Analysts, Gurus &amp; Pundits

Top 538. Dec 10, 2004 3:54 PM

» Normxxx - Re: Re: Balancing Act

In response to Re: Balancing Act posted by bob90245:

Sounds good to me-- but that is no longer buy-and-hold. It is simply a modified form of (seasonal) timing. It does have the advantage that if you are using taxable funds, you can adjust your sales so only LT assets are sold.

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 539. Dec 10, 2004 4:24 PM

» Kirk - Investment Guru List

.
These are ones we have forums for here. If you want to add another or I left one out, then let me know.

Ralph Acampora
Joe Battipaglia
Laszlo Birinyi Jr.
Rob Black
John Bogle: aka Jack, Vanguard Funds Founder & Author of recommended book: Common Sense on Mutual Funds

Donald Bradley : Bradley Siderograph (Timing by Astrology)
Bob Brinker: Editor of Marketimer Newsletter & Host of “Money Talk”
Abby Joseph Cohen
Arch Crawford: "The Street's best known Astrologer"
Robert Drach
David Dreman: Recommended Book: Contrarian Investment Strategies
Mark Faber
Doug Fabian :the Mav
Bill Fleckenstein: Perma Bear
Elaine Garzarelli: She called the 1987 Market Crash
George Gilder: “Gilder Technology Report”
Bill Gross: Pimco Funds Bond Guru
Don Hays: Hays Investment Advisory
John Hussman
Ed Hyman: ISI – “International Strategy and Investment” Chairman
Jim & Rich Jorgensen: “Jorgensens On Money”
Mark Mowrey: The Prudent Speculator
Michael Murphy
Louis Navellier
Suze Orman
Bob Prechter: “Robert Prechter”
Jim Rogers: “Jimmy Rogers” aka “Mr. Bow Tie”
Jim Rohrbach :
Richard Russell: Dow Theory Letters
Dan Sullivan: The Chartist
Donald Trump: “You’re Fired!”
Don Wolanchuk: Timer Digest King of Market Timing

Even if you don’t market time or buy individual stocks, my newsletter offers quite a bit of useful information and tables (Discussion of interest rates, The Fed Model, etc.) that many say are worth the price of the subscription on its own.

As of 12/7/04, the Total Return for Kirk's Newsletter since 12/31/98 is 157%. Here are some more periods and comparative benchmarks:

 
              Kirk   S&P500  NASDAQ 
12/31/2002    +68%    +39%    +62%
12/31/2000    +34%     -5%    -13%
12/31/1998   +157%      5%     -2%

Click for a free issue of my newsletter
Suitable for the aggressive growth part of your diversified investment portfolio.

-- posted by Kirk

Top 540. Dec 10, 2004 4:41 PM

» bob90245 - Re: Re: Re: Balancing Act

In response to Re: Re: Balancing Act posted by Normxxx:

I guess that depends on how strict you define buy-and-hold. The investor who never rebalances is practicing the "strong" version of buy-and-hold. The investor who rebalances sometimes once a year or so is practicing the "semi-strong" version of buy-and-hold. And I would consider the version I proposed to be the "weak" version of buy-and-hold. Alternatively you can consider it a "core" hold allocation of 45% stocks and "explore" with 10% cash reserves -- out of the market May to Oct and in the market Nov to April.

-- posted by bob90245

Top 541. Jan 10, 2005 4:47 PM

» Normxxx - Kudos to Peter Brimelow

Kudos to Peter Brimelow

Letter	Editor	Stance 1/9/05	Stance 9/20/04
Cabot Market Letter	Timothy Lutts	91.7% invested	62% invested
Chartist	Dan Sullivan	Fully invested	78 % invested
Dines Letter	James Dines	ST buy signal; IT & LT bearish	ST sell
Dow Theory Forecasts	Richard Moroney	Bullish; 87.5% invested	88% invested
Dow Theory Letters	Richard Russell	LT bearish; ST: PTI above MA	LT bearish
Granville Market Letter	Joe Granville	"Major sell signal" as of Nov.	Bearish
Growth Stock Outlook	Charles Allmon	76% cash; Bearish	22% invested; Bearish
Growth Fund Guide	Walter Rouleau	Bearish	Bearish
International Harry Schultz Letter	Harry Schultz	Not available	Not available
Investment Quality Trends	Kelly Wright	Bearish	Bearish
Investors Intelligence	Michael Burke	40% Invested in stock mutual fund portfolio	60% invested
S&P's Outlook		45% U.S. stocks; 15% int'l stocks; bonds: 25%	40%
Systems & Forecasts	Gerald, Marvin Appel	On buy signal from "Weely" model	On buy signal from "Weely" model
Value Line Investment Survey		75% invested	70% invested

The contents of this letter/report does not necessarily reflect the opinions or viewpoint of normxxx. They are provided for informational/educational purposes only.

