the behavior.

Bottom line, a customer who costs an establishment money is going to have to shape up or get out. As an experiment, try loudly and persistently badmouthing the food and services and patrons in a bar or restaurant and see how long you get to stay after the third or fourth warning.

Move it where?

iTulip got the reflation trade wrong for equities for 2009, but that's old news and we've already been through that, so we can put that issue to rest.

But what about the call now? I've been asking this question since I initiated this thread; why won't reflation drive equities higher, and why not put some depreciating $ into stocks? I'm not a subscriber at present, so perhaps don't rate an answer from FRED et al. QEI along with stimulus resulted in a 70% rally, and now we're on the verge of QEII and have seen a recent 15+% rally, which looks to continue. The iTulip prediction of SPX down 20% in 2010 looks less likely (weren't we saying the same thing a year ago?). Of course, SPX at 1600 while gold goes to $2000/oz would be in line with the call IMO.

[Chomsky]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

Also, poor Nero 3 was chased out of here. Granted, bulls should have a pretty good theory behind them around here. But...http://www.itulip.com/forums/images/...s/confused.gif

aw poor nero3 -- he was onto something (I think?) but he never could articulate what it was. Total nothingspeak that may have been a language barrier problem, but it didn't seem that way to me. Everything to him was cause for a bull market.

[cjppjc]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

aw poor nero3 -- he was onto something (I think?) but he never could articulate what it was. Total nothingspeak that may have been a language barrier problem, but it didn't seem that way to me. Everything to him was cause for a bull market.

Much like 92/93

[FRED]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

Move it where?

iTulip got the reflation trade wrong for equities for 2009, but that's old news and we've already been through that, so we can put that issue to rest.

But what about the call now? I've been asking this question since I initiated this thread; why won't reflation drive equities higher, and why not put some depreciating $ into stocks? I'm not a subscriber at present, so perhaps don't rate an answer from FRED et al. QEI along with stimulus resulted in a 70% rally, and now we're on the verge of QEII and have seen a recent 15+% rally, which looks to continue. The iTulip prediction of SPX down 20% in 2010 looks less likely (weren't we saying the same thing a year ago?). Of course, SPX at 1600 while gold goes to $2000/oz would be in line with the call IMO.

You appear to be forgetting the March 27, 2009 call of the end of the correction and the start of the first bounce.

Debt Deflation Bear Market: First Bounce

In a recession, a recovery in personal consumption, incomes, and retail sales signals the start of recovery. The virtuous cycle of credit growth--and its corollary, debt growth—combine with rising incomes as the rate of unemployment growth slows. Credit expansion leads the economy out of the cycle, followed by incomes. That is what many stock market participants think they are seeing now, as previous experience has trained them to see. But they are wrong.

In an economy where household expenditure accounts for 71% of GDP as in the U.S. in 2008, if household cash flows from wage income declines, retail spending falls. Government through interest rate cuts and tax cuts stimulates the economy by increasing credit cash flows. This approached effectively to end every recession in the U.S. since the end of WWII. Keep in mind that each recession was created by monetary policy, by the tightening of credit in order to reduce inflation expectations, real or imagined.

Think of a consumer-dependent economy as a waterwheel, with household cash flow from wages and credit driving the wheel, and the wheel driving the creation of new jobs, income, and credit, pumping money into the economy. If either the credit flows or the income flows dry up, the wheel slows. If they both dry up, one after the other, the wheel slows a lot. In a recession, the government tries to get the wheel moving again by making up for private credit flows and private income flows with government credit and government jobs.

A depression, on the other hand, happens when debt levels are so high that there is not enough cash flow from incomes or new credit creation in the economy to service the interest on the debt. The result is debt deflation and economic depression. Debt deflation started in 2006 for households when the price of their homes began to fall.

A depression, unlike a recession, is not induced by government raising interest rates to combat inflation. On the contrary, a depression occurs in spite of all efforts by government to expand credit; interest rates are cut to zero yet the debt deflation goes on. more...

