Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 59,820+
- gabbai
- allancoleman
- bob90245
- codfish
- Happy_2
- allancoleman
- bamala
- permabear
- glh
- Normxxx
This archived discussion is "read only".
For the corresponding "live" discussions, post in the active topic forum here.
« Previous 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 Next »
» allancoleman - Re: bob is bullish indeed
In response to bob is bullish indeed posted by gabbai:hello gabbai ,
not sure what to think . bob brinker may be correct that this cyclical bull market may go beyond the mid 1300's . my problem with bob's predictions is that he doesn't allow for corrections of less than 10% . and i feel that bob , in his bullishness , may miss this second leg down in this secular bear market .
one of these ' dips ' isn't going to result in another rally . but , will be the downtrend that could last longer than my stomach can stand . i am still getting out at or before year's end . i'll sit on the sidelines after january 1st and watch . the market HAS to keep throwing me pitches , but i don't have to swing at all of them . i'll just wait for a better pitch sometime next year . we are at four year highs and i get nose bleeds at these elevations . 
.
one thing for sure , i don't think the market will go straight to the mid 1300's from here without some pullbacks or ' gift horse ' buys inbetween .
-- posted by allancoleman
» bob90245 - Re: bob is bullish indeed
In response to bob is bullish indeed posted by gabbai:SteveT wrote: I can certainly see bob using $77 or $78 for 2006 earnings. Using Mondays S&P 500 closing value of 1262.09 and $77 as earnings we get a P/E of 16.4 and earlier this year bob thought P/E of 18 or 19 was reasonable if inflation remains in check and so far it seems the case. I feel bob looks at Valuation as bullish.
gabbai wrote: he [Brinker] says mid 1300's for the S&P is the low end of his target range
Time to crunch the numbers. Let's say 1350 is the low end target for the S&P and $77 for 2006 earnings. That would give a P/E of 17.5. No wonder I hear almost everyone saying to rotate into Large cap stocks.
-- posted by bob90245
» codfish - Re: Dec. 05 model update
In response to Dec. 05 model update posted by SteveT:My thanks to you , Steve. I may hold on to my equities a tad longer as well, though I guess I have to say I was also in agreement with one of Normxxx's posts that said it was best not to try to hold on for the top 10% of gains if you think the market is ultimately headed lower. I have set some sell targets to lock in some nice gains in this rally. We'll see if the market lets them execute in the weeks to come.
-- posted by codfish
» Happy_2 - Brinker Sell?
The SP500 at 1350 is only 7% higher than it is now. With bank savings accounts paying 4%, I don't think anyone, including Brinker, would think it worthwhile to hold on for an incremental 3%.Brinker may soon be saying things like he said in 2000. That is you can sell 60% of equities and still capture most of market rise, if it contiues up.
-- posted by Happy_2
» allancoleman - Re: Brinker Sell?
In response to Brinker Sell? posted by Happy_2:you could be right about your call that bob brinker may issue a ' sell ' signal next year . but , i think in reading bob's bullish statements , he's not there yet .
course bob could issue a sell signal for those who feel they've captured most of this cyclical bull market . but i don't think even bob knows that number himself .
however , FOR MYSELF , i like your thinking . which is why i intend to bail by year's end ...... or before .
-- posted by allancoleman
» bamala - Inflation
Am I the only one that finds Brinker's belief that increasing oil prices are not inflationary? Since I'm not an economist I just assume that I must have not been paying attention in my MBA macro econ class and glance over his statements without a second thought. He claims that increasing oil prices are a defacto energy tax and therefore "No tax can be inflationary, as taxes reduce discetionary spending power." I'm starting to understand his perspective -- that consumers these days have lots of discretionary spending to reduce and that spending as a whole is not increasing. But I wonder if that is correct. And I wonder how to measure that. He points to the core index. Is that an adequate measure of non-discretionary spending?-- posted by bamala
» permabear - Re: Brinker says Market is “absolutely beautiful.”
In response to Brinker says Market is “absolutely beautiful.” posted by Kirk:After years following Bob Brinker, I am not so foolish to question his forecasting model. His track record speaks for itself. If he says the stock market is still bullish, chances are he's right. But as for his as well as the conventional wisdom view that the economy is in great shape, that's where I can't hold my tongue. I can't argue that the numbers look good on the surface. Unemployment 5%, productivity up 4%, ISM, factory orders, even consumer confidence, all the numbers look good. But what is driving these good numbers? We've got record budget deficits (so much for the Laffer curve). We've got record trade deficits. We've got a negative savings rate. (In plain spoken words that means consumers are spending more than they are taking in.) We've got housing prices that are expensive by any historical measure (compared to rents, incomes, affordability, etc.). We've got record consumer debt levels. We've got the Chinese buying hundreds of billions of dollars of our bonds which keeps our interest rates low enough to keep the borrowing and spending going. We've got huge industries (autos, airlines) on the verge of bankruptcy. Incomes, when inflation is taken into account, are actually declining. The disparity between rich and poor (or even the middle class for that matter) is at historical record levels. We've got a pension system that is vastly underfunded with a huge bailout ahead of it. Fannie Mae, a critical component of our overblown housing industry, has financial problems that are unknown because they haven't filed an acceptable financial report in several quarters. We've got an aging baby boom generation that is going to be putting even greater stresses on the budget as they begin to collect Social Security and Medicare. In short, the economy is running on borrowed time. Personally I agree with Bob Brinker when he says we are in a cyclical bull market and that the secular bear will again resume. My fear is that when the bear returns, all heck is going to break loose. And all these rosy numbers everyone is crowing about right now will look like a temporary blip in a larger decline. Remember how great things looked in March 2000? Oh one final point, what is the asset class Bob Brinker has totally guided his followers wrong about? Gold. The rise in gold may also be telling the market something. Gold has always been the asset of choice in times of trouble. Maybe the rise in gold, more than the rise in the stock market, is really telling the more accurate story about the health of our economy.
-- posted by permabear
» Normxxx - Re: Inflation
In response to Inflation posted by bamala:Over a period of time, any sustained increase in oil and/or natural gas is highly inflationary.
What BB has perhaps forgotten, is that the use of oil and natural gas in transportation and heating is only a small part of their use. Something like 95% of all fertilizer used in the U.S. comes from natural gas. Most of the synthetic fabrics you wear are some kind of oil or natural gas product. All plastics and most other long polymer synthetics come from oil or natural gas.
So yes, if you want to give up eating, wearing clothes (it's almost impossible to get clothes with no synthetic fibre content), living in houses (most modern homes have loads of products that come from oil or natural gas), or heating your (no synthetic content) house, an increase in oil or natural gas prices will hardly affect you. But I doubt it; if the cost of oil or natural gas goes up, its competive products will also be able to raise their prices. (Economics 101.)
-- posted by Normxxx
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 Next »
Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion.