Obama and Bernanke are economic fools

[rwh11385]

bobby, you're tying yourself in knots trying to validate a falsehood that somehow, if you post enough numbers and data, you can fool someone that stocks have outperformed bonds since 1998, that emerging market bonds are somehow terrible because of a 5 month window of undeperformance, and that you're smart.

the only person fooled so far is................................................ ..you

Yeah... some people like supporting their views with data and facts, not just posting crazed and biased opinions. This thread was primarily about the economy right now, yet you are reflecting about bonds vs. stocks since 1998??

I guess you already forgot that you just said this:

and i also want to congratulate you on your amazing (for you) epiphany that investing is about the future, not the past, and where prospective gains will come from, not where they came from

At least you can admit that they are dismally underperforming after you being obsessed with them last year.

Speaking of the economy now instead of the past:
Existing home sales at 3 year high (up 9.7% from a year ago)
Median home prices up 11% from a year ago
Initial claims are back down, 4-week average: 339,500
New home prices up and new home sales up 29% from a year ago
The Big Three Automakers are cutting down July shutdown to meet production needs


Maybe you can return to being a grown-up like you did in a single post in this entire thread and talk about reality, perhaps finally talk about Reinhart and Rogoff being the real economic fools.

[gwb72tii]

because you keep bring up how stocks is where its at, all the time
and yes bob, not all economic data is bad, it NEVER is. but if you cannot admit the global macro view is CLEARLY slowing, well then you're not honest, are you?

and guess what my over-inflated ego friend, i don't obsess about any investments. i frankly don't care where we make returns, but we are VERY particular about where we place money and relevant risks if we're wrong about our assumptions looking forward for the next 12 months.

you weren't old enough to realize what returns were in the 90's, what opinions were at the end of the 18yr bull market, how stocks COULD NOT MISS, wive's opening Ameritrade accounts, the stock market was going to return 20%+ for the next 10yrs etc etc. similar to what you see today, if you care to look.
you would have been on the stock bandwagon they way you talk about the rosy picture, even when in 1999 the market was 4 standard deviations above its mean p/e.

today, profit margins are 70% above their mean. care to explain to everyone here just exactly what tech has been invented that makes current margins permanent? even when productivity is negative? care to have an opinion what happens to earnings forecasts when profit margins revert to their mean? or better yet, when they undershoot their mean?

so go for it dude!! lever up, go on margin, or better yet buy some of the 3X ETF's, then you can really make some serious change.

[rwh11385]

because you keep bring up how stocks is where its at, all the time

No, all this started when I commented on the unemployment rate decreasing and you turned it into you trying to show off that you knew what the economy was going to do because you sold mutual funds and then twisted it into a tirade about how horrible stocks were going to do and that bonds were king for so many years. And instead of talking about data or discussing the actual subject of the economy, you assumed Obama was my messiah and posted unsupported views with a refusal to have a logical discussion. Perhaps you should act your age George.

And guess what? Even when you swore 2012 Q1 was the start of a recession, told us that stocks were going to do horrible because of Hussman's logit regression.... it didn't happen. XX years of bond results don't predict the future, yet you kept repeating that same thing. I mentioned it this year since the results YTD demonstrated your argument based on prior returns had failed you.

and yes bob, not all economic data is bad, it NEVER is. but if you cannot admit the global macro view is CLEARLY slowing, well then you're not honest, are you?

That's not a valid argument, it's a logical fallacy - appeal to common sense. Instead of supporting your argument with data or information, you say that it clearly must be slowing.

You never responded to this outlook on global macro view:

You said you read Economist regularly, right? Did you see this?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph...omistft-survey

That could have been a point of discussion instead of your logical fallacy.

What about OECD leading indicators? http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...94D0CL20130514

The economic outlook in major industrialized nations is improving, led by firming growth in the United States and Japan, the OECD said on Tuesday.

The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said its latest monthly leading indicator for the OECD as a whole rose to 100.5 in March from 100.4 in February.

The reading flagged "growth gaining momentum" across the 33 countries covered by the OECD's composite leading indicator

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-conference-board-leading-economic-index-lei-for-germany-increases-208617701.html

BRUSSELS, May 23, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for Germany increased 0.3 percent in March to 103.9 (2004 = 100), following a 0.3 percent increase in February, and a 0.4 percent increase in January.
At the same time, The Conference Board Coincident Economic Index® (CEI) for Germany, a measure of current economic activity, increased 0.2 percent in March to 107.3 (2004 = 100), following no change in February, and a 0.4 percent increase in January.

