<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The &#8217;38th Parallel</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/</link>
	<description>Macro Perspective on the Capital Markets, Economy, Geopolitics, Technology, and Digital Media</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:55:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dow Jones - 2002/08 vs 1932/38 - VicktorCapitalist</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/comment-page-2/#comment-175566</link>
		<dc:creator>Dow Jones - 2002/08 vs 1932/38 - VicktorCapitalist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 19:00:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=27293#comment-175566</guid>
		<description>[...] the Big Picture - if the next few years Dow is going to behave like 1938-42, it would be very difficult for a lot [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] the Big Picture - if the next few years Dow is going to behave like 1938-42, it would be very difficult for a lot [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: seneca</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/comment-page-2/#comment-175560</link>
		<dc:creator>seneca</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 18:43:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=27293#comment-175560</guid>
		<description>In reply to usphoenix, Barron&#039;s free &quot;Market Lab&quot; section provides a weekly table containing P/E&#039;s and dividend yields for the major indexes:

http://online.barrons.com/public/page/9_0210-indexespeyields.html

As of Friday, May 22, 2009, the S&amp;P500&#039;s dividend yield was 2.56 percent.  Actual dividends per share in the S&amp;P500 have fallen from $29 a year ago to $23 today.

The NY Times ran an extraordinary article last January that didn&#039;t get the attention it deserved. The upshot was that &quot;As a group, shareholders were paid about $200 billion more than their companies earned&quot; between the fourth quarter of 2004 through the third quarter of 2008. Easy money and lax lending standards let companies use borrowed money to pay dividends and buy back shares. That era upended the hallowed Wall Street maxim &quot;Dividends don&#039;t lie.&quot;

Here&#039;s a link to the NY Times article by Floyd Norris (&quot;Easy Loans Financed Dividends&quot;):
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/business/09norris.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In reply to usphoenix, Barron&#8217;s free &#8220;Market Lab&#8221; section provides a weekly table containing P/E&#8217;s and dividend yields for the major indexes:</p>
<p><a href="http://online.barrons.com/public/page/9_0210-indexespeyields.html" rel="nofollow">http://online.barrons.com/public/page/9_0210-indexespeyields.html</a></p>
<p>As of Friday, May 22, 2009, the S&amp;P500&#8242;s dividend yield was 2.56 percent.  Actual dividends per share in the S&amp;P500 have fallen from $29 a year ago to $23 today.</p>
<p>The NY Times ran an extraordinary article last January that didn&#8217;t get the attention it deserved. The upshot was that &#8220;As a group, shareholders were paid about $200 billion more than their companies earned&#8221; between the fourth quarter of 2004 through the third quarter of 2008. Easy money and lax lending standards let companies use borrowed money to pay dividends and buy back shares. That era upended the hallowed Wall Street maxim &#8220;Dividends don&#8217;t lie.&#8221;</p>
<p>Here&#8217;s a link to the NY Times article by Floyd Norris (&#8220;Easy Loans Financed Dividends&#8221;):<br />
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/business/09norris.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/business/09norris.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: drollere</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/comment-page-2/#comment-175379</link>
		<dc:creator>drollere</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 06:28:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=27293#comment-175379</guid>
		<description>my exasperation with &quot;technical analysis&quot; (aka graphical description) is nicely captured by this post. the fatal question is always: so what?

bush and nixon were both unpopular presidents -- so what? psychology was the same -- so what? the market went up 30% and then down 40% -- so what? parallels aren&#039;t causal arguments, and similarities aren&#039;t relationships. (they can get auctioned on ebay, if a piece of toast looks like the virgin mary.) imagine the state of medicine, if we simply diagnosed one patient because he or she &quot;looked like&quot; another patient. 

the illusion is that graphical description gives us causal insight (&quot;technical analysis&quot;), but it doesn&#039;t. it simply formalizes visual (not even quantitative) similarities. nothing at all about volume, about leverage, about exchange rates, about fundamentals ... just a line moving up and down. 

we could learn something from the line, if we systematically compared its behavior to the elements of a causal model, used the comparison to identify driving variables, and then used the driving variables to predict the future movement of the line. i don&#039;t believe that has ever been tried with graphical description. instead, one graphical description is compared to another graphical description, and the hunt for historical parallels is on.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>my exasperation with &#8220;technical analysis&#8221; (aka graphical description) is nicely captured by this post. the fatal question is always: so what?</p>
<p>bush and nixon were both unpopular presidents &#8212; so what? psychology was the same &#8212; so what? the market went up 30% and then down 40% &#8212; so what? parallels aren&#8217;t causal arguments, and similarities aren&#8217;t relationships. (they can get auctioned on ebay, if a piece of toast looks like the virgin mary.) imagine the state of medicine, if we simply diagnosed one patient because he or she &#8220;looked like&#8221; another patient. </p>
<p>the illusion is that graphical description gives us causal insight (&#8220;technical analysis&#8221;), but it doesn&#8217;t. it simply formalizes visual (not even quantitative) similarities. nothing at all about volume, about leverage, about exchange rates, about fundamentals &#8230; just a line moving up and down. </p>
<p>we could learn something from the line, if we systematically compared its behavior to the elements of a causal model, used the comparison to identify driving variables, and then used the driving variables to predict the future movement of the line. i don&#8217;t believe that has ever been tried with graphical description. instead, one graphical description is compared to another graphical description, and the hunt for historical parallels is on.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: moneyneversleepsblog</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/comment-page-2/#comment-175297</link>
		<dc:creator>moneyneversleepsblog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 00:09:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=27293#comment-175297</guid>
		<description>Does anyone know if Yamada is still sticking by her call for the final market lows to be something crazy like S&amp;P 400-500??? I vaguely remember it from Fast Money, she was working the theory that the S&amp;P had a major double top and would continue to break lower and lower... and lower... the only small little issue with the S&amp;P double top theory is that most stocks did NOT have the same double top because the rally to the top for the 2nd time was led by a few...