The content of this message is not to be construed as constituting market or investment advice. It is intended for educational purposes only. Individuals should consult with their own advisors for specific investment advice.

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 542. Jan 16, 2005 4:23 PM

» bob90245 - Paul Merriman on Active versus Passive

.
Paul Merriman and his co-host debate the "Active versus Passive" controversy. Long-time followers of Merriman may be surprised which side Merriman advocates. Plus a good interview with author Bill Bernstein who talks about his new book The Birth of Plenty : How the Prosperity of the Modern World was Created. All this and more on the January 14, 2005 show of Sound Investing.

-- posted by bob90245

Top 543. Feb 20, 2005 7:44 AM

» Kirk - Paul Cherney: A Nasdaq Slump in the Offing?

.
From http://www.businessweek.com/investor/con...

By Paul Cherney

A Nasdaq Slump in the Offing?

Chances are good that a short-term trend lower is unfolding in the index, and its weakness can weigh on the S&P 500

Friday, Feb. 18, was option expiration and much of the tight range trading was probably due to hedges and cross hedges related to the expiration. Because of the special situations in place for an expiration, it is difficult to glean much information from Friday's price action.

I think the chances are good that a short-term trend lower is unfolding in the Nasdaq composite index, and its weakness can weigh on the S&P 500.

If the Nasdaq is going to lead the way lower, I would expect to see a close under 2,039.72 on Tuesday, Feb. 22, or Wednesday, Feb. 23. Nasdaq 2,039.72 was the intraday low on Feb. 11. If the Nasdaq does not have a close under 2,039.72, or, if the Nasdaq moves higher and closes above 2,093.68, then I would have to declare myself wrong in my assumption that a leg lower for the Nasdaq is taking place.

A Nasdaq close under 2,039.72 would just be a step downward that offers some confirmation that the trend is lower. The Nasdaq has support starting right at 2,039, the support runs 2,039-2,008, inside this there is a focus of support at 2,036-2,024. A close under 2,008 would be another step in a downtrend and would increase concerns for a test of the next layer of support: 1,980-1,900. The support in this zone starts to thicken at 1,971-1,947.

For the S&P 500, immediate support is 1,198.75-1,191.54. There is a critical layer of support at 1,190-1,185.63, if this little shelf is undercut, then I would expect to see a stairstep decline unfold. On the daily charts there is support at 1,184-1,160, inside this support are shelves. The biggest support looks like 1,178-1,163. Next support is 1,142-1,090.

Very near the close of trading on Friday, the 10-day exponential moving average for the CBOE volatility index, or VXO, was 11.52, the 30-day was 12.19. I expect price weakness in stocks if the VXO moves above 11.52. I would guess that aggressive selling is in place if the VXO moves above 12.19. I think it would probably be a positive for stock prices if the VXO stayed below 11.08.

Cherney is chief market analyst for Standard & Poor's

-- posted by Kirk

Top 544. Apr 8, 2005 9:47 AM

» Normxxx - Yamamoto: M&A spike ==> market top

THE GURU'S CORNER:'Maui Contrarian' sides with history
Commentary: M&A spike points to market top

By Irwin Yamamoto, The Yamamoto Forecast | 8 April 2005

KAHULUI, Hawaii (YamamotoForecast) -- I am a contrarian, pure and simple. In my work, I closely track the sentiment indicators because the crowd is usually wrong -- especially at extreme points.

Lately, I've noticed that activity in the mergers and acquisitions arena has picked up in a significant way. In the past, this occurrence was often seen at market tops. More specifically, the stock market.

If you were the chief executive of a major corporation, when would you acquire other companies to expand? In theory, the opportune time would be when the economy is growing and future prospects are improving. At that juncture, everything would be coming together all at once.

After all, your enterprise is experiencing a pickup in business. And the company coffers are awash in cash. There's no better way to grow quickly than by getting larger through buyouts to exploit the current environment.

Well, I must respectfully disagree with the concept of purchasing entities in an economic boom. When times are good, the demand for products and services goes up. That includes other corporations. The price tags for these companies head higher, too. In so many words, you have to fork over premium prices for their profit growth.

[Normxxx Here: One of the reasons for Warren Buffet's success is that he always buys at the bottom-- not at the top! ]

To be successful in business, just like the stock market, we want to buy low and sell high. You surely won't meet this objective when prices are climbing upwards in rapid fashion. Hence, the finest time to make offers for other corporations is in an economic slowdown -- a recession or even a depression. No kidding. At these moments, one will be acquiring at discounted prices. More accurately, at fire-sale prices.

Don't take my word. Check the annals of Wall Street. The pages are filled with tragic tales of deals gone wrong. In fact, most mergers don't turn out productively. Naturally, some of them do. Yet the odds remain poor.

