When Wall Street Gets This Bearish, Some Say it’s Time to Get Bullish

Experts are more negative on stocks than they have been since the mid-1990s. That's exactly why now might be the perfect time to buy.

  • Share
  • Read Later
Getty Images

Savita Subramanian says she’s thinking stocks for her six-month-old’s college fund.

Lots of people wrestle with how to invest for the future, but Subramanian thinks about these things more than the average person because she heads equities and quant strategy for Bank of America Merrill Lynch. And at the moment, some of the barometers she keeps an eye on are pointing her toward stocks — despite the dreary June jobs report, the upset in Europe, and the fiscal woes here.

In fact, Subramanian’s counter-intuitive reasoning may surprise you: She says her clearest buy signal comes from the strategists on Wall Street who tell clients how much to invest — and who are now as bearish (i.e. pessimistic) about stocks as they’ve been in 15 years.

So why exactly did  Subramanian tell TIME.com that she is thinking about putting her kid’s college fund in stocks? She says this pessimism is a counter-indicator — a sign that the market has almost nowhere to go but up. In fact, it’s the extreme nature of the pessimism — the nearly universal consensus — that makes her so optimistic. “Normally, there is is a fair amount of disagreement” among sell side strategists, says Subramanian. But over the past year, the experts have become more and more in sync with one another, telling clients to keep just 50% of their investments in stocks, down from the more typical 60% to 65%.

Sell-side strategists on Wall Street weren’t this negative about stocks even during the worst of the financial crisis in 2008, or during the bursting  of the high tech bubble in the early aughts. Subramanian surmises that the relentless replay of the same old bad news has beaten down everyone. As a result, the BAML Sell Side Consensus Indicator slipped below 50 in June, the lowest since 1997. “Nothing really new has emerged over the last year. It’s the same stuff that keeps bubbling up over and over again,” says Subramanian as she ticks off the all-too-familiar list of woes — the European banking crisis, the debt problems here, high unemployment, and a weak recovery.

(MOREBlueseed ‘Googleplex of the Sea’ Highlights Need for Visa Reform)

Historically, she says, when the Sell Side Consensus Indicator has turned super bearish, the S&P500 has risen 87% of the time within the next 12 months. Market strategists tend to be nervous nellies at just the wrong moment: Throughout the bull market of the 1980s and 1990s, for example, strategists consistently recommended under-weighting stocks, one of the best times to invest ever. That doesn’t mean that there won’t be volatility from month to month, says Subramanian. But she feels the overall trend is more likely to be up.

(MORE: Digging Out of the Debt Hole)

Subramanian isn’t the only investment pro taking this contrarian stance. Howard Lindzon, founder of StockTwits, a financial Twitter feed, says he loves “all the negativity.” The beaten-down stock market makes for a “stockpicker’s dream,” he says. Similarly, Ralph Acampora, veteran technical analyst, said last week on Twitter: “This rally has much more potential.” The market may look shaky now, but for the year, the S&P 500 is still up 5% and the Dow Jones Industrial Average is still 2% in the plus column. More than half of the 30 Dow components look like good investments, he tweeted.

Many contrarians see the current average price-earnings (p/e) ratio of S&P 500 stocks, now at 14 times earnings, as a buy signal. That’s about the level it stood in 1990; during the dot-com boom and the peak of the real estate bubble the p/e tripled at some points. Usually, though, the p/e peaks in the low 20’s.

The problem is that broad measures like the market p/e won’t tell you whether a stock price is likely to rise in the next month or two — or even the next year, says Subramanian. But if you look out 10 years, she says, the p/e explains about 90% of performance. So contrarians need to have a very long-term outlook and not get easily rattled by the day-to-day bumps of the markets. If you’re saving for far off in the future, then you might just be able to kick back and not worry; but if, say, you’re heading into retirement within the next couple of year, the market unfortunately remains as treacherous as ever.

15 comments
Sort: Newest | Oldest
BankruptcyShop
BankruptcyShop

Americans are still filing bankruptcy in record numbers.  The recession is far from over. Unemployment remains high and one of the hardest hit demographics in the recession-white collar middle management still cannot find jobs to replace the lucrative ones they once had.  Many Americans are trying to refinance homes in order to reduce their mortgage payments but find they cannot due to stringent credit criteria.  While subprime 'blitz-style' lending will never be a good idea, the credit score criteria needs to be reduced so that people can avoid foreclosure. 

http://www.thebankruptcyshop.c...

