Ted usually posts these. I can't guarantee these links will work. Hopefully they will. I just finished reading the first one in print (January 16) and found it interesting.
Roundtable Part I January 16, 2017 (Click near top of search results - "Stocks Could Post Limited Gains ...")
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=tablet-gws&site=&source=hp&q=rising+bond+yields,+rich+valuations,+and+global+turmoil+could+limit+the+stock&oq=rising+bond+yields,+rich+valuations,+and+global+turmoil+could+limit+the+stock&gs_l=tablet-gws.12...9901.53645.0.54635.85.80.1.0.0.0.1061.8544.3-2j3j5j3j1.14.0....0...1.1.64.tablet-gws..70.4.2026...0j0i131k1j0i22i30k1j30i10k1.OEDXlMJ5iewRoundtable Part II (2 Choices) January 23, 2017
From Mark:
http://www.barrons.com/articles/2017-roundtable-part-2-manual-for-a-mixed-up-market-1484976857My previous: (Click near top of search results - "Manual for a Mixed Up Market")
https://www.google.com/search?sclient=tabletgws&site=&source=hp&q=our+experts+see+values+in+housing,+health+care,+auto+parts,+and+infrastructure+plays&oq=our+experts+see+values+in+housing,+health+care,+auto+parts,+and+infrastructure+plays&gs_l=tablet-gws.12...3083.40400.0.44969.84.80.0.0.0.0.832.9939.3-2j9j6j2.19.0....0...1.1.64.tablet-gws..65.4.1638...0j30i10k1.Mq7t-p9Bt2U
Comments
http://www.barrons.com/articles/2017-roundtable-part-2-manual-for-a-mixed-up-market-1484976857
Nevermind, this doesn't work. Sometimes I am able to copy the title of the article and paste it into my browser (Safari) search box and come up with an unrestricted source. That's how I got to the link I posted. I have no clue why it didn't work this time.
Part I Participants: Gundlach, Black, Zulauf, Gabelli, Witmer, Brian Rogers, Schafer, Cohen, William Priest.
Gundlach received his share of accolades for having called the election nearly a year in advance, getting the Fed moves about right and coming closest on where the stock market would end up in 2016. Gabelli seemed gleeful at the prospects of a President Trump who he thinks exemplifies the best in capitalism. None of the participants were very optimistic regarding 2017. Gabelli, perhaps, seemed the most optimistic of the lot, but even he suggested only single digit gains. Cohen was a bit positive, but hedged a lot, and wasn't pleased Trump had won. Rogers, Chairman of T. Rowe Price, liked large caps best and was adamant against buying small caps at current valuations. Said something like: "Anything but small cap."
All seemed negative on international equities out of concerns about a strengthening dollar and possible trade restrictions. Also, a lot of discussion was about the growing political unrest in Europe - in large measure related to immigration. The consensus seemed to be that the European Union would not survive and also that populist movements were poised to take control in multiple countries. Not a pretty picture for Europe. Japan was mentioned favorably by some as a good place to invest.
One dominate theme all seemed to agree on was that interest rates have bottomed. Most thought future increases would be gradual. Some noted that Trump's proposed stimulus is coming at an unprecedented time (compared to past economic cycles) as the economy is running pretty hot right now and some saw friction arising between Trump and the current Federal Reserve. (Surprise, Surprise). Most believe inflation was picking up and that commodities would do well going forward. Personally I'm more reticent on that last point as commodities have already had a pretty good run. Not much was said about the metals. One member suggested gold's path of least resistance was down. I missed Marc Faber. Always found his odd man out perspectives interesting.
Sorry the links didn't work.
@hank, you know you can block their promotions easily, labeling as spam, or asking to unsubscribe, etc.
So do an incognito-google of this, in quotes:
Mario Gabelli offer investment picks for the new year
Generally this sort of thing works, as others here know; find an exact quote and pursue exactly.
Gundlach recommends India for long-term, Japan for shorter term. I own a lot in TRP. So I looked at (Japan) PRJPX. Going back to last January at this time, it's already up by 24.31%. Too late for me? I plan to get out of my latest mistake, which is Real Estate, and would love to know what you all think about PRJPX as a 1-year trade, and beyond. Thanks.
In addition, Japan has announced that India will be a major trade partner with them. This was in reaction to increased tensions with China. So I personally would have Japan as a long term holding. You should check your international funds to see how much exposure to Japan they have. That might give you an idea of how much to put into PRJPX.
India will still be volatile for some time in my opinion. You might have enough India exposure in any EM funds you hold.
Not saying over-weighting a hunch can't be profitable. I just tend to get in late pretty much all the time. When we start to talk about it on MFO, too late. At least that has been my experience. My fund managers seem to do a little better.
P.S., made the same mistake as you with a small bet on real estate.
Vanguard offers VPACX which holds 60 % Japan and has a 2.5% yield.
