Two news items, neither particularly important:
Market Anthropology - a closer look at gold and silver. I'm sorry, but this is not informative; it's simply printing one chart on top of the other again. But if you really were to take the junior miners as a silly bubble that burst horribly, similar to the Nasdaq bubble of 2000, then you have to remember that the Q's peak still hasn't been beaten 13 years later. In fact, 5 years after the 2002 bottom, the Nasdaq had only recovered 34% of its losses: that would mean silver slowly trending upward to $25 by the end of 2018.
Frankly, the assumption of a correspondence between the 2002 Nasdaq bottom and the 2013 silver supposed bottom (which hasn't been confirmed yet) doesn't make me want to go out and buy silver, because continued correspondence would only mean silver underperforming the S&P 500 for the next five years.
However, I do agree with his thesis that the next move up for gold and silver should depend on world economic reflation, and not anything to do with the discredited "money printing" goldbug story.
Ritholtz - no, David Rosenberg's bullishness was not purchased for thirty pieces of fiat. Ritholtz stands up for Rosie after Rosie is accused of (as far as I can figure) going bullish in return for filthy lucre - obviously handed over by the secret cabal of Jewish bankers trying to enslave Amurica under communism and Shari'a law. By using Balrog HUSSEIN Taxbongo's magic negro ray of muslim Kenyan gay marrying. Or something:
But to me, the most revealing aspect of Zero Hedge’s hit piece is the opening sentence: “In early 2013, many were mystified when one of the most vocal deflationists, and hence stock market bears, David Rosenberg, turned furiously bullish.”The problem, Barry, is that he has switched to being right and making money - after spending years being utterly wrong and supporting the Republican narrative of a collapsing Amurrica. There's no worse treason to the Mad Max crowd than being right and making money from optimism.
Except anyone who pays attention to equity prices — they were not mystified: Year to date, the S&P500 is up more than 25% and the Nasdaq is up more than 30%. What is mysterious is that no actual market performance so much as enters the discussion. The most revealing thing I can write about the piece is that nowhere does Zero Hedge bother to admit that Rosenberg’s call was 1) Correct and 2) Made money for clients.
How can you make a big deal over a change in market posture but omit that its been right?
When your biases are such that it is unimaginable that anyone could legitimately change their views on the markets, you have cognitive issues that will hurt your ability to navigate markets. But when that hubris leads you to conclude someone disagreeing with your market posture is only due to a monetary payoff, that is cognitive dissonance writ large.
That's why they can make a big deal over his change in opinion while omitting that it's been right. The point of ZH is not to make money: it's to contribute to the Republican echo chamber, and that's it.
After all, who is ZeroHedge going to hold as their messiah now? That clown Schiff, who just flushed a pile of money down the drain at Corvus?