Everybody's Lying to You(fool.com)
fool.com
Everybody's Lying to You
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/05/18/everybodys-lying-to-you.aspx?source=ihpsitota0000001
31 comments
They left out another big lier: themselves. The financial media are as much to blame as Citigroup, the government, and whoever else. Hell, perhaps even more so given the press's traditional role of watchdog and investigator.
>They left out another big lier: themselves. The financial media are as much to blame as Citigroup, the government, and whoever else. Hell, perhaps even more so given the press's traditional role of watchdog and investigator.
That's really unfair. The Motley Fool is about as much a part of "the financial media" you speak of as Slashdot is a typical "news corporation". They have been acting as a watchdog and warning about various bubbles for a long, long time.
The Fool has always been an outsider, unafraid to speak the truths that no one else could-- that brokers don't have your interests at heart, that the market can't be timed, that 99% of all mutual funds lose to the market over a five year period, that all the great long term investors are value investors rather than technical traders, etc. The vast majority of "financial media" writers simply couldn't write those things and keep their jobs.
In that sense they really are like the Shakespearean motley fool.
That's really unfair. The Motley Fool is about as much a part of "the financial media" you speak of as Slashdot is a typical "news corporation". They have been acting as a watchdog and warning about various bubbles for a long, long time.
The Fool has always been an outsider, unafraid to speak the truths that no one else could-- that brokers don't have your interests at heart, that the market can't be timed, that 99% of all mutual funds lose to the market over a five year period, that all the great long term investors are value investors rather than technical traders, etc. The vast majority of "financial media" writers simply couldn't write those things and keep their jobs.
In that sense they really are like the Shakespearean motley fool.
->Hell, perhaps even more so given the press's traditional role of watchdog and investigator.
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic here. Alternatively, perhaps you're not from the United States.
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic here. Alternatively, perhaps you're not from the United States.
The US media looks better than my local Swedish one.
In a small country, the interests are more aligned, for good and bad.
For instance, the US media have different opinions on lots of subjects! Here, you get at most two opinions.
But mainly, the US media seems to find lots of real scandals in your president administrations. That doesn't happen much with the local government and media...
Maybe there aren't any scandals here to find? (And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell, if you want to make a good deal?)
That said, there are lots of crappy media in the US. But obviously, some of the world's best ones, too.
In a small country, the interests are more aligned, for good and bad.
For instance, the US media have different opinions on lots of subjects! Here, you get at most two opinions.
But mainly, the US media seems to find lots of real scandals in your president administrations. That doesn't happen much with the local government and media...
Maybe there aren't any scandals here to find? (And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell, if you want to make a good deal?)
That said, there are lots of crappy media in the US. But obviously, some of the world's best ones, too.
Are you kidding, how many ministers did the current government go through in the first couple of weeks in power because of scandals? I know I lost count.
Then there's the whole case with the tsunami tapes going missing.
The case with bodströms possibly advocating direct control of the police to raid TPBs hosting company.
I remember a whole array of ministers getting kicked out head first because of various visits to strip clubs in the 90's.
Then you've got Mona Sahlin cheating on her taxes as well as a wide array of scandals with Gudrun Schyman and alcohol.
That's just the things I can remember on the top of my head and I have just about barely payed attention to local news for the last couple of years until recently.
I think that we might be less sensationalist and have a shorter memory but we do have plenty of scandals. You have to realize though that we are only made up of 9 million people, their scandals should be both greater size and of greater numbers.
As for the two opinions thing, Americans are much more extrovert than Sweeds are. They like to yell at things, it's their thing. We like to sit and whine about things, that's our thing. I do think however that our politicians don't blatantly lie as much, our minister of finance isn't standing there telling us everything is great when it's obvious we hurting and going down deeper.
Now I happened to find Swedish media pretty boring, but that's another thing entirely.
Then there's the whole case with the tsunami tapes going missing.
The case with bodströms possibly advocating direct control of the police to raid TPBs hosting company.
I remember a whole array of ministers getting kicked out head first because of various visits to strip clubs in the 90's.
Then you've got Mona Sahlin cheating on her taxes as well as a wide array of scandals with Gudrun Schyman and alcohol.
That's just the things I can remember on the top of my head and I have just about barely payed attention to local news for the last couple of years until recently.
I think that we might be less sensationalist and have a shorter memory but we do have plenty of scandals. You have to realize though that we are only made up of 9 million people, their scandals should be both greater size and of greater numbers.
