Face the fax wrote:
$10,000 invested in S& P in 2000 (inception date for Hussman fund ) now worth $45,000. $10k in Hussman now worth a whopping $11,900. AND Hussman has annual fee of 1.2 %. Annual fee of VTI - 0.04%. Hussman robbing you guys blind.
-
50
-
04
-
On April 2, 2023, with the SP500 at around 4105, this advisor 'confidently' suggested a coming return to 2584, where the index fell in March of 2020.
Three months later the SP500 was 12% higher.
HZ
@MFHoz
$SPX has surged upward, but has now encountered a major resistance level. The entire rally since 2009 has taken place within a rising wedge pattern. As a result, we can confidently anticipate a pullback to wave 4, which aligns with the COVID-19 lows.
Patience brothers & sisters.4:22 PM · Apr 2, 2023
·
189.7K
ViewsThis post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.20 -
agip wrote:
$SPX has surged upward, but has now encountered a major resistance level. The entire rally since 2009 has taken place within a rising wedge pattern. As a result, we can confidently anticipate a pullback to wave 4,
Voodoo > alchemy > bull$hit > technical analysis
11 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I've written this before but I think it's worth re-stating, Hussman's favorite indicator, Shiller CAPE, is an exercise in backward-looking overfitting, telling us a little bit about the past and very little about the future. In my view, the little correlation that exists between Shiller's CAPE and long-term forward market returns is entirely a result of simple reversion to the mean, wherein the markets tend to be more likely, but not certain, to be overvalued when CAPE is high. CAPE correlates with overall market value, but not particularly strongly.
That'll be another $0.02 please. :-)
20 -
comfortably retired wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
I've written this before but I think it's worth re-stating, Hussman's favorite indicator, Shiller CAPE, is an exercise in backward-looking overfitting, telling us a little bit about the past and very little about the future. In my view, the little correlation that exists between Shiller's CAPE and long-term forward market returns is entirely a result of simple reversion to the mean, wherein the markets tend to be more likely, but not certain, to be overvalued when CAPE is high. CAPE correlates with overall market value, but not particularly strongly.
That'll be another $0.02 please. :-)
Actually Hussman favorite “indicator” is Market Cap / Gross Value Added. I believe he has noted that CAPE 10 is about .82 correlated to future returns. Keep in mind the Fed Model (Dividend Discount) is far worse at about .60.
01 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Actually Hussman ... has noted that CAPE 10 is about .82 correlated to future returns.
It's not even remotely close to 0.82 correlation at any timescale. Looking at monthly CAPE 10 data, cyclically adjusted CAPE has R=0.34 for 12-year returns (lower at all longer and shorter durations), and excess CAPE yield gives nearly the same R and does slightly better for other durations. It's garbage as a forward-looking indicator.
20 -
comfortably retired wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Actually Hussman ... has noted that CAPE 10 is about .82 correlated to future returns.
It's not even remotely close to 0.82 correlation at any timescale. Looking at monthly CAPE 10 data, cyclically adjusted CAPE has R=0.34 for 12-year returns (lower at all longer and shorter durations), and excess CAPE yield gives nearly the same R and does slightly better for other durations. It's garbage as a forward-looking indicator.
If I am really bored I will post Hussman’s analysis. In the meantime give you the benefit of the doubt with an OK. Meanwhile your observations also appear backward looking.
01 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
comfortably retired wrote:
It's not even remotely close to 0.82 correlation at any timescale. Looking at monthly CAPE 10 data, cyclically adjusted CAPE has R=0.34 for 12-year returns (lower at all longer and shorter durations), and excess CAPE yield gives nearly the same R and does slightly better for other durations. It's garbage as a forward-looking indicator.
If I am really bored I will post Hussman’s analysis. In the meantime give you the benefit of the doubt with an OK. Meanwhile your observations also appear backward looking.
Instead of posting Hussman's analysis, how about you showing why Comfortably retired is wrong and you are right? Would love to see Igy's analysis and not someone else's.
30 -
Sally vixx wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
If I am really bored I will post Hussman’s analysis. In the meantime give you the benefit of the doubt with an OK. Meanwhile your observations also appear backward looking.
Instead of posting Hussman's analysis, how about you showing why Comfortably retired is wrong and you are right? Would love to see Igy's analysis and not someone else's.
My view is pretty simple, if you pay too much for an investment your long term return is poor. It is evident to me that for the past decade, at least, the domestic stock market has been artificially supported by monetary and fiscal policy. One is free to believe the upside down Government finances, and continued speculation in some areas of financial markets has a bright future, be my guest.
01 -
An interesting article for those wishing to scrutinize Hussman:
01 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Sally vixx wrote:
Instead of posting Hussman's analysis, how about you showing why Comfortably retired is wrong and you are right? Would love to see Igy's analysis and not someone else's.
My view is pretty simple, if you pay too much for an investment your long term return is poor. It is evident to me that for the past decade, at least, the domestic stock market has been artificially supported by monetary and fiscal policy. One is free to believe the upside down Government finances, and continued speculation in some areas of financial markets has a bright future, be my guest.
