Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
Support MFO
Donate through PayPal
maybe selling in May, or before, will be a good idea (?)
I too hate when people disingenuously and passive-aggressively weasel-say they were just joking when they initially were not, but that's not what I did: in this forum if I hed anything with, or refer to, 'maybe sell in May, or before', and someone doesn't know (recognize) that ancient locution, tough.
I shall keep an eye out in the future for doing this.
I will post if and when I bail, sure. But I am no master, of timing anyway. I wish. The only 'masterful' thing I did recently was sink a ton (for us) of money into DSEEX / DSENX, and make a lot thereby --- and that was from having read about it here.
@Nick_de_Peyster Momentum is so often a function of policy considerations, is it not? Here likely imaginary. Do you think the latest runup has to do w/ valuations?
You state: " This allows me the freedom to indulge in observation of humanity, with all of it's foibles, and thankfully you provide much fodder in this area".
Of course you are always free to expose foibles. Please expose my foibles. Doing so would permit me to address them, hopefully in a positive way.
But your posts do not identify my presumed foibles; they attack me on a very personal level. Shame on you.
Investors do not think alike nor do they react alike nor are their goals compatible. Those disparities are what make an exciting marketplace. I would respect all such commentaries on how I approach such investment decisions. But that is not the subject of your posts. Instead, you denigrate me personally. That's especially misguided given my successful career.
My wife and I have been awarded multiple science and engineering degrees. I include her because we make investment decisions as an integrated team.. If you use aircrafts whatsoever, you are benefitting from designs that I contributed to parts of that aircraft. Our team has also been careful and successful in the investment universe. We are multimillionaires. We certainly have made some financial mistakes, but by training and experience, we never chase foibles. We are not super-investors, but we are definity not failures either. You judge harshly and wrongly.
Certainly, my submittals have imperfect elements. Perfection is an unrealistic standard. But your persistent anti-MJG posts demonstrate a debilitating intolerance that is totally wasteful and unnecessarily antagonistic. It benefits no MFO participant other perhaps than yourself. Your constant harangues are deplorable.
I propose that all our interchanges could and should be done in an honest, helpful, and friendly manner.
Therefore, it is comfortable for me to conclude with a Best Wishes closure.
@MJG: "I propose that all our interchanges could and should be done in an honest, helpful, and friendly manner."
Good idea: You go first.
The absurdity of your accusation of animus because of a purported dislike of Monte Carlo simulations is self-evident. Above, your latest deployment of smoke and mirrors informs us of your many accomplishments and comfortable wealth.
All of that, as usual, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
So much for the "honest" part.
Let's be very specific about your current complaints- At the beginning of this thread you made certain accusations:
"Yet another Paul Krugman polemic." "Krugman's observations and conclusions...are not fairly balanced"
Point-by-point, I showed your accusations to be insupportable. That, sir, certainly qualifies as a foible. Consider it to have been exposed, per your request.
You may not consider that to be "helpful", others may. Most people don't consider a differing opinion to be "unfriendly". Apparently you do: that's unfortunate, but well beyond my control.
I believe that covers your request, at least on my end, with respect to "honest, helpful, and friendly".
I see by your very late, much corrected post that you really reject my proposal.
I have carefully reviewed our exchanges on this topic and I can not identify any point-by-point rebuttal of my commentary on any of your posts. They all take the form of a denial, not a refutation, of my positions. Your assertions of a point-by-point rebuttal hold no water whatsoever.
On this topic, dabidrmoran didn't properly anticipate the depth of your antagonism. Earlier he posted: "PK is of course polemical (I do not really think anyone, even OJ, would dispute that". He was wrong in this instance. Even he did not realize the depth of your consistently negative feelings towards me.
I am pleased that over the years you have acknowledged the practical utility of Monte Carlo analyses. That was not your original position on the matter. Some progress has been made. Good for you; good for me.
I'm sure we will both enjoy a Merry Christmas. I certainly will.
@MJG: Evidently you don't recognize a point-by-point rebuttal when you see one. Here it is again, for your benefit: what, exactly, are you having a problem with? If you have some factual evidence that my comments are unsupportable, by all means let's see it (for a change).
Why don't we take a close look at some of those comments:
"On the fiscal side... people talking about a huge infrastructure push. But there’s no indication that Republicans in Congress are at all eager to get moving on this push."
True:WASHINGTON (AP) December 20, 2016 — "It's not at all clear that President-elect Donald Trump's plans to spend massively on infrastructure are going to unfold as he promised... Reince Priebus, who will be Trump's chief of staff, said in a radio interview that the new administration will focus in its first nine months with other issues like health care and rewriting tax laws. He sidestepped questions about the infrastructure plan."
