编者按：以下是两篇CNBC上刊登的文章，竟然出自于同一作者手里。一个是Apr.25 盘前发的，另一篇是Apr.02 盘前发的。就差了三周，其观点可谓左右互博，上嘴唇斗下嘴唇，非常有趣，叹为观止。这位美国版周伯通是否把自己忽悠的不轻呢？
左手拳：降龙十八掌
Why I am not shoring the stock market any more? (Apr.25.2014)
Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101614178
Author: Ron Insana
There is some concern that the stock market is nearing the type of peak last witnessed in 2007 and 2000, and that we're due for a historic pullback — or many years of subpar returns. I think that this time is different — and that the environment today is not remotely the same as it was during those market peaks.
True, at the beginning of April, Iwas still calling for a 10- to 20-percent correction. But I have always thought that it was a short-term correction in a longer secular bull market. And I believe the recent correction in stocks that pushed the Nasdaq down nearly 10 percent, peak to trough, and selected tech and biotech stocks down between 10 and 30 percent, may well have run its course.
As a result, I have pruned the hedges in my portfolio and am no longer short the S&P 500, nor the Nasdaq, as protection against further declines.
The reasons cited for a coming pullback have included everything from rich valuations to the latest tech bubble. But I think there are times when one must distinguish between absolute and relative valuation metrics, before making such a portentous call that the market is overvalued.
Market valuations
It is true that stock-market valuations are stretched, with the price/earnings ratio on the S&P 500 at roughly 18X earnings. Prior peaks have been anywhere from 18-25X earnings, before the market suffered an important setback. However, at prior peaks, there were several other factors that accompanied stretched valuations. The most important has always included rising inflation that prompted multiple interest-rate hikes by the Federal Reserve.
And while it's true that the Fed is "tapering" its stimulus program, it is far from tightening monetary policy in such a way that would hurt stocks.
One rule of thumb to gauge overvaluation in stocks is to subtract the prevailing inflation rate from 20 to get a fair-value P/E. With the Fed's preferred measure of inflation, the personal-consumption expenditure deflator, (PCE deflator) running at just under 1 percent, a fair market P/E is about 19.
The Fed factor
If, indeed, inflation were set to take off and the Fed followed with a meaningful round of rate hikes, then I would agree that the market is in imminent danger. Fed Chair Janet Yellen has said that the Fed will not be raising interest rates unless, or until, the unemployment rate approaches 5.2 percent to 5.6 percent and inflation rises above 2 percent. That may be anywhere from a year to 18 months away, according to the Fed's best estimates.
Prior to the stock market's peak in October of 2007, the Fed raised interest rates 17 consecutive times in the previous 18 months, deflating the credit, real-estate and stock-market bubbles, simultaneously, and leading to a 50-percent plunge in stocks that lasted until March of 2009. Similarly, prior to the bursting of the Internet bubble, the Fed raised rates aggressively until the bubble burst.
Both bubbles, one could argue, may have collapsed under their own weight, but in my study of market history, it takes more than tapering to kill a secular bull market, which is what I believe we are experiencing today.
Years ago, one of my best sources,hedge-fund investor, Stan Druckenmiller (Soros Management, Duquesne Capital), who sports one of the best investment records in market history, told me that his extensive analysis of the stock market showed that only two factors precipitated bear markets: rising interest rates, or the onset of war. Clearly there is a risk that the Russian/Ukraine conflict is slipping out of control and could lead to military action between them, and involve both the U.S. and Europe. But unless this conflagration rises to the level of a global military conflict, it will most likely increase the volatility of the financial markets, not usher in a Russian bear. (If one is worried about Russia precipitating not only a war, but also a major market pullback, I would suggest hedging with oil and gold, by using USO, the long-oil ETF and the GLD, the most popular gold ETF.)
Thus, looking at relative, rather than absolute, valuations is a more appropriate way to gauge whether or not we are at an important market peak.
The "average" stocks went nowhere from 1998-2008, a period some of us believe to be a secular bear market, from which we only began to emerge in March of 2009. Secular bull markets can last 15-20 years, suggesting that this current move in stocks may have another 10-15 years to go, although there will be some nerve-wracking interruptions between now and then.
My case for a secular bull market rests on my strong outlook for the U.S. economy, based on a variety of factors, including the energy revolution, technological innovation and the real-estate recovery.
