Obama and Bernanke are economic fools

[gwb72tii]

^^^ LOL
as i said, you are THE new investment guru. congrats on your smashing success on outperforming the emerging market bond index since the new year. YOU ARE DA MAN.

and this is a general note for others
there are lessons to be had from smart people, in life and on wall street. pay attention.
trying to outperform the market is a fools dream. there are literally a handfull of managers who have outperformed the s&p 500 index over time, and ALL of them have gone thru multiple consecutive years of underperformance, only to be right in the end. performance is a personal goal, only applicable to yourself. figure out where you're headed any why and then you can determine a rate of return needed on your investments. then you have a personal index to shoot for, not some made up wall street goal cramer on tv or rwh seems to think are important.

but again, rwh you're da man!

[rwh11385]

^^^ LOL
as i said, you are THE new investment guru. congrats on your smashing success on outperforming the emerging market bond index since the new year. YOU ARE DA MAN.

and this is a general note for others
there are lessons to be had from smart people, in life and on wall street. pay attention.
trying to outperform the market is a fools dream. there are literally a handfull of managers who have outperformed the s&p 500 index over time, and ALL of them have gone thru multiple consecutive years of underperformance, only to be right in the end. performance is a personal goal, only applicable to yourself. figure out where you're headed any why and then you can determine a rate of return needed on your investments. then you have a personal index to shoot for, not some made up wall street goal cramer on tv or rwh seems to think are important.

but again, rwh you're da man!

Are you saying I'm trying to outperform the market? I'm trying to capture the broad market in my investing, you are the one who picked the S&P500 as the metric in our bet. But I am showing that your focus on emerging market bonds isn't going so well this year. What you boasted about being the best asset for 5, 10, 15 years running (or whatever) isn't necessarily true going forward... but you live in the past instead of paying attention to reality now. If anything, I've consistently argued against trying to beat the market and you tried to hold to the belief that paying someone fees to attempt to is better.

Since outperforming the market is a ridiculous concept then why ever pay someone to decide your investments with active management? If they have many years of underperformance and then unpredictable good performance (which doesn't mean that next year will be good again either), then why ever believe some old angry man who promises they know more about the market than anyone else while making wrong calls time and again? Why put up with the put downs from someone like you George who has a fragile but huge ego and seeks out to bully people with bets about performance? (But then downplay performance when you are behind)

And weird how you now say only a handful have been the index over time, but previously said there were many.

yup, and many index funds lose to active, both on risk and return
i'll post up on the other thread later

you want a fast example?
Loomis Sayles Investment Grade bond fund vs the Vanguard s&p500 index fund, from 1998

Did you run out of funds to cherry pick with? Or is it the fact that winners you liked such as LIGAX are down 2% since mid-Dec?

Can you only post up examples of good performing funds AFTER the fact, after you change your mind to what you said you were in?



No comment on the large weekly inflow of money stocks after you dismissed such a notion? Was that not a swing of money into stocks instead of bonds?

[gwb72tii]

^^
Predictable response
You can lead a horse to water......

[StinkE30]

Thank God I have R3vlimited to teach me how to properly govern a global super power.

[rwh11385]

^^
Predictable response
You can lead a horse to water......

Nice non-answer to the wave of new money into stocks. And what did you expect if you tried to suggest I was trying to do something I repeatedly said I was against. Just because you can't remember what you've claimed doesn't mean I'm going to.


Let's reflect back on emerging market bonds to see how you denied any possibility of them being overvalued and instead of consider it, you said I was ignorant and bare assed.

So what? You are all-in with emerging market bonds and therefore assume that no other investment is worthy of competing with it for investment money? Seems rather close-minded.

So you are saying that emerging market bonds have beat every single kind of stock or any alternative investment on every single time period for the last 10 years?

And you want to extrapolate the results of one type of bonds to all bonds? You got to be shitting me. That's like looking at only one sector of stocks and saying that all stocks have returned the same.

And after saying you were scared about China's growth slowing and didn't like the US market because of it, what is the top country holding of JP Morgan's EM bond fund? Brazil. And what is their #1 export market? China. And then the US. And EU is big (20+%). But I guess that doesn't matter because you don't care when it's what your team tells you and not trying to attack an alternative.

