Rosie: "Why This Is Not The Onset Of A New Secular Bull Market"

Tyler Durden's picture

Rosenberg (sourcing Katana Capital) on all you need to do to compare the current market to August 1982.

From David Rosenberg of Gluskin+Sheff.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Anonymous's picture

...because it's the onset of a philosophical bull market?



Anonymous's picture

The only one that really matters is the sentiment...88% bullish?

get me outta here

Anonymous's picture

The market for philosophical bull is always oversupplied. ;)

quant-this's picture

Your missing one thing on the table which is monetary base to S&P market capitalization which is higher than it was in 1982 and stable to rising. Since banks are not lending, and there is no Glass-Stegal, there is no inflation in the real world and the excess liquidity is creating paper asset inflation. So things have changed in the last few years how? 

Ivanovich's picture

Exactly, this has everything to do with cheap money to banks having no place to go but into assets.  Why do you think volume is so low?  It's just the Algos playing!


The chart above is irrelevant as long as the market is rigged to go one way.

Anonymous's picture

So very true. The market is not a market it is a tool by the PTB to try and generate opinion.

Sancho Ponzi's picture

OT: Interesting trading in double long/short gold ETFs today. Calamity to follow?

Cursive's picture

By the time calamity ensues, I will be too exhausted to recognize it.

Oso's picture

ok, can we focus on the insane rate volatility today, or DXY/EUR punching around like crazy, or crazy on-going move in oil....?

Sancho Ponzi's picture

USO, UNG, DGP & DZZ all going apeshit.

Probably whipsawing by the usual suspects. 


Tue: All is well

Wed: The sky is falling

This is so 2009...

ChickenTeriyakiBoy's picture

oil disconnect being the most interesting

Rainman's picture

Excellent, excellent table of data. The investor sentiment comparison is a real eye popper.....along with the trailing P-Es. Kudos to Rosenberg for putting it neatly together.

I need more cowbell's picture

Facts are stubborn things.

Somewhere our village idiot is having brain seizures trying to dispute this comparison.

Leo, I'll make it easy for you. The markets weren't utterly rigged in 1982; the PTB were not ever as desparate as they are now; extend and pretend is a strategy they are all in with; liquidity, liquidity, liquidity.

What could possibly go wrong, eh, Leo?

Anonymous's picture

Haha. +1,000. I like when people rip on
Zerohedge's most arrogant poster.

AN0NYM0US's picture

facts are facts and Leo's calls have left poor old Rosie in the dust

Leo Kolivakis's picture

LOL, read my outlook 2010, come back to me in a year and tell me what an idiot I am. And next time post your reply in the appropriate place. My comment is below!

Green Sharts's picture

Leo figured if he couldn't get anybody to interview him, he'd interview himself.

Leo Kolivakis's picture

Green Sharts,

CNN quoted me November (updated in in December) and the Columbus Dispatch recently quoted me in an article on taxpayers asked to cover rising pension costs for government employees. I do not need fame or fortune. My calls are all transparent, and I stand by them. I don't suffer from penis or pension envy (lol).

Anonymous's picture

Dude, it's just that sometimes people like to hear opinions other than yours.

To quote Run DMC: "You talk too never shut up...I said you talk too much...homeboy, you never shut up."

Wait, let me guess, you'll respond with a rap about solar stocks?

Anonymous's picture


Imo, your record speaks for itself. Despite a horrendous economy, you've consistently called for a rising stock market and been proven correct. The reason, be it institutions such as pensions being left behind or Wall Street firms pinning it higher or something else, is irrelevant. The simple fact is that bear market rallies happen. Heck, just look at Japan. Multiple rallies over a twenty-year bear. Perhaps where readers here are confused is that you call of a higher stock market runs contrary to you views on the economy overall. This rally, as with many bear rallies, is proof positive that the market can head in the opposite direction of the economy.

Given your opinions over the last year, I will definitely be listening if and when you think the market is going to turn. As for me, I don't see much value at these levels. A few stocks here and there, but that's about it. All that means, though, is that I'm not personally buying at this point. Sure doesn't mean the market is about to drop.

NoBull1994's picture

"Inflation = 0% and rising"?  Since when is Rosie onboard the inflation bandwagon?  He is the debt deflationist king....  

Anonymous's picture

the chart is Katana Capital - not Rosie.

Anonymous's picture

no kidding, keep in mind this is the same guy that said the S&P is now a lagging indicator to make up for him being 100% wrong on its direction since march

deadhead's picture

Rosenberg said since March and consistently through the summer that he thought the SPX could go to 1200.

Anonymous's picture

It is simply fraudulent to compare August 1982 with January 2010.

If he were interested in actually finding out the truth (which may very well be the same as his conclusion), he would be comparing August 1982 with March 2009 or May 1983 with January 2010.

Anonymous's picture

I am not sure I agree that 82 is a good comparison. Right now we have banks and hedge funds, backstopped by the government, with tons of money to invest somewhere. Until the market takes a nosedive later this year and punishes those using the most leverage there is no reason why the market won't go up. It goes up because it goes up, as 99% of my trader friends say.

