5 ms·

I honestly don't care about anything a news rag says about our nebulousy defined dire economic prospects unless they've taken out an appropriate corresponding s

I honestly don't care about anything a news rag says about our nebulousy defined dire economic prospects unless they've taken out an appropriate corresponding short position against the market and have a record of making winning forecasts. To be fair, I used to play poker professionally, so my disposition to this kind of talk is that it's useless bathroom chatter unless the writer(s) are willing to make a quantitative prediction about the distribution of likely market futures which they would make a corresponding non trivial bet on (which market anyway? The article doesn't really operationalize anything).

s_q_b 10y ago
Investment news is interesting for the metadata. Professional politicians don't watch CNN because they lack information that CNN can provide. They watch CNN so they know what the public is being told. Professional investors don't look to Bloomberg News for information. They look to know what other, lesser informed, market participants are being told. Awareness of the ambient information supplied to the masses is valuable in both scenarios.
- jknoepfler 10y ago
  That's a fair point. I agree with you. The sentiment of the article, taken as a data point, probably has some useful properties insofar as it predicts market/voter/etc. behaviour. I wouldn't publish an article about it unless I'd tested that claim, though ;)
  - meric 10y ago
    Or more nebulously, CNN and Bloomsberg is a vehicle for presenting a view of the economy so as to directly influence the awareness of other, lesser informed, market participants.
- hash-set 10y ago
  That is correct. It's like that shill, what's his name? Cramer. That guy's advice is worthless, but he was put on tv for a reason. Doesn't it bother anyone else that our media today merely exists to message lies?
  - digler999 10y ago
    > That guy's advice is worthless how could it be useful ? How could there be a single strategy that could be broadcast on national TV that could be profitable for literally everyone watching it ? What would such a strategy look like and how would not be self-defeating or feedback induced bubble-producing ? I think Cramer is not only interesting but he makes learning the markets fun. He teaches noobs how to think (or at least, one possible philosophy out of many). How to act like a trader and how NOT to make stupid decisions. He's not there to make you money as your personal "pick-em" advisor. Because even if he was right the whole market would follow him and instantly correct itself. Hes a coach telling you keep your knees bent, keep your eye on the ball, stay in shape, etc. What else would you expect from a one-size-fits-all tv program ?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
throwaway_exer 10y ago
> I honestly don't care about anything ... So you're an ignorant boor who can't read a graph. Hint: graph #2 is very informative.
elihu 10y ago
The opposing argument to that is that if someone takes a market position and then writes an article, they're accused of trying to make a quick buck by swaying the market. So, between you and those who are concerned about the desire to manipulate public dialog for personal gain, there's an unattainable standard.
Consultant32452 10y ago
>have a record of making winning forecasts. This I agree with >unless they've taken out an appropriate corresponding short position against the market This, not so much. The only ethical thing for people in a position to sway the markets like this is for those people to have their wealth in a blind trust. You wouldn't want the most popular "financial guru" shorting a stock and then telling everyone it's going to tank.
- darawk 10y ago
  I would argue that it's ethical as long as they disclose that they've done it in a clear way.
  - lawnchair_larry 10y ago
    But then it becomes self-fulfilling.
    - empath75 10y ago
      Only if his argument is compelling to people with enough money to drive the price. The average investor doesn't even know how to short stocks.
      - fitchjo 10y ago
        All the average investor needs to know how to do is sell their shares and in four simple steps the media person/short seller makes their money: 1. Media person shorts stock 2. Media person tells viewers stock is worthless 3. Viewers holding stock get nervous, sell shares 4. Stock price goes down, media person cashes in. I do think it is a bit unfair to say they need to hold their investments in a blind trust, but definitely agree that disclosures about their positions should clear and abundant.
        Consultant32452 10y ago
        The most important thing to look for when seeking financial advice of any kind is to verify that the person giving you the advice is a fiduciary. This is a legal status which means they're required to give you advice that they genuinely believe will benefit you the most rather than advice that maximizes their own quarterly bonus. Most "financial advisors" are not fiduciaries.
lordnacho 10y ago
That is pretty much the position people on the trading floor take as well. These "economists" at banks are not taking positions. Their job is to make you take positions, so they are in fact salesmen. The chatter is there to remind you that their bank exists and can be phoned up to be traded with.
hkmurakami 10y ago
This is how I feel about reading something by any author (especially investing). Haven't run a successful fund before? Not interested in what you have to say in your 300 page book.
- hash-set 10y ago
  Then again, it's pretty hard to run a "successful fund" these days due to the overwhelming influence of the Fed which has washed out every other indicator. A lot of funds are shutting down and returning their clients' money because they can't find an edge. There is only one signal.
chvid 10y ago
I don't think you can expect a buy the pound to the dollar advice from these guys. The article is about what scares a selection of reputable market observers and does a pretty good job of telling their story. As a casual observer I think it is obvious that we are at the end of a good long run. And I were to make a bet I would say that things will become obviously bad just after the US election. Whether it will because of China, a rate hike, an inflation hike or some political event is really of secondary importance. Death needs a cause as they say.
- at-fates-hands 10y ago
  >> As a casual observer I think it is obvious that we are at the end of a good long run. The economy has been incredibly weak for a long time. - Economic growth has been close to zero for several years, and never above 3% in the last decade. - The real unemployment numbers are closer to 9.7% percent when you factor in people who stopped looking for work. By comparison, Clinton's averaged around 5.1% and Bush's was around 5.3%. - Our GDP to Debt ratio is 78% and climbing. It's at 104$ if you include external debt. - The Budget Deficit Widened to 3.2% so far in 2016 and will continue to rise as more Baby Boomer retire and start taking social security payments. The good news is that the dollar is getting stronger, and the housing market is finally coming out its recession which will help a vast number of industries that have been hit hard since the 08' collapse. It hasn't been a very good run, but at this point I think it could break either way depending on how some of the above issues are addressed by a new president - regardless of which party gets in.
  - chvid 10y ago
    With good run I was mostly referring to asset prices.
bsbechtel 10y ago
Except this particular piece is quoting a large number of high profile investors who probably do have corresponding short positions against the market. There's hardly any author commentary in the piece.
- SixSigma 10y ago
  Unless he asked 50 investors of which only those 19 responded with negative indicators and the rest were neutral/positive.
  - bsbechtel 10y ago
    Well yes, though the OP was referring more to those making the statements not having skin in the game, not a general consensus of the market. If you asked 50 investors their views on the market a month before the '08 crash, I am guessing only a small fraction of them would have responded with negative indicators as well.
  - AnimalMuppet 10y ago
    I think he asked "what scares you", because he thought it would be clever to do just before Halloween. So all the responses are negative, because that's what he asked.
pjc50 10y ago
> taken out an appropriate corresponding short position against the market I'm fairly sure that taking out a short position and then publishing hostile press articles will get you a visit from the SEC.
- empath75 10y ago
  Nope, this is totally legal and people do it all the time.
addicted 10y ago
> have a record of making winning forecasts Unfortunately, thanks to Survivor bias, even this is almost completely worthless information.
dualogy 10y ago
> unless they've taken out an appropriate corresponding short position against the market Depending on how doomy they are, some pundits very plausibly suggest how "everything is in a bubble" as a side effect of a ~35-year-running global sovereign bond bubble. Maybe, maybe not, but for those it's prudent to assume shorts won't work as "the markets" won't stay functioning enough to pay out shorts while disintegrating all around everyone at the same time.
the_watcher 10y ago
> I honestly don't care about anything a news rag says You might have a point if this weren't entirely just quotes from people that actually work in the finance industry, with almost no commentary from said "news rag."

