Relentlessly Bearish Fashion

Friday, October 13, 2006 | 08:38 PM




The WSJ call's em as they see 'em:

Barry Ritholtz, in his relentlessly bearish fashion, argues against the conventional wisdom that suggests today's retail-sales report wasn't all that bad. "One might have thought that, given all of the dollar savings at the pump, at least an equivalent amount of dollars would have been plowed back into the economy. Indeed, the new-found energy savings could have led to a wealth effect, leading to more big-ticket items -- including cars," he writes. "Nope. But taking a page from the school of inflation ex-inflation, if we remove the items that went down in sales, we can reach the conclusion that sales were not punk."

I do try to "argues against the conventional wisdom."

And, I admit that I have been very bearish since moving away from the the Summer's Buy 'em for a trade call way back in June. 

Hey, at least I ain't short!


Update: October 14, 2006 11:07 am

Holy snikes! 

This also got picked up by the Afternoon Report, as well as Consumers Impress Economists With Quick Spending Turnaround

A WSJ hat trick!


MarketBeat: Blog Roll -- Afternoon Edition
David A. Gaffen
WSJ, October 13, 2006 1:12 p.m.

Consumers Impress Economists
With Quick Spending Turnaround
October 13, 2006 11:03 a.m.

Crude Clouds
WSJ, 12:48 p.m. EDT Friday, October 13, 2006

Friday, October 13, 2006 | 08:38 PM | Permalink | Comments (20) | TrackBack (0) add to | digg digg this! | technorati add to technorati | email email this post



TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Relentlessly Bearish Fashion:


Barry considering retail sales(thanks to Caculated Risk!) essentially were unchanged in the 3rd quarter, consumers may still be spending, but it is slowing down and last quarter, flatlined compared to the 2nd quarter. Using models such as 'ex' 'internals' is statistical lies if there was one. Even if 'internals' were up over Q3 less spending on other consumer items, such as automobiles, showed less spending and stagnation. I can see Mary Jo holding off for a year on the new car while the kids need new cloths and supplies for school right now. Maybe in 2005 Mary Jo could afford both, but with things tightening up, you have to pick and choose.

Providing little in the way of new GDP nominally. Thus, saying this was a 'decent' report is incorrect. It was a average report showing a slowed economy.

I think it is humerous how the econbulls are doing their best to spin data to support their biases. The fact is, the mini-boom of 04-05 is over. Now we must prepare for a weaker economy 'how weak is always a question', higher unemployment 'the lag of lags' and weaker profits 'starting down'.

Whats the problem? Yeah, it may turn into a full scale recession by this time next year, maybe a Roubini hyped severe recession, but business cycles are cycles. They come, they go, they move on, they begin again. So we are at the beginning of a down cycle. These can be just as enjoyable to make money in than the boom.

Posted by: ac | Oct 13, 2006 9:32:27 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

December 2008
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      


Complete Archives List



Category Cloud

On the Nightstand

On the Nightstand

 Subscribe in a reader

Get The Big Picture!
Enter your email address:

Read our privacy policy

Essays & Effluvia

The Apprenticed Investor

Apprenticed Investor

About Me

About Me
email me

Favorite Posts

Tools and Feeds

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google Reader or Homepage

Subscribe to The Big Picture

Powered by FeedBurner

Add to Technorati Favorites


My Wishlist

Worth Perusing

Worth Perusing

mp3s Spinning

MP3s Spinning

My Photo



Odds & Ends

Site by Moxie Design Studios™