About a month
ago, when Steve
Sears
and Barron’s asked if I would
be interested in writing the first The
Striking Price
of 2016 and share my perspective on what to expect in terms
of volatility for 2016, I jumped at the chance. 
I quickly made a list of more than two dozen reasons why I felt
volatility is likely to rise in 2016 relative to 2015 levels and began to
outline the case for why investors should be cautious about the financial
markets in 2016.
Since then,
every pundit has unveiled their 2016 crystal ball and almost without exception,
the consensus is for a significant rise in volatility in the coming year.  While I certainly understand the rationale
behind these calls for an increase in volatility in 2016, I can add little
value to the dialogue by rubber-stamping the consensus opinion.  In fact, I am probably better off just
pointing you to last week’s The Striking Price column, where former colleague
Jared Woodard channels some of the more compelling of my two dozen plus higher
volatility ideas in Prepare
for Rising Volatility in 2016
.
So, given that I
hate overcrowded consensus trades, strongly believe that volatility is
extremely hard to predict and am intimately familiar with data that shows
market participants have a habit of overestimating future volatility in stocks,
I decided that today’s Barron’s column should be The
Case Against High Stock-Market Volatility in 2016
.
Today’s column
draws on a good deal of research and analysis I have present here in the past
and also touches upon themes from some previous Barron’s columns.

Related posts:

A full list of my (17) Barron’s contributions:



Source link