Firozali A.Mulla
Firozali A.Mulla

There is a phrase that USA

is so huge from the East to West that there is varying degree of everything in

the economy, rights, law, poverty, and if any care the answers is in the nets

and to be honest it is not at all good for the employed or unemployed. The

founders did not know the It, the space and believed in the moons an the stars.

In other words they are learning now what they had done. What is the electric

chair? They just hanged. Both killed or even the lethal injection. Today the

discussions are on the two sides of the issues and no one knows whether this

will work. The word is they are trying. A look at where Democratic President

Barack Obama and Republican presidential rival Mitt Romney stand on a selection

of issues: One Supports abortion rights. Health care law requires

contraceptives to be available for free for women enrolled in workplace health

plans, including access to morning-after pill, which does not terminate a

pregnancy but is considered tantamount to an abortion pill by some religious

conservatives. Supported requiring girls 16 and under to get a prescription for

the morning-after pill, available without a prescription for older women. The

other opposes abortion rights. Previously supported them. Says state law should

guide abortion rights, and Roe v. Wade should be reversed by a future Supreme

Court. But says Roe v. Wade is law of the land until that happens, and should

not be challenged by federal legislation seeking to overturn abortion rights

affirmed by that court decision. "So I would live within the law, within

the Constitution as I understand it, without creating a constitutional crisis.

But I do believe Roe v. Wade should be reversed to allow states to make that

decision." Said he would end federal aid to Planned Parenthood. Obama: A

fourth-straight year of trillion-dollar deficits is projected. Federal spending

is estimated at 23.5 percent of gross domestic product this year, up

from about 20 percent in previous administration, and is forecast to decline to

21.8 percent  by 2016. one approval to

raise debt limit to avoid default. One calls for tackling the debt with a mix

of spending cuts and revenue increases. Central to Obama's plan is to let

Bush-era tax cuts expire for couples making more than $250,000. That would

generate more than $700 billion over 10 years. Also, would set a 30 percent tax

rate on taxpayers making more than $1 million, increasing taxes for some but

not all millionaires and billionaires. That would generate about $47 billion

over 10 years. Reached agreement with congressional Republicans to cut $487 billion

in military spending over a decade. Romney: Defended 2008 bailout of financial

institutions as a necessary step to avoid the system's collapse, opposed the

bailout of General Motors and Chrysler and said any such aid should not single

out specific companies. Would cap federal spending at 20 percent of gross

domestic product by end of first term. Stayed silent on the debt-ceiling deal

during its negotiation, only announcing his opposition to the final agreement

shortly before lawmakers voted on it. Instead, endorsed GOP "cut, cap and

balance" bill that had no chance of enactment. Favours constitutional

balanced budget amendment. Proposes broad but largely unspecified cuts in

federal spending. Among the few details: 10 percent cut in federal workforce,

elimination of $1.6 billion in Amtrak subsidies and cuts of $600 million in

support for the arts and broadcasting. Obama: Term marked by high unemployment,

a deep recession that began in previous administration and officially ended

within six months, and gradual recovery with persistently high jobless rates.

Unemployment rate jumped to 8.3 percent from 7.8 percent in February 2009,

Obama's first full month in office, and has remained above 8 percent ever

since. The stretch of unemployment above 8 percent is the longest on record

dating to 1948. Unemployment hit a high water mark of 10 percent in October

2009. Of the 8.8 million jobs lost during the recession and its aftermath, 3.8

million have been regained. Businesses have added jobs for more than two years straight,

pushing down the unemployment rate from 9.8 percent in March 2010 to 8.2

percent and holding. Obama responded to the recession with a roughly $800

billion stimulus plan that nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated

cut the unemployment rate by 0.7 to 1.8 percentage points. Continued

implementation of Wall Street and auto industry bailouts begun under George W.

Bush. Proposes tax breaks for U.S.

manufacturers

producing domestically or repatriating jobs from abroad, and tax penalties for

U.S. companies outsourcing jobs. Won approval of South Korea, Panama and

Colombia free-trade pacts begun under previous administration, completing the

biggest round of trade liberalization since the North American Free Trade

Agreement and other pacts of that era. In other words we have no idea who is

right ort who is wrong. This is from the interview by Donald Trump to the news.

