3 ms·
> and thinking they signal intelligent commentary Can you point out where in the writing their commentary is not intelligent? You seem to be attacking the aut
by peterlk 6y ago
> and thinking they signal intelligent commentary
Can you point out where in the writing their commentary is not intelligent?
You seem to be attacking the author of this article but make no commentary about the weakness of their arguments. This makes me more inclined to believe them over you. I'm not saying you're wrong, but as someone who doesn't know much about the market, I do not see the implicit/obvious points that would prove the article wrong. Furthermore, being wrong in the past does not preclude someone from being right about the future, and vice versa.
- freddie_mercury 6y agoGMO's forecasts, and really the backbone of their entire investing philosophy, is that valuations will revert to historical averages. Valuations are a non-stationary process with no defined mathematical mean, so the entire concept of "mean reverting valuations" is nonsensical. Their entire investing philosophy isn't based on some deep understanding of the market but is simply an "end of history illusion" that the past (in this case the era in which the principals of GMO came of age) will continue unchanged indefinitely into the future. It isn't just they they've been wrong about US valuations and US returns. They've also been wrong about Emerging Market valuations and those returns. It can't just be handwaved away as "US investors went crazy for FANG and Tesla" because that only addresses half their failure.