Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Truth or Dare wrote:
Because he’s got to be smarter than the guy who has lost millions of his investors' money.
No, smart enough to know there will be plenty of investors holding passive investments to the bottom.
If that happens, they’ll still be better off than if they had invested with him. He’s the worst.
We’ll run the numbers when the S&P 500 is at 950.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
We’ll run the numbers when the S&P 500 is at 950.
Why wait? You can’t just ignore the damage he has done to people’s life savings. This guy has already personally destroyed many people’s chances at a comfortable retirement. Meanwhile he pads his own pockets. He should be vilified, not celebrated. I can’t understand why anyone with a conscience would defend him.
Truth or Dare wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
We’ll run the numbers when the S&P 500 is at 950.
Why wait? You can’t just ignore the damage he has done to people’s life savings. This guy has already personally destroyed many people’s chances at a comfortable retirement. Meanwhile he pads his own pockets. He should be vilified, not celebrated. I can’t understand why anyone with a conscience would defend him.
That is because you are narrow minded.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Truth or Dare wrote:
Why wait? You can’t just ignore the damage he has done to people’s life savings. This guy has already personally destroyed many people’s chances at a comfortable retirement. Meanwhile he pads his own pockets. He should be vilified, not celebrated. I can’t understand why anyone with a conscience would defend him.
That is because you are narrow minded.
It has nothing to do with being “narrow minded.” (Do you even know what that means?) This guy has lost millions of dollars that ordinary working stiffs trusted him with. His signature fund has been outperformed by 99% of funds. The guy is obviously ignorant of how to wisely invest money. These are facts.
Truth or Dare wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
No, smart enough to know there will be plenty of investors holding passive investments to the bottom.
If that happens, they’ll still be better off than if they had invested with him. He’s the worst.
This is correct.
Hussman's Equity funds:
HSGFX - Strategic Growth Fund
HSIEX - Strategic International Fund
HSVLX - Strategic Value Fund
check out their charts. It's consistently down, down, and yet more down.
It's hard to find a single year when they didn't lose money.
If there was a way to short his funds, i'd be all over it.
seattle prattle wrote:
Hussman's Equity funds:
HSGFX - Strategic Growth Fund
HSIEX - Strategic International Fund
HSVLX - Strategic Value Fund
check out their charts. It's consistently down, down, and yet more down.
It's hard to find a single year when they didn't lose money.
If there was a way to short his funds, i'd be all over it.
I think you would be as unwise to short his funds as it is to hold TNA.
Of course this could be fake news engineered by Putin to confuse retail traders-
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-09-25/facebook-shares-drop-instagram-co-founders-quit
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
Hussman's Equity funds:
HSGFX - Strategic Growth Fund
HSIEX - Strategic International Fund
HSVLX - Strategic Value Fund
check out their charts. It's consistently down, down, and yet more down.
It's hard to find a single year when they didn't lose money.
If there was a way to short his funds, i'd be all over it.
I think you would be as unwise to short his funds as it is to hold TNA.
Do you understand what “short” means? This is as close to a sure thing as there is.
Zo wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
[quote]seattle prattle wrote:
Hussman's Equity funds:
HSGFX - Strategic Growth Fund
HSIEX - Strategic International Fund
HSVLX - Strategic Value Fund
check out their charts. It's consistently down, down, and yet more down.
It's hard to find a single year when they didn't lose money.
If there was a way to short his funds, i'd be all over it.
I think you would be as unwise to short his funds as it is to hold TNA.
Do you understand what “short” means?
What makes you think he does not understand what "short his funds" means?
Try to include some actual facts and logic and stay away from name calling in your response.
Why would U wrote:
What makes you think he does not understand what "short his funds" means?
Try to include some actual facts and logic and stay away from name calling in your response.
He said he thinks it “unwise” to short these funds that have a history of going down. Anyone who understands what it means to short something realizes this would be an ideal shorting opportunity, if it were possible.
Following his 3 1/2 years of post is not all bad.
Could there be a clearer example of being careful about who you choose to handle your investments?
Unwilling to change course when wrong is a pretty common trait.
vox clamantis in deserto
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
vox clamantis in deserto
Is that in reference to mellon, or to you?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
You better watch your step I may call you a “Harvey Weinstein look-a-like.”
That tells me everything I needed to know.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Huh?? wrote:
So the S&P set a new record high with fully 1 in 40 issues also setting new highs. And you think this is bad news?
It is not a broad market advance like 2017 thru January 2018. I will leave it up to you to interpret.
My interpretation of 2.5% of issues hitting new highs in a single day is that it is good for the invested.
Zo wrote:
Why would U wrote:
What makes you think he does not understand what "short his funds" means?
Try to include some actual facts and logic and stay away from name calling in your response.
He said he thinks it “unwise” to short these funds that have a history of going down. Anyone who understands what it means to short something realizes this would be an ideal shorting opportunity, if it were possible.
Then you should claim his strategy is flawed and provide evidence why (beyond the assertion that "Anyone who understands.." agrees with you.
You had no basis to question his understanding of what shorting an investment is.
You're not too swift.
mellon wrote:
Following his 3 1/2 years of post is not all bad.
You would assume a compliment would have subdued his nastiness.
I guess not!
mister wrote:
mellon wrote:
Following his 3 1/2 years of post is not all bad.
You would assume a compliment would have subdued his nastiness.
I guess not!
Ah, what nastiness? You on the other hand are fake. Always playing you needling games.