Oh well, have fun with basing your entire investment strategy on emerging market bonds - with it being so popular and having many seeking them because of low yields on US treasuries and people still shy of the stock market, there's no chance of it being a bubble in your mind??

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/12/14/video-emerging-markets-bond-bubble/#axzz2FJdBgbd3

http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2012/12/31/winners-and-losers-of-2012-the-beyondbrics-emerging-markets-awards/#axzz2GxkejuJt

But were you wrong about S&P500 doing poorly this year?
Were you wrong about Q1 recession?
Does stating that emerging market bonds did well this year AFTER THE FACT change those assertions that you made?

Have fun when emerging market debt bubble pops.

this single statement to anyone in the investment community, or anyone that has studied the commodity business and china, would lay you bare as ignorant. LMAO

pants down? nope, you're bare ass naked.

this tops your earlier statement about the 90's being terrible for investing.

Okay. Enjoy your "incestuous circle jerk" in the investment community.

I might suggest thinking for yourself instead of simply repeating the groupthink in your office or reading only the conclusions you like online from permabear financial bloggers. Down 4% so far is pretty sad, but imagine if one of the countries or companies came under difficulty to repay its obligations since everyone assumes apparently they don't have any default risk anymore. I'm pretty sure anyone holding unfortunately those bonds would be the bare assed ones. Then again, who would try to beat the stock market with relying solely on the debt of the emerging markets?


In other news....

http://www.industryweek.com/global-economy/us-industrial-production-shows-broad-based-growth

US Industrial Production Shows Broad-Based Growth
Product was up 0.7% in February with durable goods increasing 1.2%.

Industrial production increased 0.7% in February after having been unchanged in January, the Federal Reserved reported on Friday.

Manufacturing output rose 0.8% in February, and the index revised up for the previous two months.

“After having fallen 0.3% in January, the manufacturing sector, which represents about three-quarters of the industrial production index, rebounded and was up 0.8%, which is 2% higher on a year-over-year basis,” noted Yingying Xu, economist for the Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation (MAPI).

“The growth was fairly broad-based,” she added, “with durable goods improving faster (1.2%) than nondurable goods (0.3%). The largest gain was in automobile products while the output of primary metals, textile and printing and support activities showed some decline.

“The robust manufacturing growth in February should be read with some caution,” Xu advised. “In large part it reflects improved consumer spending and the rebound in business equipment investment from January, which can both be volatile and easily impacted by the uncertainties of headwinds from the sequestration and the still highly uncertain path of government policy change.”

At 99.5% of its 2007 average, total industrial production in February was 2.5% above its level of a year earlier.

Let's hope the idiots in Congress don't screw it all up. Unless, of course, you are George and betting against the United States.

[rwh11385]

What's your take on this?

http://articles.marketwatch.com/2013-03-15/commentary/37726449_1_treasury-yields-bond-investors-rates-rise

Top bond fund managers batten down the hatches
Commentary: A ‘drip, drip, drip of misery’ for bond investors

If you’re one of the millions of Americans who poured money into bonds over the past five years and now are nervous that rates will rise, well, you’ve got company — the managers of the very funds in which you’ve invested.

Two managers of leading bond funds I spoke with have moved to protect their shareholders from what they view as a gathering storm. They have shortened maturities, lightened up on some overpriced sectors and have gone far afield — outside the U.S. — for decent yields with lower risk.

The problem, of course, is a three-decade-long rally in the bond markets, which has driven rates way down, combined with a Federal Reserve that has gone way beyond its usual rate-cutting toolbox by adding more than $2 trillion to its balance sheet. That helped push the 10-year Treasury note to its lowest yield ever—1.38% last July.

But while stocks have rallied, bond prices slipped and yields (which move in the opposite direction of prices) rose. On Wednesday, the ten-year yielded 2.02%, a big move from the lows.

And there may be many more rate increases to come.

“We’re at the end of a long-term run…,” said Thomas Carney, manager of the Weitz Short-Intermediate Income Investor fund (US:WSHNX) , which has $1.45 billion in assets. “If this is a baseball game, we’re in extra innings.”

