My most recent stock market prediction

When does this cycle end and when did it begin?

FWIW I don't think you're "wrong" here I'm just asking.

quote:

---

When does this cycle end and when did it begin?

---

I consider the most recent pull-back cycle to have begun in May after the recent April high of 1219 on the S&P.

I think the general upwards trend will continue through the elections this fall, unless there is some world-changing event, such as a successful terrorist attack on U.S. soil or Iran gets bombed.

I'm with you. The macro issues haven't been solved, but they've been put on the back-burner, and people are focusing on earnings now. I'm sticking with Rosenberg on his 2H earnings expectations theme.

The main thing I'm personally curious about is how the market handles money center banks [predicted] profit slow down. Was the past 6 weeks enough of a scare that simply not losing money is somehow enough to be seen as a major positive, or does the market hold those banks to the same standard that it does for every one else (continual growth)? I'll have to wait till the actual reports come out, but that's something I'm curious about from a sentiment standpoint.

My guess is that the stocks will continue to rebound despite depressed profits because of recent sentiment, and as a result, continue to pull up the rest of the market, regardless of whether some firms report mediocre earnings. We're still in a prolonged financial "crisis," banks will continue to drive the market, not the other way around. The reverse-beta trade, if you will.

quote:

---

Well there are more than 2 days in 2 years.

---

I have no idea what you mean here. But thanks for contributing.

quote:

---

b.c I disagree with the majority of the board over there on a few issues, I am somehow losing to a clock.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

Gridlock is good for the stock market. It sounds stupid, but it's historically true. It was true when Clinton was in the WH and Republicans won the house and senate in 1994.

---

Everybody says this like it's gospel, but I don't think you can really make a solid empirical case for this at all. Among other problems, you would have to somehow find a way to call the years 1995-98 "gridlock" with no major legislative action enacted, while simultaneously calling the years 2003-06 a time of furious and significant partisan legislative activity. I just don't see it.

I have no idea if its empirically true at all, it simply makes sense to me from a common sense standpoint. Less change = less uncertainty = higher asset prices. I would be highly skeptical of any study that claimed to prove this empirically, the myriad other infinitely more important factors make it impossible imo, but it makes sense to me in as much as it affects investor sentiment (as opposed to something concrete, like actual economic improvement).

quote:

---

My guess is that businesses are "re-trenching" because there is no growth in final demand.

---

Top line numbers reported for last quarter will reveal if you are correct. I think there will be a small increase in sales revenue for most companies reporting.

I truly believe the uncertainty of regulations, health care, taxes, union card check, cap and trade, etc., are the main factors holding back hiring now......coupled with being gun shy regarding the double dip possibility.

My biggest worry now is the kamikaze possibility from a lame-duck congress. With nothing to lose and with political appointed jobs to be offered by the administration, I can see cap and trade and the union card check bills passing. That would handicap the economy to the point where a double dip becomes likely rather than just a possibility.

quote:

---

Expect Intel to do real well after hours today after they announce earnings

---

2 for 2 today