I'm not passing judgement on the particular person, but those positions are mostly about nepotism. There are 1000s of other professionals who could do the same job the same or better. Nobody is gonna fire the head, unless he seriously messes up and posts serious losses, and even then you do not know. If he is such a market genius, why is he sharing his profits?
The disconnect is that in an economy growing solely on the back of growth in debt and money supply, investors are choosing to do what they have been trained to do over the past 21 years - invest in stocks rather than commodities.
that I find some of these remarks about Robert Arnott and "nepotism" to be quite ignorant and downright pathetic. I could go on and paste them in to this post and highlight how ridiculous they appear, but it would be a total wast of time. To say that there are THOUSANDS of people out there that can manage the chunks of money that First Quadrant ( Rob Arnott ), Andover Capital ( Dan Benton ), Pequot Capital ( Art Samberg ), Quantum Fund ( George Soros ), Duquesne Capital ( Stanley Druckenmiller ), PIMCO ( Bill Gross ), SAC ( Stevie Cohen ), Rosenberg Capital ( Barr Rosenberg ), just to name a few is absolutely ridiculous! Moreover, to further remark that they got to where they are because of "nepotism" is tremendously absurd. As for the economy, the recent market rally has nothing to do with anything EXCEPT for the fact that it has been, and continues to be LIQUIDITY driven, as a result of every finance minister in the world, "floor-boarding" the monetary base of their respective countries. This is the perceived "disconnect" that most traders are talking about. Just my 2 cents.
The 12-month forward P/E ratio of the technology sector is currently trading at 35 times earnings. The last time we came out of a recession, the 12-month forward P/E ratio for the tech sector was HALF of that. Admittedly, most high-tech CEO's would say that technology as a whole is failry MATURE compared to where it was the last time we came out of a recession. How could the tech sector trade at such a historically high premium? It's called LIQUIDITY.
Hmm, not sure about that. If "high-tech" means Windows and PCs then maybe that's true. Otherwise, I think it's a little ridiculous to consider any tech beyond that as "mature". My take: we ain't seen nothin' yet.
I'm bullish on the economy and bearish on the market. IMO, the market disconnected from the economy in the late 90's and remains disconnected to this day. At some point in time there will be a settlement. Regardless of our opposing macro economic & market views, I certainly agree with you about allowing such views to affect trading decisions.
Although the technicals point to a breakout on the SPX, and continues to rally. While I don't particularly care where the market goes, I'm very conservative on the larger timeframes by reducing size on swings, and maintaining normal exposure on the smaller timeframes when holding positions intra day. My caution is raised by an absence of volume on such a monumental technical event, testing highs with a potential break out. The squeeze is there, but it doesen't seem to have hit the institutional level yet.
The monetary base growing like crazy, and much faster than the economy is. Sellers are nowhere to be found. The market has shown a good bid since many portfolio managers have missed this move and are UNDERPERFORMING. Group rotation is intense, which is super healthy and alleviates any issues with low volume. Statistically, September is weak. But then again, August was suppose to be historically weak as well. The market may very well continue to climb a wall of low volume worry . . . The BALLISTIC MONEY SUPPY is a tough engine to fade!
Wait a minute, why is it ridiculous to say that most of these fund manager, money manager, pension manager and so on positions are not received through nepotism. This isnt's 1970s and 1980s where it was actually possible to work yourself from the mail room by having the right work eithic, great intellect, some good ass kissing and a little luck. Nowdays it is all about who you know. And it starts as early as internships, a sad truth I had to face since I did not have ANY hook ups. George Soros made his money for HIMSELF, then started his fund. His work now is more geared toward philanthropy. I do not think he even tries too hard anymore, I mean why would he really. As for all these big time money managers that keep appearing on CNBC, I do not pay them any attention. They are a dime a dozen. Also, I did not gear my comment directly toward Rob Arnott, as I stated. I just made a point since someone made a comment about whether the guy really knows what he is talking about. But after all, if he is so smart, why is he sharing any of this info with CNBC?