What he said may be true, but that doesn't mean it's useful. By this logic, you can just say that stocks are overvalued any time after they've recovered from a prior bubble pop or they go over a certain P/E ration, and you'll eventually be right given a long enough timeframe for a correction, but you might miss out on decades of growth in between.
What he said is that people can be blind for a long time. That it is not correct to assume that if there is a big bubble people will notice it immediately.
It is useful when it prevents you from assuming there are no huge bubbles around because if there was one somebody would notice it already.
I think a big problem is everyone is in, “Central banks are on the case and will save us” mode. It’s still an unprecedented route to take. There’s a lofty exuberance to the Hertz rally, in particular, that seems completely detached from the current reality.
His research team publishes global equity index forecasts, monthly I believe.
They also have a collection of mutual funds, whose track records you can check very easily. I recommend bench-marking against Ken French's factors [1].
What he said may be true, but that doesn't mean it's useful. By this logic, you can just say that stocks are overvalued any time after they've recovered from a prior bubble pop or they go over a certain P/E ration, and you'll eventually be right given a long enough timeframe for a correction, but you might miss out on decades of growth in between.