"their priorities seem to be repealing Obamacare and tax cuts for the rich, perhaps especially the estate tax."
True.
"So what we’re really looking at is a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts."
True.
"the tax cuts will go to the wealthy, who won’t spend much of their windfall"
True.
"the spending cuts will fall on the poor and struggling workers"
A bit overly dramatic, but certainly not false.
Then follows a section discussing some aspects of incoming financial personnel. The information presented there may or may not be accurate- I have no idea. However, Krugman then says:
Put this together, and you get a picture of a crew that isn’t at all inclined to pursue the expansionary policies the market seems to be counting on.
A reasonable observation, based on the above, likely more true than not.
A recitation of facts: hardly a polemic. And certainly not "demented".
Based on your recent submittal, I am no longer puzzled; I'm totally bewildered.
I made none on the statements that your so called point-by-point diatribe addressed. Perhaps someone did write what you specifically critiqued, but it was not me.
Your grudge directed at me is corrupting your memory. We would both benefit if you just simply cooled it.
1) You made insupportable comments regarding the Krugman article. 2) I have rebutted them. 3) You have responded with acidic commentary that touches on many things, but totally ignores the subject of the Krugman article.
Your evasiveness and inability to honestly engage in a discussion is obvious to all. If you have further commentary on the Krugman article, let's hear it. Put up or shut up.
@MJG, when you originally wrote 'yet another polemic' you clearly meant that PK writes nothing other than that, and indeed you went on to add
>> Krugman's observations and conclusions ... are not ... formulated from unbiased research. ... Krugman is letting his political bias and anger overwhelm his economic judgment.
I responded with I would be interested in your evidence for these assertions. Anything. Many find PK extremely evidence-based, zealous about being accurate, and the evidence, so far as I have read him for years, is hard data from a wide range of gov and private sources. Some would argue that his politics has sharpened and focused his econ judgment (I myself would argue the causality goes in the other direction). So some substantiation, other than your personal dislike and whatnot, for the verb 'overwhelm' is called for
which you have not yet answered.
OJ likewise has called you on it and asked you plainly, and more than once, for the same sort of thing, and he even relisted PK's args. So stop being disingenuous about it and pretending to address when you're simply evading. Man up to what you posted. It's perfectly okay to admit, although it's rather late in the thread, 'I misstated and overstated' and slink off.
Comments
Please stop with the "I may..."
Please step up to the plate and post the same day you make trades.
I mean, hell, we all want to follow the master.
I also hate it when you make a comment - get called or questioned about it - then say that you were making a joke.
Pitiful.
With that off my chest, best wishes, Merry Christmas, and a happy and
prosperous new year.
And no, that's not a joke - I mean that.
Flack
I too hate when people disingenuously and passive-aggressively weasel-say they were just joking when they initially were not, but that's not what I did: in this forum if I hed anything with, or refer to, 'maybe sell in May, or before', and someone doesn't know (recognize) that ancient locution, tough.
I shall keep an eye out in the future for doing this.
I will post if and when I bail, sure. But I am no master, of timing anyway. I wish. The only 'masterful' thing I did recently was sink a ton (for us) of money into DSEEX / DSENX, and make a lot thereby --- and that was from having read about it here.
Take care- OJ
Nick de Peyster
Undervalued Stocks
Momentum is so often a function of policy considerations, is it not? Here likely imaginary. Do you think the latest runup has to do w/ valuations?
You state: " This allows me the freedom to indulge in observation of humanity, with all of it's foibles, and thankfully you provide much fodder in this area".
Of course you are always free to expose foibles. Please expose my foibles. Doing so would permit me to address them, hopefully in a positive way.
But your posts do not identify my presumed foibles; they attack me on a very personal level. Shame on you.
Investors do not think alike nor do they react alike nor are their goals compatible. Those disparities are what make an exciting marketplace. I would respect all such commentaries on how I approach such investment decisions. But that is not the subject of your posts. Instead, you denigrate me personally. That's especially misguided given my successful career.
My wife and I have been awarded multiple science and engineering degrees. I include her because we make investment decisions as an integrated team.. If you use aircrafts whatsoever, you are benefitting from designs that I contributed to parts of that aircraft. Our team has also been careful and successful in the investment universe. We are multimillionaires. We certainly have made some financial mistakes, but by training and experience, we never chase foibles. We are not super-investors, but we are definity not failures either. You judge harshly and wrongly.
Certainly, my submittals have imperfect elements. Perfection is an unrealistic standard. But your persistent anti-MJG posts demonstrate a debilitating intolerance that is totally wasteful and unnecessarily antagonistic. It benefits no MFO participant other perhaps than yourself. Your constant harangues are deplorable.