Who would have thought of using data to support such an outlook instead of just an opinion or fallacy?

and guess what my over-inflated ego friend, i don't obsess about any investments. i frankly don't care where we make returns, but we are VERY particular about where we place money and relevant risks if we're wrong about our assumptions looking forward for the next 12 months.

George, you are the one with the massive ego and couldn't handle anyone else having an economic opinion.

Are your clients making any positive returns at all (after fund expenses and your % of assets managed taken)? These bond indexes returns seem very sad: http://news.morningstar.com/index/indexReturn.html

I've asked what you thought about risks to bonds, emerging market debt, etc. and repeatedly you seemed pretty much apt to ignore any. Do you actually consider them? Do you actually question your assumptions? (And just post here as if there is no possibility of your being wrong, like you were last year with "telling you right now we are entering a recession")

you weren't old enough to realize what returns were in the 90's, what opinions were at the end of the 18yr bull market, how stocks COULD NOT MISS, wive's opening Ameritrade accounts, the stock market was going to return 20%+ for the next 10yrs etc etc. similar to what you see today, if you care to look.
you would have been on the stock bandwagon they way you talk about the rosy picture, even when in 1999 the market was 4 standard deviations above its mean p/e.

No, you just weren't quick enough to pick up on the sarcasm highlighting how your treasury bond yield theory was completely bunk in the 90s. But as usual, you read anything how you want it to read instead of actually considering reality.

I'm pretty sure not that many wives are out there daytrading, as the link to Gallup I posted showed a ton of Americans are still not invested in the market.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/162353/st...ecord-low.aspx

This is why you look at data instead of just throwing out assumptions...

Do you REALLY think that people aren't aware of risks right now and think that the stock market can't possibly miss? Like, really?? Or are you just saying jibberish to make a ridiculous argument?

Stock market bandwagon? I think I was more hipster than that and invested in when people still thought the sky was falling, before it was cool. When others were rushing out ( Oct '08 ), I was opening a Scottrade account and buying AZO. “We simply attempt to be fearful when others are greedy and to be greedy only when others are fearful.” And it has paid off, like riding the recovery. More people are bullish than in the chicken little days and I'm putting my money outside my 401k into my house, not the market. If things are like this when I sell it, I'll probably look at being heavier in VEU than I was in the past with my three fund approach.

today, profit margins are 70% above their mean. care to explain to everyone here just exactly what tech has been invented that makes current margins permanent? even when productivity is negative? care to have an opinion what happens to earnings forecasts when profit margins revert to their mean? or better yet, when they undershoot their mean?

At least you are actually discussing a topic instead of just bashing your head into the keyboard repeatedly. I could say yadda yadda about managing costs (not hiring that making people and having a skeleton crew), talk about more and more automation, or refer to Dan Suzuki's or David Bianco's ideas of lower interest expense and lower tax expenses.

But I like this chart best:


Look at all of the multi-national companies that are publicly traded. Does their profits over the US GDP alone represent all of the big picture?

What about this one... ?

http://ideas.repec.org/p/btx/wpaper/0926.html

Since 1996 the foreign share of U.S. multinational corporations’ worldwide income has risen sharply. For example, in a sample of large nonfinancial MNCs, the aggregate foreign share increased from 37.1 percent in 1996 to 51.1 percent in 2004.

Hmmm, that doesn't seem too crazy. REMEMBER - it is not Hussman's job to have you see a balanced picture of reality nor understand when the basis might be misleading, but rather it is to have you buy into his defensive fund. Always beware the promises of a salesman.

so go for it dude!! lever up, go on margin, or better yet buy some of the 3X ETF's, then you can really make some serious change.

Yeah... no. Why do you assume just because I haven't shunned stocks like you have that I must be insane? Do you not realize that your client's investment lifecycle is drastically different than those a generation or two younger than you? Or are you just too focused on your perspective that you are unable or unwilling to consider someone else's?

btw, I actually went more conservative bumping my target date fund ahead a decade to hold more bonds in April after the sequester stupidity happened and pleasantly surprised that the manufacturing and jobless claims data hasn't been as choppy as I was fearing we'd get after shooting ourselves in the foot. (This was the opposite direction from the start of the year after avoiding the fiscal cliff when I changed to a fund with a later date) The growth since April has been a welcome outcome but the most important thing is needing better returns than bonds have had this year and being young enough to be okay with the risk. As I've said, the biggest risk is not building a nest egg / wealth in the first place. Your philosophy is dramatically different, but that doesn't mean your bias towards protection will make the market more dangerous. And instead of explaining your outlooks on good data and arguing with logic and reason, you attack and use logical fallacies.

