1- thats not milton friedman's wife, its his collaborator 2-anne makes attacks that shouldn't be directed to the fed. bernanke has already states many times that this is different than the 30's. thats why they created the TARP to get bad assets out and get the fears of solvency out.(which is what she wants) they thought they would not need to inject capital because it was different 3-she says fed and treasury are proping out banks that should go under. so far 9 banks got capital, they were all too big to fail, one way or the other they were getting the money, by putting in now they prevented more stress down the road 4-she says they shouldn't bailout due moral hazzard and because its wrong, lehman proved that moral hazzard should be the last thing in anyones mind. worry about moral hazzard when banks are making record profits and yet the yield curve is inverted
I was watching that live...I was shocked when that dick hole martin tried to put a world renowned investor in his place. LOL and Jim just told him, and all the cowboys at cnbc they didn't know shit.
I agree, but for now the inflation trade is getting shafted harder than a gold mine in Kalgoorlie. Saying "X will eventually be higher" is only useful if you are prepared to take an absolute bath in the meantime - and that's if you're actually right. A trader has to say "X will be higher, without falling more than 10-20% before then". Can we say that about commodities? I don't know. Maybe oil hits $50. Until you can define the risk, there is no trade.
What was his account at Refco for then - booze & hookers? Rogers mentions losing trades: http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/article/573/Jim-Rogers:-His-Biggest-Investing-Mistakes?tickers=
100% agree. This is why Cutten, I use options a lot in these knife catching scenarios. If you think it can break hard but snap back even harder then a vertical call spread will work out even if it goes in your face first. At least it's paid for.
Yeah. The last month or two in stocks and commodities has really soured me on using outrights for mean-reversion trades on anything other than an intra-day timeframe. 9/10 times the outright makes more money, but the 10th time it gets creamed, and this has been one of those 10% occasions. Whereas with options you always have that extra ability to martingale one more time, with defined risk, so on the Oct 87 or Oct 2008 you can stick another 1% of capital in and then make 10 times your money on the rebound, because the rallies from historic oversold conditions are so big & fast. Perhaps a good blended approach would be to use verticals for the initial buys, since the rebound potential is not quite 3 sigma+, then shifting more to outright calls if the knife falls even harder (or just buying back your now teenie short call leg), playing for the kind of move like we saw on October 13th. You don't really want to be short any calls, even as part of a spread, when a move of that magnitude happens.
Do you actually have any facts to back up these assertions? The problem with your position is that the two longest depressions in living memory occured despite incredibly heavy government intervention. In the USA in the 1930s and Japan in the 1990s, the government tried to prop up falling prices and failing banks & businesses, and in both cases the result was a decade of depression and stagnation. In countries which followed Rogers' prescription, either voluntarily or involuntarily, the recessions, even the harshest, did not last more than a couple of years.. Good examples include Sweden in the 1930s, SE Asia in 1997-98, Hong Kong 1973-74 and Brazil in 2001-2002 (compare to Argentina which followed the Keynesian route and is still stagnating horribly 7 years after the crisis broke). Basically all the evidence from the last century of real world economics shows that Rogers liquidationist advice works far better than your Keynesian proposals. If you can show a convincing body of evidence suggesting that heavy government intervention resolves recessions faster, and liquidation causes decade long stagnations, then please point it out. Until then, myself and other people of the free market/neo-classical, or Austrian, persuasion will continue to support very limited government intervention at best e.g. lender of last resort to solvent but illiquid businesses. How can anyone be expected to promote policies which have been tried numerous times and failed, when there are proven alternatives that so far have worked almost every time. Support your assertions with facts and evidence if you want to change anyone's mind.
cutten - taking complex topics and making concise powerful arguments. brilliant (think the two guiness guys) mind at work. - I am going to find myself a guiness and drink it in your honor.
Anyone still in commods from the bubble top doesn't have to worry about deep pockets anymore. You must be a joker. Or a Rogers shill. Or both.
jim rogers was the only guy pumping commodity stocks 7 years ago and he was spot on even though everyone laughed. he mentioned steel,copper,gold,rubber,wheat,you name it. cnbc is like a cartoon station.