Market double bottomed June/Oct at 3600. Now 4100. Not seeing the disappointment. Mr. Market has you right where it wants you, on the sidelines or short.
Yes, when rates are cut valuations go up. This is finance 101.
American stocks are rich because a recession and low rates are priced in. If that doesn’t happen, if rates go where the Fed forecasts, the market needs to drop.
You’re in good company, by the way. Prominent managers are long equities and quality credit [1] on the hypothesis that rate cuts will keep valuations buoyed. (It’s also why the curve is inverted [2].) This is the dominant financial debate du jour. The market (specifically: professional money managers) are fighting the Fed. (My belief is this is more tied to fees and AUM than a fundamental read on the economy.)
Slightly OT but related to your links, can you say that the FT has maintained its "impartiality" (for lack of a better word) in its finance and economics section?
I'm asking because I used to read the FT on and off for 15 years going on 20 now, but the last couple of years have been really dire in terms of their biases and their lack of impartiality (especially in the politics and the international sections). At the same time your links made me miss their finance pieces, which I agree most of the times might have looked very "dry" but for a person outside finance (like I am) they were illuminating nonetheless. I'd go back to reading the FT again just for those.
> especially in the politics and the international sections
Most British coverage of American politics is abysmal. For international, the FT has biases, but they tend to get the facts straight. (Definitely Eurocentric.)
This is what the stock market is betting, and being continuously disappointed, on. It’s a hell of a bet, and I think it’s dead wrong.