As Peter Lynch said, “I deal with facts, I don’t predict the future.” I will continue my strategy of buying stocks that are trading at a price well below their value, regardless of the level of interest rates or West Texas Intermediate crude oil in 2022. In other words, I do not pursue themes; I let the offers come to me.

Chris Bentsen, on

For the publisher:

As for companies whose pricing power is a haven in an inflationary environment, only those with unique products and addressable growing markets tend to have this luxury.

I will look to Nvidia, Microsoft and Apple to meet these measures rather than basic consumer products with undifferentiated products, where consumers can switch to generic brands. These three companies should also hold up well in a rising interest rate environment where interest charges are inconsequential.

Richard DeProspo, on

Useful views

For the publisher:

Here is my annual analysis (“Here Are Barron 10 Best Actions for the New Year, ”Cover Story, December 17). Our model portfolio, with $ 10,000 also invested on each recommended stock for a total of $ 100,000 on last year’s recommendation day, returned (with dividends) 24.51% versus the S&P 500 Index. at 26.35%. It is slightly behind the benchmark.

However, it is not bad compared to Barron annual forecasters. Dubravko Lakos-Bujas of JP Morgan forecast the S&P 500 at 4,440, closest to the S&P 500 at 4621; some of these seers were far from their predictions. Saira Malik at Nuveen was close to the expected 10-year bond rate of 1.4% but far from the S&P 500 forecast at 4050. As Warren Buffett said, “The forecast can tell you a lot about the forecaster.

These experts may not be on target, but Barron trying to get the big money’s point of view helps us draw our conclusions for the following year.

Sreeni Meka, on

Zulauf’s prediction

For the publisher:

In “Stocks Stumble as Fed Speeds Up Stimulus Phaseout” (Up & Down Wall Street, December 17), Randall W. Forsyth notes that when the five biggest names in tech that dominate the S&P 500 finally gave way, the major clues have done it, too. But many actions are already giving way. According to Trading Diary in the Market Laboratory section of Barron, the last four weeks on the New York Stock Exchange and the last five weeks on the Nasdaq each ended on a Friday, with stocks having more new lows than new highs from the previous Friday.

Is this a precursor to a prediction given to Forsyth by Felix Zulauf, a long-time former member of the Barron Roundtable: The S&P 500 collapses to 3000 due to the dollar’s tightening liquidity (rate hike, etc.) before soaring to 6000 when authorities pull back to stimulate to stop the selling panic?

Ron Minarik, mystic, Connecticut.

For the publisher:

I remember the galloping inflation of the 70s and 80s with rates of 15%. It took the Federal Reserve and Paul Volcker four years to curb this “transient” inflation. The Federal Reserve is always right, but nine months to five years behind the party. I once had a boss like that. Terrified of being wrong, if asked for temperature and weather he would look at 37 thermometers, interview 20 people at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, do lots of studies, stall, ask for more data, then reassess, then contemplate. After three feet of snow and 10 degrees, it would proudly state the obvious. This is the Fed, the paralysis of analysis personified.

BJ Khalifah, Grosse Pointe Park, Michigan.

Living with covid

For the publisher:

Vaccinations have become political football (“Omicron could be the start of a ‘viral blizzard’. Prepare for a harsh winter,” December 17). It is sad that Covid-19 vaccines are not as widely accepted as those for polio etc. With 50 million Americans unvaccinated, this virus will exist just like the annual influenza virus. We will have to learn to live with it as we do with the flu.

Lawrence Reese, on

The voice of Kelly Ann Shaw

For the publisher:

In “China Prepares to Lock Down Asian Trade. It’s time to worry, ”Other Voices, December 3, Former Trump administration official Kelly Ann Shaw correctly describes the dismal state of the US position in the Pacific vis-à-vis China . She correctly identifies our failure to adhere to key Asia-Pacific trade agreements (which all of our “allies” in the region have joined) as a blow to our ability to influence the direction of corporate and civil governance. In the region. We are now reduced to picking up “consolation prizes” in the form of relatively small “trade deals”. In short, we are the losers.

But I ask Shaw this: Where did your voice (and that of anyone in the administration) challenge President Donald Trump’s disastrous decision to thumb his nose at these trade deals? Indeed, where were his objections to the insulting trade wars launched against all of our allies by the Trump administration? We now face two extremely powerful enemies (China and Russia) without any of the strong alliances forged over generations. They were dismissed with contempt by the previous administration. The timing couldn’t have been worse. Where was Shaw’s voice when it mattered?

Peter Wolf, Sedona, Arizona.

Send letters to: [email protected] To be considered for publication, correspondence must bear the author’s name, address and telephone number. Letters are subject to editing.

About The Author

Related Posts