s_q_b 10y ago

Investment news is interesting for the metadata. Professional politicians don't watch CNN because they lack information that CNN can provide. They watch CNN so they know what the public is being told. Professional investors don't look to Bloomberg News for information. They look to know what other, lesser informed, market participants are being told. Awareness of the ambient information supplied to the masses is valuable in both scenarios.

jknoepfler 10y ago
That's a fair point. I agree with you. The sentiment of the article, taken as a data point, probably has some useful properties insofar as it predicts market/voter/etc. behaviour. I wouldn't publish an article about it unless I'd tested that claim, though ;)
- meric 10y ago
  Or more nebulously, CNN and Bloomsberg is a vehicle for presenting a view of the economy so as to directly influence the awareness of other, lesser informed, market participants.
hash-set 10y ago
That is correct. It's like that shill, what's his name? Cramer. That guy's advice is worthless, but he was put on tv for a reason. Doesn't it bother anyone else that our media today merely exists to message lies?
- digler999 10y ago
  > That guy's advice is worthless how could it be useful ? How could there be a single strategy that could be broadcast on national TV that could be profitable for literally everyone watching it ? What would such a strategy look like and how would not be self-defeating or feedback induced bubble-producing ? I think Cramer is not only interesting but he makes learning the markets fun. He teaches noobs how to think (or at least, one possible philosophy out of many). How to act like a trader and how NOT to make stupid decisions. He's not there to make you money as your personal "pick-em" advisor. Because even if he was right the whole market would follow him and instantly correct itself. Hes a coach telling you keep your knees bent, keep your eye on the ball, stay in shape, etc. What else would you expect from a one-size-fits-all tv program ?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

throwaway_exer 10y ago

> I honestly don't care about anything ... So you're an ignorant boor who can't read a graph. Hint: graph #2 is very informative.

elihu 10y ago

The opposing argument to that is that if someone takes a market position and then writes an article, they're accused of trying to make a quick buck by swaying the market. So, between you and those who are concerned about the desire to manipulate public dialog for personal gain, there's an unattainable standard.

Consultant32452 10y ago

>have a record of making winning forecasts. This I agree with >unless they've taken out an appropriate corresponding short position against the market This, not so much. The only ethical thing for people in a position to sway the markets like this is for those people to have their wealth in a blind trust. You wouldn't want the most popular "financial guru" shorting a stock and then telling everyone it's going to tank.

darawk 10y ago
I would argue that it's ethical as long as they disclose that they've done it in a clear way.
- lawnchair_larry 10y ago
  But then it becomes self-fulfilling.
  - empath75 10y ago
    Only if his argument is compelling to people with enough money to drive the price. The average investor doesn't even know how to short stocks.
    - fitchjo 10y ago
      All the average investor needs to know how to do is sell their shares and in four simple steps the media person/short seller makes their money: 1. Media person shorts stock 2. Media person tells viewers stock is worthless 3. Viewers holding stock get nervous, sell shares 4. Stock price goes down, media person cashes in. I do think it is a bit unfair to say they need to hold their investments in a blind trust, but definitely agree that disclosures about their positions should clear and abundant.
      - Consultant32452 10y ago
        The most important thing to look for when seeking financial advice of any kind is to verify that the person giving you the advice is a fiduciary. This is a legal status which means they're required to give you advice that they genuinely believe will benefit you the most rather than advice that maximizes their own quarterly bonus. Most "financial advisors" are not fiduciaries.

lordnacho 10y ago

That is pretty much the position people on the trading floor take as well. These "economists" at banks are not taking positions. Their job is to make you take positions, so they are in fact salesmen. The chatter is there to remind you that their bank exists and can be phoned up to be traded with.

hkmurakami 10y ago

This is how I feel about reading something by any author (especially investing). Haven't run a successful fund before? Not interested in what you have to say in your 300 page book.

hash-set 10y ago
Then again, it's pretty hard to run a "successful fund" these days due to the overwhelming influence of the Fed which has washed out every other indicator. A lot of funds are shutting down and returning their clients' money because they can't find an edge. There is only one signal.

chvid 10y ago

I don't think you can expect a buy the pound to the dollar advice from these guys. The article is about what scares a selection of reputable market observers and does a pretty good job of telling their story. As a casual observer I think it is obvious that we are at the end of a good long run. And I were to make a bet I would say that things will become obviously bad just after the US election. Whether it will because of China, a rate hike, an inflation hike or some political event is really of secondary importance. Death needs a cause as they say.

at-fates-hands 10y ago
>> As a casual observer I think it is obvious that we are at the end of a good long run. The economy has been incredibly weak for a long time. - Economic growth has been close to zero for several years, and never above 3% in the last decade. - The real unemployment numbers are closer to 9.7% percent when you factor in people who stopped looking for work. By comparison, Clinton's averaged around 5.1% and Bush's was around 5.3%. - Our GDP to Debt ratio is 78% and climbing. It's at 104$ if you include external debt. - The Budget Deficit Widened to 3.2% so far in 2016 and will continue to rise as more Baby Boomer retire and start taking social security payments. The good news is that the dollar is getting stronger, and the housing market is finally coming out its recession which will help a vast number of industries that have been hit hard since the 08' collapse. It hasn't been a very good run, but at this point I think it could break either way depending on how some of the above issues are addressed by a new president - regardless of which party gets in.
- chvid 10y ago
  With good run I was mostly referring to asset prices.

bsbechtel 10y ago

Except this particular piece is quoting a large number of high profile investors who probably do have corresponding short positions against the market. There's hardly any author commentary in the piece.

SixSigma 10y ago
Unless he asked 50 investors of which only those 19 responded with negative indicators and the rest were neutral/positive.
- bsbechtel 10y ago
  Well yes, though the OP was referring more to those making the statements not having skin in the game, not a general consensus of the market. If you asked 50 investors their views on the market a month before the '08 crash, I am guessing only a small fraction of them would have responded with negative indicators as well.
- AnimalMuppet 10y ago
  I think he asked "what scares you", because he thought it would be clever to do just before Halloween. So all the responses are negative, because that's what he asked.

pjc50 10y ago

> taken out an appropriate corresponding short position against the market I'm fairly sure that taking out a short position and then publishing hostile press articles will get you a visit from the SEC.

empath75 10y ago
Nope, this is totally legal and people do it all the time.

addicted 10y ago

> have a record of making winning forecasts Unfortunately, thanks to Survivor bias, even this is almost completely worthless information.

dualogy 10y ago

> unless they've taken out an appropriate corresponding short position against the market Depending on how doomy they are, some pundits very plausibly suggest how "everything is in a bubble" as a side effect of a ~35-year-running global sovereign bond bubble. Maybe, maybe not, but for those it's prudent to assume shorts won't work as "the markets" won't stay functioning enough to pay out shorts while disintegrating all around everyone at the same time.

the_watcher 10y ago

> I honestly don't care about anything a news rag says You might have a point if this weren't entirely just quotes from people that actually work in the finance industry, with almost no commentary from said "news rag."