And Matthew Eagan, who co-manages the giant $22.7-billion Loomis Sayles Bond fund (US:LSBRX) along with the legendary Dan Fuss, told me:

“We see us entering a period where rates are going to rise on a secular basis” — meaning a long-term change. And although it probably won’t look like Apocalypse Soon, Eagan sees a steady drip, drip, drip of misery ahead for bond investors.

That’s very bad news for people who loaded up on bonds without realizing they can actually lose money when rates rise.

Some bonds are more vulnerable to rate increases than others. That’s why I called Treasurys, Treasury Inflation Protected Securities and high-yield bonds the three most overvalued assets in this column last September.

Neither Carney nor Eagan is a big fan of Treasurys now. Investors have been losing money in Treasurys since July, Eagan told me. “These are bonds that are very sensitive to interest rate risk,” he said.

That leaves us with corporate bonds, whose yields also are — are you tired of hearing this? — coming off record lows as companies rushed to issue debt at historically cheap prices.

Or, just another thing to ignore and not consider?

[gwb72tii]

ok, i should have said "a handful of equity managers" have historically outperformed the S&P500 index.

and the prior quote your referrig to is out of context, which is a fave tactic of yours. and you know it. we were talking bonds vs stocks, asset allocation, and yes there are many, many that have outperformed the S&P500 over the last 15 years.

what you cannot handle is the fact you were wrong in your assertions regarding stocks versus bonds. and you're foolish for not being able to admit it.

and yes, LIGAX has outperformed, consistently, for 15 years running. as have many bond funds.

but, rwh, keep the faith, go long stocks, and keep looking for a job

[rwh11385]

ok, i should have said "a handful of equity managers" have historically outperformed the S&P500 index.

and the prior quote your referrig to is out of context, which is a fave tactic of yours. and you know it. we were talking bonds vs stocks, asset allocation, and yes there are many, many that have outperformed the S&P500 over the last 15 years.

what you cannot handle is the fact you were wrong in your assertions regarding stocks versus bonds. and you're foolish for not being able to admit it.

and yes, LIGAX has outperformed, consistently, for 15 years running. as have many bond funds.

but, rwh, keep the faith, go long stocks, and keep looking for a job

Maybe you should have specified and not try to cover up by trying to blame me. Talk what you said about trying to beat the market being foolish within an asset class, and how many managers consistently beat the market - why pay someone to attempt to do something foolish, as you said?

Edit: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...792607772.html

The Vanguard fund's outperformance could serve to reinforce the notion that index funds are the better bet for investors who might like to mitigate years with outsize underperformance. Typically speaking, an actively managed fund provides investors with the possibility of achieving better-than-market returns over the longer run but is often subject to a period of underperformance; an index, meanwhile, is managed to replicate the market and so shouldn't stray too far from the benchmark in up or down years.

That's basically what you just said, and what I've been saying for a while now. Yet you attempted to claim otherwise?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickferri/2012/08/20/index-fund-portfolios-reign-superior/

Again, talking about the last 15 years and a complete inability to talk about anything now. Worthless. And apparently choosing to completely ignore any intelligent discussion of the article I posted about that:

“We’re at the end of a long-term run…,” said Thomas Carney, manager of the Weitz Short-Intermediate Income Investor fund (US:WSHNX) , which has $1.45 billion in assets. “If this is a baseball game, we’re in extra innings.”

I don't need to look for a job, but if you keep up like you have you probably will need one. Your clients can fire you at any time if they don't like your results, right? Well, doesn't look so great with your rolling bad calls for the last year or so. Good luck but might plan for an early retirement. Do you know anyone that can manage your retirement account better than you know, you?