[Farbin Kaiber]

Any thoughts on Mr. Bernanke being replaced in August?

[rwh11385]

Any thoughts on Mr. Bernanke being replaced in August?

There will be someone different people will complain about.

It'll be interesting to see who takes his spot and what their mentality with be, but I expect some uncertainty until that is understood. The biggest thing will be how they as a collective decide to ratchet down QE and how the markets react to the Catch-22 of if the economy is doing well then the juice is reduced and that's sad for Wall Streeters. However, I'd focus on the job reports to have 200K for six months or whatever the standard is instead of the ironic negative ramifications of a stronger economy.

[gwb72tii]

so, no answer to world global growth slowing. change the subject. typical.
and no answer to bonds outperforming. change the subject. typical.
wet behind the ears and too young and "smart" to know it. bad combo for taking risk.
you will have your ass handed to you at some juncture. on a silver plate. with all the trimmings.
and then you can join obama's economy and leave your mom's home by working 29 hours a week and getting food stamps.

and with big ben leaving, there will be no change to fed policy.

and for anyone smart enough to look at his legacy, here it is in a nutshell.
under his watch and obama's, the federal debt has ballooned from 10 trillion to 17 trillion, we have a GDP at 2% and slowing, we have record high food stamps, record high Soc Sec disability payments, we have a multiyear low workforce participation rate, and all you youngsters get to pay off his legacy. the federal debt.
it has to be paid, and there will be pain, there is no easy way out and no magic carpet ride to the next 18 year secular bull market.

in fact, what he's done, at best, is transfer wealth from the poor to the rich, and at best guaranteed slower future growth in for the next 15 years or more.
big ben is partly responsible for japan's lost 20 years, with deflation, no growth, and sub 1% bond yields with a stock market that lost about 70% of its value. because they did QE, a lot, after big ben wrote to the bank of japan urging them to do the keynesian thing. over and over and over.

and it has not worked economically.

and now big ben has us going down the same highway.

but hey, our stock market is up. chill.

so hey, mr robert, what is the probability of the market going up when its two standard deviations above the mean. i know you can find a chart, right?

[rwh11385]

so, no answer to world global growth slowing. change the subject. typical.
and no answer to bonds outperforming. change the subject. typical.
wet behind the ears and too young and "smart" to know it. bad combo for taking risk.
you will have your ass handed to you at some juncture. on a silver plate. with all the trimmings. and it could not happen to a nicer guy.

Um... can you not read?

and yes bob, not all economic data is bad, it NEVER is. but if you cannot admit the global macro view is CLEARLY slowing, well then you're not honest, are you?

That's not a valid argument, it's a logical fallacy - appeal to common sense. Instead of supporting your argument with data or information, you say that it clearly must be slowing.

You never responded to this outlook on global macro view:

You said you read Economist regularly, right? Did you see this?
http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph...omistft-survey

That could have been a point of discussion instead of your logical fallacy.

What about OECD leading indicators? http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...94D0CL20130514

The economic outlook in major industrialized nations is improving, led by firming growth in the United States and Japan, the OECD said on Tuesday.

The Paris-based Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development said its latest monthly leading indicator for the OECD as a whole rose to 100.5 in March from 100.4 in February.

The reading flagged "growth gaining momentum" across the 33 countries covered by the OECD's composite leading indicator

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-conference-board-leading-economic-index-lei-for-germany-increases-208617701.html

BRUSSELS, May 23, 2013 /PRNewswire/ -- The Conference Board Leading Economic Index® (LEI) for Germany increased 0.3 percent in March to 103.9 (2004 = 100), following a 0.3 percent increase in February, and a 0.4 percent increase in January.
At the same time, The Conference Board Coincident Economic Index® (CEI) for Germany, a measure of current economic activity, increased 0.2 percent in March to 107.3 (2004 = 100), following no change in February, and a 0.4 percent increase in January.

Who would have thought of using data to support such an outlook instead of just an opinion or fallacy?

