Surprise, not = 9/9 posts (100%).
Surprise, not = 9/9 posts (100%).
That’s an A+!!
If only my investing record was that good.
?
John Hussman wrote:
agip wrote:
I like GMO's writing, but they are terrible investors. Or at least they have been for 15 years. Severely underperforming last time I checked.
We birds of a feather tend to flock together.
haha
You all remember when George Gilder, the real actual George Gilder, used to post around here? Good times.
John Hussman wrote:
That’s an A+!!
If only my investing record was that good.
?
Kicking your troll’s butt 2020 +11.86%.
?
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
https://twitter.com/hussmanjp/status/1295363707367809025
was hussman bullish on tech stocks in 2010? When they started their run of 21% per year for 10 years?
Was cash flow at tech stocks so good then that this phenomenal run was clear? Was their price so low that this was clear?
Just checking to make sure he can indeed predict cash flows.
Tesla baby.
In a few short months....lots of money made
agip wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
https://twitter.com/hussmanjp/status/1295363707367809025was hussman bullish on tech stocks in 2010? When they started their run of 21% per year for 10 years?
Was cash flow at tech stocks so good then that this phenomenal run was clear? Was their price so low that this was clear?
Just checking to make sure he can indeed predict cash flows.
Hussman has been clear on his errors this cycle, unlike most analyst. He mistook the power of the Fed to disconnect cash flow from stock prices. For example, five years ago Apple net income was roughly the same when the stock was at $100 as today at $450. The forward multiple on Apple is double what it was a year ago. The disconnect in the remaining Tech mega caps is largely more distorted over that period. So clearly the annualized gain is more a factor of stock buybacks, corporate tax cut, and multiple expansion. Sure the growth rate of the mega cap tech businesses are better than 450 components of the S&P 500, but far below any time in history. Fed policies have driven the financialization of corporate America.
I would not consider these market moves anything other than an expression of the biggest bubble in our lifetime, and perhaps history. Hussman believes very little of that 21% annualized return is sustainable. I believe he has used the phrase “an interesting trip to nowhere.” I would assume a good portion of this will evaporate once investors realize that the Fed has no long term control over the business cycle, and their policies have been counterproductive, and in fact hurt most Americans.
Was I bullish on tech stocks? Hey, I’ve never been bullish on anything. But as Igy points out, I have admitted some of my mistakes. (There isn’t enough time to admit them all.)
And thanks Igy for pointing out how well my signature fund is doing. It has recovered to a point where now it has lost only a little more than 40% since inception. So someone who invested $100,000 with me back in the day still has almost $60,000 of that left! Of course, that does not account for my above average fees. Hey, a guy’s got to eat!
Join Igy in following me on Twitter. Like him, I have a lot to say even if it doesn’t amount to much.
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
agip wrote:
was hussman bullish on tech stocks in 2010? When they started their run of 21% per year for 10 years?
Was cash flow at tech stocks so good then that this phenomenal run was clear? Was their price so low that this was clear?
Just checking to make sure he can indeed predict cash flows.
Hussman has been clear on his errors this cycle, unlike most analyst. He mistook the power of the Fed to disconnect cash flow from stock prices. For example, five years ago Apple net income was roughly the same when the stock was at $100 as today at $450. The forward multiple on Apple is double what it was a year ago. The disconnect in the remaining Tech mega caps is largely more distorted over that period. So clearly the annualized gain is more a factor of stock buybacks, corporate tax cut, and multiple expansion. Sure the growth rate of the mega cap tech businesses are better than 450 components of the S&P 500, but far below any time in history. Fed policies have driven the financialization of corporate America.
I would not consider these market moves anything other than an expression of the biggest bubble in our lifetime, and perhaps history. Hussman believes very little of that 21% annualized return is sustainable. I believe he has used the phrase “an interesting trip to nowhere.” I would assume a good portion of this will evaporate once investors realize that the Fed has no long term control over the business cycle, and their policies have been counterproductive, and in fact hurt most Americans.
Call it like it is. Somebody f'd up. Be a man and say it. They f'd up.