[gwb72tii]

oh rwh, where do i begin?
you're typical ranting, posting misleading quotes, circling back to cover your ignorant statements about markets, performance etc

why the S&P you ask? you brought it up in your latest attempt to make yourself look smart (which completely backfired) in post #28.

so your entire premise is to basically make yourself smarter than me about investing.
as they say, you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

and to make yourself look smart, you pull stats on a 2 month horizon. you win!!
but you completely ignore the FACT that something as simple as bonds have outperformed stocks on almost every other metric, and instead pull out of context quotes, circle back to alledge you were referencing a fund when in fact you had no fucking clue
this is how you argue. and it works for some, but i see thru you. your so smart you're stupid.
the fact is we've completely killed the stock market by not being in stocks!! wonder of wonder, there are other investments that actually do better than stocks. and no serious investor gives a shit about two month time horizons.
so now, go ahead and use your usual remarks like mutual fund saleman etc. i worked thru college in a boatyard. they guys there would laugh at you, as i do. you want to get under my skin? bring a lunch.
i just continue to be amazed that someone who graduated from a real university in economics (you did graduate right?) can continue to be so clueless. amazing.

[rwh11385]

oh rwh, where do i begin?
you're typical ranting, posting misleading quotes, circling back to cover your ignorant statements about markets, performance etc

why the S&P you ask? you brought it up in your latest attempt to make yourself look smart (which completely backfired) in post #28.

so your entire premise is to basically make yourself smarter than me about investing.
as they say, you can have your own opinions, but not your own facts.

and to make yourself look smart, you pull stats on a 2 month horizon. you win!!
but you completely ignore the FACT that something as simple as bonds have outperformed stocks on almost every other metric, and instead pull out of context quotes, circle back to alledge you were referencing a fund when in fact you had no fucking clue
this is how you argue. and it works for some, but i see thru you. your so smart you're stupid.
the fact is we've completely killed the stock market by not being in stocks!! wonder of wonder, there are other investments that actually do better than stocks. and no serious investor gives a shit about two month time horizons.
so now, go ahead and use your usual remarks like mutual fund saleman etc. i worked thru college in a boatyard. they guys there would laugh at you, as i do. you want to get under my skin? bring a lunch.
i just continue to be amazed that someone who graduated from a real university in economics (you did graduate right?) can continue to be so clueless. amazing.

George, you might as well begin at the beginning: My posting about facts on unemployment figures and you wanting to come into the thread and spew how sure of yourself you were that the economy was going to collapse and it was going to all be Obama's fault. You have repeatedly made bad calls and focused on defending your fragile ego and attempting to convince us that you matter at all.

You were the one who based the bet on the S&P500. Are you too senile to remember that? Or can only remember the current thread you are posting in?

No, my entire premise was to have an informed discussion about the economy based on facts and logic and you wanted to overpower that to make the focus about you in the original "unemployment" thread, because you believe you are the only person entitled to an opinion apparently. All threads that followed displayed your perchance to claim the economy ruined and then ignore any good news at all, because you are a close-minded and simple man.

Keep your bonds if you want, but I've tried to have a conservation about why you ignore or don't agree with WSJ and other sources that this year is going to be a struggle to get reasonable returns from bonds. Again, instead of discussing that, you make personal attacks and ignore the topic. If you assume they will perform the same as they have been, say that but don't revert to this ridiculousness that you always do.

With your spelling and grammar skills, it's surprising that you went to college at all. What did you study that has to talking down to everyone on a forum instead of wanting to discuss topics? By your use of the term "real university", I take it you went to community college? Regardless of education, people prove themselves with care for critical thinking and using facts, which you seem quite lacking. You can laugh in your own little world while ignoring reality, it doesn't mean anything besides you choose to think very highly of yourself regardless of the truth. Someone could be non-formally educated for all I care but base arguments on logic and reality and I'd value discussion like that, not this endless posting of biased and baseless rants like you always do.

As much as you say you are laughing, or try to boast about past successes, you undeniably include a lot of grudges against education, intelligence, and economists. This apparent deep-seeded resentment make you seem sad and insecure under the surface of pride and/or angry and tell us a lot about you. You build strawmen and assume to battle imaginary foes instead of facing reality and having a meaningful conservation. You make fun of economists, yet rely on them repeatedly as well as have them do your real job for you, while you just repeat what they tell you in a re-assuring voice to the client. Maybe you ought to reconsider why you attempt to prove yourself (and fail) instead of getting upset and attacking, then after you can actually discuss topics in an intellectual manner - which is what the section is for... not your opinionated rants.

