Nah been 75% gold/cash 15 govt bonds 10 stocks since mid 2006 early 2007 Gold coinbuyer since 1969.late day selloff after a little runup is no brainer market direction is DOWN cum.
duck tape wrote:
John Doe,Anytown USA wrote:todays sell off starts in 3 minutes
6973.17
Its down 100 points since you predicted that.
Great call!
Did you put your money where your mouth was?
John Doe,Anytown USA edit:
Nah been 75% gold/cash 15 govt bonds 10 stocks since mid 2006 early 2007 Gold coin& possesion bullion buyer since 1969.
late day selloff after a little runup is no brainer market direction is DOWN cumulative.
duck tape wrote:Its down 100 points since you predicted that.
Great call!
Did you put your money where your mouth was?
Flagpole wrote:
Don't blame the government for everything and don't look to them to save you either -- make your own way.
Holy crap! The government is bad...the government will save me...all those evil banks and people who took out bad loans have screwed me...and on and on and on.
Educate yourself.
Be smarter than anyone who competes with you for a job or a contract.
Start your own business or do your own thing. Be aware of the parameters set by the government, but don't be shackled by them.
Best advice you ever gave. Bravo. Can't say that very often.
Sagarin wrote:
Best advice you ever gave. Bravo. Can't say that very often.
Dude, you will discover that the doomsday stuff you and a couple of your cronies (one of which is you as another name -- trust me I know) espouse will not come true. The market will start to do well again, and only after it has will you jump back in -- too late to reap the biggest rewards but early enough to help pad my accounts, so thanks for that. I ALWAYS give great advice by the way.
Flagpole wrote:
Sir Lance, you've been better on this thread than I've ever seen you (meant only as a compliment, not a slam in any way).
Nice job brother!
...brothers in arms...
This is classic...just classic...
Flagpole wrote:
Dude, you will discover that the doomsday stuff you and a couple of your cronies (one of which is you as another name -- trust me I know) espouse will not come true. The market will start to do well again, and only after it has will you jump back in -- too late to reap the biggest rewards but early enough to help pad my accounts, so thanks for that. I ALWAYS give great advice by the way.
Still pissed at me about the Carl Rose comment, eh moderator, that you curiously had deleted? You have been full of shit this whole time to everyone who has leveled accusations your way, correctly I might add, though I didn't want to believe it. It's amusing, the level of your disingenuousness. And tell me, just who is me and my crony as another name, omniscient one. C'mon, you're so smart. Come out with it. Tell the world who is really just me by another name that is promoting "doom and gloom" in the market and economy. You can't, because it's simply not true, but nice libelous sideshow.
I never, NEVER said I wouldn't become bullish again. I jumped out at just over Dow 13,000, have been trading exclusively with a short-bias, and I still am not willing to commit long-term money, but for a fraction of my portfolio. It's simple really. You are giving people generic, obvious advice. You aren't doing anyone any favors. My four-year old daughter can give the same advice. My 25-year advice is the EXACT same as yours, butthead. I've NEVER once said don't buy for the LONG term.
I have presented risks and the likely scenario for the foreseeable future. Does that make me a "doom-and-gloomer?" You simply do not understand macroeconomics and the present structural dislocations. Oh, yeah, you read several financial pundits and post links to those insightful, high-powered sites like CNN.Money. And you read a TON. Gosh, thanks for nothing. Yes, indeed, the market will not go to zero, and at some point there will be a buying opportunity. I've said that I myself may become bullish in the near future. Doesn't mean I will buy with a 7-year time frame, perhaps just a one-year time frame. But your CERTAINTY about returning to yesteryear is not only incredibly short-sighted, it is naive.
One more thing Flagpole, you have no idea how much money I've made taking the other side of your optimism. I did not catch the very top and if I miss the very bottom, it matters not. In fact, there's no way that I will, and I never purported to have that ability and I never said I don't lose money on trades. But, I've made a pile so that your mastering the obvious advice isn't going to matter for me. It's been like taking candy from a baby and I never did say thank you, so thanks for that.
Oh, and that "doomsday stuff that won't come true." Where in the hell have you been for the past year, genius?
Sagarin wrote:
Still pissed at me about the Carl Rose comment, eh moderator, that you curiously had deleted? You have been full of shit this whole time to everyone who has leveled accusations your way, correctly I might add, though I didn't want to believe it. It's amusing, the level of your disingenuousness.
I never, NEVER said I wouldn't become bullish again. I jumped out at just over Dow 13,000, have been trading exclusively with a short-bias, and I still am not willing to commit long-term money, but for a fraction of my portfolio. It's simple really. You are giving people generic, obvious advice. You aren't doing anyone any favors. My four-year old daughter can give the same advice. My 25-year advice is the EXACT same as yours, butthead. I've NEVER once said don't buy for the LONG term.
