The reason is that I want to concentrate on the most important things at this moment, right now that seems to be whether or not we're at a top in the US market, almost every opinion you read on that topic is utter bullshit, the top-callers are easy to ignore because they all have their own political agenda and an abject ignorance of the hard data, and by now you should be able to find Calculated Risk and Bonddad on your own.
Also, Bill Bishop hasn't been posting much in the way of significant China news recently.
So with that in mind, here's some news:
Bonddad - is the market rise just the result of reinvestment of the Xmas tax-evasion dividends? Interesting theory, better than the rest. But I'd be interested in seeing the magnitude of the dividends, and I'd be questioning why that's not all going into fixed income.
FT Alphaville - federal and state spending. Interesting point - one of the bigger headwinds to the US recovery has been extreme cutbacks in State and Federal spending. The State cuts have really been a drag on the economy - but now most states are running budget surpluses, and will be able to start increasing spending again. Meanwhile, the Federal spending cuts (most importantly now the sequester) should already be priced into the market, don't you think? That's my problem with Bonddad et al - they've become very bearish based on information that we already have.
Ritholtz - explaining his position on secular bear markets. He brings up a very important point that you TA newsletter writers should ponder: this time is not like all other times, because the Fed has intervened very drastically to float the equity market. Thus, it might be that the "third crash, of 20-30%" that you expect at the end of a secular bear market hasn't happened because of the Fed.
Here are his important points for those of you who can't be assed to follow the links to articles which I'm only pointing you to because I think they're very important:
7. The FOMC policies of QE/ZIRP are the wild cards. I believe we would have had at least one 20-30% correction but for the last 2 QEs. That washout would have been our 1979-81, and it could have helped set the stage for the end of the Secular Bear.
8. Normally, we should be seeing lower P/Es and even lower interest in Equities. However, we once again look at the actions of the Fed as a complicating factor. This makes interpreting where we are in the cycle, a challenge under normal circumstances, that much more difficult.
9. I don’t know how to interpret the secular bear metrics in light of the Fed’s active intervention in the markets. It is a case of first impression.
All very sensible, and therefore something you really should ponder before drawing your pretty lines. Because today's S&P chart might not be charting the same market that it charted in 2000.
And by the way - don't anyone ever fucking use the "oh, so you think This Time Is Different?" snark on me. I have read the book in its entirety. Have you? No? And have you checked into Rogoff's politics? No? Then shut the fuck up, you smart-assed little cunt.
Mining.com - Brent Cook on risk, honesty, and a cut throat Vancouver junior mining scene. Some pretty unbelievable quotes from someone who seems to be about to throw the gentleman schtick aside and finally start calling it like it really is. Here is one fun quote:
“The flat-out lying takes a bit of getting used to. I’m certainly not saying everyone in Vancouver is a crook, but that is how the vast amount of money is made here.”
Here's the embed video (warning: includes Tommy Humphreys):