Hendry struck me as the most interesting of the lot (he and Faber had some good banter going throughout) and Taleb, quite frankly seemed a little out of his element. The other panelists were more narrowly focused on investment ideas and as broad as the conversation was Taleb was the most vague. This was the panel where he talked about shorting treasuries that Felix Salmon ripped up in this post.
Taleb is, IMO, a great thinker who has added to our (well my anyway) stream of consciousness but at one point during the panel he made a comment about shorting countries based on the number of US educated PHDs. No one else knew what to do with that one.
While there was a lot of meat on the bone throughout I was probably most interested as the discussion moved to China. Taleb noted, vaguely but made a good point, that early in the last century in looked as though Argentina was poised be the global economic leader and of course it never happened. A little more specifically Hendry noted that at some point the country that becomes the big global lender eventually runs into trouble and he cited the US and Japan as examples. His argument seemed to be along the lines of this post from Michael Pettis from a few days ago. Hendry also expressed concern about the massive over capacity in China.
Faber made his usual bull case for China and one of the other panelists was bullish on China but made some odd points as to why. He (sorry I never heard his name mentioned) said, regarding over capacity, that they might build a bridge to nowhere but that soon that bridge will lead to somewhere. He also talked about the demographics being a positive catalyst. That point would have had more credibility if he mentioned the problems they face later this decade or early next about an aging population.
One interesting point about over capacity was made by yet another panelist, this one from South Africa (sorry no name here either). He said that most of the railroad companies from the 1800 went bankrupt but that they still contributed to making the US a great country meaning that the over capacity could be a short run problem not to be underestimated but that China as a long term theme has plenty of legs. Another point made by this fellow was that while the US has its hands full trying to figure out China the "rest of the world" loves China.
I'll finish this short post by saying that China is a theme and all themes go through a maturation process. Earlier on in the theme selectivity matter little. As time goes on selectivity will become increasingly more important. If you've been reading this site for a while you know that I think the most important thing for now is to avoid Chinese financials. My preference is to own where money has to be spent.
Closer to the start of the video there was some interesting comments on farmland with the only memorable nugget being that Canada has 23% of the world's fresh water.
Speaking of Canada, as a reminder I will be at the MoneyShow in Vancouver April 6-8.





18 comments:
I listened to this yesterday. Faber and Hendry were the most insightful IMO. I like them both, but tended to side with Hendry more.
Yes there are problems down the road, but we are not yet down the road.
SEG
Thanks Roger...will watch it later.
Thought you might like this link:
http://tinyurl.com/y9mu2n2
thanks for the link. Obviously MSCI World is a Market Cap weighted index so Japan and big, Western Europe are the heaviest foreign components and the US is the largest in the MSCI World if I am remembering correctly.
Looking forward to watching this. Hendry and Faber are always entertaining and thought-provoking.
Yes there are problems down the road, but we are not yet down the road.
SEG
SEG,
And how will *YOU* know or at least probabilistically determine when we are far enough down the road for the problems to matter with respect to the stock market.
You've been right on this move the past 10-11 months but AFAIK you've never really stated what indicators or quantitative metrics you would act on, and I am genuinely curious. Same for RW if you don't mind answering for both the strategic and tactical portfolios. What are you guys looking at to make your assessments/determinations?
I'll go first. Like Roger, the 200DMA is an important line of demarcation for me. Along with that, I'll consider the 50 DMA relative to the 200 DMA, long-term momentum indicators on a weekly chart (MACD and PPO) and then various breadth measures like the advance-decline line. What tools are in your toolbox to help in distinguishing between a normal bull market correction and resumption of a major bear market decline realizing no indicator or metric is perfect.
Presently, all of those indicators are in "bull" mode despite my skepticism that this move and current valuation levels even remotely reflect economic reality (which appear to me to be like the fake muscles of an ectomorph juiced on tons of steroids), and I have a little voice in my head saying that the Jan high of 1150 might just be the peak of this move.
I actually reduced equity exposure a bit on Jan 19th. Probably just luck on the timing, but the overbought nature coupled with the very bullish sentiment suggesting taking a few chips off the table. The question now though is, was that it, was that the correction, and now onward and upward, or is something far more substantial likely in the cards. We are at a critical juncture here technically:
http://www.tradersnarrative.com/equities-at-important-low-if-this-is-still-a-bull-market-3604.html
Richard Russell, the veteran, says the entire March to present move was most likely a giant bear market rally and it is back to the March lows or lower.
Bob Janujah says the next leg of the bear market has begun:
http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2010/02/09/145286/the-next-leg-of-the-great-bear-market-has-begun/
I still remember an interview with Louise Yamada where she remarked that the 1938-1942 time period in the aftermath of the deflationary panic bear market of 1937 was a very frustrating time where just about every long-term technical momentum indicator broke down, and the market just chopped back and forth with furious rotation but no discernible trend. Long-term trend signals arose just as the market was ready to reverse. So maybe we just chop back and forth between 800 and 1200 or 700 and 1300 on the S&P for the next 5 years?