The tech bubble
As for the increasingly popular argument that tech stocks are in a bubble, if they are, it is a mini-bubble at best. Selectively, it may be an accurate observation to say that tech, social media and biotech stocks have recently reached extremes.
The market for these stocks was frothy, in many cases, but some of that froth was worked off in the recent correction. This period of asset inflation, however, lacks the requisite characteristics that define a true bubble.
Unlike their 1990s counterparts, these richly priced stocks today, by and large, do have revenues and profits -- companies like Facebook, LinkedIn, Google, Weibo and Alibaba. Many of the 90s darlings did not, and used the proceeds of their IPOs to advertise products, or services, that were not even yet fully developed, or they used their high-flying stocks to acquire other vaporware that was on the market.
The market today, also, is far more discerning and isn't falling all over itself for companies like Groupon, Zynga and King Digital that have not delivering on their potential. This type of differentiation was absent in the 1990s.
Most of the hot dot-com stocks today are in a mini-mania, but not a flu-blown history-making bubble. The biggest reason of all — and it is important — is that there is no public mania for these stocks. They are not universally loved by the investing public. The subjects of the recent bout of speculation are hardly the stuff of cocktail party conversation, as was the case in the 1990s.
The last marginal buyers, individual investors, are not playing. Indeed, if they own too much of anything, it's bonds, not stocks. And one of the key characteristics of a bubble is not only the universal (read: public) love of an asset class, but also the accompanying belief that the mania will go on forever. Individual investors, twice burned, thrice shy, are not involved in this, largely, professional mini-bubble in tech and biotech.
Commentary by Ron Insana, a CNBC and MSNBC contributor and the author of four books on Wall Street
右手拳：九阴白骨掌
A big short: 10-20% market correction is coming (Apr.02.2014)
Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/101547404
Author: Ron Insana
I took some heat for saying that stocks are long overdue for a correction that could drive the market down by between 10 and 20 percent.
While I have to acknowledge that, in the short term, that seems like a bit of a blunder, given the new intraday highs in the S&P 500, the transports and other major averages, I'm not sure it is prudent to back away from that call. Here's why.
The technical underpinnings of the market are not as strong as I would like to see, given the nominal new highs in the market. Seasonal factors are about to turn negative and geopolitical and global economic concerns are lingering.
The market has also largely failed to hold on to good gains on rally days, which is also a sign of latent weakness.
And, in the wake of Michael Lewis's "Flash Boys" hitting store shelves, moves by regulators to slow down high-frequency trading (HFT) could also affect the market at some juncture. Witness the current FBI investigation into the HFT arena. While I am not a fan of HFT, by any means, a regulatory action that reduces the volume of trading on the combined exchanges could stress the market in the short run.
And, to be clear—my call for a correction is a shorter call. I am a major believer that we are not in a bubble, however long it may have taken some observers to recognize that fact. I believe we are in a secular bull market that will last for several years to come, though this market remains stretched in the here and now.
Having said that, a major reason that the market is going through a "rotational correction," as opposed to a more broad and obvious one, is that central banks, around the world, appear to be getting out their bazookas again for another, potentially, significant amount of stimulus.
China's weak manufacturing data may be setting the stage for another round of easing by both the People's Bank of China and a blast of fiscal stimulus from the central planners.
The European Central Bank (ECB) is likely going to take interest rates to zero and launch a full-scale asset-buying program, much like the Federal Reserve has done in the U.S., to counter inflation, which has dropped to a five-year low.
And Janet Yellen made it very clear this week that she has absolutely no intention of raising U.S. interest rates until the economy reaches its full growth potential. To put it even more plainly, and obviously, than she did: The unemployment rate needs to be nearer 5 percent than 6 percent; underemployment needs to fall back to historic norms and inflation needs to rise to the Fed's internal target of at least, 2 percent.
So, while I am cautious about the market's near-term prospects and will remain so unless or until the market makes more than nominal, intraday highs, I have to respect the power of central bankers to alter the outlook.
I still believe that better buying opportunities for equities will emerge later in the year after the mid-term elections and once economic data show increasing underlying strength in the economy.
But the alternative to a full-blown correction is more of this rotational selling we've seen. The leaders have been taken out and shot, while the laggards are being bought. Not my kind of game, but one that might have to be played regardless of your point of view.
Commentary by Ron Insana, a CNBC and MSNBC contributor and the author of four books on Wall Street
