I'm saving this post and im going to bring it back up in a year. Lets see if you were right or wrong about Peter.
Two people who called the mortgage meltdown: 1. Peter Schiff - Got his head handed to him; lost his clients money in 2008. Loves publicity. Goes on TV on how he was always right and never wrong and saw everything coming and "positioned his clients accordingly". 2. John Paulson - Made himself and his clients billions in 2008. Hates publicity. Doesn't go on TV. Now why is there an entire generation of broke college kids worshiping Schiff that ironically have never heard of Paulson? Schiff is good at marketing, got to hand him that. Schiff should start a hedge fund/mutual fund to create a transparent track record -- but like most talking heads he doesn't like the idea of transparency and accountability for past recommendations. Had he launched a fund in January 2008 he could have been blown out of the market in a matter of months.
Why do you judge Schiff on a 6 month downturn in his favourite asset classes (a quite serious one I will admit) wile on the other hand you have stated the likes of Hugh Hendry shouldnt be judged on a smal blimb in their investment career as people should look at the broader picture and over a longer period of time. You think Hendry is still buying all the dollars he can find as he stated with the euro under 1.30$? Or as he stated it: 'Goldbugs, enjoy your ride cause the markets will turn around soon enough in the other direction. Right. Anyway, seems a bit childish to 'defend' or 'trash' your favourite or least favourite guru so I will try to refrain myself. I would argue as far as Schiff goes (who has made quite a few bad calls bot strategic as timelwise obviously) the verdict isnt yet in as to whether his main investment thesis will prove to be wrong or not (get out of the $ and into hard assets.) Is gold going to 5000$ or 500$? Who knows? There seems to be a bit of stubbornness in his view though that does seem to clouden his view. I remember Faber (who is of the opinion the $basically is a shite currency) telling people last summer to buy it anyway as liquidity was tightening which should be benificial to the $. I'd think Schiff wouldnt have the mental flexibility to make such a call which doesnt speaks to his advantage but then again few can match the great dr Faber. (BTW: Paulson's stake in Anglogold ashanti is down 15% in $ this last week and even more in other currencies! Ha!) Too bad I own it myself.
schiff is being judged on the 6 month downturn because he keeps taking credit for calling it. if he is like every other market player then fine, we should judge on him on the long term, but he has made his name on calling this collapse and is behaving on television like he made a windfall when the exact opposite happened.
Predicting a market move: good (pat on shoulder) Profiting from a marketmove: Better (money in the bank) Predicting AND profiting from a marketmove: PRICELESS (one can go on TV)
I've seen countless of his tv interviews and never seen him behave like he made a windfall. All I've seen him do is take credit for calling the housing market a bubble that would eventually pop. And he was right. And to my knowledge, he has never said when it would happen, as in your statement that he "called... the 6 month downturn."That's bs. If you have a case, you don't need to <b>make things up</b>. He's now calling the gov debt market a bubble and thinks it will take the dollar down with it when it pops. And he hasn't said when. If that happens, he'll be right, whether he makes a dime off it or not.
What most of the idiots in this thread don't understand is that the accounts aren't MANAGED accounts. percent returns don't mean FUCK ALL. what matters is that his brokerage firm has a strategy which is buying dividend paying stocks in foreign currencies as well as physical bullion stored overseas. Not every client DOES the same thing. I'm sure that Peter's holdings fell hard during the collapse, but he kept buying all the way down, and unless he put his money in a bunch of BK stocks, so long as the companies were solid, i'm sure with what's happened in the last few months, his positions are killing it. Remember that Peter has been buying this stuff since 2000, and been on the right side for a long time. Anyone who has been following his advice since then is WAY ahead of the curve.
This is really dumb. Had Buffett started a fund in January 2008, he'd be out of business too. Totally irrelevant and useless. If he posted his personal brokerage statements on ET, would it make you feel better to see how much he's killed it in the last decade?
he did put his money into bankrupt stocks. there are AT LEAST four companies that he strongly recommended to clients that are now bankrupt. and these were conservative clients who were looking for "wealth preservation". I don't think people fully grasp how bad schiff got massacred. there are two types of clients in this situation. the first are clients who have been investing for years and the second are clients who just got in at the top. the long term clients saw all of their six years of steady profits completely wiped out and then they went very deep in the red. the second type of client got in on the last commodities spike and proceeded to get totally wiped out.
That's a great video and it makes complete sense. But this also made me just realize something. The guy in the video talks about how with default rates skyrocketing, this causes a massive contraction in the money supply and eventually deflation. Which is exactly what we've seen. Now, many are arguing right now that with the printing presses turned on, this is going to cause massive inflation. I don't think it will at all and this is why. With a credit crisis, debt is wiped out across the board due to defaults. The money supply contracts like crazy. But by turning on the printing press, the FED is basically just creating a wash situation. The money supply won't contract at the rate it would with deleveraging. And, since the defaults are permanent, they will never find their way back into the money supply. So the printing of money just puts water back into the tub that has been permanently removed. There is no possible way to have massive inflation when in a credit crisis. Now, if this wasn't a credit crisis, then the fed printing money like it did in the 70's is a different story. Then you cause massive inflation because you don't have a high rate of defaults that indirectly decrease the money supply. Hmmm....so I think the hyperinflation theory here is completely wrong!!