Down goes the Dow

swaglord the realeast wrote:

Iggy what’s your time horizon for your investments?

Hussmann has been wrong for a decade or two. That’s an entire era of economics that he’s been off.

Clearly he doesn’t understand that in a highly advanced world economy, why would capital need to cost that much? Technology is deflationary to counteract what would be an inflationary monetary policy.

I bought the Hussman fund because it aligns with my market view, not as a hedge.

I suppose buying back stock is deflationary, or perhaps pumping Trillions in monetary or fiscal stimulus is technology? It is a mirage that confuses your thinking. It’s fake, be it SPACs, Meme Stocks, used car prices, home prices, FANG, crypto, or bond prices. Transitory as the Fed and Janet says.

I don’t have a time horizon on my views. That said, clearly what has gone the past five years is unsustainable.

Igy

la gente esta muy loca wrote:

agip wrote:

I've said this before but it 'bears' repeating..,

there is a real need out there for bearish portfolios...that will hold their value or go up if the market tanks.

Hussman does that, and people trust that he won't throw in the towel and get bullish on them.

So he's not necessarily a failure even with that performance record....he's provided a hedging service for many people.

Where in the prospectus does it say HSGFX is a short bias fund?

it doesn't, but Hussman has let the world know through statements and performance that he won't be bullish until PEs are in the low teens and the Fed resolves not to provide liquidity to the economy.

Nice bounce back by Bitcoin and Tesla lately

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I bought the Hussman fund because it aligns with my market view, not as a hedge.

I give you credit for that. You’ve been pessimistic since you first posted here, so buying a fund that has lost hundreds of millions aligns well with your view.

Johannes wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

I bought the Hussman fund because it aligns with my market view, not as a hedge.

I give you credit for that. You’ve been pessimistic since you first posted here, so buying a fund that has lost hundreds of millions aligns well with your view.

What would you expect from greatest market bubble ever? So I give you credit for your common thought process.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Johannes wrote:

I give you credit for that. You’ve been pessimistic since you first posted here, so buying a fund that has lost hundreds of millions aligns well with your view.

What would you expect from greatest market bubble ever? So I give you credit for your common thought process.

I certainly wouldn’t expect funds to lose value.

I'm not sure if I can take much more of this...

Johannes wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

What would you expect from greatest market bubble ever? So I give you credit for your common thought process.

I certainly wouldn’t expect funds to lose value.

I wouldn’t expect a depreciating automobile to go up in value.

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

Johannes wrote:

I certainly wouldn’t expect funds to lose value.

I wouldn’t expect a depreciating automobile to go up in value.

You appear to not understand the concept of supply and demand.

You appear to not understand the concept of bubble.😷😂

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

You appear to not understand the concept of bubble.😷😂

So if the increase in the supply of money is a permanent thing (aka the government will never decrease the circulating money supply)... how exactly is this a bubble?

Let's just assume that there are 21 million bitcoins and no more can ever be created.

In this case, would you not want to own one of those? No matter how much fiat the government prints, you would still own 1 bitcoin. If the amount of value in the world increase, you still own 1 bitcoin. Thus the ratio of value to bitcoin increases, your bitcoin gets you a large piece of the human value pie.

Bitcoin > Hussmann

... and another pretty solid day in bubble land going into the close.

seattle prattle wrote:

... and another pretty solid day in bubble land going into the close.

“This is the longest period of practically uninterrupted rise in security prices in our history. The rise was more rapid than has ever been seen, and its speculative attraction influenced a larger part of the public than ever before. The psychological illusion upon which it was based, though not essentially new, has been stronger and more widespread than has ever been the case in this country in the past.

This illusion is summed up in the phrase ‘the new era’. The phrase itself is not new. Every period of speculation rediscovers it. During every preceding period of stock speculation and subsequent collapse business conditions have been discussed in the same unrealistic fashion as in recent years. There has been the same widespread idea that in some miraculous way, endlessly elaborated but never actually defined, the fundamental conditions and requirements of progress and prosperity have been changed, that old economic principles have been abrogated, that the country has entered upon a period of unprecedentedly easy and rapid expansion, that all economic problems have been solved, that industry has suddenly become more efficient than it ever was before, that prosperity has become universal, that production and trade have been growing at an exceptionally high and permanently accelerating rate, that business profits are destined to grow faster and without limit, and that the expansion of credit can have no end.”

