Does A Bear Read Its Archives?
By Bill
You can read a lot of humorous things on the web, often things that aren’t intended as humor.
The bears always seem so much more literate than the bulls. They express themselves so well.
The bear argument usually sounds more intelligent and well-thought out.
My response is that, if you read the bear archives in tandem with an examination of a long-term stock chart, the IQ of these bearish “gurus” will drop several points. If you don’t believe me, or if you’re just too darn lazy to do that, CXO Advisory Group has compiled some “guru grades” by doing just exactly what I suggested, except they’ve been doing this for quite a while.
Marc Faber’s track record on forecasting the performance of U.S. equities over the past few years is just above average.
The accuracy rate of John Hussman’s stock market characterizations since September 2003 is below average. His “valuation” measure has had no practical use.
Tim Wood’s stock market forecasts since April 2003, generally focused on a long-term bull-versus-bear contest, have been wrong most of the time.
John Mauldin is below average in forecasting stock market behavior and generally useless to traders because of his very long forecast horizon. On a side note, I finally got tired of deleting his useless, rambling emails and unsubscribed yesterday.
Jim Puplava has not been a good guide regarding the overall direction of the U.S. stock market since late 2002.
Bill Fleckenstein’s stuck-on-pending-disaster outlook has resulted in a very weak stock market forecasting record over the past few years. When disaster does strike, he will have warned us, and warned us, and warned us…
I guess it’s really not that hard to be smarter than the average bear.
http://billakanodoodahs.com/