I have made several very "specific calls" on this board, from the very specific like Friday's news and bump, to the less specific like Q2/Q3 performance, to the even less specific like total 2014 returns, to the least specific of a significant drop in Q4 2014 or Q1 2015. They have so far ALL come true, even the last one, if you want to consider the 10% correction as a significant drop.
That record of not only success, but of actually making specific predictions, is probably unmatched by anybody else on this board. It is certainly not all the predictions I make, for I don't post everything on this (I apologize), unimportant (to me) but sometimes interesting board.
Because I freely share many of my thoughts, I will re-iterate the point I made about a flight to quality. First it manifested on the largest scale, in ROW losing and USA gaining. Then it manifested on a smaller scale, with USA small- and mid-caps losing and USA large caps gaining (relatively, of course, since it is a smaller scale that is governed by the larger-scale dynamic). Now it will manifest in bonds, and money will flow from the lowest-rated to the highest-rated, as the ethos of yield search gives way to that of wealth preservation.
It's the same dynamic we have seen in other markets, e.g. real estate, consumer goods, art. There emerges a broadened and newly-differentiated "luxury class", and exclusivity rises with increasing prices and barriers to entry. This will not only be the case with things like hedge funds, but will become the case with individual stocks as well, in my opinion.
The important things will be to think about 1) how high prices can in fact go--in other markets, they have achieved levels that are absurdly high in comparison to the equity and bond markets (those high prices come at the direct expense of yield and liquidity--however, there are lots of people with lots of money, so liquidity might not be too much of a problem), and 2) what exactly constitutes quality, and what embodies that quality, in spades.
Funds, and even individual stocks, will become increasingly more branded, with the secondary effects of brand identification, like status. Wealth preservation is a big deal, and so far stocks and funds have had almost zero cache, which is why you see the uber-rich buying a painting for $100M rather than buying $100M of stock with that same money, or the well-off buying a $2M house instead of buying $2M of stock with that same money. They have no cache because they are not sexy, they are not tangible, they are abstract and offer nothing concrete. Somehow that will have to change.
Consider BRK-A, which I am considering. No splits, no dividends, highest-priced on NYSE, relatively illiquid. Great stuff. The only problem at this point is that Buffett's old. They have succession plans, not yet released to the public, but that's not comforting. Too bad, I may have missed the BRK-A ride--but there are other, unlisted investment vehicles that are very expensive, but that are similar, in private equity situations.
And that's where good, big money will go, and has already started to go.
If you think I'm blowing hot air, fine, that is up to you to decide.
But don't ever say that I don't contribute anything of specific substance to this thread.
I make this post for the benefit of earnest posters like agip, flagpole, and others, because I value their commentary and opinion, especially because it often conflicts with my own.
As for you trolls, well...it really doesn't matter, none of you consider the markets in any meaningful way, anyway.
BTW I'm setting up a new office in preparation for getting back into the game for a while. It was nice to take a break and do other things, but I think that opportunity will once again present itself in the near future.