As for the two opinions thing, Americans are much more extrovert than Sweeds are. They like to yell at things, it's their thing. We like to sit and whine about things, that's our thing. I do think however that our politicians don't blatantly lie as much, our minister of finance isn't standing there telling us everything is great when it's obvious we hurting and going down deeper.
Now I happened to find Swedish media pretty boring, but that's another thing entirely.
You have a point about individual ministers' personal lives. :-)
The press do seem to have different standards for different politicians.
(I didn't follow the dance around foreign minister Bildt, but remember a journalist complaining that it was a democracy problem that Bildt had his own blog so he could get his own version out...)
That is hardly the same as leaking embarrassing internal papers (which have showed up quite often in Washington Post/NY Times).
Leaking of papers did happen with the Muslim Brotherhood guys that were sent back (and tortured) in Egypt. But how many more times?
The press has for decades gotten direct subsidies from the state here -- and I've seen notes that acknowledge influences, but note exactly how much...
The press do seem to have different standards for different politicians.
(I didn't follow the dance around foreign minister Bildt, but remember a journalist complaining that it was a democracy problem that Bildt had his own blog so he could get his own version out...)
That is hardly the same as leaking embarrassing internal papers (which have showed up quite often in Washington Post/NY Times).
Leaking of papers did happen with the Muslim Brotherhood guys that were sent back (and tortured) in Egypt. But how many more times?
The press has for decades gotten direct subsidies from the state here -- and I've seen notes that acknowledge influences, but note exactly how much...
You have numerous political parties due to your proportionally representative parliamentary government, but you only get two opinions in the press?
Even in the internet age, when the cost of publishing is approaching zero?
That's odd.
Even in the internet age, when the cost of publishing is approaching zero?
That's odd.
It's not like you've got six democratic or republican parties in government in a giant pit fighting each other it's more like you've got two blocks with an internal cease fire that yell at the other group and occasionally slip and complain about a block partys politics.
"Everybody is lying to you
[...]
Our stock experts, David and Tom Gardner, avoid fish tales. These are two straight shooters who take their big catches in stride and don't lament the ones that got away."
Right...
Right...
Basically this article boils down to one central point: This isn't a downturn it's a correction so don't expect things to "bounce back".
My opinion is they're probably half right. I don't think anything is going to bounce back to where it was but I also think panic caused things to drop further than they needed to. So we'll probably see a small bounce eventually but from there it'll probably be a decade before we reach pre-bust levels.
My opinion is they're probably half right. I don't think anything is going to bounce back to where it was but I also think panic caused things to drop further than they needed to. So we'll probably see a small bounce eventually but from there it'll probably be a decade before we reach pre-bust levels.
-> it'll probably be a decade before we reach pre-bust levels.
How do you know?
The same people who didn't see it coming are all of a sudden experts on when it's going to end.
How do you know?
The same people who didn't see it coming are all of a sudden experts on when it's going to end.
OK, pardon the sarcasm here, but what exactly do you think the word "probably" means? Because to me it means "the author is stating an opinion and is in no way saying that opinion is authoritative"
In other words I don't "know", I never claimed to "know" so you shouldn't accuse me of it.
If you're going to go so far as to quote the line at least read it first and try to look at what the author's actual meaning was.
For the record I based my opinion on the simple fact that things around me shouldn't cost as much as they do. The house two doors down from me is 2 bedroom, needs a new roof and was still valued at $750,000. In my opinion a two bedroom house simply isn't worth that so I don't expect it to bounce back to that value.
In other words I don't "know", I never claimed to "know" so you shouldn't accuse me of it.
If you're going to go so far as to quote the line at least read it first and try to look at what the author's actual meaning was.
For the record I based my opinion on the simple fact that things around me shouldn't cost as much as they do. The house two doors down from me is 2 bedroom, needs a new roof and was still valued at $750,000. In my opinion a two bedroom house simply isn't worth that so I don't expect it to bounce back to that value.
A house (or anything else) is only worth what someone will pay for it. If houses are selling for $750k, by definition they are worth $750k. You can hate it and refuse to think that anyone should ever pay more than $100k for such a house, but as long as people are willing to pay the price, that's the value.
But that's the point, no one was paying that much for it. It was inflated by a speculator's market. That's what a correction is. It's the market re-evaluating assets and reassessing their price based on what people are actually willing to pay and not what some real estate speculator or junk bond salesman said it was worth.
This is a very naive (or doctrinaire) view. Please read one of the canonical value investing books, or Cunningham's book of excerpts from Berkshire Hathaway's annual letters by the chairman. For a more scientifically minded angle to this topic, please see Didier Sornette's "Why stock markets crash" (PUP 2003). Price and value are two different things, at least in my representation of the world...
