David Rosenberg, formerly of Merrill Lynch and currently of Gluskin Sheff, who famously flip-flopped from being a self-described permabear to uber-bull last summer for the one reason that has yet to manifest itself in any way, shape or form, namely declaring that wage inflation as imminent (it wasn't, but perhaps Mr. Rosenberg was merely forecasting the trajectory of his own wages) and generally an end to deflation, has a rhetorical question for his paying clients, as asked in his letter to investors from January 2. To wit:
THIS IS WHAT PASSES FOR ANALYSIS?
The following rant (entitled For CNBC, 2014 was the Worst. Year. Ever.) was sent to me yesterday — this is apparently what was on a financial blogger's website:
Another year of putting lipstick on the zombie known as the global economy, kept walking only thanks to $11 trillion in liquidity injections by the world's central banks and tens of trillions of new Chinese credit created out of thin air and promptly misallocated and embezzled, and the results are in. The bottom line: according to Nielsen, is that despite the S&P (SPX) recording a whopping 53 all time highs, and the Dow rising over 18,000, the channel that was once must watch financial TV for mom and pop, and has since devolved into endless cheerleading of failed policies and rigged markets, namely CNBC, just suffered its worst year in, well, ever.
This is exactly what I mean when I have previously written that there are segments of the perma-bear community that literally live their lives on the lunatic fringe.
This is heavier than religion, the Tea Party or Red Sox Nation for that matter. To these fanatics, if the market rallies, it is due to some unholy alliance somewhere, and if the market dives, it is a case of good triumphing over evil.
Seriously, I have been in this business for 30 years and never before have found such emotion residing in the bear camp — a camp I belonged to from 2000 to 2012.
I should add that in that 12-year span, I was a favorite of this particular financial blog, and when I changed views two-and-a-half years ago, I became a pariah and a subject of jokes and derision. Now they have turned their attention to CNBC.
I think these guys should subject themselves to a New Year's resolution: show respect because there are in fact two sides to every debate.
The “financial blogger” is of course, Zero Hedge, and the article he is referring to is one which was read by over 70,000 readers, and which shares factual information about the viewership of CNBC – a station where Mr. Rosenberg appeared just a few weeks ago (when he said that the Fed is “not going to raise rates in 2015” – which is odd considering Mr. Rosenberg's “bullish conversion” took place precisely because of what he perceived as imminent inflation), and a station which, we should add, used Mr. Rosenberg's own rant in its defense. We say factual, because we would be curious to see just what facts the abovementioned Mr. Rosenberg can share that reveal he has become a “subject of jokes and derision.” Then again, when branding something a “fanatic”, a “lunatic fringe”, and – generally – a conspiracy theorist,facts are the last thing one needs.
Just as Mr. Rosenberg is aware he can't quite bash the “heavy” tea party, with or without facts, an entity which on the record he praisedback when he did not see himself as a self-proclaimed “mainstream pundit”:
You know what — I am sick and tired of all the so-called mainstream pundits out there lambasting the Tea Party. Those who know me, and know me well, know that I am not some right-wing nutbar but come on. Why is everyone so scared about committing to a balanced budget amendment? Why is there so much fear about admitting that living within your means is not a terrible thing? Government spending, in the United States, is simply out of control.
Instead of responding to Rosenberg's rant to what he claims is another rant, we will merely respond with a rhetorical question of our own:
