Hello CB, <<I did not express my point accurately>>
… to say the very least.
<<You did not say, for example, in 1996, that there was a bubble in 1996>>
… No, I did not after all.
<<You did say, in 2000-2001-2002-2003-2004, that there was a bubble in 1996-1997-1998-1999-2000-2001-2002-2003 and that there is a bubble in 2004>>
... I did say all of that?! and yet still do OK?!
... the advantage of what I do is that everything I say can easily be put in context of my actual buy/sell/hold, so that there should be no chance of misunderstanding unless the reader is lazy.
<<And you're wrong. There is no bubble. And there is no crash>>
... It is your turn to define crash. I specifically and explicitly defined crash level #1 as Nasdaq at 1400, when Nasdaq was around 3,000 (which I think is a fair call on both explicit direction and implied ferocity), and believing in what I think has helped me to prosper. Reference Message 15303142 <<February 5th, 2001>>.
<<There was a tech bubble in a few stocks in 1999-2000>>
... I am guessing that strong credibility is not a priority backing your statement above. 7 trillion disappears, requiring pumping liquid into the asset economy to keep up appearances of the GDP may qualify as a tech bubble of a few shares in your thinking, and yours alone.
<<People like you piled onto SoftBank, and were followed by people with less intelligence and common sense than little old ladies playing mah-jongg>>
… how is that different from Newmont Mining, Lumacom, Mongkok real estate, Thailand beach?
I at least warn the little old ladies playing mah-jongg that they will be playing with a bubble, and not talk so much about how everything will work out just fine.
<<I am disappointed in your inability to accurately comprehend the macroeconomy>>
… no need for disappointment, for I will be punished for my mistakes aplenty, when I do make mistakes.
<<After reading your responses, I recognize that I am being too demanding. You're a trader at best, and a gambler at worst, so I shouldn't expect you to see past your own nose>>
… Thank you but I do not, in my own estimation, qualify as a trader or a gambler, for I am not quick enough to be one, and not daring enough to be the other. As to my nose, perhaps not, but I will stay with my view of the world a few feet ahead of my nose, and a few feet all around, since the viewing has helped me do OK.
<<Finally, yes, I did get back into the market last year, but I've resolved to never talk about specific investments on SI. I am not a trader, nor a gambler, don't need or want the chatter>>
… Macro talk in the absence of micro context can feel boring at best, and misleading at worst.
<<..it's inevitable that at some point in the future, there will be a recession. They come and go. If you play on the shore, you'll feel the waves. If you're out on the ocean, you won't even notice it>>
… You appear to be hedging, shimmying, and positioning.
Question, will the coming inevitable recession be of a ferocious (feel free to define ferocious as you wish) proportions relative to past recessions, and will it have anything to do with the confluence of events set in motion by the exploding bubbles of weak dollar, high deficits, tanking bonds, rising real interest rates, imploding home equity, and a leading/concurrent/lagging equities decline of meaningful %?
<<I don't want you to stop posting>>
… well, glad we got that understanding out of the way, and I am now allowed more than two choices.
<<I want you to recognize your limitations so that you don't lead others astray>>
… Well, on this you should have no worries, because achamchen.com I have always told folks to not follow my examples but just to interact and point out where I may be making a fatal mistake. In fact, I sometimes choose to follow others, once I think I understand where they are coming from and want to go to.
Nothing more than that, truly.
Chugs, Jay |
