My email was full this morning with comments on my 2006 Prediction.
First there is no link to the B-Week survey per se in that it is a paid subscription. I had a few comments spell out some current events that should lead to an up year for next year. I said in my post that my prediction is not based on current events but more this is how the market has historically worked.
One comment asked my rationale. Rationale for what, expecting down a little? Check the sixth paragraph, the one that starts with the words The fundamental reason.
If it wasn't clear in my original post, I would be thrilled to be wrong.
I find it interesting that most of the comments were from people that take the other side of my trade. While hardly a scientific sampling, the ratio of bull to bear (I hate those terms) is about what it was in the B-week survey.
I am pleased to have had so many comments.
Proud Member Of
Random Roger
© 2009 | Gadget Theme Blogger Template
Original WPtheme By Blogger Template | Converted By Gadget Lover
| Distributed by eFree Blogger Help
Original WPtheme By Blogger Template | Converted By Gadget Lover
| Distributed by eFree Blogger Help
2 comments:
Roger:
I meant the rationale for looking at the gaps in the analyst predictions. Is this some sort of contrarian approach? Is it confirmed over the years by actual market performance the following year?
I understand your rationale for down a little--makes total sense.
Thx.
Mindful that the "in questions of economics the majority is always wrong", each year, Ken Fisher plots the bell curve and then picks either well under or well over the mean. His record is pretty good but this year he was wrong. This year of the election cycle is normally down a lot or up a lot to make the average flat. The surprise to Ken is that this year was basically flat.
My pick of 1421 is on the high side of the BW consensus. Chances are that if the consenus is low it will be very low.
Post a Comment