Why do we buy into pundit commentary that looks at an event that happened in some minute this morning, from which that pundit determines the future is destined and written in stone?
Hope that political pundit has not been writing investment advice.
So, RIM (sorry to pick on RIM) or Fiat, or Ford, or GM had an interesting day Mach 31, 2009. That's it then. RIM will fly to the moon, buy shares NOW! Ford is going down with its Detroit associates. Run from Ford, fast! Well RIM looks lie it will rebound at least somewhat from its recent lows. Ford did not follow its Detroit brethren into bankruptcy.
You get the idea.
"The Liberals are toast in Alberta! Look at the last election!"
No matter it was mostly Liberals that helped with the defeat of Nanny Dani's WR in defense of their province and helped with the election of the Redford PC's. That sounds a lot like fresh bread and far from toast. That is in fact a lot of influence and clout.
"Liberals can't move from the May 2, 2011 popular vote federally!"
Well, on the other hand even the punditry acknowledged that the Liberals have time to rebuild carefully, not frenetically pursue the Next Messiah. And what are the Liberals doing? Why carefully rebuilding! Who'd a thunk!
We have to remember that the punditry has to say something catchy to generate eyes on ink. And the punditry has to do so everyday. How much calm consideration and allowance for time to enable things to happen can that imperative tolerate?
As the saying goes: "Stay Calm. Be Brave. Read the signs." (Stolen from Tom King.)
