Comments on: GOLDMAN SACHS 2010 INVESTMENT OUTLOOK – THE BULL WILL CONTINUE

By: joe

joe — Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:43:26 +0000

I agree a leopard does not change his spots, to show thier commitment to their clients they need to limit their outrageous bonusses.

Joe

By: TC

TC — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 07:25:55 +0000

“Nonetheless, doubt remains and catalysts for higher stock prices remain.”

With only about 16% of investment newsletter writers polled by Investors Intelligence bearish it hardly seems much “doubt remains.”

“Perhaps most important, Goldman sees a continued influx of cash to the equity markets.

Curiously, about as much “sideline cash” existed in May 2008 as exists right now. That the lender of last resort was not then all in, unlike now, and that the global financial system presently is no less hopelessly insolvent now that the lender of last resort is backstopping a considerable portion of Wall Street’s trash, suggests that the several trillions of sideline cash is there for good reason (much as proved true in May 2008).

By: Denis

Denis — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 23:15:26 +0000

Goldman analyst bullish? That’s not news. Being bullsh*tly bullish is a job requirement there.

By: arnoldsimage

arnoldsimage — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:37:05 +0000

i believe at this point we can safely conclude that these criminals don’t have our best interests at heart. do you really want to believe what they have to say?

By: Ledbedder

Ledbedder — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 23:23:16 +0000

MY gosh, if Government Sachs says it will be a strong 2010, that, to me, means SELL!! They’ve bought and goosed this market up as much as they could since March. Looks like they are running out of fiat money to send it up higher. I wouldn’t trust these vampires to baby sit a clove of garlic.

By: GTG

GTG — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:22:15 +0000

They aint often referred to as “Government” Sachs for nothing!

Reminds me of the $200 dollar oil call at/near the $147 peak last year. Could this be the ultimate contrarian indicator for the next leg down?

By: jt26

jt26 — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 15:20:01 +0000

“their analysts expect many similarities to 2004″ .. at least for US markets, I don’t see the similarities at all … 2004 saw rising credit, decreasing unemployment previous 6 mo … maybe they are looking at asian stats (I’d like to see the case for unmanipulated countries like Korea, Singapore, Malaysia, India). I haven’t seen the evidence in Europe either. The other thing they miss from their 2004 analogy is the Fed started to hike then, whereas GS says no hike til 2011.

One thing I do agree with is the continuing weight of ZIRP on investors. Even as the Fed started to hike in 2004 there was an enormous subsequent demand for risk (ie people buying ABS for 15 bps premium over TBonds; CRE with 5% cap rates). I would **never** underestimate ZIRP … the Fed Funds low in 2003-4 was only 0.75-1% and look what happened in the subsequent 3-4 years. So far I don’t see that in the US, but some countries (Canada,Oz, HK, China, Korea) is seeing some of that low cap rate action in CRE. HY looks to be similar risk taking as 2003-4. Once again the same conundrum … do I trade the ZIRP bubble or is this time different; I’ve never been so conflicted in years. From an equity point of view, it’s a tossup … 2002 or 2004?

By: AnacottSteel

AnacottSteel — Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:26:17 +0000

I f’ing hate these guys, but you’re an idiot to ignore them.