11 replies to this topic

[fib_1618]

why say Kahn is bearish (just because you are bullish? and the article is otherwise?)

I know Michael, and I said he has had a bearish slant. You're more than welcome to ask him personally and he will freely admit to this without any hesitation.

And to be clear, I am very much neutral with respect to market analysis. The marketplace itself has been bullish by any or all measures from the 2003 lows. When the marketplace becomes bearish, so will I.

in fact i remember his article from 2-3 yrs back on how the Trahan composite bubble post-bubble run that indicated naz was going to 2500

I can't and won't dispute this claim. After all, having a bearish slant certainly doesn't mean that an opposite viewpoint won't be considered from time to time. But I will put you to task...go to Market Watch, or any other forum in which Mike writes for, and provide 3 articles over the last 4 years in which he's written a bullish piece. It shouldn't be too hard to do based on your presumption given, but it will take some time on your part in trying to "debunk" my statement.

EVEN that is not true..go back to 1994

I've already addressed this briefly in the thread you created above.

Fib

[n83]

why say Kahn is bearish (just because you are bullish? and the article is otherwise?)

I know Michael, and I said he has had a bearish slant. You're more than welcome to ask him personally and he will freely admit to this without any hesitation.

And to be clear, I am very much neutral with respect to market analysis. The marketplace itself has been bullish by any or all measures from the 2003 lows. When the marketplace becomes bearish, so will I.

in fact i remember his article from 2-3 yrs back on how the Trahan composite bubble post-bubble run that indicated naz was going to 2500

I can't and won't dispute this claim. After all, having a bearish slant certainly doesn't mean that an opposite viewpoint won't be considered from time to time. But I will put you to task...go to Market Watch, or any other forum in which Mike writes for, and provide 3 articles over the last 4 years in which he's written a bullish piece. It shouldn't be too hard to do based on your presumption given, but it will take some time on your part in trying to "debunk" my statement.

EVEN that is not true..go back to 1994

I've already addressed this briefly in the thread you created above.

Fib

I was quoting from memory the few i have seen in Barrons

debunk..right..the a/d already got debunked-g

in fact, i do not even place credence in the article he wrote..just that the moment a piece comes up on the opposite side folks take the opposite stance because it goes against their own

you be what you are..am not a bear or a bull

Edited by n83, 15 April 2007 - 09:17 PM.