IF the government's fiscal and monetary policies HAVE driven up the markets for last decade, would not an investor be remiss in not taking advantage of that?
30 -
Sally vixx wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
My view is pretty simple, if you pay too much for an investment your long term return is poor. It is evident to me that for the past decade, at least, the domestic stock market has been artificially supported by monetary and fiscal policy. One is free to believe the upside down Government finances, and continued speculation in some areas of financial markets has a bright future, be my guest.
IF the government's fiscal and monetary policies HAVE driven up the markets for last decade, would not an investor be remiss in not taking advantage of that?
Pretty clear they have.
10 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
comfortably retired wrote:
It's not even remotely close to 0.82 correlation at any timescale. Looking at monthly CAPE 10 data, cyclically adjusted CAPE has R=0.34 for 12-year returns (lower at all longer and shorter durations), and excess CAPE yield gives nearly the same R and does slightly better for other durations. It's garbage as a forward-looking indicator.
If I am really bored I will post Hussman’s analysis. In the meantime give you the benefit of the doubt with an OK. Meanwhile your observations also appear backward looking.
Here is Hussman’s model matrix from his Market Commentary of February 2018
01 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
If I am really bored I will post Hussman’s analysis. In the meantime give you the benefit of the doubt with an OK. Meanwhile your observations also appear backward looking.
Here is Hussman’s model matrix from his Market Commentary of February 2018
From the link you provided Hussman is obviously brilliant. Ph. D, I have never seen such incredible charts and graphs as shown there. His analysis is WAY beyond my pay grade. Just one question - why have his funds sucked - and I mean REALLY SUCKED - over the last quarter century?
50 -
I like reading John Hussman’s writing because it is different than what you get from Wall Street, no strings attached, and there is a inventory of everything published the past 25 years or so. You will not get that anywhere else. Just in this search, I re-read a comment on inflation risk written four years ago, boy was that spot on.
00 -
Sally vixx wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Here is Hussman’s model matrix from his Market Commentary of February 2018
From the link you provided Hussman is obviously brilliant. Ph. D, I have never seen such incredible charts and graphs as shown there. His analysis is WAY beyond my pay grade. Just one question - why have his funds sucked - and I mean REALLY SUCKED - over the last quarter century?
He has admitted to his errors, which center on Fed policy. During the Tech Bubble you had similar underperformance by value managers. Today what is considered a value investment has been redefined to include stocks like Amazon. Such a view is more about fund manager tenure than the reality of value. To get to extremes of what Jeremy Grantham calls a Super Bubble you need revisionist thinking. Fitting to a narrative; same could be said for the reinforcement of a statistic. That does not mean anything is a foregone conclusion of course, but the fiscal and monetary distortions have been the legacy of the past ten years. That alone in my view warrants caution.
This post was edited 7 minutes after it was posted.01 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
If I am really bored I will post Hussman’s analysis. In the meantime give you the benefit of the doubt with an OK. Meanwhile your observations also appear backward looking.
Here is Hussman’s model matrix from his Market Commentary of February 2018
OK, I see how he gets such high correlations. He's correlated log values. That's sneaky, because it implies very high correlations, when in fact when you revert to natural values from log values, the correlation dissipates.
Remember folks, when you take the logarithm (base 10, let's assume) of something, you are, in simplistic terms, converting from actual numbers to orders of magnitude. So his correlations relate orders of magnitude with a fairly strong link, which is a (very) low bar.
20 -
comfortably retired wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Here is Hussman’s model matrix from his Market Commentary of February 2018
OK, I see how he gets such high correlations. He's correlated log values. That's sneaky, because it implies very high correlations, when in fact when you revert to natural values from log values, the correlation dissipates.
Remember folks, when you take the logarithm (base 10, let's assume) of something, you are, in simplistic terms, converting from actual numbers to orders of magnitude. So his correlations relate orders of magnitude with a fairly strong link, which is a (very) low bar.
Hussman and Igy have been called out here before for using voodoo math. I’m sure Hussman knows what he’s doing. I’m equally certain that Igy does not.
10 -
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Sally vixx wrote:
From the link you provided Hussman is obviously brilliant. Ph. D, I have never seen such incredible charts and graphs as shown there. His analysis is WAY beyond my pay grade. Just one question - why have his funds sucked - and I mean REALLY SUCKED - over the last quarter century?
He has admitted to his errors, which center on Fed policy. During the Tech Bubble you had similar underperformance by value managers. Today what is considered a value investment has been redefined to include stocks like Amazon. Such a view is more about fund manager tenure than the reality of value. To get to extremes of what Jeremy Grantham calls a Super Bubble you need revisionist thinking. Fitting to a narrative; same could be said for the reinforcement of a statistic. That does not mean anything is a foregone conclusion of course, but the fiscal and monetary distortions have been the legacy of the past ten years. That alone in my view warrants caution.
Quite simply, you need to revise your modeling to include market forces like Fed policy.
20
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.