gene inger

Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
comments7
  • Positive ratings 0
  • Negative ratings 0
  • Net rating 0
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:

Latest Comments
7 Comments

    • Fri Jun 27th 10:26 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Oversold and Headed for a Triple Bottom?
      you are 'korrekt'.. a double bottom is essentially our 'w bottom' as called to fail after the breakout-fakeout (above declining tops weeks ago now). It measures some horsing around here and another dramatic break as forward earnings revisions follow. The combination should result in an ensuing S&P drop into the lower 1200's or below in time (as we outlined to our readers).

      I'll reserve sharing our measure; but with a macro short from nearly 1600 (forward roll-adjusted in the S&P futures); we believe by no means is this over; and we're historically usually optimistic relative to many. Kudo's again for the humor and getting it right!

      gene

      gene inger
      ingerletter.com
      View article »
    • Mon Jun 23rd 14:09 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Adventures in Technical Analysis, Jim Cramer Edition
      'Korrekt' points about Cramer's memory lapses; however not so korrekt (pun intended) about technical analysis, which reflects fundamentals in a sense.

      For those few of us who interrelate technical analysis with the fundamentals, to grasp the psychological prospects ahead; technical work does not lie. To wit: in early 2007 we noted poor breadth aside the narrow universe of participating upside stocks; interrelated the earliest NASD brokerage liquidations related to excess CMO's held in 'house accounts', and concluded the S&P and Dow were having solo-walks to the upside which would not be sustainable, and worse, were masking distribution under-cover of a strong Dow and S&P. That proved not only prescient and 'korrekt', but is (in my 38 years of experience) the appropriate way to utilize technical analysis.

      of course I concur with you about just drawing lines without info that underlies the basis for simply saying if this crosses this then that; so you are right; but only as far as it goes. We have had the honor of calling the lowest (of Mansfield's 16-established analysts) Dow call in late 2006, and were number 1. We also are looking at a crashed market aside certain segments; and have our views about where this is leading as the year evolves.

      cheers
      gene inger
      ingerletter.com
      View article »
    • Fri May 23rd 18:01 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The Power Failure on Wall Street
      Superb comprehension of the challenges we face. One magazine reporter interviewed me a month ago, noting the other six analysts were bullish, so why was I continuing to be bearish for over a year, other than the allowed-for rally into early May; my response, that they are all bullish should be the answer.

      Your allusions to 'risk-aversion' and caution about chasing yield ring true, and should think your clients have been appreciative. Might I add to your 'oil' comments the indirect flow through banks (shows as being commercial traders, when it isn't) as banks/brokers have to buy when clients buy Calls on Oil, is probably part of what propels a parabolic here

      again kudo's on a good article and good work!

      gene inger
      View article »
    • Mon Mar 17th 22:59 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      It's Not a Crisis, But a Chaotic Calamity
      point of clarification: when the curtain rings down on center-stage, we will be basing out at a BOTTOM of the decline in my view; not starting a downtrend; barring a worst-case scenario.

      We were bullish from 2002-early 2007; but called it a 'reflation' and thought they squandered an opportunity to 'square matters' early-on. Just as the upside then was unsustainable, so hopefully will be the downside. Please understand I didn't mean to be complex, as we simplify all this with 'bullet points' for our members. They know our goal is to see the Fed intervene and engage wisely, as belatedly they are doing.

      The cost of 'moral hazard' is not as bad as the alternative. And it was the NY Fed, not the FOMC, that handled this. The NY Fed is in-charge of market integrity; not interest rates. We have argued that this is less a liquidity issue (among banks) and more a solvency issue. Solvency is part of market integrity; not monetary policy.

      Our members know that the next major (not just trading; and in that area we went long around midday for a trade not enduring reversal) strategy shift will be completing our year-plus of bearishness. I hope that clarifies our thinking a bit. However, if these engagements by the Fed(s) falter (we are on thin ice) there is a more somber type alternative. Heavily in cash (most in 20 years for over a year now) we are looking for entry not exit points, but only as the market gives a message that the coast is clear(er). The perfect-storm still roils.

      thanks for the discussion... I appreciate the thoughts..
      View article »
    • Mon Feb 18th 13:52 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Counterparty Contingent Liabilities
      A 'simple English' summary is provided to our members. Frankly, while I appreciate your tongue-in-cheek note that you comprehend, I think that a focus less on 'sound bites' and more on understanding the underlying facts of an economic condition (or even Constitutional law) could have helped a lot of Americans and people in the free world avoid numerous pitfalls over the years just past. That people insist on things being all put in 'summary' form or sound-bites; is part of the dumbing-down that all educators should disdain. If people don't take the time to comprehend what is going on behind the scenes; they are more apt to make mistakes (including real estate not just stocks & bonds) and get caught in a panic. The foregoing is not criticizing; but an observation. To many drop the context of discussions and news; and that's part of the problem some of us 'old timers' might suspect. This past weekend; all media described the rioting in Denmark as by 'militant young people'; none came forward to flat-out label it as another effort by extreme Islam to radicalize youth to cause trouble; hence an example of how simplifying to the lowest rather than highest common denominator allows avoiding controversy and/or getting to the heart of the matter.

      What you wanted me to say in the piece above was: Chairman Bernanke bought time for the banks to re-liquefy by signing the Reg W waivers that shifted funds from bank to brokerage sides; allowing markets to dive without taking down the commercial banking system. Hence, a 'crash' may have been avoided accordingly; as the problem in the 1930's was allowing the banking system to implode; not just the markets.

      Hope that helps simplify it for those who don't get it; and I was just sort of trying to convey that the loud critics on TV of Chairman Bernanke are either uninformed or ignoring what he actually did and why he may have done so (and successfully at that). Regards.
      gene inger
      ingerletter.com
      View article »
    • Tue Jan 22nd 14:43 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Short-Term Hurdles Become Long-Term Obstacles
      thanks.. yes I'm well aware of these factors; as all through the first half of 2007, we tried to enlighten our ingerletter.com members about the falacious perception of 'great liquidity' that was paper-based and thus incapable of making it 'different this time'. That's why we said it was indeed 'different'. .. it was more risky, not less risky, as everyone found out over time.

      Further, I believe today's rate cut is NOT aimed at the public though nominally may help some; but rather maintaining solvency and systemic liquidity, not trying to bail out anybody. That was of course the issue in 1930; so if they can avoid major bank failures, the rest of it can migrate through time, but be mitigated with respect to the Recession turning into some worse or more enduring. And the impact on commercial and plastic is essentially yet to come.

      gene inger
      ingerletter.com
      View article »
    • Mon Jan 21st 18:29 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Arthur Laffer: US Is in Recession Now
      interesting comment Barry; I have tried for months to address the disconnect between fact and reality. Now; everyone thinks lower rates will solve everything. They won't. We've called this 'pushing on a string' for many months now; since forecasting the unsustainably July rally (broadening top configuration completion).

      We'll get through this, in time. But that's the key. Banks are not going to become assertive; and this isn't 2001; no free lunch money so the immensity of the 'junk debt' issue overrides other factors; not that lower rates and so on won't help some folks to a degree.

      If we do get a rally from a daily-basis 'v bottom' it will be unlikely to hold; as we've already outlined to our members. Good luck and while sad to see the Nation go through this; cheers to the few of us who leaned against the globalist extremist wind (and for our soverignty) in the year just past.

      kudos!
      gene inger
      ingerletter.com
      View article »