The news is this time the election is very interesting this year. People are

scared I thank you Firozali A.Mulla DBA

Firozali A.Mulla
Firozali A.Mulla

The U.S.

economy is teetering on the brink of another recession. The bad news is that if

it goes down again, there won’t be much we can do to save ourselves. Like a

weary heavyweight, if it hits the mat again, it’s down for good. The expansion

has been terribly disappointing—growth is hardly 2 percent and jobs creation

barely keeps unemployment steady at 8.2. Manufacturing and exports powered the

recovery but are now weakening. Consumer spending and existing home sales are

flagging, because policymakers failed to aid underwater homeowners as

generously as the banks. President Obama is doubling down on slow growth

policies—new restrictions on offshore oil and CO2 emissions, and pushing

forward with financial regulations that haven’t stopped Wall Street banks from

trading recklessly and rigging markets as indicated by the Libor scandal. Governor

Romney has reverted to shop-worn Republican prescriptions—tax cuts, free trade

and deregulation. With the federal government spending 50 percent more than it

takes in, no sane economist could endorse big rate cuts, beyond renewing the

Bush tax cuts. China, by manipulating its currency and shutting out western

products, helped cause the Great Recession and is now constraining recovery in

the United States and Europe. More free trade agreements won’t fix that. With

the federal government spending 50 percent more than it takes in, no sane

economist could endorse big rate cuts, beyond renewing the Bush tax cuts. Dodd-Frank

may be bureaucratic and ineffective but no sane person could claim banks can

regulate themselves—smarter solutions, like breaking up unmanageable and unsuperviserable

institutions, is needed. Many analysts ask if another big innovation—like the

automobile or computer-- is coming and could save the economy. The problems are

many new products are creating more jobs in Asia than in the West, and many

technology companies are consolidating or facing extinction—consider the smart

phone, Hewlett Packard and Yahoo. A lot of US innovation is starting to look

more like French art than American commerce. Icons like Yahoo, Facebook and

Twitter have made great contributions to the economy and culture but simply

don’t have business models that generate enough revenue and sustainable jobs

growth. Google has succeeded by cannibalizing newspapers—the net effect has

been to destroy more—and branching into software and media— which merely

displaces workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, the profitable core of

finance—investment banking—is shrinking. Burdensome regulations are a problem,

but many clients—ranging from municipalities to wealth managers to foreign

governments burnt by Wall Street schemes and securities—are now less interested

in what the likes of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have to sell. To save European

governments, several trillion dollars in sovereign debt must be written down. Beyond

lacking a plan to equitably distribute the loss, Germany and other stronger

states have not come to terms with the fact that market reforms are not enough.

They cannot continue to pursue export-oriented growth strategies and trade

surpluses if southern Europe is to create jobs and grow without running up

trillions in new debt. China holds the West and its own future

hostage—export-driven growth runs to ground when customers can no longer

finance their purchases and trade deficits. Borrowing and printing money in the

United States and Europe on the scale necessary to keep the Middle Kingdom

producing and exporting is no loner possible. China must slow down because it

is too late to reorient its economy toward domestic consumption without

wrenching dislocations. When the United States entered the recent crisis, its

budget deficit was $161 billion. Now it $1.3 trillion, and the Federal Reserve

is already maintaining rock bottom interest rates. Even if Congress and the

President manage to extend the Bush tax cuts, any hiccup in Europe or China

could easily throw the U.S. economy into a recession—and the world’s biggest

economy could hit the skids on its own. Capital markets simply won’t be able to

absorb a $2.5 to $3 trillion federal deficit to further stimulate the U.S.

economy, without sucking badly needed capital out of struggling European and

developing country economies. The Fed could only print money to finance it and

set off hyperinflation, but it can’t really lower interest rates much further. Having

failed to adequately address what caused the Great Recession—China’s trade

surplus and the imbalance in demand between the Middle Kingdom and the United

States, the cowboy culture on Wall Street and the plight of underwater

homeowners—not much can be done, having squandered the grace created by

stimulus spending and easy money. Get ready for a bad ride. I thank you

Firozali A.Mulla DBA 

Firozali A.Mulla
Firozali A.Mulla

The U.S.

economy is teetering on the brink of another recession. The bad news is that if

it goes down again, there won’t be much we can do to save ourselves. Like a

weary heavyweight, if it hits the mat again, it’s down for good. The expansion

has been terribly disappointing—growth is hardly 2 percent and jobs creation

barely keeps unemployment steady at 8.2. Manufacturing and exports powered the

recovery but are now weakening. Consumer spending and existing home sales are

flagging, because policymakers failed to aid underwater homeowners as

generously as the banks. President Obama is doubling down on slow growth

policies—new restrictions on offshore oil and CO2 emissions, and pushing

forward with financial regulations that haven’t stopped Wall Street banks from

trading recklessly and rigging markets as indicated by the Libor scandal. Governor

