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.
"Wow - did you read the comments from the M* users at the end of the Q&A article? Wow, tough group!"
I really wish Steve Romick would close down his fund so these keyboard commandos can't put their money in with mine. I'd much rather Mr. Romick err on the side of caution and not follow the herd off the cliff!
This is from the Perkins shop:
However, this is in the context of artificially low interest rates which would seemingly inevitably be rising over time. Significant long-term problems as well as election year political uncertainty and the end of year potential expiration of Bush tax cuts still remain. In addition, volatility, which has receded to 2007 levels, could flare again. In that vein, we will soon mark the two-year anniversary of the Flash Crash, a reminder of the potentially disruptive element of algorithmic trading. The difficulty rests on knowing when rising rates will be discounted in the market and when investors will refocus on our long-term challenges. https://ww3.janus.com/advisor_siteobjects/published/9863FDA457302EF769E6A8D9963243C4/CC282E3B774413E35B1655CAF37E6ACB/pdf/Perkins Value Plus Income Fund_ALL Shares_Public_cmty.pdf
Edit: I believe that many Romick bashers over on *M are politically motivated. They see his distrust in our economy as some sort of attack on the current administration. I believe that mixing Investing with politics never ends well. Teasing these two apart is harder for some than others
Reply to @Old_Joe: I've really gotten more into holding individual equities lately, but there are a few managers who are primarily US that I'd trust. Yacktman; Romick and Ralph Shive of Wasatch (formerly of 1st Source) and maybe a couple of others (the guy from Parnassus Eq. Income and the Perkins people, for example. David Winters and the people from 1st Eagle, although those are global.)
I com-plete-ly agree with Romick in the interview and it only reinforces my view that if I was looking for a US fund, FPA Crescent would be at the top of my list.
I mean, what he says in that interview I couldn't agree with more - it's absolutely spot-on and a refreshing bit of reality. It's a great interview.
Not sure why you would even suggest I'd be tough writing about what Romick said - all I have is the highest praise for that interview.
Reply to @perpetual_Bull: "Edit: I believe that many Romick bashers over on *M are politically motivated. They see his distrust in our economy as some sort of attack on the current administration. I believe that mixing Investing with politics never ends well. Teasing these two apart is harder for some than others"
ABSOLUTELY. Some people think everything is politically motivated and some of the comments seem subtly (or not so subtly) political.
Reply to @scott: Sorry, but I'd have to disagree. Most of the comments were about basic economics.
I especially agree with the person who asked for tougher (maybe I'd say more incisive) questioning by the M* hosts - for everybody they interview, not just Romick. There was a Korean woman at M*, forget her name now, who did GREAT interviews - very intelligent questions that got right to the heart of the matter - but she was gone in just a few weeks.
Reply to Andyj: Perhaps the disagreement is about basic economics. If it is all about economics - I say that his detractors simply don't understand basic arithmetic, world taxation comparisons, and value investing ( globally ) in general. Furthermore, his long term record speaks for itself. Shall we listen to those that attack his creditbility with their own anonymity intact.
Let us look at some outlandish comments posted on *M:
"I'd far sooner invest in a company with a transparent balance sheet that does a substantial and growing business in China (YUM for example) than any China-domiciled company with a sketchy and opaque balance sheet and in which graft and corruption are practically a given."
"This dope's eagerness to get some airtime / column inches ended with the revelation that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about!"
Dope ?!? Do these people drink their own bathwater?
Reply to @AndyJ: Agree to disagree (perpetual said it well further down, too, and I'm not going to even get started on some of the specific comments in the comments section.)
As for tougher questions, that's absolutely hilarious. Financial media is never about difficult questions or there wouldn't be a CNBC (who interviews Chubby Checker for his thoughts on "Operation Twist") or Bloomberg. CNBC asking a tough question is hell freezing over. Bloomberg might actually ask a tough question accidentally here-and-there.
If CNBC started actually asking tougher questions, 1:) many people wouldn't even come on anymore and 2:) people may not like what a lot of people have to say. As is, when CNBC anchors get difficult responses, they often appear to not like what the guest has to say and look as if they're frantically trying to figure how to move on.
At least the Morningstar interviewer allowed Romick to get his thoughts out without looking all frowny because Romick wasn't being cheery and telling people everything is going to be awesome. Even worse, he wasn't telling people to buy the latest BS momo stock.
The constant BS and spin of CNBC (and Leisman in particular, who is an embarassment) is in many ways the reason why they're doing lousy. A little honesty about reality in the last 5 years would have been helpful to their audience.
The best moment was an interview with Jim Rogers a year or two ago when called CNBC (while being interviewed on CNBC) a "market PR agency." It's not incorrect.
Odd that this interview brings out all the demands for tougher questioning.
Reply to Scott: I believe Kenster1 said it better over on the comment section than I ever could. Standing applause!
It's really sad that some people have the willingness to inflict their own misery on others - anonymously - where the person attacked cannot defend themselves. As a long time shareholder of FPACX, I have nothing but praise. I certainly wouldn't be the one to play recliner quarterback and criticize someone above my paygrade. Constructive criticism is one thing... calling someone a "dope" is another.
Could he ( Mr. Romick ) have done better? Of course. Is he always right? Is anyone. Has he done better than most? Yes. Is he a good steward of my hard earned money? Yes.
Reply to @scott: Well, I don't really partake of CNBC, so maybe I don't even realize how bad it is. I watched it once at a relative's place, and swore it off forever.