No, all this started when I commented on the unemployment rate decreasing and you turned it into you trying to show off that you knew what the economy was going to do because you sold mutual funds and then twisted it into a tirade about how horrible stocks were going to do and that bonds were king for so many years. And instead of talking about data or discussing the actual subject of the economy, you assumed Obama was my messiah and posted unsupported views with a refusal to have a logical discussion. Perhaps you should act your age George.

And guess what? Even when you swore 2012 Q1 was the start of a recession, told us that stocks were going to do horrible because of Hussman's logit regression.... it didn't happen. XX years of bond results don't predict the future, yet you kept repeating that same thing. I mentioned it this year since the results YTD demonstrated your argument based on prior returns had failed you.

The answer to your repeated comments about past bond performance is quoting your statements about what matters is future returns, not the past... or can you not remember when you wrote that?

Do you simply ignore when I refute your points to protect your ego or some sort of extreme confirmation bias?

[gwb72tii]

and it is hilarious that you judge success on a 4 month time frame, and in the past you've pulled this trick many times, only to then change the time frame to suit your argument and then say i'm wrong again.

so bobbie socks, WTF is you relevant time frame for judging your investment prowess??
give me a time frame since you can't make up your freaking mind

and as i have already admitted, my mistake on stocks is that they would actually follow fundamentals, which anyone already knows (consensus) that stocks and fundamentals parted ways a long time ago.

[rwh11385]

you just cannot admit you're wrong, which is also typical of the young and "smart".
you're a deserving guy

Um, coming from the guy who can't admit he is incapable of reading. And doesn't respond to actual data refuting his opinion after he fires and forgets biased opinion.

and then you can join obama's economy and leave your mom's home by working 29 hours a week and getting food stamps.

And a swing and a miss...

I'm putting my money outside my 401k into my house, not the market.

When your arguments fail, just go for the personal attacks based on your assumptions, eh George? How middle school of you.

so hey, mr robert, what is the probability of the market going up when its two standard deviations above the mean. i know you can find a chart, right?

Good question, but I don't believe that a chart in itself produces a probability. A chart is a chart, not a statistical analysis. http://www.math.ucsd.edu/~politis/PAPER/VolBandsJTA.pdf

Furthermore, the notion of volatility bands (Bollinger bands) has been found useful in applied work. It is important to note, though, that the usual volatility bands do not have predictive validity; see e.g. Bollinger (2001). Similarly, no claim can be made that a desired percentage of points fall within the Bollinger bands.

Perhaps you could find statistical analysis that Bollinger bands have predictive validity.

and it is hilarious that you judge success on a 4 month time frame, and in the past you've pulled this trick many times, only to then change the time frame to suit your argument and then say i'm wrong again.

It's troubling that you don't care about losing your client's money. When did I pull said trick? Don't just make empty claims. As you said:

please POINT IT OUT, or STFU

You're the one who celebrated every day you were up in our bet, then go quiet while behind, speculate on an assumption 2012 would end poorly, and then attempt to say it was stupid and never mattered.

besides, so far i'm right and you're wrong ha ha

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.

You know there's still 3.75 months left right? I wasn't celebrating when the S&P was up 36 points May 1st, yet you are already patting yourself on the back?

Yeah, see - I can back up factual statements with facts.

so bobbie socks, WTF is you relevant time frame for judging your investment prowess??
give me a time frame since you can't make up your freaking mind

Depends on the investment. Saving money or a big purchase, the time frame is when I want to make that purchase. At some point, need to start a 529 investment with just over a dozen year time frame. Retirement, that's several decades off.

and as i have already admitted, my mistake on stocks is that they would actually follow fundamentals, which anyone already knows (consensus) that stocks and fundamentals parted ways a long time ago.

"which anyone already knows (consensus)" = Appeal to Popularity logical fallacy

[gwb72tii]

see if anyone can spot a trend











and this one is of particular interest. it shows corporate earnings still in positive growth, at a reduced pace, but also in a market where corporations have been using excess free cash flow to buy back shares, so the EBITA numbers are calculated on fewer shares today than at the peak in 2011



and i won't bore anyone here with economic charts from the Eurozone (largest economy in the world) as it is mired in a deepening recession.

[gwb72tii]

but hey, the S&P500 is up, why worry?