Romney has reverted to shop-worn Republican prescriptions—tax cuts, free trade

and deregulation. With the federal government spending 50 percent more than it

takes in, no sane economist could endorse big rate cuts, beyond renewing the

Bush tax cuts. China, by manipulating its currency and shutting out western

products, helped cause the Great Recession and is now constraining recovery in

the United States and Europe. More free trade agreements won’t fix that. With

the federal government spending 50 percent more than it takes in, no sane

economist could endorse big rate cuts, beyond renewing the Bush tax cuts. Dodd-Frank

may be bureaucratic and ineffective but no sane person could claim banks can

regulate themselves—smarter solutions, like breaking up unmanageable and unsuperviserable

institutions, is needed. Many analysts ask if another big innovation—like the

automobile or computer-- is coming and could save the economy. The problems are

many new products are creating more jobs in Asia than in the West, and many

technology companies are consolidating or facing extinction—consider the smart

phone, Hewlett Packard and Yahoo. A lot of US innovation is starting to look

more like French art than American commerce. Icons like Yahoo, Facebook and

Twitter have made great contributions to the economy and culture but simply

don’t have business models that generate enough revenue and sustainable jobs

growth. Google has succeeded by cannibalizing newspapers—the net effect has

been to destroy more—and branching into software and media— which merely

displaces workers elsewhere. Meanwhile, the profitable core of

finance—investment banking—is shrinking. Burdensome regulations are a problem,

but many clients—ranging from municipalities to wealth managers to foreign

governments burnt by Wall Street schemes and securities—are now less interested

in what the likes of Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have to sell. To save European

governments, several trillion dollars in sovereign debt must be written down. Beyond

lacking a plan to equitably distribute the loss, Germany and other stronger

states have not come to terms with the fact that market reforms are not enough.

They cannot continue to pursue export-oriented growth strategies and trade

surpluses if southern Europe is to create jobs and grow without running up

trillions in new debt. China holds the West and its own future

hostage—export-driven growth runs to ground when customers can no longer

finance their purchases and trade deficits. Borrowing and printing money in the

United States and Europe on the scale necessary to keep the Middle Kingdom

producing and exporting is no loner possible. China must slow down because it

is too late to reorient its economy toward domestic consumption without

wrenching dislocations. When the United States entered the recent crisis, its

budget deficit was $161 billion. Now it $1.3 trillion, and the Federal Reserve

is already maintaining rock bottom interest rates. Even if Congress and the

President manage to extend the Bush tax cuts, any hiccup in Europe or China

could easily throw the U.S. economy into a recession—and the world’s biggest

economy could hit the skids on its own. Capital markets simply won’t be able to

absorb a $2.5 to $3 trillion federal deficit to further stimulate the U.S.

economy, without sucking badly needed capital out of struggling European and

developing country economies. The Fed could only print money to finance it and

set off hyperinflation, but it can’t really lower interest rates much further. Having

failed to adequately address what caused the Great Recession—China’s trade

surplus and the imbalance in demand between the Middle Kingdom and the United

States, the cowboy culture on Wall Street and the plight of underwater

homeowners—not much can be done, having squandered the grace created by

stimulus spending and easy money. Get ready for a bad ride. I thank you

Firozali A.Mulla DBA 

Firozali A.Mulla
Firozali A.Mulla

Once

a politician had said , WE WILL FIGHT THEM ON LAND IN SEA AND SPACE  but he never meant that we will literally go

get all of them for the sake of election. When we must act to get more votes we

do not care who comes on the way. We will speak the oath hypocrisy For politics

is deaf like love ,blind Born Rambo we will never give an inch to any aggression

and we will fight for our rights without knowing they are right or not.  Mitt Romney would respect an Israeli decision to make a unilateral military strike

against Iran aimed at preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear capability, a top foreign policy adviser said Sunday as he outlined the aggressive posture the Republican

presidential candidate will

take toward Iran in a speech in Israel later in the day. Romney has said he has a "zero tolerance"

policy toward Iran obtaining the capability to build a nuclear weapon. "If

Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing the

capability, the governor would respect that decision," foreign policy

adviser Dan Senor told reporters ahead of the speech, planned for late Sunday

near Jerusalem's Old City.

