Sara Lepro, an AP Business Writer, put forward this title today for an article:
Without signs of economic growth, stocks to drift
How does she make the conclusion stocks will ‘drift’? What is drift exactly? Which stocks exactly? An excerpt from her article:
The stock market has been drifting, stalling a three-month rally, and analysts say investors need to see more concrete signs of economic growth before they’ll take stocks higher.
Who are these analysts? The same ones who did not ‘predict’ the crash? She continues:
At the same time, concerns are growing over climbing interest rates, a falling dollar and rising commodity prices — all factors that could inhibit recoveries for the market and the economy. But with trading entering a traditionally slow period, stocks’ moves will likely be more sedate this week, especially in the absence of any economic reports. Analysts say that isn’t necessarily a bad thing. “A sideways move in the market is actually a corrective move,” said Keith Springer, president of Capital Financial Advisory Services in Sacramento, Calif. “You get rid of the overbought condition when you move sideways.”
Got all that? Now what do you do with that information? She continues:
Analysts have warned that the market may have rallied more than economic fundamentals warranted this spring, and that a significant pullback is in order given how far and how fast stocks rose. A gain of 40 percent — like the one in the Standard & Poor’s 500 index since early March — usually takes years, not months.
Got that? The economic fundamentals were driving stocks. I can only conclude that if one was able to analyze the economic fundamentals over the last few months they would have made great money in stocks. Can I also conclude that analyzing those same economic fundamentals last summer would have then made me great money in the October 2008 crash? She continues:
But while stocks are no longer barreling higher as they did in the early spring, they have yet to retreat meaningfully, and that’s a sign of strength in the market.
“Meaningfully” means what exactly? “Strength” means what exactly? My conclusion: this writer doesn’t really have a clue what she is talking about, but nonetheless arrogantly believes investors are inept sheep. These kinds of articles are written as “feed” for hungry “sheep” unable to know up from down, right from left. It amazes me after all these years that more people don’t call these stories “out” for what they are: bullshit.
June 14th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
And to think these analysts get paid for this drivel.
June 14th, 2009 at 4:56 pm
William (above comments),
I don’t think she’s any more of an “analyst” than the “professional journalists” that appear as newsreaders on CNBC. The only one who is on that network regularly for whom I have any regard is Art Cashin. Not only is he a very good technical “analyst” (he can also pronounce Fibonacci and say what it means), I like his name and he doesn’t seem to take himself too seriously.