Posted on 07/21/2016 5:08:55 PM PDT by blam
by J.L. Yastine
July 21, 2016
A massive stock market rally is at our doorstep, according to several noted economists and distinguished investors.
Larry Edelson, a Money and Markets editor, predicts: “The Dow Jones Industrial will lead the way higher and catapult to 31,000 over the next two years.”
Ron Baron, CEO of Baron Capital, thinks: “It’s going to be 30,000.”
Jeffrey A. Hirsch, editor-in-chief of the Stock Trader’s Almanac, believes it will go even higher: “The Dow Jones Industrial Average will surge to 38,820 in a ‘super boom’ beginning in 2017.”
However, Paul Mampilly’s “Dow 50,000” predication is really catching eyes, and one should pay heed — considering his past predictions have been spot-on.
Mampilly was thrust into the limelight when the hedge fund he managed was named by Barron’s as one of the “World’s Best.” But he became legendary when he won the prestigious Templeton Foundation investment competition by making a 76% return … during the 2008 and 2009 economic crisis (without shorting stocks or making risky investments).
Right now, Mampilly says: “Stocks are on the cusp of an historic surge. They could easily hit 50,000. It will be a bull market run that will dwarf the tech boom of the ‘90s.b I’ve never been more certain of anything in my career.”
(snip)
(Excerpt) Read more at thesovereigninvestor.com ...
And upheld by the Supreme Court.
Imagine what Hillary and her packed Supreme Court could do.
No. It’ was the result of bad banking practices. Leverage, low tier capital ratio requirements and the creation of money through the emission of credit.
It was not helped by the central banks with quantitative easing and low yields but remember that was just a bandaid to stop the whole “tanks in the streets” scenario.
I remember when the subprime collapse went down and thought to myself that inflation/hyperinflation was the only way out of the mess. I was partly correct and considered buying PMs. The problem is that other than industrial and commercial uses, it’s every bit as speculative as equities. I missed the boat at 925 on gold and had a friend try to talk me back into it at 1600. I told him I thought it was overvalued at 925. Why would I buy in at 1600?
The fed has chosen to inflate by controlling the ex nihlo currency it creates. If it winds up in the hands of the average man prices for everything will soar. But if you only take care of the people that will invest it to,prop up markets, it gives the rosy illusion that things are well because big money only wants to keep the party going.
Dow 50k? Not as crazy as,I once believed.
>>Happy Days Are Here Again.<<
Right?
Most are absolutely oblivious of the fact that another world war is right around the corner. Not simply the war on Islamic terror.
Wonder how the markets will react?
"Those who ignore the mistakes of History, are condemned to to repeat them..."
Good luck to you.
Which part of it would be helpful?
All the FED has to do is print another $10 trillion in QE and bond-buying, of course, pass it through Wall Street member banks, for their cut, and it should continue to blow bubbles in stocks, real estate and bonds.
The party never has to end.
The average P/E ratio for the S&P 500 is in the high teens, low twenties right now. I’m not sure the fundamentals support that much growth in price without a corresponding increase in earnings.
The libs have been inflating currency since 1993 and the conservatives have done nothing to stop it so instead of our prosperity we had, we are losing ground to the price of a loaf of bread as our wages are going up slower than our bills. This is what the government calls prosperity. I call it pandering and destroying an economy. The debt is a perfect example. And that’s just what we owe ourselves.
red
Yes, when an election is near and a Democrat has been in office, the libmedia always paints a sunny picture of our foundering, moribund economy.
Meth is a helluva drug.
A bubble is always biggest just before it pops.
“Which part of it would be helpful?”
Get the general banking separated once again from the investment banks and brokerage houses. A lot of the abuses we’ve seen have their roots in this unholy alliance. It’s long past time when the stock market isn’t run by the banksters, and the average investor has some reasonable assurances that he won’t be taken for a ride.
More reason to own stocks and other assets. I don’t understand why people worry about “debased currencies”. The solution is simple - don’t own currencies. Currencies are simply one type of assets, simply diversify and sleep at night.
To do it in 2-3 years would be back to back gains of over 50%. I don't see that happening. You would need an economy that grew at a 4 - 5% range or as others have pointed out a hyperinflationary period that killed the value of the dollar. Even if Trump becomes President it will take a year for his tax policies to work their way into economy. So that's one year gone (2017) out of the 2 they are predicting it will take. Even with 2 good years at 15% stock market increases you only make it to 24k and some change.
You are absolutely correct sir!
I can't think of any banks that got in trouble because of their brokerage division, can you?
A lot of the abuses we’ve seen have their roots in this unholy alliance.
Any specifics?
So, I take it you made out well in 2007? I didn’t, we lost 30% of our retirement funds, and it was because of the existing financal institutions manipulations of the marketplace to steal from average folks like us. And in addition to Glass-Stegal, we should take measures to rein in Fannie and Freddie and government policies that allowed ( no mandated) that they give mortgages to people whom they knew would not be able to repay them. They were making loans, skimmming off fees, they walking away with those monies in their pockets leaving the taxpayers to foot the resulting bill. If I had my way, Goldman Sachs would be liquidated, along with everyone who works there having their bank accounts expropriated.
Nope. Lost a bunch.
we should take measures to rein in Fannie and Freddie and government policies that allowed ( no mandated) that they give mortgages to people whom they knew would not be able to repay them.
Completely agree, government involvement in the housing mortgage market causes distortions.
Back to my original point, I can't think of any bank that got in trouble because of stuff that would have been disallowed before 1999. Can you?
Glass Steagall would not have prevented banks from writing crappy mortgages. Would not have stopped the bubble from forming or bursting.
“Glass Steagall would not have prevented banks from writing crappy mortgages. Would not have stopped the bubble from forming or bursting.”
Perhaps, but anything that breaks up the financial institutions and reduces their inflluence would be a plus. I wished that I had the time and the money to sue Morgan Stanley for what they did to my retirement funds They are crooks who lined their pockets with money it took us a lifetime to amass. We had a considerable investment in Lehman Brothers preferred stock. One week before LB went under we met with our broker to discuss divestment of that position. We were told that “if house rules didn’t prevent him from doing so, he’d personally buy all of our LB stock.” He said that LB was an exceptional investment, so we stayed with it and watched tens of thousands of dollars simply evaporate. And after the fact, he said words to the effect of “well, that’s the breaks, win some loose some!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.