Your witty, tongue-in-cheek tone, mocking the excesses of a frothy bull market, yet unafraid to be self-deprecating where appropriate, is much appreciated.
With these kinds of outlooks the story and narrative are far more useful than specific predictions or targets.
…the S&P did trade through 5,000 in 2025, and bottomed quite close to my prediction of 4,500. Obviously it bounced much faster than I anticipated, but you’d have made a hell of a lot more money betting on me being right than vice versa.
I don’t believe his view has any bearing on broad valuations; unless you think that indexing has caused incremental flows to equities above and beyond the no-indexing counterfactual, the impact on the headline numbers should be the same and valuation errors should show up only in single names (and, currently, the most overvalued names generally AREN’T ones with heavy index flows IMO)
Well-written, thank you.
Your witty, tongue-in-cheek tone, mocking the excesses of a frothy bull market, yet unafraid to be self-deprecating where appropriate, is much appreciated.
With these kinds of outlooks the story and narrative are far more useful than specific predictions or targets.
May we contrarians survive 2026 better than most.
Guess this going to turn out as well as your 2025 memo ( SPY to 5000 EOY LOL)
…the S&P did trade through 5,000 in 2025, and bottomed quite close to my prediction of 4,500. Obviously it bounced much faster than I anticipated, but you’d have made a hell of a lot more money betting on me being right than vice versa.
OK, Holbein Jr.!
Happy new year 💚 🥃
reading this was a mistake.
i was in such a good mood.
Crypto bros still call them altcoins or shitcoins to be profane. So you're in good standing
Capital gains taxes make following the advice here much less attractive
There’s plenty of ways to hedge without realizing gains, of course.
No mention of Mike Green's work on passive investment flows distorting stock prices?
Gold supply isn't going up any time soon; the supply is relatively fixed. Investment demand drives the price.
I don’t believe his view has any bearing on broad valuations; unless you think that indexing has caused incremental flows to equities above and beyond the no-indexing counterfactual, the impact on the headline numbers should be the same and valuation errors should show up only in single names (and, currently, the most overvalued names generally AREN’T ones with heavy index flows IMO)