Gordon Freeman's picture

It's not that simple, and Rosie's data are spot-on.

Reductio ad Absurdum's picture

The most important statistic is missing:

1980 census: 83% white, 12% black, less than 3% mexican

2008 projected: 68% white, 12% black, 15% mexican

The more the U.S. becomes filled with Mexicans, the more it will become a third world country like Mexico. There's nothing magical about the United States; people don't transform when they cross the border.

Leo Kolivakis's picture


What a moronic and racist statement. The majority of immigrants, not just Mexicans, come to the US, work hard under deplorable conditions and all you can do is fall under that jingoist trap of using them as a scapegoat? Racist morons like you are what is really plaguing the USA...shame on you!

WaterWings's picture


I was going to say 'Latinos' is more accurate but 'immigrants' is better.

The problem lies within the upper-echelon of society, not the lower.

Anonymous's picture

no, the majority does not work under deplorable's one of those myths which
makes the affluent (white) feel good about themselves
so that they don't have to address illegal

furthermore, no self respecting middle class
or affluent mexican would come to the
if the argument is that the usa needs a better
educated work force then why such indulgence
of this illegal immigration?

the reason of course is cheap labor for the
affluent. ask zoe baird and a host of other
limousine liberals.

Scooby Dooby Doo's picture

How'd all those whites turn into Mexicans?

tradertim's picture


there is either a secret government biological program turning white people into mexicans..or for every mexican that enters into the usa...a white person leaves. so the real question is..What country are all the white people moving to???

tomdub_1024's picture

LOL...lotsa latinos here too

Anonymous's picture

please don't be fucktarded. the racial
composition of the usa is changing rapidly and
that is by design. whites will be around 50%
by 2020-30...

falling birth rates plus massive immigration
both legal and illegal sponsored zealously by
the state dept have caused the re-composition...

Anonymous's picture

Intersting, but not important unless you explain why 12% more mexicans are 78% more bullish.

It's those damn happy mexicans...

chumbawamba's picture

Don't worry, in a few more short months it'll be Spring and green shoots all over again!

I am Chumbawamba.

Anonymous's picture

The Rosenberg secret decoder says long SPX

Anonymous's picture

Rosenberg's right, and has been all along, with the economic analysis. I'm just not sure anymore that it's got anything to do with the stock market. What I'm afraid the more sophisticated market players know is that they can influence the government through fear tactics, and the populace will stand idly by while they do it, to appropriate tax funds from the populace and distribute it to shareholders through forcing or "incentivizing" the purchase of corporate output, witness cash for clunkers and the housing tax credit. So the stock market is no longer a way to measure productivity and allocate capital within society, the shares are no longer shares of economic surplus generating organizations, they are instead shares in the government's making of thinly disguised transfers of wealth at the point of the tax man's gun from taxpayers to those rich enough to hire lobbyists who know exactly which bureaucrats and legislators like exactly which favor, sexual or otherwise, and can deliver those favors.

Rainman's picture

Another juicy piece of data would be the comparison of government payrolls versus total nonfarm payrolls from '82 to '09.

I'm suspicious that the taxpayer supported payrolls of every stripe have gone galactic when compared to the private sector totals these past 25+ years.

BoeingSpaceliner797's picture


I suspect you are smelling smoke where there is fire.

Anonymous's picture

Gov't payrolls: second chart gives a clue.

Leo Kolivakis's picture

A few key statistics missing from Rosie's analysis:

1) FIRE sector as a % of GDP - then and now

2) Hedge fund assets as a % of total market cap - then and now

3) Private equity assets as a % of total market cap - then and now

4) Sovereign wealth fund and total pension assets - then and now

A comparitive analysis that does take into account these structural factors driving liquidity flows is totally useless, IMHO. This ain't 1982, not even close.


BS Inc.'s picture

Don't these factors all refer back to the variation in leverage in 1982 vs. now? The ability to use leverage to raise asset prices didn't stop the market from crashing last year, once the realization that the productive base of assets wouldn't support the cash flows implied by valuations. I think Rosie's analysis is more about the assets in the real economy and their ability to generate sufficient cash flow to support valuations, as well as the household sector's ability to take on incremental debt to support consumption to generate those cash flows in the productive sectors.

Leo Kolivakis's picture

No, you are partly right. More leverage leads to wilder swings in financial markets, both on the downside and upside. But pension flows and sovereign wealth fund flows tend me be more stable, and they are not just about leverage. Look, longer-term, we could have a wishy washy stock market, but there will be plenty of speculative pockets in the meantime.

BS Inc.'s picture

More leverage leads to wilder swings in financial markets, both on the downside and upside.


I agree that this is what will result (and has resulted). I actually only trade technicals, and I can see us in a range between 1200 and 700 for the next 5 years, as bubbles inflate and deflate. Eventually, the public will tire of this, reforms will come and more resources will be dedicated to the non-financial segments of the economy, setting the stage for real, not paper, prosperity. In a best case scenario, of course.