Goldman "Concerned" As Risk Appetite Index Hits Record High

Tyler Durden's picture

Speaking at a conference in London, Goldman MD Christian Mueller-Glissmann warned investors, "valuations are at very high levels. And that concerns us when it comes to making progress in stocks, unless you maintain a very high level of optimism." The firm's aggregate risk appetite index reached record highs in December - the same peak reached in 1999/2000 and 2007... and we know what happened next.

"This is a chart which a lot of people have in the back of their mind right now. It's our risk appetite indicator. That essentially shows you across asset classes what the risk appetite is. And it has equity risk premium in there it, it has VIX, it has everything that reflects how bullish markets are and it's real time."

Mueller-Glissman goes on...

"And guess what, in the middle of December, that indicator had the highest level in the history of the indicator. We are not at the beginning of this optimism trade, we're really in the middle of that optimism trade."

Roughly translated, like small business optimism, this is as good as it gets for markets.

Here's two examples of that 'risk appetite'...

Comment viewing options

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

Sooner or later the tear get so big stocks that are in relation to the ones tearing will start getting pulled into the tear as well.


The SNAKE is eatting its own tail and the eatting is picking up.

AliSONY's picture
AliSONY (not verified) Jan 10, 2017 7:39 PM

The  only good Goldman analyst is a former Goldman analyst.


Former analysts from Goldman Sachs 


Can't argue with their preciseness and proven track record.

LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD's picture
LowerSlowerDelaware_LSD (not verified) AliSONY Jan 10, 2017 8:59 PM

Some of the best financial advice that you'll get on ZH is right here:


These spam accounts, identified below, are once again spam commenting for their product, commenting amongst themselves, and giving themselves small flurries of thumbs up and people against their spam thumbs down. They even flood the ZH abuse email account complaining about the honest ZHers who want their spam to stop.

If I didn't know better I'd think that they are intentionally trying to ruin whatever reputation that their business might have with ZH users by brutally spamming the ZH comment sections.

When a company will flood web sites with spam comments becasue they **need** free "advertising" there is no need to click on a link, hidden or not, to go to their "information."

The following is a list of **many** spam accounts on ZH. Note how they are always the same ones talking between themselves and ripping into people asking them to stop the spam flood: AliSONY, Babs.St.Louis, Billy G, Chi Juan, Dr.Carl, ErikE, FemDayTrader, Irvingm, jasony, John Beau, KC Spike, MadhyaBharatx, MexInvest, MikeM54, Mon T, P Christmas Carole, Pinky and the Brain, RonnieM, Sonya B59, Stan Your Man, StevieTexie, Van G, and wisetrader224

So, my financial question is this: Does it make sense, financial, to pay a company that can't afford to pay for advertising so resorts to spam comments for their advertising? Can the spamming company be trusted at all let alone trust their "analyses?" Lets discuss this financial matter, AliSONY!

flintandwampum's picture

Goldman. Gartman. What is the difference at this point?


GraveDancer's picture

People are optimistic about boom in demand fueled by war spending. Trump the new Churchill in the ongoin WW3!

Book> The Road to World War III: Can the Dark forces of anti-Freedom trump Humanity?