Hennessy has two very successful Japan funds that are a bit pricey (ER), HJPNX & HJPSX. HJPSX has out performed (over the last 10 yrs). It holds 60 companies. HJPNX is even more concentrated with only 20 holdings. Compare that to VPACX which holds over 2000 names in its cap weighted index fund.
Fidelity also offers two Japan funds, FJPNX & FJSCX
Matthews offers MJFOX (A non starter for Crash)
Also:
"Our panelists have a dark view of developments in Europe, from the spread of populism ..." I guess the will of the people is dangerous.
I think the concern was that the European Common Market and cooperation among former rivals has contributed to regional and global prosperity (Airbus Industries for example) and has prevented the type of regional warfare that ravaged Europe during much of the first half of the 20th century. They're not happy to see things trending in the opposite direction.
They might be wrong. You're welcome to disagree. But that, I think, is different from saying the panelists don't respect the will of the people. Admittedly, semantics contributes to the misunderstanding. Sectarianism, isolationism or militarism are are words that might better represent their concerns.
Not to introduce politics into this thread but the spread of populism does illustrate a point. If the people in Germany were asked if they wanted millions of un-vetted refuges in their country - the population/common man would have said no. But the non-populist elites did what they wanted.
"Our panelists have a dark view of developments in Europe, from the spread of populism to the persistence of negative interest rates, and some fear the euro’s days are numbered. In Japan, however, they say the sun is finally rising on equity investors, and opportunities could surface"
He’s selected a cabinet of plutocrats, with a labor secretary bitterly opposed to minimum wage hikes. He talks about infrastructure, but the only thing that passes for a plan is a document proposing some tax credits for private investors, which wouldn’t involve much public outlay even if they did lead to new investment (as opposed to giveaways for investment that would have taken place anyway.) He does seem set to blow up the deficit, but via tax cuts for the wealthy; benefits for the poor and middle class seem set for savage cuts. Why, then, does anyone consider him a “populist”? It’s basically all about affect, about coming across as someone who’ll stand up to snooty liberal elitists (and of course validate salt-of-the-earth, working-class racism.)
I've re-read the print article - which is about eight pages long. Approximately one page is devoted to Europe. From what I see, the word "populism" is only used once or twice in the entire article. The broader implication is that both the Eurozone and the member nations are becoming fragmented politically and socially. Participants view the rise of a multitude of small but vocal constituencies, ranging from far left to far right with alarm. That increasingly divisive atmosphere is viewed by (essentially all of) the Roundtable participants as not good for business. So, as investors, they're cautious on Europe.
These folks (Roundtable participants) are interested primarily in making money - not in advancing some hidden political agenda. They're dyed in the wool capitalists ........
...... Barron's, The WSJ and the Murdoch family all left-leaning liberals? Mario Gabelli too? Incredulous!
Edit: Here's Gabelli in Part II - "... in electing Donald Trump, the U.S. is moving away from creeping socialism toward the reinvigoration of capitalism. We are seeing a wave of confidence in America, which will spark a wave of innovation." Happy now?
https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+populist&oq=trump+populist&aqs=chrome..69i57.4911j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
oligarch? you will have to make a case for that.
As for populism, looks like you (again) did not read the articles that come up with that googling.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plutocrat
That is really too easy and in a way cowardly i.e. the poster is afraid to commit to a position.
Even the WP says tells its followers what T is.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-rattles-the-establishment-with-a-populist-inaugural-address-true-to-his-campaign/2017/01/20/f47f261c-df45-11e6-acdf-14da832ae861_story.html?utm_term=.d7cf4795e7a3
I know that "populism" has been associated with his campaign and with his political approach since then. But true to form, he is consistent about being inconsistent. The matrix from which he has ascended is terrifyingly ultra-ultra Right-wing (Bannon, others.) I don't mean intelligently informed conservatism, with which I might associate the likes of George Will, though I mostly disagree with him (except re: baseball.) It's been reported that Trump doesn't read, and he's confirmed that, himself. He knows The Art of the Deal, alright. But so far, his administration is busy thumbing its nose at the world. Alarming.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/28/opinion/sunday/can-donald-trump-handle-the-truth.html
And this:
(Excerpt:) "....A spokesman for Angela Merkel said the German chancellor regretted Trump’s decision to ban citizens of certain countries from entering the US, adding that she had “explained” the obligations of the refugee convention to the new president in a phone call on Saturday..." It doesn't surprise me at all that this new President needed a foreign Head of State to make him aware of this.
LINK: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/29/merkel-explains-geneva-refugee-convention-to-trump-in-phone-call
This bunch is a new iteration of the Not Ready For Prime Time Players, with apologies to the crew at Saturday Night Live.
Reading etc ... who cares. Those are a criteria Ds use to put him down.
Immigration - it is a temp move with the countries Obama and the congress agreed upon.
All this vitriol was leveled at many Rs (24 hr news amplifies it).
Doesn't read, drunk, cocaine - Bush 2
Remember R. Reagan - many of the same things said about T was said about him.
All I can say is ... think for yourself, have an open mind, and wait to see the results - they will be no where near the hysteria being put forth.