Senor said Romney is careful to note the governor believes preventing nuclear

"capability" — not just a nuclear weapon — is critical. Mitt Romney has visited one of Judaism's most holy sites. The

U.S. presidential

candidate, who's on a pre-election trip to burnish his

foreign-policy credentials, visited the Western Wall in the Old City of Jerusalem. The stop came after he met with Israeli

government officials on Sunday. The Western Wall is the holiest site where Jews

can pray. For centuries, it has been a site for Jewish prayers and pilgrimages.

The Republican rival to President Barack Obama is set to give a foreign policy speech later Sunday

in which he is expected to lay out his ideas for dealing with Iran. And Iran

who has dodged this question many times will keep quite I guess?!  Poverty across

the planet will drop sharply by 2030, with a rising middle class of some two

billion people pushing for more rights and resources. The chief at the

U.S. government's top intelligence analysis shop says if current economic and

demographic trends continue, 1 billion people who live on less than a dollar a

day now will drop by half in roughly two decades. Christopher Kojm gave

the preview of the National Intelligence Council's global forecast at the Aspen

Security Forum Saturday. Kojm says economic powerhouses, such as India,

Indonesia and Vietnam are driving the trend, which will continue even if the

economy goes through upheaval. He says several hundred million people, armed

with the resources and education will produce new technology to meet demands

for food, water and energy.

Firozali A.Mulla
Firozali A.Mulla

Banks

,banks banks the three banks employed more than a dozen

traders who sought to influence rates in dollar, euro or yen rates. Some of the

traders who are being probed have worked for several banks under scrutiny,

raising the possibility that the rate fixing became more ingrained as traders

changed jobs. The

documents reviewed by Reuters in analyzing the traders' involvement included

court filings by Canadian regulators who have been investigating potential

antitrust issues; settlement documents with Barclays filed by the US department

of justice and the US commodity futures trading commission in Washington and by

the financial services

authority in the UK; and a

private employment lawsuit filed by a former RBS trader in Singapore's high court. The scandal, which began to

come to light in 2008, has become a time bomb for regulators and a big focus

for politicians on both sides of the Atlantic. At issue is the manipulation

between at least 2005 and 2009 of rates that are used to determine the cost of

trillions of dollars of borrowings, including everything from home loans to

credit card rates. One

former Barclays employee under scrutiny, Reuters has learned, is Jay V

Merchant, according to people familiar with the situation. Merchant, who

oversaw the US dollar swaps trading desk at Barclays in New York, worked for

the bank from March 2006 to October 2009, according to employment records

maintained by the US financial industry regulatory authority (FINRA). Merchant currently holds a

similar position at UBS, where he works out of the Swiss bank's offices in

Stamford, Connecticut, according to FINRA. He did not return requests for

comment. People familiar

with the investigation said authorities are looking at whether some individuals

on Merchant's trading desk tried to influence the rate on Libor by

communicating with other traders in London to get a higher return on certain

swaps the desk was trading. His specific role is unclear. The department of justice

declined to comment. Merchant's

attorney, John Kenney of Hoguet Newman Regal amp; Kenney, did not respond to

requests seeking comment. A

UBS spokeswoman said that the bank has "no reason to believe Mr Merchant

has engaged in any improper conduct at UBS." The spokeswoman, who noted

that Merchant is on a two-week vacation, declined to comment on the broader

investigation. Barclays

declined to comment. In a statement, an RBS spokeswoman said the bank is

cooperating with the investigation. Spread from Barclays Earlier

this week, Reuters reported that federal prosecutors in Washington have begun

reaching out to lawyers for some of the individuals under scrutiny as they get

closer to bringing possible criminal charges. The

dollar and euro rate-rigging appears to have begun in earnest in early 2005 in

the dollar market, according to the documents reviewed by Reuters. By August of

that year, Barclays traders were reaching out to traders at other big global

banks to manipulate their rates to make them favourable to Barclays' trading

positions. Soon, the

trading had crossed to the euro rate markets, according to the settlement documents filed in the Barclays investigation. And by

2007, traders at RBS and UBS were seeking to influence the yen rate market,

according to documents filed in 2011 in Singapore's high court and in Canada's

Ontario superior court. Traders

at Barclays are believed to have participated in manipulating the rate for the

dollar and the rate for the euro known as Euribor, according to documents filed

in the Barclays settlement last month. RBS

and UBS traders are a focus of the global investigation because of their

alleged involvement in seeking to influence yen-denominated rates. Two RBS traders in London,

Brent Davies and Will Hall, are alleged to have agreed to help a trader at UBS,

Thomas Hayes, to manipulate yen Libor, according to court documents filed by

the Canadian competition bureau. UBS

is cooperating with Canadian and US authorities, according to people familiar

with the situation. Hayes

worked at UBS from 2006 to 2009. He later moved to Citigroup where

he remained until 2010, after which he left the bank. Hayes, Davies and Hall

could not be reached for comment. The

documents reveal that Hayes also contacted traders at other banks in London to

get them to manipulate yen rates. They include Peter O'Leary at HSBC Holdings

Plc, Guillaume Adolph at Deutsche, and Paul Glands at JPMorgan. A second UBS

employee sought to get a Citigroup trader, who formerly had worked at UBS, to

influence rates. 

