J. Hardy wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I’ll stick with Hussman’s models, which are not rosy at all:
His actual results have been even less rosy. Based on his track record, I’d avoid him like the plague.
Just for you:
https://mobile.twitter.com/hussmanjp/status/1222178469821452293No thanks. I prefer those who know what they are talking about.
J. Hardy wrote:
No thanks. I prefer those who know what they are talking about.
Since 2000, the goal of the Hussman Funds
has been to serve our shareholders by seeking
long-term returns, adhering to a value-conscious,
historically-informed, risk-managed discipline
focused on the complete market cycle...
That is what they claim.
Here is their actual performance ...
YTD -18.86%
1-Month -0.57%
3-Month -4.56%
1-Year -18.86%
3-Year -8.33%
10-Year -7.54%
A much more relevant statistic would be the S&P 500 return over the 12 year period of 3/1997-3/2009 of -0.376%. That is what you are looking at Hardy and Sally.
The only thing to which that stat bears any relevance is your narrative—a foundational pillar of which is that stat itself, that has no other relevance.
Although they may have historically been periodic, crashes have been extra-ordinary events, not ordinary events. Avoiding a crash is no more important than taking advantage of periods between crashes—and at this point, with longer inter-crash duration, it is in fact less important.
And if crashes are a thing of the past—for which thesis there is a plausible argument—avoiding them becomes not important at all; it becomes at best totally irrelevant, and at worst counter-productive.
I am personally biased away from that thesis, but not by much, because I understand its merit. IMO this is one dimension of profitably balancing a portfolio, that nobody yet really takes into account.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
A much more relevant statistic would be the S&P 500 return over the 12 year period of 3/1997-3/2009 of -0.376%. That is what you are looking at Hardy and Sally.
How peculiar you would pick a random 12-year period where the S & P had two massive falls. I have shown you ever 10-year period since 1920 and how well the index has done during EACH of those 10-year periods. The real return (adjusted for inflation) of the index over the last 30 years is above 7%. Quite remarkable and considerably better than any other investment.
Sally Vix wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
A much more relevant statistic would be the S&P 500 return over the 12 year period of 3/1997-3/2009 of -0.376%. That is what you are looking at Hardy and Sally.
How peculiar you would pick a random 12-year period where the S & P had two massive falls. I have shown you ever 10-year period since 1920 and how well the index has done during EACH of those 10-year periods. The real return (adjusted for inflation) of the index over the last 30 years is above 7%. Quite remarkable and considerably better than any other investment.
And add in another 1% when dividends are reinvested.
Maserati wrote:
The only thing to which that stat bears any relevance is your narrative—a foundational pillar of which is that stat itself, that has no other relevance.
Although they may have historically been periodic, crashes have been extra-ordinary events, not ordinary events. Avoiding a crash is no more important than taking advantage of periods between crashes—and at this point, with longer inter-crash duration, it is in fact less important.
And if crashes are a thing of the past—for which thesis there is a plausible argument—avoiding them becomes not important at all; it becomes at best totally irrelevant, and at worst counter-productive.
I am personally biased away from that thesis, but not by much, because I understand its merit. IMO this is one dimension of profitably balancing a portfolio, that nobody yet really takes into account.
Of course that is just a regurgitation of the same misguided belief in every bubble throughout history. Funny actually. But let’s talk facts. If you’re OK paying more for a unit of earnings, we’ll see how that works over the next decade. Here is how you would have done in more recent decades.
https://mobile.twitter.com/hussmanjp/status/1222219719970828288Sally Vix wrote:
J. Hardy wrote:
No thanks. I prefer those who know what they are talking about.
Since 2000, the goal of the Hussman Funds
has been to serve our shareholders by seeking
long-term returns, adhering to a value-conscious,
historically-informed, risk-managed discipline
focused on the complete market cycle...
That is what they claim.
Here is their actual performance ...
YTD -18.86%
1-Month -0.57%
3-Month -4.56%
1-Year -18.86%
3-Year -8.33%
10-Year -7.54%
To show how poor the Hussman fund has done, the S & P is up about 450% over the last 10 years. Yes, 450%. The Hussman fund is done negative 7.5% in the same time frame. Quite a contrast.