What we got wrong is that the first bounce ended four months later than we thought, in April 2010 versus December 2009.

For some reason calling the end of the correction in March 2009 but calling the end of the bounce four months early was some kind of horrific blunder, as was the call of a gold correction to $780 in 2009 on its way to $2500 to $5000 as forecast in 2001 when gold traded for $270, when in fact gold corrected to $720. We were off by 10%.

If being off in a forecast by a few months of 10% this what passes for a major error around here, why bother making more forecasts?

[sadsack]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

FWIW

The sympathy for L******* (my own censoring) is misplaced.

He cyberstalked me, tracking me across multiple accounts on different forums.

Based on the profile he constructed based on my other accounts, he chose to attack every single post I made here with ad hominem attacks contrived to discredit/marginalize.

I'll understand if this post is deleted (since my previous post had been). He fits the classic psychological definition of a narcissist. I believe the mgmt handled his case in the proper way for dealing with his type; i.e., shrink your head or GTFO, we have your number.

Lest I remind everyone, a narcissist is always entertaining and charming, except to those who have inspired his/her ire.

Peace

[sishya]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

Symbols $#*, Lukester, nero3 were all dissenting voices here and were correct and I was not happy to see them being driven out of ITulip(Symbols still posts occasionally).
I don't remember seeing Lukester as narcissistic, of course he had verbal spats. But I guess we can include everyone without berating each other.
ITulip is a gentleman's place compared to ZeroHedge.

[Slimprofits]

Re: S&P to rally nearly 70% off March lows by EOY??

Here is what Leuthold has said lately:

early January 2010:

Relative good news from earnings announcements will lead to growing enthusiasm and a 16-20% gain in the stock market in the first six months of this year, and the S&P 500 will reach 1,300-1350 and a normalized PE of 19-21, at which point it will be “clearly overvalued,” he said. Those advances, Leuthold said, will be powered by “momentum, breadth, and divergence” – and not by fundamental undervaluation.

Leuthold Boosts Allocation to Stocks on View S&P 500 Will Set a 2010 High
By Rita Nazareth - Oct 8, 2010 4:11 PM ET

...The investor, who bet on stocks before the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index started the biggest rally since the Great Depression in March 2009, said he lifted the net equity position of the $1.32 billion Leuthold Core Investment Fund and the $1.25 billion Leuthold Asset Allocation Fund to 60 percent from 46 percent in July. The Leuthold Global Fund, which has $294.5 million in assets, has between 62 percent and 63 percent in equities, he said.

...“The market looks pretty healthy,” Minneapolis-based Leuthold, 72, said in a telephone interview yesterday. “It’s becoming clear that the economy is in a recovery mode. We look at the valuations and the technical side. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the market move to new highs maybe as soon as the end of November.”

...The investor says he’s pessimistic about the second half of 2011 and believes the S&P 500 may drop as low as 850 or 900.

...“I’m concerned as to what might happen or what might not happen next year in addressing the big gorilla in the room, which is the huge budget deficit,” he said. “You’re going to see trouble by the last half. It’s probably going to be related to increasing concerns about the dollar, increasing concerns about monetary debasement.”

Bets the Fed will weaken the currency by stepping up purchases of government debt has driven the U.S. dollar to the lowest level since 1995 against the yen. The Dollar Index, which tracks the greenback against six major currencies, has dropped 4.2 percent since Aug. 10, when the Fed said after its policy meeting that it would keep its bond holdings level by resuming the purchase of U.S. debt to support a recovery it described as “more modest” than earlier anticipated.

“I do hope that they pull in their horns and recognize the modest improvement that is taking place in the economy and don’t do it,” Leuthold said. “This could be devastating for the U.S. currency. What it really does is destroy wealth.”

***

And I don't think it was Lukester's dissenting opinions on stocks that annoyed EJ and the Freds.

Everyone forgets that he went on and on revising the history about what EJ had said about peak oil.