Good question, there has to be a flash point to start a correction, something unexpected or emotional that's creates enough concern to cause hedge funds and institutions to sell.

Well, the Euro crisis is not over, it was kicked down the road, and at some point the can will come to rest against a wall where it cannot be kicked any further.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-05-24/rout-spain

and robert, zero hedge is a news aggregator, as is NBC, CBS, Fox and Drudge. The story is from Mark Grant, not Tyler, so give it a rest please.

[Fusion]

[rwh11385]

see if anyone can spot a trend

Yeah, stalled business investment in 2012. What was going on that year - was there a bit of uncertainty? Oh - you say the idiots in Congress brought the country to (and over for a day) the brink of default and taxmageddon because they couldn't act like grownups and resolve their differences?

and i won't bore anyone here with economic charts from the Eurozone (largest economy in the world) as it is mired in a deepening recession.

Deepening? The shrinking 2013 Q1 was much smaller than 2012 Q4.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/470898/20130524/germany-gdp-economy-gfk-consumer-climate-index.htm

Germany's Q1 GDP Growth Edges Up on Private Consumption

GDP in the region fell 0.2% in the first three months, the sixth straight quarterly decline, after contracting 0.6% in the previous quarter.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/apr/25/uk-avoid-triple-dip-recession-gdp-growth

UK avoids triple-dip recession with better-than-expected 0.3% GDP growth


Germany and UK are the #4 and #6 largest economies, yet you'd rather focus on Spain (#13)?

I'd really like to know how the EU would be doing if the austerity craze didn't get kicked off by two economic fools and their infamous Excel error.

[rwh11385]

but hey, the S&P500 is up, why worry?

George, it's quite obvious when you don't have an argument when you begin stuffing a strawman to do battle with instead of actually caring to discuss the topic at hand. I've tried to talk about the real issues but you time and again want to blame all of the world's problems on Obama and Bernanke in your simplistic view.

Here's the real cause of concern, not the economy temporarily contracting in 2012 Q4 before it was revised upwards (although you didn't even follow your own previous statement about not making conclusions about GDP numbers because they are prone to revision):

Big if's remain about what government and the country will do about its growing retired population and young people finding careers, especially since education is important and Gen Y's parents encouraged them towards any degree and away from technical skills (even if they are in demand now). Our education systems need work - particularly re: dropouts, need to be more like the Germans. Our healthcare costs too much and that drives deficits. We are projected to meet our own energy demand in the future, which was the hopes and dreams of GWB - decrease our dependence on foreign oil. We can choose as well to put aside the stupid conflicts from our two party system and work to make America better, or can bitch and moan like a lot of people do.

...

Instead of taking a shotgun to spending using a plan that was intended to be so bad that people would have to grow up and compromise, we should find savings in things that really are redundant or wasteful, be smarter about how government operates, have organizations help people up out of welfare programs with success, improve further the HS graduation rates, promote technical schools as well as colleges, inform kids of the solid careers for the future, support research and development, get our nation healthier through work wellness programs or just common sense, fix medical malpractice defense habit of running unnecessary tests through reform, have a more efficient military that is sustainable, etc. etc.

Or people could still act like idiots and we get to keep seeing if Congress can make the deadline before government shutdown every few months, without actually having the guts to deal with the actual needed reforms - making mandatory spending solvent rather than complaining about tiny discretionary aspects. But standing up to the AARP is scary to politicians since old people are reliable voters.

A complete lack of reasoning ability like yours is the real truth of why we've been being pulled down by Congress who act like you and can't solidify a plan and keep the country waiting to see if we'll default. And now that the deficit is decreasing faster than expected, the timeline until we're screw is longer so they decide that there's no rush to make a bargain and let the country move on. Again, they've also only focused on making across-the-board cuts now while ignoring the real issue of rising costs of mandatory spending down the line. And the whole rush of cutting deficits (which are largely caused by a loss of revenue from the recession) during a time of recovery was two economic fools and their Excel error.

Good question, there has to be a flash point to start a correction, something unexpected or emotional that's creates enough concern to cause hedge funds and institutions to sell.

And in your view, that correction can only possibly happen to stocks and not your previous bonds and more specifically emerging market debt?

What are you going to do George when what you were raving about last year doesn't get your clients where they want to be any longer?



Yep, that's losing your client's money (after the fund's and your fees) - which is the thing you said they hated the most. That fund which you have to have a million dollars to buy into won't prevent your blindness to a potential downside of the asset class if you outright choose to ignore the possibility like you did and laugh it off as outrageous.