Hopefully, someday a long-term secular bull will arise again from cheap valuations (single digit P/Es, 5%+ dividend yield) ala 1949 and 1982, and I can simply turn my brain off and ride a nice 15-20 year uptrend.
I suspect these next 5 years from today's levels are going to be very hard to crank out 8-10% annualized returns without some very nimble trading.
Sorry for the length. Lots of questions and just trying to find the best answers knowing none of us have crystal balls.
Great posts this week, Roger. You seem to manage to maintain an insight in the face of ambiguity that I find hard to discern. But I am learning.
China as a long-term play seems (to me) to be a sure thing. Its over-capacity is not good short-term, obviously. Where the demand will come from today is not obvious, but if you draw a time line from people individually trading goods a few hundred years ago to today, Globalization seems to be the 'path of least resistance'.
Mike C, I enjoyed your post too if you don't mind me saying. I would like to be able to accumulate on the lows and distribute on the highs for the next few years (I think that's the correct terminology).
I prefer to think the last bear was "one in a lifetime", and we'll probably have a very choppy market for longer than seems reasonable.
Regardless, I'm still banking on the Global Economy pulling out of this recession. Whether we manage to do it in 2010 or later, it should be a wild ride.
That comment about water caught my attention. Might be a bit of hype in there. Here is a quote from CBC/Radio Canada:
"Estimates of Canada's supply of fresh water vary from 5.6 per cent to nine per cent to 20 per cent of the world's supply, depending on how one defines "fresh water" – whether it means "available," "usable," or merely "existing." One study says Canada has 20 per cent of the world's fresh water – ranking it at the top – but only nine per cent of "renewable" fresh water."
(http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/water/)
Jim Fickett
ClearOnMoney.com
I prefer to think the last bear was "one in a lifetime", and we'll probably have a very choppy market for longer than seems reasonable.
Not sure about lifetime, but I am 35 years old. I'm guessing I've got at least one more, maybe two like 07-09.
From my perspective, the 07-09 bear, particularly the Sep 2008 through March 2009 phase really only has parallels to 73-74, and 1937 because of the ferocity and speed of the decline. The 00-02 bear was down 50% but that is highly misleading because it was mostly the tech bubble popping. Many stocks actually did well in 2000 and 2001.
I think alot of smart people disagree on the usefulness of making historical comparisons to previous cycles or market history. I'm in the camp of "history doesn't repeat but it does rhyme".
And I guess my question is if you completely abandon making historical comparisons, then where does the leave you? What basis do you have for any potential future forecast/outlook.
So going back to comparisons looking at the 73-74 bear and the 37 bear, those were THE LOWS. The 38 low was retested in 1942 and held, and the market never got close to the 74 low. But both periods had long sideways choppy range. The next secular bull after the 37 bear didn't start until 1942 or 1949 depending on when you want to date the start. Either point was great for LTBH. The secular bull after the 74 bottom didn't start until 1982 which is 8 years later.
I see no reason why this time won't be different. I suspect we have many, many years of rangebound market action as the nightmare of worldwide economic imbalances works itself out, and in the U.S. the individual consumer fully deleverages their balance sheet. The secular bulls of 1949 and 1982 started from low aggregate debt levels. The March 2009 bottom still had record debt levels.
Unfortunately, I don't get paid to pontificate, but to produce returns, and on one level I am trying to set low expectations for forward returns, but still I have to find some way to make money in what I expect to be a very, very difficult environment. Of course, the next 3-7 years should really separate the men from the boys in terms of those managing OPM. LTBH of closet index funds is likely to do pretty poorly the next several years IMO.
Roger, have you ever beat the S&P 500 index over a 10 year period?
I did'nt think so.
4:29, not sure what your beef is but i have been an RIA since 2004. so that is how far my verifiable performance goes back. you can contact my firm for a report of how much i've beaten the market by in that time.
I can't get the video to play. Do you have to register or something?
no registration needed, maybe a glitch on one end or the other?
Still can't get the durn video to work. sigh.
Just exactly what goes on at a Money Show? Is it geared for professionals or is there something for DIYers?
more of a retail, ie diy, targeted audience
Does any one have another link for the video. I am not able to get it started. Tx.
Jeff from Milan, Italy
Tx, Roger
i can't get it to play either, maybe they took it down? sorry everyone
Looks like they took the video down. There's an 8 minute portion on youtube - this is irritating. Censorship?
brahms,
thanks, Hugh Hendry was talking about a trade in bonds derivitives where he could make 75% and if wrong would loose 1.5%. Did anyone get the rest?
Tx,
Jeff from milan, Italy
re the 1.5% down side 75% upside trade he said at the end "I'll tell you later."
Post a Comment