Barron's Cover Story: Bright Outlook For The Economy And Stocks

Ted

FYI: The members of Barron’s 2018 Roundtable arrived at our annual gathering in a jolly mood. And why not? U.S. stocks returned an impressive 20% last year, and are off to the races again this year, propelled by expectations of good economic growth and robust corporate earnings.

Our panelists, who spent Jan. 8 talking with the editors of Barron’s at the Harvard Club of New York, generally expect more of the same in the months ahead—more gains for equities, large-cap and small, as the global economy enjoys the most coordinated level of growth since the Eisenhower administration, notes Epoch’s William Priest. Few things these days, on Wall Street and elsewhere, merit that comparison.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.barrons.com/articles/bright-outlook-for-the-economy-and-stocks-1515812439

catch22

Better stay BRIGHT, or some of us are go'in to get our equity arse's kicked into the netherworld of investment returns !

Mark

@catch, "the netherworld of investment returns"

Would that be the same as shithole?

hank

Re: The Barron’s Roundtable - It seemed to me most - except Gundlach - were bullish on equities for the year. I thought his analysis was spot-on in many ways (equities, commodities, central banks, etc.). But I’m not as bearish on bonds as he appears. I find Gundlach’s demeanor somewhat “put-offish” in live interviews. Think he comes across much better in print.

@Mark. The remark, as Paul Ryan said (I’m surprised he has some backbone), was “unfortunate”. After a year, however, nothing surprises me anymore.

PennyBonds

It is sad that many of the "Fund Discussions" threads are turned to snide political remarks. Yes, MFO has turned into GOM (grumpy old men).

willmatt72

PennyBonds said:

It is sad that many of the "Fund Discussions" threads are turned to snide political remarks. Yes, MFO has turned into GOM (grumpy old men).

It happens constantly. Some people can't help themselves.

Old_Joe

"It happens constantly. Some people can't help themselves."

Just following our leader...

hank

@PennyBonds and @willmatt72

I agree with both of you that MFO should not be a political forum. You will note that most of my comment was directed towards the Barron’s article linked by @Ted. I hope others, including you, read the article and share your insights.

Try as I may to avoid “snide” remarks, they do occasionally creep out - and I sincerely apologize to any whom my remark may have offended. To clear the air, I’m linking a commentary from Pulitzer Prize winning columnist Clarence Page which addresses the story I think @Mark was referencing. Folks can read that (and the flood of related stories) and form their own opinions on the matter.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/page/ct-perspec-page-trump-shithole-racist-norway-20180112-story.html

LewisBraham

What people generally mean when they say things are getting too "political" is political views they personally disagree with are being expressed. More than half of the Roundtable cover story discussed the new tax law and how that will affect corporations. In fact, if you hit Control F and type in the word "tax" you can see how many times it is mentioned by the different pundits. To think that tax law isn't political is to live with one's head in the sand. In order for that massive tax cut for corporations to occur, thereby causing the gains for stocks these managers are praising, at least one of two things must happen--the deficit must balloon from the shortfall of corporate tax revenue and/or important government programs must be cut. That is an intensely political discussion by nature.

hank

I think Lewis nailed it pretty well re the article.

Gabelli in particular was practically tripping over his words - so gleeful over the tax bill and what he sees as bigger profits for the investment community. It’s kind of ironic that Gundlach, who predicted the Trump win in advance and more or less supported him during the campaign, stood out here as the bear among the crowd.

I miss Farber and Gross, not because of their expertise so much, but for the balance they often inflicted on these cheer leading sessions for equities. Give me both sides of the argument and I can better fathom how I’ll come down on it.

Mark

No apologies here. I'm just trying to stay hip/current/with it/in tune with the terminology/tone blessed by 45. Also, what is more joined to the hips of the economy and taxes than politics?