None of these

traders could be reached for comment Condoned In

addition, a former trader at RBS, Tan Chi Min, said in a wrongful termination

lawsuit filed in the Singapore High Court in 2011 that he was forced out for

"improperly seeking to influence" the setting of Libor. Tan, who ran

a trading desk at RBS, said in the suit that improper rate-rigging was known by

some at the bank and condoned. 

Tan denied trying to manipulate Libor, and alleged

in the 2011 court filing, and one in March this year, that about a half dozen

other RBS traders openly tried to request specific rates. Tan's attorney, N Sreenivasan,

declined to comment because the court case is ongoing. Beyond traders at the three

European banks, authorities are still probing the role of others. For example, traders at

JPMorgan Chase amp; Co also interacted with some of the traders under scrutiny

who worked for Barclays and RBS, according to a person familiar with the situation and

court documents filed in Singapore. Similarly, Deutsche Bank AG

also had several employees whose trading is under scrutiny by authorities,

according to people familiar with the situation and court documents filed in

Canada. 

trade penny stocks
trade penny stocks

Any time stock price could be lower or higher. So before investing your funds in the stock market be careful..

ChowT
ChowT

Do the homework yourselves.

Wall street and financial journalism have to be read between the line, most of them.

Dont be a lemming!

Raggedhand
Raggedhand

She's just following the real Buffett Rule (paraphrase- investors should be greedy when others are fearful and be fearful when others are greedy).  The comments that come from this article will be a very good sign. Usually the comments by the peanut gallery give me a very good idea of whether to buy safe stocks, go risky or sell.

BTW...I want to thank ya'll for allowing my husband and me to retire in a few years despite the recession.

ionicatoms
ionicatoms

Am I to understand that Raggedhand bases her financial strategy based on comments from the peanut gallery?  LOL

On another note, you'll notice that the chosen interviewee is looking at an investment horizon on the order of two decades... certainly not speaking about the "few years" you have left to retire.

Unless you are getting one of those sweet public sector defined benefit pensions, I highly recommend you quit speculating in the stock market based on comments from the peanut gallery and structure your portfolio in accordance with a sensible risk/reward evaluation.  I'll never forget the older people at my work back in 2008 when the market crashed and the vast majority of them had 100% in equities.  Fools;  I got out in May 2008 and never had the stress of having to get it back. 

ionicatoms
ionicatoms

This piece might as well argue that a decade of zero gains implies that prices (equities) JUST CAN'T go down.  I feel bad for all the near-term retirees who are about to endure another "unexpected" loss.   We've got a "lost generation" of young people who are underemployed, Chinese recessionary indicators, EU monetary discord, Japanese debt that can only be paid back with higher taxes or inflationary relief, huge losses in family wealth (homes) world wide (with further losses coming in Canada and Australia), peak oil production, boomer demographics with the associated changes in spend, increasing talk of trade protection (tariffs) which will (and have been in the past) met with counter-tariffs, all the while our legislators fail to do anything meaningful toward improving the basic services of government such as road/bridge maintenance,  providing open/accessible health insurance markets across state boundaries (why in the world do we have 50 states regulating health insurance in 50 different ways?), reducing tax code complexity (if not the burden), and just generally focusing on the things that matter to the vast majority of us.

Sorry Nancy Miller, but the U.S. operates in a Global Economy and -- long term -- the global economy, and our place in it, just looks terrible.

garotadagavea
garotadagavea

Nice advertising piece Ms. Miller. How much did the major Wall Street broker firms pay you to write it? Did Time Warner get a tidy cut out of it?

divorceemeet
divorceemeet

Many young women are looking to date older men, mainly because older men are usually more stable, mature, caring, and financially secured. As for older men, dating younger women simply makes them feel younger. ------ Age_less_Mɑtϲh_℃♥m ------ is a focused community for older men dating younger women. If you are single and ready to get going, I would encourage you to deep your toe in the water. Just take a try. You might find what you are looking for.