barrons_ol_logo.gif

We quoted Ned Davis in Friday’s commentary. He has a full interview in Barron’s today.

Ned is always worth reading; He has a consistent model driven by the supply and demand equation. Most importantly, he looks at a variety of quantitative indicators which provide additonal insight into the Supply/Demand question — beyond mere price.

Here’s the ubiquitous excerpt:

“We’re at a very interesting juncture. The fundamentals have gotten very bullish. Conventional wisdom says maybe there is some geopolitical risk, but based on the fundamentals, the outlook is clear-cut bullish. The thinking goes that more good earnings and a clear upturn in employment will be the trigger to get us above 1200 in the S&P 500 and remove any final doubts about the sustainability of the economic and earnings expansion.

For a contrarian, that’s the worst news there can be. The problem is when there are no doubts left, everybody is pretty much invested. Our own polls of sentiment indicate 68.1% of investors are bullish, which is well in the extreme-optimism zone, and that tells me some of the demand has been used up. At the same time, we’ve been watching the previous-week offerings data in Barron’s, a combination of initial public offerings and secondary offerings, and that is up to $64.7 billion in the past 13 weeks. I can’t say there is a magic number, but it was at $55 billion based on a 13-week average at the April top in 1998, which was as high as it ever was outside the bubble years. This is a lot of supply. These are the problems: There is too much optimism. There is no doubt left about the economy, and that’s a problem on the demand side. And on the supply side, the offerings bother me.”

As always, good stuff from NDR.

Sources:
Contrarian Jitters
Barron’s MONDAY, APRIL 19, 2004 
A master technician sees a yellow light flashing

http://online.wsj.com/barrons/article/0,,SB108215678443785333,00.html

Category: Finance, Media

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

Comments are closed.