[gwb72tii]

1. you haven't tried to have any conversation rwh. you've tried to make yourself look smarter than me, and in the process made yourself look for who you are, someone that believes herself to be smarter than anyone else. the only one i've talked down to on this subject is you, because sometimes you deserve it.
2. i haven't boasted about any past success. i've shared performance figures. i don't care about outperforming you or anyone else. you apparently care about outperforming anything i care to post on.
3. the bet was the bet, nothing more. to have a bet you need a benchmark which is what the s&p 500 index is. you tried (vainly) in post 28 to resurrect the belief you're smart based on 2 months of performance. as i said, YOU"RE DA FUCKING MAN DUDE. YOU GOT ME.

the smartest economists i pay attention to admit they really don't know much. they're brilliant but they are rarely correct. economics is a science in motion.
you'll figure it out someday, if you're smart, that its ok to not be right all the time. and clients you charge for your opinion will like you for admitting it.
economics is opinion. it is not settled (wow, just like global warming) science.
and asset management is exactly the same thing. all alnyone can do is make their best educated guess on what they should do for the next year.

and yes, i can't spell (actually i can but i can't type). YOU"RE DA MAN on this point also.

[rwh11385]

1. you haven't tried to have any conversation rwh. you've tried to make yourself look smarter than me, and in the process made yourself look for who you are, someone that believes herself to be smarter than anyone else. the only one i've talked down to on this subject is you, because sometimes you deserve it.

George, have you ever considered that you getting as huffy as you do when someone disagrees with you is because you are overly sensitive and defensive about your intelligence? The way you act, with your appeal to authority instead of to facts or logic or reason, leads people to believe that you have built this ego in order to protect your fragile self-esteem. Sure, you boast big but also act angry when things don't go your way.

And 'herself'? Shit's weak bro. I expect such from a middle school playground, not a 58 or 59 year old.

2. i haven't boasted about any past success. i've shared performance figures. i don't care about outperforming you or anyone else. you apparently care about outperforming anything i care to post on.

For someone who supposedly doesn't care about outperforming anyone, yet seem to post about it A LOT. [At least you used to when you were, or talking about when you were, but now say you don't care...]

as i see it, so far i'm right. we bet at s&p 1369 if i remember correctly. today the s&p is 1310. i said i'd rather own bonds because they offer a better return potential, rwh said i was stupid, and guess what? bonds have killed stocks YTD, as they did in 2011.

am i lagging for the last two months. sure, on that one fund. congrats, you're THE man!!
am i lagging for 12 months? 24? 36? 48? 60? 120? 180? nope, you are, but you just cannot admit it. YOU ARE, any way you want to look at it.

So you like to post funds to show your supposed prowess, after the fact, and disregard any article from WSJ or others that may question if they will continue to perform the same - and then don't expect someone to point out that what you ignored turned out to be true? You have an intellectual blind spot created by your hubris. Which I've been saying from the start - you only believe people who think like you and that makes you disassociated with reality.

3. the bet was the bet, nothing more. to have a bet you need a benchmark which is what the s&p 500 index is. you tried (vainly) in post 28 to resurrect the belief you're smart based on 2 months of performance. as i said, YOU"RE DA FUCKING MAN DUDE. YOU GOT ME.

Your bet was an attempt to bully people into silence so you could be the only person who could talk about the economy.

i know rwh, let's make another bet just like the one we have now, $100 to charity of the winner's choice

and kershaw, if you have the courage, i'll bet you also

i say by the end of summer, just like our bet the market will be lower by the end of summer, that the good 'ol USA economy will be in recession.

at least you'll both get a tax deduction, altho a tax deduction from a 10% bracket ain't much

I hope you understand that trying to jump down people's throats with additional bets doesn't actually support your argument if everyone thinks you're wrong.

the smartest economists i pay attention to admit they really don't know much. they're brilliant but they are rarely correct. economics is a science in motion.
you'll figure it out someday, if you're smart, that its ok to not be right all the time. and clients you charge for your opinion will like you for admitting it.
economics is opinion. it is not settled (wow, just like global warming) science.
and asset management is exactly the same thing. all alnyone can do is make their best educated guess on what they should do for the next year.

and yes, i can't spell (actually i can but i can't type). YOU"RE DA MAN on this point also.

