The ones interviewed by Barrons in Dec 2007 for 'the way ahead' were apparently in 100% agreement. This was just when the world stock markets were peeling off from inflated heights and commencing a nightmarish plunge. Some of these guys are still confidently telling us how it is today, e.g. Citigroup's Chief U.S. Equity Strategist Tobias Levkovich who was calling stocks "screamingly cheap relative to bonds" in Dec 2007. I found a May 2014 CNBC video interview that I've linked where he's saying essentially the same thing - earnings growth to push stocks higher. And there's even a Lehman guy in the 2007 survey - "Ian Scott, Lehman Brothers' London-based global equity strategist, says profits conceivably could fall as much as 45% if the U.S. slips into recession. But the stock market likely would fall no more than 10% to 15% from current levels even in this worst-case scenario." Here's What Wall Street Bulls Were Saying In December 2007: Read And Take Cover! by David Stockman July 30, 2014 * *
Mainstream Thinking, Mainstream Returns Meagan Evans, Investment Director, Albert Park Investors Guild In May 2013, six of Australia's largest equity research houses tipped Newcrest Mining as a Buy. It's Australia's largest gold stock. Not one tipped it as a Sell. So how did Newcrest fare over the following year? Was it one of the best performing stocks on the market, as these experts predicted? Nowhere near. In fact Newcrest's share price FELL 33%! That's right. Newcrest, one of the most widely recommended picks by Australia's leading research firms, lost a third of its value. If you'd invested $10,000, you'd be left with $6,700 today! Just to get back to break even you need Newcrest to double in price. This could take years time that your money could have been growing in a good stock for your retirement. So much for a safe tip from the big firms. You might think it's unfair to pull one bad stock from the pile. Everyone gets it wrong once in a while. But what if I told you that the big research firms routinely get it wrong? It's not just a mistake that happens now and then. It's a pattern. And it happens again and again and again. Let me show you why... Consider the analysts' top ten tips from May 2013. This only includes stocks covered by at least four major Australian and international stock brokers such as Deutsche Bank, Macquarie, JP Morgan, and Credit Suisse. Reputable and trustworthy right? These were stocks tipped as 'Buy', 'Outperform', or which had some other label suggesting they were stocks you want to own. 'Outperform', by the way, is a completely useless form of advice. It means a stock might do better than the market. But if the market does poorly say it loses 10% and the stock loses 'only' 8%, it has 'outperformed'. Industry insiders call this a relative return. I call it misleading. What you want is an ABSOLUTE return. You want to make money, not just lose less than the market. But back to the analysts. If you'd bought their top ten favourite stocks, you'd have returned drumroll please an average of 2.3%! You're not going to retire on 2.3%. You're not going to even beat inflation. Consumer prices are rising by more than 2.3%. Your cost of living is probably going up even faster, if you include energy and housing costs. My point is, 2.3% is an abysmal return for stocks that are supposed to be top tips. What's more, that average return is well below the 11.3% you could have got investing in a simple ASX Index fund in the year to May 31, 2014. If the stocks the analysts liked did so poorly, the stocks they hated must have done even worse, right? Nope. Pay close attention. You're getting to the moral of the story now. The ten stocks hated most by the analysts at Australia's biggest research firms beat the market by 3.2%. And remember, beating the market doesn't tell you the whole story. In absolute terms, the ten most hated stocks would have returned you an average gain of 14.5%. If Australia's 'best' analysts loved stocks that did poorly and hated stocks that did well, you'd have learned something interesting today. You'd have learned that for some reason big-time analysts get it 180 degrees wrong. They love what they should hate, and they hate what they should love. Let's be fair. The results were for just one year. Did they have a bad year? Could it have been a one off? I wish that were the case. But when you consider the year before that May 2012 to May 2013 the results were even more shocking. The Buys would have lost you 10.1% of your investment. But the Sells would have gained 14.8%! Once is unlucky. Twice is a pattern. More of the article at: http://www.moneymorning.com.au/20140804/mainstream-thinking-mainstream-investment-returns.html
In the U.S.A., there was a time when a bank could not have a broking arm and investment arm due to the possibility of a conflict. When the rules changed, the broking arm would signal to their biggest investors that a change in course was coming and used the term "hold" to alert them to offload. Your average mug investor had no idea.
It's simple, when they buy they want it cheap so they spread hate as to make others not buy / sell instead. And the everything inverted - case, of course.
The USA skewed far away from the country it once was. The parasites took it over, just like they had took over the countries the colonists came from. The only positive element left is that the US still has some population part left that shows its middlefinger, in a degree.