BTW, the M* interviewer's name was Esther Pak. I'd like to know where she took her skills - presumably somewhere that pays more than M*.
Reply to @perpetual_Bull: The main, substantive issues the comments brought up were Romick's misunderstanding of what the Fed is doing, and not understanding the concept of crowding out.
You picked two to highlight that didn't hit on those specific topics. Yeah, the China etc. comment was off the wall. The other one you mentioned is from a guy who is on those boards all the time, who is a former bond trader and knows both the business, and quite a bit about monetary issues. The two quoted lines were a quick response; this is probably one of those cases where you explain your rationale all the time, and don't feel like repeating it every single time you say something. Just my opinion, but I frankly would favor that guy's opinion before Romick's on something about econ and its nexus with finance that I'm not versed in.
Comments
I really wish Steve Romick would close down his fund so these keyboard commandos can't put their money in with mine. I'd much rather Mr. Romick err on the side of caution and not follow the herd off the cliff!
This is from the Perkins shop:
However, this is in the context of artificially low interest rates which would seemingly inevitably be rising over time. Significant long-term problems as well as election year political uncertainty and the end of year potential expiration of Bush tax cuts still remain. In addition, volatility, which has receded to 2007 levels, could flare again. In that vein, we will soon mark the two-year anniversary of the Flash Crash, a reminder of the potentially disruptive element of algorithmic trading. The difficulty rests on knowing when rising rates will be discounted in the market and when investors will refocus on our long-term challenges.
https://ww3.janus.com/advisor_siteobjects/published/9863FDA457302EF769E6A8D9963243C4/CC282E3B774413E35B1655CAF37E6ACB/pdf/Perkins Value Plus Income Fund_ALL Shares_Public_cmty.pdf
Edit: I believe that many Romick bashers over on *M are politically motivated. They see his distrust in our economy as some sort of attack on the current administration. I believe that mixing Investing with politics never ends well. Teasing these two apart is harder for some than others
I com-plete-ly agree with Romick in the interview and it only reinforces my view that if I was looking for a US fund, FPA Crescent would be at the top of my list.
I mean, what he says in that interview I couldn't agree with more - it's absolutely spot-on and a refreshing bit of reality. It's a great interview.
Not sure why you would even suggest I'd be tough writing about what Romick said - all I have is the highest praise for that interview.
ABSOLUTELY. Some people think everything is politically motivated and some of the comments seem subtly (or not so subtly) political.
I especially agree with the person who asked for tougher (maybe I'd say more incisive) questioning by the M* hosts - for everybody they interview, not just Romick. There was a Korean woman at M*, forget her name now, who did GREAT interviews - very intelligent questions that got right to the heart of the matter - but she was gone in just a few weeks.
Let us look at some outlandish comments posted on *M:
"I'd far sooner invest in a company with a transparent balance sheet that does a substantial and growing business in China (YUM for example) than any China-domiciled company with a sketchy and opaque balance sheet and in which graft and corruption are practically a given."
"This dope's eagerness to get some airtime / column inches ended with the revelation that he simply doesn't know what he's talking about!"
Dope ?!? Do these people drink their own bathwater?
As for tougher questions, that's absolutely hilarious. Financial media is never about difficult questions or there wouldn't be a CNBC (who interviews Chubby Checker for his thoughts on "Operation Twist") or Bloomberg. CNBC asking a tough question is hell freezing over. Bloomberg might actually ask a tough question accidentally here-and-there.
If CNBC started actually asking tougher questions, 1:) many people wouldn't even come on anymore and 2:) people may not like what a lot of people have to say. As is, when CNBC anchors get difficult responses, they often appear to not like what the guest has to say and look as if they're frantically trying to figure how to move on.
At least the Morningstar interviewer allowed Romick to get his thoughts out without looking all frowny because Romick wasn't being cheery and telling people everything is going to be awesome. Even worse, he wasn't telling people to buy the latest BS momo stock.
The constant BS and spin of CNBC (and Leisman in particular, who is an embarassment) is in many ways the reason why they're doing lousy. A little honesty about reality in the last 5 years would have been helpful to their audience.
The best moment was an interview with Jim Rogers a year or two ago when called CNBC (while being interviewed on CNBC) a "market PR agency." It's not incorrect.
Odd that this interview brings out all the demands for tougher questioning.
It's really sad that some people have the willingness to inflict their own misery on others - anonymously - where the person attacked cannot defend themselves. As a long time shareholder of FPACX, I have nothing but praise. I certainly wouldn't be the one to play recliner quarterback and criticize someone above my paygrade. Constructive criticism is one thing... calling someone a "dope" is another.
Could he ( Mr. Romick ) have done better? Of course. Is he always right? Is anyone. Has he done better than most? Yes. Is he a good steward of my hard earned money? Yes.
I just wish he would close down his fund.
BTW, the M* interviewer's name was Esther Pak. I'd like to know where she took her skills - presumably somewhere that pays more than M*.
You picked two to highlight that didn't hit on those specific topics. Yeah, the China etc. comment was off the wall. The other one you mentioned is from a guy who is on those boards all the time, who is a former bond trader and knows both the business, and quite a bit about monetary issues. The two quoted lines were a quick response; this is probably one of those cases where you explain your rationale all the time, and don't feel like repeating it every single time you say something. Just my opinion, but I frankly would favor that guy's opinion before Romick's on something about econ and its nexus with finance that I'm not versed in.