werster wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:Which is an argument not supported by 130 years of market history. A competent investment advisor would consider that argument ignorant.
Well it is an argument that was supported by you on the Roth thread.
Oh, snap!
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
It is only supported by your twisted logic of what I said anywhere on LRC.
Actually it was your logic. You agreed with the reasoning behind valuations not negatively affecting prices in both the short and long terms. It's right there in black and white.
You said it, let us see the ENTIRE QUOTATION.
Sure.
John Aich wrote:
Overvaluation alone is not enough to drive prices lower over shorter segments of the market cycle.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Agreed
werster wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:It is only supported by your twisted logic of what I said anywhere on LRC.
Actually it was your logic. You agreed with the reasoning behind valuations not negatively affecting prices in both the short and long terms. It's right there in black and white.
Nice, but where is in that quote: "both the hort and long terms."
So take your assumption back, and file it as WRONG.
This is the type of inaccurate posting that you are constantly guilty of. Why? Because 130 years of market history supports poor investment returns at excessive market valuations. You can't handle facts. You prefer to live in a world of fairy tales.
Oh Snap!
Here's more from your conversation...
John Aich wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:No, but perhaps you assume tomorrow looks like the last eight years. If so, that would be a mistake. As I pointed out the longest Bull Market led to the Tech Bubble where the NASDAQ dropped 83% and the S&P 500 54%. The median stock valuation is much higher than 2000.
We seem to agree that high valuations have not negatively affected prices in the short term or long term.
Oh, but I have always said valuations matter over the long term and 130 years of market history supports that view. Nothing you have shown provides support that I have said anything different. It just your attempt to distort, or support a belief in fairy tales. So go file your posts as WRONG.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Why? Because 130 years of market history supports poor investment returns at excessive market valuations.
Until people like you (and there are many out there) realize "It's different this time" you are going continue looking like a fool. And, your stubbornness
is going cost your follower's. Hopefully, there are not many.
Until people like you (and most investors are there) realize "It's not different this time" you are going continue to look correct. And, your hubris is going cost you and your legion of lemmings. Unfortunately, there are many.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Until people like you (and most investors are there) realize "It's not different this time" you are going continue to look correct. And, your hubris is going cost you and your legion of lemmings. Unfortunately, there are many.
You have given examples of "different this time" yourself. You constantly flip flop and say whatever fits your narrative. I'm not sure if you're purposely speaking out of both sides of your mouth, or if you're just confused.
Observerer wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:Until people like you (and most investors are there) realize "It's not different this time" you are going continue to look correct. And, your hubris is going cost you and your legion of lemmings. Unfortunately, there are many.
You have given examples of "different this time" yourself. You constantly flip flop and say whatever fits your narrative. I'm not sure if you're purposely speaking out of both sides of your mouth, or if you're just confused.
Your confusion is what "This time is different" means. The phrase refers to believing investment valuation metrics no longer apply. I have been very clear in my belief that valuation matters, and the current market is one of the most overvalued, and based on median valuation the most overvalued market ever.
So your claim does not pass the smell test. And if you have evidence to the contrary serve it up, or shut up.
A. That is not the definition of "This time is different." You don't make the rules.
B. If valuation doesn't affect price, as you have agreed, then how does it matter?
C. This is a message board open to all. No one gets to tell anyone to "shut up." Again, you don't make the rules.
Observer wrote:
A. That is not the definition of "This time is different." You don't make the rules.
Correction: You are wrong, the reference is to Rogoff and Reinhardt's work:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6372440-this-time-is-different
B. If valuation doesn't affect price, as you have agreed, then how does it matter?
Correction: Price is a component of valuation. A price that is not supported by cash flow is overvaluation.
C. This is a message board open to all. No one gets to tell anyone to "shut up." Again, you don't make the rules.
Correction: You made unsubstantiated claims and were wrong on "A" and "B," so you should shut up.
How can someone ask a question and be wrong?
What question? I saw a laundry list of statements.
U. R. Stupid wrote:
How can someone ask a question and be wrong?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Observerer wrote:You have given examples of "different this time" yourself. You constantly flip flop and say whatever fits your narrative. I'm not sure if you're purposely speaking out of both sides of your mouth, or if you're just confused.
Your confusion is what "This time is different" means. The phrase refers to believing investment valuation metrics no longer apply. I have been very clear in my belief that valuation matters, and the current market is one of the most overvalued, and based on median valuation the most overvalued market ever.
So your claim does not pass the smell test. And if you have evidence to the contrary serve it up, or shut up.
Your link contradicts what you wrote. It's not that valuation no longer applies, but that it has a different effect. It matters, just not EXACTLY as it might have in the past.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
What question? I saw a laundry list of statements.
U. R. Stupid wrote:How can someone ask a question and be wrong?
Apparently you are illiterate.
B.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Observer wrote:
A. That is not the definition of "This time is different." You don't make the rules.
Correction: You are wrong, the reference is to Rogoff and Reinhardt's work:
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6372440-this-time-is-different
We replicate Reinhart and Rogoff and find that coding errors, selective exclusion of available data, and unconventional weighting of summary statistics lead to serious errors that inaccurately represent the relationship between public debt and GDP growth among 20 advanced economies in the post-war period. Our finding is that when properly calculated, the average real GDP growth rate for countries carrying a public-debt-to-GDP ratio of over 90 percent is actually 2.2 percent, not -0.1 percent as published in Reinhart and Rogoff. That is, contrary to RR, average GDP growth at public debt/GDP ratios over 90 percent is not dramatically different than when debt/GDP ratios are lower. We also show how the relationship between public debt and GDP growth varies significantly by time period and country. Overall, the evidence we review contradicts Reinhart and Rogoff’s claim to have identified an important stylized fact, that public debt loads greater than 90 percent of GDP consistently reduce GDP growth.