I have presented risks and the likely scenario for the foreseeable future. Does that make me a "doom-and-gloomer?" You simply do not understand macroeconomics and the present structural dislocations. Oh, yeah, you read several financial pundits and post links to those insightful, high-powered sites like CNN.Money. And you read a TON. Gosh, thanks for nothing. Yes, indeed, the market will not go to zero, and at some point there will be a buying opportunity. I've said that I myself may become bullish in the near future. Doesn't mean I will buy with a 7-year time frame, perhaps just a one-year time frame. But your CERTAINTY about returning to yesteryear is not only incredibly short-sighted, it is naive.
1) I'm not a moderator.
2) Your daughter can not give the advice I give which you say is "obvious" advice and yet you disagree with it. It's actually NOT obvious because too many doomsday people are jumping out of the market and doing silly things like buying gold.
3) If you're not against buying for the long term, then you should have no problem with my strategy.
4) Just because I see things differently and have a different investing philosophy than you do does not mean I don't understand macroeconomics or any other financial term you'd like to throw out.
5) You mention me linking to CNN sites -- well, I hardly ever do that. You though link to blogs -- the holy grail of accurate information.
6) I've said time and time again that I don't believe we will return to yesteryear, but you never hear it. Yesteryear was 11-12% annual returns. I've said, even before this crisis began that 7-9% annual returns were more likely. My spreadsheet going forward only goes up to 9% annual returns as the best case scenario. Sorry brother, but you're wrong again.
Sagarin wrote:
Oh, and that "doomsday stuff that won't come true." Where in the hell have you been for the past year, genius?
Well, I have less debt (because I own more of my house), a larger emergency fund (because I'm prudent), a bigger income than a year ago (though it did go WAY up in there and then back down a bit as I did lose one client due to the economy, but I'm still better off than a year ago), and I own more shares than ever that will explode eventually. That's where I've been.
Sagarin wrote:
One more thing Flagpole, you have no idea how much money I've made taking the other side of your optimism. I did not catch the very top and if I miss the very bottom, it matters not. In fact, there's no way that I will, and I never purported to have that ability and I never said I don't lose money on trades. But, I've made a pile so that your mastering the obvious advice isn't going to matter for me. It's been like taking candy from a baby and I never did say thank you, so thanks for that.
Whatever brother.
I'm not your brother. Anyone who falsely accuses me and hasn't a shred of evidence to back it up is no brother of mine.
Sagarin wrote:
I'm not your brother. Anyone who falsely accuses me and hasn't a shred of evidence to back it up is no brother of mine.
Your adamant stance at not being another poster makes me think you may be telling the truth, so in the interest of harmony, I apologize for the accusation.
I am not a moderator though (as you've accused me of being), and regardless of whether you want to be, we're all brothers, so you're my brother, brother!
mez redux wrote:
Lance - your myopic blame it on Bush and his cronies rant does no one any good. The blame lies in so many places. And to simplify it because it satisfies some emotive need is just more politics as usual. It just leads to circular discussions. I have lots of bones to pick with the Bush administration - but the overall driver of this crisis has been long in coming.
Look, the cause of this crisis is that for 15-20 years the growth in debt has increased three-fold times that of GDP. How long did you think that was going to last? This of course goes back to Bush 1, both Clinton administrations, and Bush II. It was fueled by the unprecedented growth in the world economy (BRIC countries included)that funneled billions upon billions to the US - not an irrational thing to do given our respect for the rule of law and the relative integrity of our capital markets (something America haters laughably ignore) - but much of that capital was put to use subsidizing and providing cheap credit to many - including undeserving borrowers. Don't look at this politically - look at it economically. Money is a commodity just like anything else. Our private and public policies - both did not serve us well - money was grossly underpriced and at the same time our institutions were careless with it - the lending and underwriting and securitization practices were akin, if you will, to letting wheat rot in the silos. No one wanted to recognize the wheat was starting to smell, so the day of reckoning was delayed and the problems became even worse. (And the list of blame for this is miles long, encompassing both parties and all sorts of people). So now we have to de-leverage, big time. And the scale of de-leveraging is unprecedented, and so frankly is our lack of information. The uncertainty about derivatives, CDO's and swaps is significant - and parties can't price risk given all the uncertainties and complexities and variants in the instruments. The trader in me thinks this information gap can be closed but the lawyer in me recognizes how linked, interconnected, and hopelessly complex the impaired instruments happen to be. This is causing paralysis.
Obama's team has drawn the short straw. But they must own the problem. Obama must listen to his economists and drive the politicians to the margins. And he needs to slow down his agenda until he can first fix this thing. Not an easy thing to do.