– The Business Week, November 2, 1929

Swaglord_the_realest_!69 wrote:

Ghost of Igloi wrote:

You appear to not understand the concept of bubble.😷😂

So if the increase in the supply of money is a permanent thing (aka the government will never decrease the circulating money supply)... how exactly is this a bubble?

Let's just assume that there are 21 million bitcoins and no more can ever be created.

In this case, would you not want to own one of those? No matter how much fiat the government prints, you would still own 1 bitcoin. If the amount of value in the world increase, you still own 1 bitcoin. Thus the ratio of value to bitcoin increases, your bitcoin gets you a large piece of the human value pie.

Bitcoin > Hussmann

“On the subject of Bitcoin, my rather unpopular view hasn’t changed at all: Blockchain is a remarkable algorithm. Bitcoin is a limited-supply token generated by a replicable, low-bandwidth, wildly energy-inefficient blockchain app, with neither government fiat, physical convertibility, nor reserve requirements to compel its use, or to make it something other than an abstract numeraire. The value of any currency is essentially the discounted stream of services it is expected to provide as a medium of exchange and a store of wealth. That value relies on the willingness of a whole sequence of successive holders to accept the currency. It’s turtles all the way down. Ultimately, the confidence of those successive holders requires some feature – fiat or convertibility – to pin it to the real world, so it’s not entirely self-referential.

Thus far, the main use of these tokens outside of speculation seems to be for the purpose of exchanging the tokens themselves (which smacks of money laundering). The psychological value of these tokens seems to be largely based on the backward-looking sunk-cost of the energy wasted to “mine” them, by producing a validation hash (as “proof of work”) for a given block of transactions. Whoever produces that hash first gets paid. Everyone else’s computational “work” is completely wasted. It’s rather tragic from an environmental perspective, and I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if Bitcoin was actually a brainchild of the energy industry. There’s also a subtle Ponzi-like aspect in that once you own Bitcoin, you’ve got to participate in a future transaction block to get out, regardless of how much that future block costs to validate.

Still, even if a bubble is entirely self-referential, it doesn’t mean people who get in early can’t also obtain a transfer of wealth from some subsequent speculator before the bubble collapses. It’s just that everyone assumes it will be someone else. Give people a limited-supply object coupled with a speculative mindset, and Dutch tulips gonna Dutch tulip. I also hear that on the Neopets app, paintbrushes and unconverted Neopets are selling for over a million NeoPoints.”

—John Hussman

Okay, so let's get this straight.

Avoid the markets because "bubble".

Don't try to time the markets, Statistically, this is a losing strategy.

Investing in the stocks has historically been an effective form for wealth appreciation.

How long does one need to go before the question the first assertion about "bubble"?

SP,

I’m not sure I follow your recent posts so let me ask you a question. Do you think it’s impossible we are in a bubble, and instead that this time it is just different? I may be misreading your tone, but I get the sense you’re nit allowing for the possibility that markets might tank. Which would be just as extreme, but optimistic rather than pessimistic, as the view you get mad at Igy for espousing.

This is Igy 8 years ago warning all to exit the market. He missed out as the market has just about tripled since that time.

Klondike5 wrote:

Flagpole.

Enjoy the ride down.

Don't say you weren't warned.

Hussman might answer this way:

“In the end, the total return of the U.S. stock market lagged both Treasury bills and CPI inflation for 13 years following the 1905 market peak, 16 years following the 1929 peak, 18 years following the 1965 peak (actually more 20 years if one measures from Feb 1962 to Aug 1982), and 13 years following the 2000 peak. These very long, interesting trips to nowhere comprise at least 60 years within just over a century of data, and can be identified by one defining feature: extreme starting valuations.”

danube steak wrote:

This is Igy 8 years ago warning all to exit the market. He missed out as the market has just about tripled since that time.

Klondike5 wrote:

Flagpole.

Enjoy the ride down.

Don't say you weren't warned.

I am not that poster.