I propose that all our interchanges could and should be done in an honest, helpful, and friendly manner.
Therefore, it is comfortable for me to conclude with a Best Wishes closure.
Good idea: You go first.
The absurdity of your accusation of animus because of a purported dislike of Monte Carlo simulations is self-evident. Above, your latest deployment of smoke and mirrors informs us of your many accomplishments and comfortable wealth.
All of that, as usual, has absolutely nothing to do with the subject under discussion.
So much for the "honest" part.
Let's be very specific about your current complaints- At the beginning of this thread you made certain accusations:
"Yet another Paul Krugman polemic."
"Krugman's observations and conclusions...are not fairly balanced"
Point-by-point, I showed your accusations to be insupportable. That, sir, certainly qualifies as a foible. Consider it to have been exposed, per your request.
You may not consider that to be "helpful", others may. Most people don't consider a differing opinion to be "unfriendly". Apparently you do: that's unfortunate, but well beyond my control.
I believe that covers your request, at least on my end, with respect to "honest, helpful, and friendly".
I see by your very late, much corrected post that you really reject my proposal.
I have carefully reviewed our exchanges on this topic and I can not identify any point-by-point rebuttal of my commentary on any of your posts. They all take the form of a denial, not a refutation, of my positions. Your assertions of a point-by-point rebuttal hold no water whatsoever.
On this topic, dabidrmoran didn't properly anticipate the depth of your antagonism. Earlier he posted: "PK is of course polemical (I do not really think anyone, even OJ, would dispute that". He was wrong in this instance. Even he did not realize the depth of your consistently negative feelings towards me.
I am pleased that over the years you have acknowledged the practical utility of Monte Carlo analyses. That was not your original position on the matter. Some progress has been made. Good for you; good for me.
I'm sure we will both enjoy a Merry Christmas. I certainly will.
Best Wishes.
Why don't we take a close look at some of those comments:
"On the fiscal side... people talking about a huge infrastructure push. But there’s no indication that Republicans in Congress are at all eager to get moving on this push."
True: WASHINGTON (AP) December 20, 2016 — "It's not at all clear that President-elect Donald Trump's plans to spend massively on infrastructure are going to unfold as he promised... Reince Priebus, who will be Trump's chief of staff, said in a radio interview that the new administration will focus in its first nine months with other issues like health care and rewriting tax laws. He sidestepped questions about the infrastructure plan."
"their priorities seem to be repealing Obamacare and tax cuts for the rich, perhaps especially the estate tax."
True.
"So what we’re really looking at is a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts."
True.
"the tax cuts will go to the wealthy, who won’t spend much of their windfall"
True.
"the spending cuts will fall on the poor and struggling workers"
A bit overly dramatic, but certainly not false.
Then follows a section discussing some aspects of incoming financial personnel. The information presented there may or may not be accurate- I have no idea. However, Krugman then says:
Put this together, and you get a picture of a crew that isn’t at all inclined to pursue the expansionary policies the market seems to be counting on.
A reasonable observation, based on the above, likely more true than not.
A recitation of facts: hardly a polemic. And certainly not "demented".
Based on your recent submittal, I am no longer puzzled; I'm totally bewildered.
I made none on the statements that your so called point-by-point diatribe addressed. Perhaps someone did write what you specifically critiqued, but it was not me.
Your grudge directed at me is corrupting your memory. We would both benefit if you just simply cooled it.
Best Wishes.
1) You made insupportable comments regarding the Krugman article.
2) I have rebutted them.
3) You have responded with acidic commentary that touches on many things, but totally ignores the subject of the Krugman article.
Your evasiveness and inability to honestly engage in a discussion is obvious to all. If you have further commentary on the Krugman article, let's hear it. Put up or shut up.
No more on this.
>> Krugman's observations and conclusions ... are not ... formulated from unbiased research. ... Krugman is letting his political bias and anger overwhelm his economic judgment.
I responded with
I would be interested in your evidence for these assertions. Anything. Many find PK extremely evidence-based, zealous about being accurate, and the evidence, so far as I have read him for years, is hard data from a wide range of gov and private sources.
Some would argue that his politics has sharpened and focused his econ judgment (I myself would argue the causality goes in the other direction). So some substantiation, other than your personal dislike and whatnot, for the verb 'overwhelm' is called for
which you have not yet answered.
OJ likewise has called you on it and asked you plainly, and more than once, for the same sort of thing, and he even relisted PK's args. So stop being disingenuous about it and pretending to address when you're simply evading. Man up to what you posted. It's perfectly okay to admit, although it's rather late in the thread, 'I misstated and overstated' and slink off.