Dear @realwillmeade you do know that when you get quoted and you don't correct the public record, people will think you are lying, because you are not expected to let actual untruths stand.
This article here may simply be sloppy reporting of a tweet but it's out there.
There are others out there too.
This one is also from a tweet. And it misreads your bio.
But you don't really make your bio clear do you. There are people who would read that bio and say at the very least... "gee, he was a former PM at a hedge fund"
.@realwillmeade would you consider changing your bio so people don't always get confused?
Hope I got that right. The bio you used in your 2015 "ebook" suggests the RIA was a hedge fund, but people who worked there both before and after Gary's passing say it was no such thing.
By the way... I love the bit about turning $20k into $26 million in 12 years or into $1.2bn in 30yrs in that e-book. I walked away from that e-book with the knowledge that you didn't understand statistics, but that you did know (or your partner knew) how to data-mine.
I see Hertz was a fave then. And as you noted, downside was limited to 100%.
Of the 4 stocks you chose in the e-book, 3 have underperformed the S&P in those 5yrs (HTZ went BK), but AAPL has done OK, which makes up for HTZ and more, but the kicker is the new WFH fave, isn't it.
That basically did little for 4yrs, then popped, got nailed in March, then rallied hard.
If you'd bought that 4-stock portfolio on 31Mar2015 and held it til you sent out that "Sell Everything!!!" tweet, you would have underperformed S&P500 by 24% in 5yrs.
If you'd bought that portfolio 30 Jun 2015, you would have underperformed by 28%. Best case? You were late and bought that portfolio 30Jun2016 and you only underperformed 5%.
I know. I checked. I even checked other possibilities, and a dollar-cost averaging in-price too.
Of course... since your "sell everything" tweet, which doesn't seem to subscribe to your service, all your baskets have done well. The worst performing in-price has outperformed S&P500 by 22.5% in 3mos. S&P itself is +17% since SELL EVERYTHING, so the average is up 45% since then
I could go on but this all started with your bio....
broken EVERY SINGLE trade agreement which was in place between the US and other countries, before him or which he, himself, signed, including USMCA which was "maybe the greatest deal ever done."
Donald Trump has, for decades, been a fan of tariffs. He ran on it. He put tariffs
on allies. He put tariffs on Australia, which has zero tariffs on the US and with which the US runs a trade surplus. He demands tariff cuts from Japan which runs lower average tariffs on US goods than the US used to run on its imports. He put tariffs on penguins.
Just getting around to the USTR Section 301 hearings on the Proposed Action in Section 301 Investigation of China's Targeting of the Maritime, Logistics, and Shipbuilding Sectors for Dominance.
Like the USTR report released in Jan, it is something of a disaster. 500+ pgs of it.
There are people who support (politicians, labour unions, ports, dockworkers, steel companies, etc).
They almost all use the same talking points from the USTR report which were... wrong. They were factually incorrect in the USTR report and they were the same, or worse in the
hearings. The common trope is that shipbuilding 50 years ago was such that the US was the dominant global shipbuilder, and shipbuilders once employed X number of people. This was destroyed by CCP policies to achieve dominance in shipbuilding, and those policies started in 2006.
because people trade using a dollar denominated price. It is based on where the end profit is allocated to as savings.
If a European company buys 1mm bbl of oil from Aramco, first EUCo uses Euro to buy USD. Gives to Aramco who gives it to Shipper (who EUCo has also paid USD)
And a couple weeks later, EUCo takes delivery in, say, Hamburg. They pay euros to unload it, spend euros to operate their refinery, spend euros to transport diesel to a factory using a backup diesel generator. That company buys the diesel in euros, then burns it, making power
@BlankBl23041510 @Citrini7 1) I don't think the market believes they will last as set. 2) There are many paths. 3) One path is simply a LOT lower consumption. 4) Over even a medium-term, if the system put in place has permanence of intention, it leads to capital controls (i.e. lower real yields)
@BlankBl23041510 @Citrini7 but basically, if you have partial or full capital controls and lower real yields, that's simply financial repression by the state - financed by low returns on capital and less choice.
To get from A to B, there are a finite number of outlets and offsets.
@Citrini7 Americans consume less (because they save more). They produce more to consume what they cut off from the outside world. Jobs which were related to consumption become jobs related to production. All fine. The savings finance the part of the govt deficit no longer financed by
@Citrini7 Ask yourself what you think a reserve currency is.
Is it the fact of a stock of financial assets in a currency?
Or is it a propensity to have a flow?
If the trade deficit (flow) immediately goes to zero, the stock remains unchanged.
Other flows shift. Americans net save.
@Citrini7 Americans consume less (because they save more). They produce more to consume what they cut off from the outside world. Jobs which were related to consumption become jobs related to production. All fine. The savings finance the part of the govt deficit no longer financed by
@Citrini7 foreign flows, but until the budget deficit falls to the level of the current trade deficit, there’s an excess which has to be funded by someone (as a flow). If that is funded by foreigners, you still have the same ‘reserve currency’ ownership of stock AND new inflows ‘problem.’