Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

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

Hussman: An Open Letter to the FOMC

Comments

  • edited November 2013
    Humility is evidently not part of John Hussman's make-up, but hubris seems to be...
    ...I earned my doctorate in economics from Stanford, studying with Tom Sargent, John Taylor, Ron McKinnon, Robert Hall, and Joe Stiglitz, and spent several years as a professor at the University of Michigan and Michigan Business School before focusing on finance.
    We...have foregone the more recent speculative advance because identical features have resulted in spectacular market losses throughout history.
    ...the actions of the Federal Reserve...were not responsible for the recovery.
    The point of this exercise is emphatically not to lay out an explicit time path for prices, but rather to demonstrate the pattern of increasingly urgent speculation – the willingness to aggressively buy every dip in prices – that the Federal Reserve has provoked.
    The Federal Reserve has a critical role in easing constraints - particularly shortages of liquidity in the banking system - when they become binding, and in applying constraints and oversight - or at least refraining from further harm - when risks become untethered. The second aspect of that role is far more imperative today than might be obvious.
    I'm sure the FOMC will be knocking down his door asking to be enlightened.

    image
  • edited November 2013
    Here's M* performance plot during the period covered in his open letter:

    image

    image
  • Ha!

    An Open Letter to the FOMC: Recognizing the Valuation Bubble In Equities

    Or, How I Long for Bubbles Gone Bye...


    image
  • Too much fun Scott!

    Thanks for posting...time for drinks.

    =)
  • Please somebody tell me my math is wrong.

    Hussman collects over$17 million each year in mgmt fees for HSGFX alone....and almost $6 million for HSTRX. That's $23M per annum. With very little staff/overhead.

    Hey, this wacky professor is no dummy....I mean, Madoff was incarcerated for stealing investors money. Huss does it the LEGAL way. Can't touch this.
  • edited November 2013
    This must be some kind of "dark humor."
    Sorry - haven't had a chance to read it yet. Will try to find time.
  • Reply to @JoeNoEskimo: Sorry bud, but that comment came from the wrong end of your body. You are comparing Hussman with Madoff?
  • The problem with Hussman is that he is right. An even bigger problem with Hussman is, it does not matter. No one cares about his record since inception, which itself is now worthless. No one has an infinite time horizon.

    I continue to hold Hussman as a hedge. I will continue to do so. One day his 50% drop will come true. As I have said before, THAT will be the time people will really bail on Hussman. Why because the will realize that he will not lose much money during that 50% drop, but he will not make much money either.

    I'm wondering who the bozo's are who are still invested with Hussman. I mean idiot me hardly has anything. Who are those "patient" investors? I think I'm probably the only one on MFO who owns Hussman. Anyone else care to admit the own Hussman?
  • edited November 2013
    Reply to @VintageFreak: Thanks for giving the other side.
  • I quit reading Hussman a few months after the slope of my funds smoothed out above the "dip", which obviously took a while. (So I only read the comments here.) Too bad he didn't pile 100% into non-hedged equities in 2009 to catch the rise, since he avoided the dip.
    Seems to me PRPFX (which has been questioned lately) makes more sense that investing with Hussman. I suspect it will hold up fairly well in the next drop, and it has made some money over the last 5 years.
  • edited November 2013
    Reply to @STB65: For PRPFX, treasuries might be a drag on medium-term performance, and gold is certainly a wildcard. Past performance was terrific over the last decade thanks to a fantastic run for these assets.
    It will be interesting to see how this vehicle holds up in the future.
  • Agree, Joe, but doubt PRPFX does worse than Hussman. Wasn't recommending it above anything besides Hussman. Sold my tidbit of PRPFX over a year ago. Was just thinking VF might be better served switching to PRPFX than holding Hussman.
Sign In or Register to comment.