Here is the reality: whether you call it a bubble or the new normal, it has lasted 10 years if not more. Millionaires have been made, retired, and re-made in that time. Ten years. That's like a generation. The whole thing could have a massive correction (though it probably won't), and that will not change the fact that a generation of investors have reaped the benefits of a bull-market of a life time. Nothing can change that. Nothing.
John Hussman wrote:
Was I bullish on tech stocks? Hey, I’ve never been bullish on anything. But as Igy points out, I have admitted some of my mistakes. (There isn’t enough time to admit them all.)
And thanks Igy for pointing out how well my signature fund is doing. It has recovered to a point where now it has lost only a little more than 40% since inception. So someone who invested $100,000 with me back in the day still has almost $60,000 of that left! Of course, that does not account for my above average fees. Hey, a guy’s got to eat!
Join Igy in following me on Twitter. Like him, I have a lot to say even if it doesn’t amount to much.
Mr. Hussman, why do you charge an expense fee of 1.25% when your fund has a Morning Star rating of 1 (the lowest possible) and as the previous poster noted, your fund is done 40% since inception? Your last capital gain was 0.00. Your sustainability rating is the lowest. Your risk rating is the highest. Why oh why do you charge such a high expense fee when your fund is like one of the worst duds ever? How can you justify that?
seattle prattle wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Hussman has been clear on his errors this cycle, unlike most analyst. He mistook the power of the Fed to disconnect cash flow from stock prices. For example, five years ago Apple net income was roughly the same when the stock was at $100 as today at $450. The forward multiple on Apple is double what it was a year ago. The disconnect in the remaining Tech mega caps is largely more distorted over that period. So clearly the annualized gain is more a factor of stock buybacks, corporate tax cut, and multiple expansion. Sure the growth rate of the mega cap tech businesses are better than 450 components of the S&P 500, but far below any time in history. Fed policies have driven the financialization of corporate America.
I would not consider these market moves anything other than an expression of the biggest bubble in our lifetime, and perhaps history. Hussman believes very little of that 21% annualized return is sustainable. I believe he has used the phrase “an interesting trip to nowhere.” I would assume a good portion of this will evaporate once investors realize that the Fed has no long term control over the business cycle, and their policies have been counterproductive, and in fact hurt most Americans.
Call it like it is. Somebody f'd up. Be a man and say it. They f'd up.
Here is the reality: whether you call it a bubble or the new normal, it has lasted 10 years if not more. Millionaires have been made, retired, and re-made in that time. Ten years. That's like a generation. The whole thing could have a massive correction (though it probably won't), and that will not change the fact that a generation of investors have reaped the benefits of a bull-market of a life time. Nothing can change that. Nothing.
And 5 years from now John Hussman and Ghost will still be calling for the fall of the stock market as many more millionaires are being made. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Hussman is a clown.
Sally Vix wrote:
seattle prattle wrote:
Call it like it is. Somebody f'd up. Be a man and say it. They f'd up.
Here is the reality: whether you call it a bubble or the new normal, it has lasted 10 years if not more. Millionaires have been made, retired, and re-made in that time. Ten years. That's like a generation. The whole thing could have a massive correction (though it probably won't), and that will not change the fact that a generation of investors have reaped the benefits of a bull-market of a life time. Nothing can change that. Nothing.
And 5 years from now John Hussman and Ghost will still be calling for the fall of the stock market as many more millionaires are being made. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Hussman is a clown.
To be fair, Hussman will be right eventually. Stocks will fall 50% at some point in the next 10 years. Doesn't mean he has any analytical skill. A stopped clock is right twice a day.
agip wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
And 5 years from now John Hussman and Ghost will still be calling for the fall of the stock market as many more millionaires are being made. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Hussman is a clown.
To be fair, Hussman will be right eventually. Stocks will fall 50% at some point in the next 10 years. Doesn't mean he has any analytical skill. A stopped clock is right twice a day.