You say this, and yet... you have acted that what Hussman or Achuthan said proved where the economy was heading. (And that no other future was possible) And Achuthan's complete and utter inability to admit his call was wrong removes all credibility.

January 2012:

i'll tell you right now our economy is starting to enter a new recession, so you're right that its not a double dip, its a new one on its own

I know you must be fine with not being right (since you've been wrong so many times recently, like this thread) but there's a difference between that and ignoring truth and reality in favor of arguing based on a warped personal world that you operate within. Maybe consider that before making claims like the OP of this thread. The way you promise that you know better than everyone else, attempt to intimidate them with bets, your appeal to authority instead of use of logic, your childishness, and inability to answer basic questions you choose to ignore but pertain to your statements leave people with distrust of your words. I have no idea how you trick clients into listening to you. (Maybe they are RWNJ's too and buy into that "OBAMA IS THE DEVIL SO LET ME BUY MUTUAL FUNDS FOR YOU" speech)

Note to self - Self, do not take GWB's word at face value.

Fundamentally, you should let your words echo in your head: "all alnyone can do is make their best educated guess on what they should do for the next year." Is reading ZeroHedge religiously and ignoring articles in WSJ about bond's 2013 potentially not being as strong really providing an educated guess for you? With an office of people around you and a team of economists in-house to tell you want to think, are you really doing yourself... or more importantly your clients... any favors by biasing your outlook with some loony who was banned from trading securities and wants to see the Dow crash to zero?

[gwb72tii]

ok you win
even though arguing with you is like having an argument with a teenage jilted girl. you're never wrong, you change subjects/pull in out of contect quotes, and continue to argue no matter the facts even when they prove you're wrong

but you win

because YOU"RE DA MAN

on a two month time horizon

[gwb72tii]

hey rwh, just wondering what your take is on the recent soft economic data
seriously, not a gotcha question

[rwh11385]

hey rwh, just wondering what your take is on the recent soft economic data
seriously, not a gotcha question

Disappointing but not shocking. Some people got geared up for a boom recovery and perhaps ignored important challenges like sequester upsetting the "we survived the fiscal cliff" momentum. At some point it was going to catch up with the surprising good news we had experience Jan and Feb.

Obviously there are headwinds from the sequester cuts and will be government direct and contractor job losses, but hopefully that won't upset the recovery. It's like Congress (especially the GOP) is trying to do their best effort to trash the economy. However, if they get their shit together and work on the budget and debt ceiling without waiting until the last minute, the country might be on a better path. The GOP should focus on mandatory spending which the sequester ignored entirely as well as reform for medical malpractice lawsuits.

We were warned of the impacts of sequester on jobs yet some seemed to ignore or joke about those fears. The housing recovery and professional services + healthcare job improvements can only go so far. But still the overall situation is not as horrible as some would want others to believe. (Like David Stockman's cranky rant - http://theweek.com/article/index/242...new-york-times)

Ultimately, government has to set a reasonable budget and work to reduce the deficit, and get out of the way. Government should support basic research that will support tomorrow's industry and our technological advantage (like it did with GPS and the internet), but we also need worker's trained and educated to not only empower their success but that of the country's. Re-structuring the labor force to current skill demands (especially the stubborn people) will take time, as will private industry and non-profits replacing tasks currently being done by the government. And we MUST worry about the growing costs of mandatory spending and the effects of retiring baby boomers on the economy and participation rate, etc. The sequester ignored all this for a short-run band-aid.

It'll be intriguing to see if it was a momentary hiccup or signs of continued influence of stupidity of Congress. Or if Congress will make smarter cuts and a mature budget agreement. If government continues to tighten its belt for better or for worse (in its means) and the private economy grows (even at just over 2%) then a thinner slice of the economy will be dictated (and rely) on government. If we continue to control our own energy more and more, we'll be less dependent on others and work on our trade imbalance. If we continue our medical research and slow the growth in healthcare costs, the government will save a lot of money. And then we can be a stronger nation with sustainable growth instead of the credit-fueled, cheap oil-needing, house-bubbled, helicopter parents telling their kids they'll be winners regardless of whether or not they acquire proper skills to support that, spending more than we made growth of a decade ago.