If history portends a low success rate for mergers, what are the chances for success when the takeover price was excessive? The answer: Slim and none. You may buy an excellent company at a terrible price. And I also believe you can confidently predict the outcome when you do that.

Well, don't look now. In January of 2005, there were $138 billion in deals. According to Thomson Financial, the monthly amount was the highest since 2000. Today, American corporations are flush with cash. The money is being put to work. A new merger seems to be announced on a daily basis.

The acquisition trend doesn't appear to be a one-month affair either. Prior to January's surge, the month of December 2004, saw $147 billion in deals, the most in a month since October 2000. There were 673 mergers in December. The following month, January, the number was 607.

You heard the names in the transactions. Publisher Lee Enterprises offered Pulitzer $1.46 billion. News Corp. plans to purchase the rest of Fox Entertainment Group (18 percent) that it doesn't own for $5.9 billion. SBC Communications intends to acquire AT&T for $15 billion. Western Wireless is being bought by Alltel for $4.4 billion. MetLife seeks to fork over $12 billion to Citigroup for Travelers Life & Annuity. And the granddaddy of them all, Procter & Gamble's proposed $57 billion acquisition of Gillette. These kinds of activities have not been seen since the peak years of 1999 and 2000.

Don't misunderstand me. There are justifications for combining two enterprises. Efficiencies are probable. Synergy possible. And increased production and output are achievable. Furthermore, the union may be the answer to compete in the global economy.

One other point. It's far easier to acquire a corporation than to start from scratch.

Yet the wrong price tag for a transaction could alter the equation in a meaningful manner. So much so, that the very success or failure of the combination could depend on the price. The asking prices for the current deals are selling at hefty premiums. At present levels, I prefer to be the acquiree rather than the acquirer.

Naturally, CEOs don't pay exorbitant prices for other firms just for the heck of it. They're under intense pressure to produce growth in an instant. A quick solution is to purchase growth by adding companies to the portfolio. Psychologically, the most comfortable time to employ the strategy is when the economy is booming.

Think again. Actually, it's more prudent to put in an offer when the business environment's poor. Prices become cheap. There will be bargains galore. You can virtually steal your way to prosperity. It's not an easy decision to enter into an acquisition during an economic slowdown, but that's the best opportunity to buy at a wholesale price instead of retail.

In the past, a warning of an approaching peak in the stock market has been a marked increase in mergers and acquisitions. I'm not fighting history.

The publicity shy Irwin Yamamoto has been managing money on the beautiful island of Maui for 30 years and is editor of the Yamamoto Forecast investment letter. He's as contrarian in his business as he is in his stock picks, choosing to forgo advertising, Web sites, e-mail or even a toll-free phone number. Investors interested in his monthly newsletter should write to P.O Box 573, Kahului, Maui, HI, 96733.

The contents of this letter/report does not necessarily reflect the opinions or viewpoint of normxxx. They are provided for informational/educational purposes only.

-- posted by Normxxx

Top 545. Apr 8, 2005 5:45 PM

» bob90245 - Re: Yamamoto: M&A spike ==> market top

In response to Yamamoto: M&A spike ==> market top posted by Normxxx:

It's not an easy decision to enter into an acquisition during an economic slowdown, but that's the best opportunity to buy at a wholesale price instead of retail.

There are a couple flaws in the author's argument.

1) During slowdowns, the weaker companies may not even be worth buying even at bargain prices.

2) During slowdowns, an acquisitive company probably won't have the cash or their own high stock price to bargain for attractively priced companies.

3) If an acquisitive company fails to act during a robust economy when they have the resources (high cash flow and high stock price), they will the lose the golden opportunity when instead an acquistive competitor (also having high cash flow and high stock price) swoops down and scoops up attractive companies.

-- posted by bob90245

Top 546. Apr 9, 2005 9:27 AM

» Normxxx - Re: Re: Yamamoto: M&A spike ==> market top

In response to Re: Yamamoto: M&A spike ==> market top posted by bob90245:

During slowdowns, the weaker companies may not even be worth buying even at bargain prices.

Precisely so! So it is easier to avoid them! Who wants to get hooked up with a bomb?

During slowdowns, an acquisitive company probably won't have the cash or their own high stock price to bargain for attractively priced companies.

They will if, like WB, they don't squander their money when it is coming in in fistfuls!

If an acquisitive company fails to act during a robust economy when they have the resources (high cash flow and high stock price), they will the[n] lose the golden opportunity when instead an acquistive competitor (also having high cash flow and high stock price) swoops down and scoops up attractive companies.

Maybe, maybe not. Over 60% of these "marriages" later fail at great expense. So (possibly), there goes your acquisitive competitor!

You know what they say, "Never chase a stock!" And, "Marry in haste, repent at leisure!" WB seems to be doing alright; maybe, because he never saw a tech stock he liked! (See the review of "The Future of the Market" by Jeremy Siegel in the Investment Book thread.)

-- posted by Normxxx