I can't comprehend why this was modded down. The book is fascinating and provides us with an insight into valuation. It really is a topic that is difficult to sum up in any reasonable time. I wish I could find a free source for it, but I found the google preview.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=F3WpzcinFc4C&dq=Didier+S...
Please go easier on the thumbs down stuff.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=F3WpzcinFc4C&dq=Didier+S...
Please go easier on the thumbs down stuff.
Thanks. You guys might want to check this here: http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0301543
The irony is that that 2-bedroom house will be worth $750,000 someday but only because $750,000 will be worth a lot less by then.
Quick point: Having money, a depreciating asset, forces everyone into being a speculator. You have to make prophecies, because the alternative is an assured -2.0 percent return (roughly).
Here's why the long term outlook is bad: An aging population will necessarily convert assets of all classes into money in order to finance their retirement. Simple as that.
Short term, who the hell knows? Buy Citi on margin short term, if you feel like it.
Here's why the long term outlook is bad: An aging population will necessarily convert assets of all classes into money in order to finance their retirement. Simple as that.
Short term, who the hell knows? Buy Citi on margin short term, if you feel like it.
As the aging population uses the money to finance their retirement, where do you think it goes?
It chases goods and services.
And much of that money will get poured back into assets...young professionals who work at firms that cater to retired customers will buy homes, retirement communities will expand and build more buildings, older people will sell their assets and rent instead, which means that someone will buy homes and turn them into rentals. I agree that many older people will be liquidating assets, but it just seems they'll shift to other parts of the population.
> And much of that money will get poured back into assets...
I disagree with using the word "much," that money is going through the filter of consumables and living expenses. The parent poster's point is that retirement destroys wealth faster than it is created. (Which is why that wealth was saved in the first place. To believe otherwise is to subscribe to the Broken Window fallacy.)
I disagree with using the word "much," that money is going through the filter of consumables and living expenses. The parent poster's point is that retirement destroys wealth faster than it is created. (Which is why that wealth was saved in the first place. To believe otherwise is to subscribe to the Broken Window fallacy.)
Except right now nobody is entirely sure that money is a depreciating asset. Interest rates are close to zero, there may be inflation in a lot of places, but not if you're thinking of buying a house. The aging population is looking at postponing retirement, maybe even coming back out of retirement. Short term, most people are staying in cash.
"Having money, a depreciating asset, forces everyone into being a speculator. You have to make prophecies"
You're exactl yright. Perhaps this is why people are almost asking to be creamed on their finances. The classic condition for stress is having to do sth and not being able to do it. People who have spent tens of years doing "economics" are none the wiser for it, their forecasts are about as correct as those of a bunch of taxidrivers: Zero, no statistical significance. And still everybody must do it or, even worse, judge the ability of others to do it. No wonder the snakes thrive. In my experience, people who are blunt and truthful to clients have a really hard time to get heard.
You're exactl yright. Perhaps this is why people are almost asking to be creamed on their finances. The classic condition for stress is having to do sth and not being able to do it. People who have spent tens of years doing "economics" are none the wiser for it, their forecasts are about as correct as those of a bunch of taxidrivers: Zero, no statistical significance. And still everybody must do it or, even worse, judge the ability of others to do it. No wonder the snakes thrive. In my experience, people who are blunt and truthful to clients have a really hard time to get heard.
> one-half of 1% per year
What's the intent here? Why not say "0.5% annually"? And why do people say "one-half"? Is this typical of economics journalism?
[edit] The whole sentence seems redundant anyway.
the average annual investment return from 1950-2000 was less than one-half of 1% per year
"annual investment return" implies "per year" and vice versa.
What's the intent here? Why not say "0.5% annually"? And why do people say "one-half"? Is this typical of economics journalism?
[edit] The whole sentence seems redundant anyway.
the average annual investment return from 1950-2000 was less than one-half of 1% per year
"annual investment return" implies "per year" and vice versa.
There are four numbers (1950, 2000, one-half, 1%) between annual and per year. Even though it's redundant, it makes it easier to read. A big part of Motley Fool's appeal is the accessibility of their writing and explanation.
I'm not sure if they would have put it like that themselves though. They extracted the quote from USA Today.
In reference to housing prices; I don't understand how it is the "best time to buy" if prices are still falling. Wouldn't it be the "best time to buy" once it has hit rock bottom and just begun a slight upturn?
Sure, but if you can identify that situation on a financial asset, you can go ahead and quit your day job now.