Sally Vix wrote:
To show how poor the Hussman fund has done, the S & P is up about 450% over the last 10 years. Yes, 450%. The Hussman fund is done negative 7.5% in the same time frame. Quite a contrast.
I presume that -7.5% is an annualized figure given that HSGFX has lost well over half of its value in the last 10 years. It’s a real dog.
Get you facts straight. First, when making a comparison don’t conflict an annualized with a total return. Second, your wildly wrong, the 10 year S&P 500 Index return is 186.096% and annualized at 11.084%. Third, the 20 year S&P 500 Index return is 4.076%. Fourth, all these returns are at the highest equity valuation in history.
you’re
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Get you facts straight. First, when making a comparison don’t conflict an annualized with a total return. Second, your wildly wrong, the 10 year S&P 500 Index return is 186.096% and annualized at 11.084%. Third, the 20 year S&P 500 Index return is 4.076%. Fourth, all these returns are at the highest equity valuation in history.
Just to address one of your points, I said the 30-year, not 20-year which you used because you always want to include the beginning years of this century when the market had a great decline, is 7.2% , even adjusting for inflation. More than 8% when dividends are re-invested. Again, that even adjusts for inflation which really brings the performance down. Contrasts with CDs which have a negative real return over the last 30 years. Please get off the year 2000. You always want to focus on that time.
KeIIy wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
To show how poor the Hussman fund has done, the S & P is up about 450% over the last 10 years. Yes, 450%. The Hussman fund is done negative 7.5% in the same time frame. Quite a contrast.
I presume that -7.5% is an annualized figure given that HSGFX has lost well over half of its value in the last 10 years. It’s a real dog.
To say it is a real dog is not really fair to dogs.
KeIIy wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
To show how poor the Hussman fund has done, the S & P is up about 450% over the last 10 years. Yes, 450%. The Hussman fund is done negative 7.5% in the same time frame. Quite a contrast.
I presume that -7.5% is an annualized figure given that HSGFX has lost well over half of its value in the last 10 years. It’s a real dog.
HSGFX has a one-star Morningstar rating. The lowest rating. It has an annual expense fee of 1.25 % which is absurd considering how terrible the fund is. You are paying outlandish fees for someone to lose money for you.
Here is a chart - Warning - it is not pretty ...
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/HSGFX?p=HSGFX&.tsrc=fin-srchKeIIy wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
To show how poor the Hussman fund has done, the S & P is up about 450% over the last 10 years. Yes, 450%. The Hussman fund is done negative 7.5% in the same time frame. Quite a contrast.
I presume that -7.5% is an annualized figure given that HSGFX has lost well over half of its value in the last 10 years. It’s a real dog.
I suspect this is more a reflection of the future:
“From the fund inception in July 2000 to Oct. 31, 2008 , his Hussman Strategic Growth Fund averaged 9.9% a year, and has a cumulative gain of 118%, while the S&P500 lost more than 23%. For the 12 months ended Oct. 31, 2008 , his fund lost 0.3%, while the S&P500 lost more than 40%.”
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
KeIIy wrote:
I presume that -7.5% is an annualized figure given that HSGFX has lost well over half of its value in the last 10 years. It’s a real dog.
I suspect this is more a reflection of the future:
“From the fund inception in July 2000 to Oct. 31, 2008 , his Hussman Strategic Growth Fund averaged 9.9% a year, and has a cumulative gain of 118%, while the S&P500 lost more than 23%. For the 12 months ended Oct. 31, 2008 , his fund lost 0.3%, while the S&P500 lost more than 40%.”
A huge lie. A huge lie.
You need to get a grip Sally, here is link where that came from. John Hussman is well known for predicting the Tech and Housing Bubbles. Don’t act like you know more than you do, or post as if you have any real experience.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
You need to get a grip Sally, here is link where that came from. John Hussman is well known for predicting the Tech and Housing Bubbles. Don’t act like you know more than you do, or post as if you have any real experience.
https://www.gurufocus.com/guru/john+hussman/profile
The Hussman fund is a joke. Just a joke. Please don't pretend otherwise. It is the biggest joke of a fund I have every seen.