And EMBI is much worse off.

What trend do you see here?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324310104578511030610025350.html

U.S. Treasurys Get Battered

Surging house prices fueled the largest selloff in U.S. Treasury bonds in 10 months, signaling growing investor optimism about the economy.

The flight from Treasurys reflects fears that investors holding fixed-income securities issued at low interest rates could face losses in coming years when interest rates start to rise.

and robert, zero hedge is a news aggregator, as is NBC, CBS, Fox and Drudge. The story is from Mark Grant, not Tyler, so give it a rest please.

Thank you for re-affirming you do not understand the point. Fox News only shares stores that align with their views or presents them in a biased way. The results of this is that their viewers are less informed than people who do not watch news at all. Drudge is even worse and caters to tin foil hatters like yourself.

Imagine for a second if someone tried to argue with you by only posting opinion or news shared on Daily Kos or The New Republic. The conclusions from the same points of data would be different - much like the views of Tyler interpret information much differently than WSJ or Economist or other sources. Everything is a conspiracy for him and he instantly accepts and highlights bad news while denying or ignoring good news. This can create a problem even when he only is re-posting information without commentary, because there is a factor of filtering that you suffer because you clearly limit your consumption of news from any other source these days. All he has to do is focus his posts on negative opinions and negative data while never caring to follow up with the same data source if it were the opposite. You are limited in your understanding or view by the blinders than Tyler puts on you. This is you dining from a trough of a man who wants to see the Dow reset to Zero and is out there cherry picking news bits to support that opinion, instead of aggregating reality.

I take WSJ with a pinch of salt because of their bias, Heritage with a handful, but the conclusions or comments of ZH come with a 40lb bag of Morton's. It'd be one thing if you strictly used it as a source to find interesting and different views while taking into considering the poor credibility of Tyler and his bias. But you don't - you parrot his conclusions, share his misleading data manipulation, and don't seem to read anything else.

[rwh11385]

It's been a choppy week and everyone is and has been looking ahead to tomorrow morning.

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/06/06/5-things-to-know-ahead-of-jobs-report/

5 Things to Know Ahead of Jobs Report

1. Hiring hasn’t been spectacular lately, but the job market is cruising along at a speed noticeably faster than last year—a good sign for the economy.
2. For what it’s worth, the number of Americans filing first-time claims for unemployment insurance—a gauge of layoffs—has been improving.
3. Consumers are feeling better about the economy, a trend that appears to be fueling job growth in consumer-related parts of the private sector.
4. It isn’t clear the sequester—those across-the-board federal budget cuts—will hurt job growth significantly in May.
5. Imagine, conversely, how healthy the job market would be if America weren’t in the middle of fiscal tightening and a global growth slowdown. The U.S. job market has done admirably well given the nation’s fiscal policy is muffling economic growth through higher taxes and government cutbacks. That suggests that when the weight lifts, things could get measurably better—perhaps in the second half of this year and in 2014.

Also interesting: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/0...been-defeated/
Has the Deficit Monster Been Defeated?


However, this is the most interesting thing I've read today - http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...s-since-1992-1
U.S. Bond Funds Suffer Second-Biggest Redemptions Since 1992

U.S. bond funds suffered their second-worst weekly withdrawals in more than two decades after global bond markets slumped in May.

Investors pulled $9.1 billion from fixed-income mutual funds and exchange-traded funds in the week through June 5, Denver-based Lipper said today in an e-mailed statement. That’s the second-biggest redemptions for a week since the company started tracking the data in 1992. Corporate high-yield mutual funds saw redemptions of $3.2 billion during the period, Lipper said, the largest weekly withdrawal on record.

Global bond markets posted their biggest monthly losses in nine years in May as the U.S. dollar rallied and stocks reached record highs.

Yes, people also took their profits in stocks at the end of the month... but not nearly to the extent they pulled out of bonds.

TGEIX is now down 1.5% so far this year, Barclay's 20+ Year Treas Bond down 2.4% with 3 weeks left until 6 months in. Do you have some sort of mid-year performance review? How's that going to go?

Maybe it would have been good for you to consider the risk of your assumptions (or those who you listen to) that nothing bad could ever happen to bonds, that they could never provide bad performance, or that there was no chance emerging market bonds were overvalued.