An article at Business Insider — generously drawing on the insights of veteran market analyst Andrew Stotz — suggests that “its time to buy” in Thailand. I tend to be open to contrarian logics, and appreciate the explicit crassness of the headline (above). It got my attention and no doubt yours aswell.
Yesterday Stotz released a two-page analysis (available here) that offers many other details. But his snapshot appears, even accepting the need for brevity, to miss a bunch of the issues that will inevitably determine political stability, and the potential for market volatility, over the next two years. Surely the chance that the king will pass away during this period is worth at least a sentence? Not everything — as most academic analysts of Thai politics would agree — revolves around political parties and their leaders.
Others may want to quibble with the rest of the Stotz two-pager. (Note, in the wider context, this unrelated comment from Thitinan Pongsudhirak.)
So I am, in fact, more intrigued by how much the advice of analysts like Andrew Stotz impacts on those impressive gains. Is “the market” merely looking for any advice that justifies a surge and the (short-term) profits that such rises will bring? Of course, if the protests in Bangkok turn violent, or some other calamity scares investors, then one must expect that the market will fall. Predicting such a fall is, I’d assume, where the even more serious money could be made.
Which all leads me to ask: are New Mandala readers buying? And whatever your read on the situation, how much stock do you put in the analysis offered by professional market watchers?