1. Apparently you define opinion as anything you're not familiar with. Or have to google.
2. Projecting one market index is a very minor part of her job, which involves a more nuanced assessment of broader market conditions. Her directional guidance is much more meaningful to asset allocation decisions than these arbitrary numbers, but people analyze the numbers because they are easy to latch on to.
3. Your CXO link showed she was off for 2 to 4 years for her S&P projections, not 8 years as you claim. The author of that report ignored the 90s because that data didn't support his argument.
4. The 10/2002 CNN article on the JWA site describes the same few years. The author also incredulously describes AJC's S&P target of 1150 in 12 to 18 months - a rise of 47%. The S&P hit 1146 in 16 months.
5. Your iTulip link shows a period of 9 months. Why would you even post this? Do you understand why I said you're tiresome? You post over and over and over again, disputing a very safe statement, which is widely accepted to be true. (Again, none of the writers you cite contradict my point.) As I said, AJC is a "perpetual bull." She didn't see the bear market at the turn of the century, and so she was criticized for a couple of years. You cherry pick articles about those years, and act like you said something I didn't know. She has a 7 figure income because she's got a great deal of credibility among professional investors based on her track record.
1.) Why so arrogant? I gave you a chance to politely respond, but instead you continue with the name calling.
Again, you don't define the early 90's. You still did not provide any evidence to back up your claim. You only critique what I posted. Um, that is does not prove your assertion.
2.) We were talking about analyst and the market, and now you shift to different topics, downplaying her indexing and talking about asset allocation and other stuff...you go off-topic. Extra unrelated sentences do not make your point.
3.) Please read post #1775 again. I never said she was wrong all 8 years, as you claim. I said MOST. The evidence holds, and you need read more carefully before asserting false statements of what I said.
4.) You post makes no sense. AJC predicted 1325-1400 for the end of 2002. The actual number was 880. She, and many others, were wrong bigtime.
http://agorareport.com/weekly_report.htm
How can you debate that?
5.) I understand you like no bad info on AJC, and ignore it when faced with it. It you want to pick some of your own data, go right ahead. It seems you get tired when you can't back up claims you make.
I'm sure AJC makes much more that seven figures, and I am sure she is an asset to GS. That still does not prove your point.