I do wonder what some folks think in Washington, however, and worry about their lack of economic acumen. The latest example is the bill the House Democrats just passed on mortgage cramdowns, permitting bankruptcy judges to cram down mortgages. Look, the silly class warfare view of the world is that since banks are against it populist Democrats should be for it. But who is really thinking about what they are doing?
I am for a cram down, by that meaning a one time program to write down the principal amounts for deserving borrowers - with the non-deserving ones going to foreclosure. There are elements of the Obama administration who agree with this - just no one right now has the gumption to absorb the several trillion dollar write-downs. This is as I state above is a needed a one time crisis solution.
But good lord...permitting cram downs forevermore in bankruptcy? Yikes. For all of the screaming about socialism, we have responsible home ownership in this country because of 30 year mortgages. But let's use common sense. It is not five year money, ten year money, but thirty year money! If the courts can cram down these thirty year commitments, mortgage companies will really raise the cost of credit - and I mean really raise it - to the point where even the strongest Community Reinvestment Act around will keep home ownership out of the lower middle class and many minority citizens. This is progress? And before folks argue with me - put yourself at the desk of the guy making that 30 year loan - or the Government official at the FHA that has to pay guarantees against a tight budget in support of those loans. If that loan can be crammed down 30, 40, 50 percent off its principal amount - at any time over a 30 year period, the amount of equity home buyers are going to have to bring is enormous. The days of 5, 10 percent down will be gone. And mortgage companies are not foolish - fees will go up on these loans and on and on....Again, it goes back to how to take proper care of the commodity known as money. Again, think I am wrong? Many European countries don't have 30 year money and they don't permit re-financings - home ownership is proportionally far less. But housing here is integral to our economy. And this kind of legislation is supposed to help us lead the housing market out of a recession? Where will the buyers be that can bring equity in large numbers? Many of them have been wiped out.
I just don't get it...the objective for Democrats - and frankly the reason why people vote for them - is to further the goals of things like affordable home ownership. But under the guise of populist feel good'ism, this just won't work, and it will make home ownership less likely. I actually feel guilty watching it - knowing I used other people's money wisely back in the day when it was made available to me - and that others less fortunate will not now have that opportunity.
This was a brilliant and accurate post by the way, that deserves a bump. I couldn't have written this better myself.
Flagpole wrote:
Your adamant stance at not being another poster makes me think you may be telling the truth, so in the interest of harmony, I apologize for the accusation.
I am not a moderator though (as you've accused me of being), and regardless of whether you want to be, we're all brothers, so you're my brother, brother!
Flagpole, look, it's not clear to me why you would level such a charge simply because you "surmised" it to be true. I thought that kind of stuff was beneath you. I at least had the curious deletion of the Carl Rose comment in a different thread to feed my suspicion, and I reacted in a knee-jerk fashion, which I shouldn't have.
Look, you don't know me (true, I don't know you either), and you don't have to believe a word I'm saying. I'm a former Senior Managing Market Analyst, with a graduate degree in finance and economics, and I now consult and trade in an independent fashion. I cannot make available the paid info. that I have access to for obvious reasons, nor can I reveal my own work because of the appearance of impropriety. You don't have to believe me or listen to me. That's your privelege. I reserve the right to change my mind at any time, consistent with changing circumstances and expectations about the economic/political landscape. I am comfortable in this role. It is not for the faint of heart.
flaphole wrote a book wrote:
Flagpole's identity uncovered
http://www.targetinvestors.com/images/cover2004small.jpg
Haha... I remember that book. That guy should have his charter revoked. That's an embarrassment to CFA charterholders everywhere.
Sagarin wrote:
Flagpole, look, it's not clear to me why you would level such a charge simply because you "surmised" it to be true. I thought that kind of stuff was beneath you. I at least had the curious deletion of the Carl Rose comment in a different thread to feed my suspicion, and I reacted in a knee-jerk fashion, which I shouldn't have.
I know not of a "Carl Rose comment" from you or of any deletion of said comment. You mentioned that earlier -- that I was "pissed" about it. Sorry to disappoint you brother, but I have no idea what you're talking about -- seriously.
Let's just get back to the topic at hand. Any guesses as to why the market always sells off in the wake of "stimulus" and spending and foreclosure plans and why the pundits on CNBC were all giddy yesterday?
OldXCguy wrote:
I occasionally have to cringe at the acrimony.
Me too. Sorry.
[quote]Sagarin wrote:
Let's just get back to the topic at hand. Any guesses as to why the market always sells off in the wake of "stimulus" and spending and foreclosure plans
My guess is because the market has already priced their version of the optimal plan into stock prices. Any announcement will therefore be a disappointment and result in a sell off.