Actually, no. What is the Dow up the since 2008? Close to 500%? The Dow almost did fall 50% (I think about 40%) during the early stages of the pandemic and has since rebounded almost all of that. Will the Dow fall 50% in the future? Almost assuredly, but I am very confident that it will quickly rebound just as it has over the last few months. For Hussman to continue predicting the demise of the market is beyond the pale. How many of his investors have been damaged financially in a significant manner? To ignore the market's great growth over the last 13 years is tragic (at least for those who follow him and those invested in his sham funds).
Sally Vix wrote:
John Hussman wrote:
Was I bullish on tech stocks? Hey, I’ve never been bullish on anything. But as Igy points out, I have admitted some of my mistakes. (There isn’t enough time to admit them all.)
And thanks Igy for pointing out how well my signature fund is doing. It has recovered to a point where now it has lost only a little more than 40% since inception. So someone who invested $100,000 with me back in the day still has almost $60,000 of that left! Of course, that does not account for my above average fees. Hey, a guy’s got to eat!
Join Igy in following me on Twitter. Like him, I have a lot to say even if it doesn’t amount to much.
Mr. Hussman, why do you charge an expense fee of 1.25% when your fund has a Morning Star rating of 1 (the lowest possible) and as the previous poster noted, your fund is done 40% since inception? Your last capital gain was 0.00. Your sustainability rating is the lowest. Your risk rating is the highest. Why oh why do you charge such a high expense fee when your fund is like one of the worst duds ever? How can you justify that?
Like I said, a guy’s got to eat.
John Hussman wrote:
Sally Vix wrote:
Mr. Hussman, why do you charge an expense fee of 1.25% when your fund has a Morning Star rating of 1 (the lowest possible) and as the previous poster noted, your fund is done 40% since inception? Your last capital gain was 0.00. Your sustainability rating is the lowest. Your risk rating is the highest. Why oh why do you charge such a high expense fee when your fund is like one of the worst duds ever? How can you justify that?
Like I said, a guy’s got to eat.
Sure a guy has to eat, but why have you never eaten crow?
Sally Vix wrote:
John Hussman wrote:
Like I said, a guy’s got to eat.
Sure a guy has to eat, but why have you never eaten crow?
Read Igy’s and my posts. I have admitted mistakes. Taking your money was not one of them.
seattle prattle wrote:
Ghost of Igloi wrote:
Hussman has been clear on his errors this cycle, unlike most analyst. He mistook the power of the Fed to disconnect cash flow from stock prices. For example, five years ago Apple net income was roughly the same when the stock was at $100 as today at $450. The forward multiple on Apple is double what it was a year ago. The disconnect in the remaining Tech mega caps is largely more distorted over that period. So clearly the annualized gain is more a factor of stock buybacks, corporate tax cut, and multiple expansion. Sure the growth rate of the mega cap tech businesses are better than 450 components of the S&P 500, but far below any time in history. Fed policies have driven the financialization of corporate America.
I would not consider these market moves anything other than an expression of the biggest bubble in our lifetime, and perhaps history. Hussman believes very little of that 21% annualized return is sustainable. I believe he has used the phrase “an interesting trip to nowhere.” I would assume a good portion of this will evaporate once investors realize that the Fed has no long term control over the business cycle, and their policies have been counterproductive, and in fact hurt most Americans.
Call it like it is. Somebody f'd up. Be a man and say it. They f'd up.
Here is the reality: whether you call it a bubble or the new normal, it has lasted 10 years if not more. Millionaires have been made, retired, and re-made in that time. Ten years. That's like a generation. The whole thing could have a massive correction (though it probably won't), and that will not change the fact that a generation of investors have reaped the benefits of a bull-market of a life time. Nothing can change that. Nothing.
Am I living in the twilight zone? The Boston Marathon weather was terrible!
Is there a rule against attaching a helium balloon to yourself while running a road race?
How rare is it to run a sub 5 minute mile AND bench press 225?
Move over Mark Coogan, Rojo and John Kellogg share their 3 favorite mile workouts
Matt Choi was drinking beer halfway through the Boston Marathon
Mark Coogan says that if you could only do 3 workouts as a 1500m runner you should do these