So who do you believe is correct?

[gleek]

Link

or

Link

[birdymaker]

lets see i'll go with the first guy instead of this guy. 

[Aske]

well i already posted my thoughts that if gdp growth rate is + but smaller than the inflation rate  you're technically receding based on a real* $ analysis, soooo   ...


oh, back on point.  self made investment genius or silver spoon chimp who couldn't even buy an ALCS win.     tough call.

[hobbit]

Well, we know the second guy is full of it.

But, wft is a 'common sense recession' anyway?  It looks like we may have one so lets call it now?  Dewey Wins! 


An aside on his 'stocks are not cheap' comment....

If we're in a 'recession' (now that the term has been redefined  ), stocks would be cheap (compared to historical and future performance).  Just because they may not have hit bottom yet does not mean they're not cheap.  How can he have it both ways?  Its a 'recession', but stocks are not cheap?  Hmmmm

So why does he say these things.... because he's better at timing the market than most.  Anything less than the rock bottom price and he says its not cheap.  But it would be cheap - whether you bought at $30 or $28 may not make a big difference to you when its back up to $60 - it was still a good buy (cheap).  We likely have not hit bottom yet, we may well go into a recession - but if you think you can 'time the bottom' like Buffet, you'll be too late.  And thats the only thing his 'stocks are not cheap' comment pertains to - his (supernatural/genius/you'll never have it) timing of the bottom.

[gleek]

If we're in a 'recession' (now that the term has been redefined  ), stocks would be cheap (compared to historical and future performance).  Just because they may not have hit bottom yet does not mean they're not cheap.  How can he have it both ways?  Its a 'recession', but stocks are not cheap?  Hmmmm

Why can't we be in a recession and still have stocks being overvalued?

[Aske]

If we're in a 'recession' (now that the term has been redefined  ), stocks would be cheap (compared to historical and future performance).  Just because they may not have hit bottom yet does not mean they're not cheap.  How can he have it both ways?  Its a 'recession', but stocks are not cheap?  Hmmmm

Why can't we be in a recession and still have stocks being overvalued?

if those stocks return to 'value'  it's gonna me the great depression look like a hiccup.

[hobbit]

If we're in a 'recession' (now that the term has been redefined  ), stocks would be cheap (compared to historical and future performance).  Just because they may not have hit bottom yet does not mean they're not cheap.  How can he have it both ways?  Its a 'recession', but stocks are not cheap?  Hmmmm

Why can't we be in a recession and still have stocks being overvalued?

Well perhaps its semantics, but stocks that may be considered overvalued are still 'cheap' when compared to past and future performance.

Again, in my example above - a stock selling at $30 may be considered overvalued by Buffet, who seeks to buy at $28.  But if you wait for Buffet to make his move and 'time' the market, you'll likely be paying $32 by then.  Overvalued or not, $30 on a stock that may well return to $50 or more in the near term is buying 'cheap'.

Obviously there are some stocks that may not recover, but thats a minority strawman.