|
|
Abby Joseph Cohen
This archived discussion is "read only". « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next » » JenL_2 - Re: Upbeat Goldman Call Juices Futures In response to message posted by Kirk:<img src="/files/mysites/Jen/abbytarget.gif" width=300 height=250> .....Jen -- posted by JenL_2 » DennisL - Re: Upbeat Goldman Call Juices Futures In response to message posted by Kirk:And she reiterated her year-end predictions, saying the S&P 500 will rise 31% from where we are to 1650. The Dow will pop 23% to 13,000, she said. I hope she's right and I'm wrong, but I think Abby's call for 31% on the S&P 500 and 23% on the Dow over the next 9.5 months is totally absurd. -- posted by DennisL » reporter20 - Re: Re: Upbeat Goldman Call Juices Futures In response to message posted by DennisL:I hope she's right too, but i doubt it. At the end of 1999, with the S&P at 1469, she predicted a gain of roughly 5% in the S&P for 2000 and we ended at about 1320. Some time in 2000 she reduced her equity weighting by 5%, while maintaining her year-end target. The market immediately reacted and went way down. I never understood that move, but what do i know? I would be happy to get back to 1469 by year end and call it a waste of 2 years in VFINX and move on from there. -- posted by reporter20 » Rande - Re: Re: Re: Upbeat Goldman Call Juices Futures In response to message posted by reporter20:
-- posted by Rande » reporter20 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Upbeat Goldman Call Juices Futures In response to message posted by Rande:Rande: Good point. By the way, Kudlow article in Market watch, predicting the same as Abby. -- posted by reporter20 » Kirk - Re: Abby wrong about 2000 In response to message posted by reporter20:I saw her on TV last night and they asked her about being "wrong" in 2000. She had a good answer. She said HER targets were much lower than most of her (missed the exact word) "contemporaries". She also said her "targets" were just there to indicate direction and general magnitude when asked about expecting a 30% gain from present levels. I got the impression she would not feel "wrong" if we got anything between a 10 and 40% gain from present levels... the idea is we are under valued and the upside potential is much larger than money rates. IF you look at her numbers and what she says about valuation, she is saying the that market in 2000 over reacted and sold off too many babies with the bathwater. This is normal as it over shot on the plus side and it over shoots on the negative side. This is EXACTLY why dynamic asset allocation works so well... Moving 5% out near tops and back in when over sold can really add return to a portfolio if you guess right on sectors to add and subtract. I can attest to that as it is amazing how well my portfolio held up by taking about 10% out in 2000 and putting about half into bonds and half into banks and other under valued areas (a transportation stock). You STILl suffer with the overall market if there is a decline, but at a muted level due to the dynamic reallocations. If you read the posts here, some are starting to do just this with their portfolios but using total market or S&P500 funds: sell a bit on the peaks and buy a bit back on the lulls... -- posted by Kirk » Kirk - 4/18/01 Update Abby has lowered her targets slightly but expects reacceleration of profits later this year.Old S&P500 year end target was 1650 She said to UNDER WEIGHT Technology this time last year. NOW she is sayign OVER WEIGHT Technology as it is under valued. Current asset allocation -- posted by Kirk » Not_Normal - Re: 4/18/01 Update In response to message posted by Kirk:I heard someone say yesterday that Buffet has done a better job over time than has Abbey. Didn't catch the context. Were they talking about the last 5-10-15-20 years? Just don't know, and who cares? -- posted by Not_Normal « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next » Please follow the guidelines set forth in the Suite101 Posting Etiquette when adding to the discussion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|