goes back to the theory that it is not a stock market... but a market of stocks...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Does anyone know if Yamada is still sticking by her call for the final market lows to be something crazy like S&amp;P 400-500??? I vaguely remember it from Fast Money, she was working the theory that the S&amp;P had a major double top and would continue to break lower and lower&#8230; and lower&#8230; the only small little issue with the S&amp;P double top theory is that most stocks did NOT have the same double top because the rally to the top for the 2nd time was led by a few&#8230;</p>
<p>goes back to the theory that it is not a stock market&#8230; but a market of stocks&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thetanman</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/comment-page-2/#comment-175294</link>
		<dc:creator>thetanman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 May 2009 00:02:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=27293#comment-175294</guid>
		<description>ben,

I knew one or both of you were very concerned about the DJTA. Thanks and GL.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ben,</p>
<p>I knew one or both of you were very concerned about the DJTA. Thanks and GL.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ben22</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/comment-page-2/#comment-175287</link>
		<dc:creator>ben22</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2009 23:45:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=27293#comment-175287</guid>
		<description>tanman, 

DL may have mentioned it but yes, I brought this up about 3 weeks ago.  Thanks for your insight.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>tanman, </p>
<p>DL may have mentioned it but yes, I brought this up about 3 weeks ago.  Thanks for your insight.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: thetanman</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/comment-page-2/#comment-175277</link>
		<dc:creator>thetanman</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2009 23:28:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=27293#comment-175277</guid>
		<description>DL,  ben

I think you may have been the one who a few weeks ago was concerned about the DJTA . Well it has formed a perfect H-S and I can find only a few people talking about it, even in trader land. No mention on The Street.com. I don&#039;t watch CNBC, but from what I understand they are a little giddy. If everyone were talking about it, a H-S almost never works. On that last stab down it almost gave way. Also if you look almost a year ago to the week, OIH continued up on sheer rotation even after stocks began to fall.  So everything seems to be set up, and if it is, OIH should begin to fall.  Prediction? The H-S will be confirmed.  If we do start down in a big way, it will be very ominous and eerie. Friday being down would seem to be bad too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>DL,  ben</p>
<p>I think you may have been the one who a few weeks ago was concerned about the DJTA . Well it has formed a perfect H-S and I can find only a few people talking about it, even in trader land. No mention on The Street.com. I don&#8217;t watch CNBC, but from what I understand they are a little giddy. If everyone were talking about it, a H-S almost never works. On that last stab down it almost gave way. Also if you look almost a year ago to the week, OIH continued up on sheer rotation even after stocks began to fall.  So everything seems to be set up, and if it is, OIH should begin to fall.  Prediction? The H-S will be confirmed.  If we do start down in a big way, it will be very ominous and eerie. Friday being down would seem to be bad too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike in Nola</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/comment-page-2/#comment-175276</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike in Nola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2009 23:24:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=27293#comment-175276</guid>
		<description>Seached the Houston Library site and found it:

The great wave : price revolutions and the rhythm of history / David Hackett Fischer.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seached the Houston Library site and found it:</p>
<p>The great wave : price revolutions and the rhythm of history / David Hackett Fischer.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike in Nola</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/comment-page-2/#comment-175262</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike in Nola</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2009 22:40:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=27293#comment-175262</guid>
		<description>Cursive:

 Try setting the compatibility view for this site. I doubt that XP is the problem. It&#039;s either the browser or the site or ISP.

Curmudgeon: 
There was a book that Barry had in his recommended reading that would probably interest you, although it was heavy going at times. It talked about the cycles of economic history going back to midieval times, with plenty of  charts and graphs of prices and population. Talked about the factors you just mentioned. It didn&#039;t imply that these had a regular period, but showed common trends within them. Of course I can&#039;t find it on Barry&#039;s list any more and can&#039;t remember the name.  Written about 1995. Implied that we were reaching another of those turning points, since the epochs generally ended with large accumulations of wealth, economic disparity, and social and economic breakdowns, e.g. the French Revolution.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cursive:</p>
<p> Try setting the compatibility view for this site. I doubt that XP is the problem. It&#8217;s either the browser or the site or ISP.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon:<br />
There was a book that Barry had in his recommended reading that would probably interest you, although it was heavy going at times. It talked about the cycles of economic history going back to midieval times, with plenty of  charts and graphs of prices and population. Talked about the factors you just mentioned. It didn&#8217;t imply that these had a regular period, but showed common trends within them. Of course I can&#8217;t find it on Barry&#8217;s list any more and can&#8217;t remember the name.  Written about 1995. Implied that we were reaching another of those turning points, since the epochs generally ended with large accumulations of wealth, economic disparity, and social and economic breakdowns, e.g. the French Revolution.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Cursive</title>
		<link>http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/05/the-1938-parallel/comment-page-2/#comment-175258</link>
		<dc:creator>Cursive</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 23 May 2009 22:28:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/?p=27293#comment-175258</guid>
		<description>@DL

Yeah, MA and I were discussing that earlier on this thread.  Sad.  I agree with Swampfox @ 3:19.  Life will go on, but the intervening period between here and the end of this deleveraging event will be heartbreaking for many.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>@DL</p>
<p>Yeah, MA and I were discussing that earlier on this thread.  Sad.  I agree with Swampfox @ 3:19.  Life will go on, but the intervening period between here and the end of this deleveraging event will be heartbreaking for many.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

