Replies to post #30763 on The New CS Board

[Oddlot]

OT jumanjii: sorry for the delay in responding, but I was in hospital with broken ribs and chest tube, after falling through attic floor. Home now, and taking it easy, per orders, and everything heals with time, except for my brother-in-laws account.
Oddlot

[jumanji0881]

Sure, I too question how gold will react to a sharp decline in stocks. I do not, however, have much doubt that the CBs will react in the way they always have which is to print as fast as they can until they are overwhelmed by the magnitude of the economic malaise. I am holding onto cash right now to take advantage of any major buying opportunities. Here's something to think about (nowhere does he mention the Fed's role in all of this) :

Anyone Else Want To Call For A Market Crash? : http://www.kitco.com/commentaries/2017-11-13/Anyone-Else-Want-To-Call-For-A-Market-Crash.html
Excerpt:
Hindenburg omens. Market valuations. Record low volatility. And, I am only scratching the surface of all the reasons paraded before investors as to why this market is, in their opinion, “too high.”

So, is this time different? Have we finally conquered the business cycle and the stock market will rally on forever?

Absolutely not.

But, when article writers suggest that their old methods of market evaluation have failed them, and then conclude that we need to prepare for a market crash, it makes me question the logical if/then perspective of their analysis.

I mean, how does one theorize and conclude that “if” your analysis method is not working, “then” you must prepare for a crash?

So, I am certainly not suggesting that we have conquered the business cycle or that the stock market will rally forever, as I, too, expect another stock market crash years from now. Rather, I am suggesting that analysts need to be able to recognizing shifting paradigms which would cause them to change their models, especially if those models have failed them for years. We must demand more objectivity within the analysis world.