> Globally, no one that matters wants it to fail, therefore it won't. I’ve seen this argument before, and can’t help to think how naive it sounds. Can you name one other case where the fact that we don’t want something to fail results in it being unable to fail? Actions have consequences. No matter how much we don’t want a particular set of consequences to occur, they will if we perform the wrong actions.
Globally, no one wants a pandemic, therefore...
Globally, no one wants a housing price collapse and global recession, therefore...
I don’t know a whole lot about professional investing, but if watching The Big Short has taught me anything it’s that the pros will say one thing publicly but do the opposite in private until it’s to their advantage to do a 180 and make their private stance actually public. Recently this was Jamie Dimon lambasting Bitcoin all the while a cryptocurrency trading desk was being set up at Chase. The following exchange fr…
> Recently this was Jamie Dimon lambasting Bitcoin all the while a cryptocurrency trading desk was being set up at Chase. Did he change his position, though. Having a negative opinion of something is one thing; and profiting from selling shovels for the gold rush is another thing. The trading desk is not a long position.
In the case of bitcoin, it probably is. Legitimising bitcoin as an investment for institutionals pushes the price higher, and also increases trading volumes and thereby trading profits. In contrast with stocks, where a sell off generally brings volatility and good news to trading desks.
One thing I've learned about professional investors is that no matter what, at the end of the day they're talking their book. So whether you buy these arguments or not, Ray Dalio is simply promoting a position that Bridgewater no doubt has taken. So when he says: "I believe a well-diversified portfolio of non-debt and non-dollar assets along with a short cash position is preferable to a traditional stock/bond mix tha…
I don’t know a whole lot about professional investing, but if watching The Big Short has taught me anything it’s that the pros will say one thing publicly but do the opposite in private until it’s to their advantage to do a 180 and make their private stance actually public. Recently this was Jamie Dimon lambasting Bitcoin all the while a cryptocurrency trading desk was being set up at Chase. The following exchange fr…
Unless they are trying to move markets, which they do all the time.
I mean, the entire WSB subreddit is basically dedicated to this.
I don’t know a whole lot about professional investing, but if watching The Big Short has taught me anything it’s that the pros will say one thing publicly but do the opposite in private until it’s to their advantage to do a 180 and make their private stance actually public. Recently this was Jamie Dimon lambasting Bitcoin all the while a cryptocurrency trading desk was being set up at Chase. The following exchange fr…
Generally investors want to convince other investors of the truth (as they see it) once they've already made the bet. The exception to that rule is if you have trouble getting OUT of an illiquid position (as in the example you quote) - then you don't want to panic other investors before you've successfully taken the other side.
That's the same rule, rather than an exception. You don't want to influence the other investors because you haven't "already made the bet".
One thing I've learned about professional investors is that no matter what, at the end of the day they're talking their book. So whether you buy these arguments or not, Ray Dalio is simply promoting a position that Bridgewater no doubt has taken. So when he says: "I believe a well-diversified portfolio of non-debt and non-dollar assets along with a short cash position is preferable to a traditional stock/bond mix tha…
I don’t know a whole lot about professional investing, but if watching The Big Short has taught me anything it’s that the pros will say one thing publicly but do the opposite in private until it’s to their advantage to do a 180 and make their private stance actually public. Recently this was Jamie Dimon lambasting Bitcoin all the while a cryptocurrency trading desk was being set up at Chase. The following exchange fr…
I think this is quite normal for larger corporations. At any given time they operate on multiple layers and they may not even be compatible with each other: there's the public image of the company, revenue targets, political pirouette,or internal battles between departments. Even in a small company I had enough situations where I have to say one thing but do the opposite.
I don’t know a whole lot about professional investing, but if watching The Big Short has taught me anything it’s that the pros will say one thing publicly but do the opposite in private until it’s to their advantage to do a 180 and make their private stance actually public. Recently this was Jamie Dimon lambasting Bitcoin all the while a cryptocurrency trading desk was being set up at Chase. The following exchange fr…
> Recently this was Jamie Dimon lambasting Bitcoin all the while a cryptocurrency trading desk was being set up at Chase. But Jamie Dimon also has a reputation of not being the smartest bulb in the block, and also being overly cautious so.... I think the GP statement is more correct though. A lot of fund managers love to gloat about their positions rather than talk the inverse.
You don't become a CEO of a large bank by being the smartest,this title usually belongs to the ones a few steps below.
One thing I've learned about professional investors is that no matter what, at the end of the day they're talking their book. So whether you buy these arguments or not, Ray Dalio is simply promoting a position that Bridgewater no doubt has taken. So when he says: "I believe a well-diversified portfolio of non-debt and non-dollar assets along with a short cash position is preferable to a traditional stock/bond mix tha…
This "theory" has been pretty obvious since the 80s. Not really sure who this is written for (probably his clients) but investment firms are always going to buy bonds regardless. It doesn't matter if equities will be higher in the long term, your performance is measured in the short term, and a firm is going to hedge against short-term equity swings.
> Consider US tax-free municipal bonds (munies). They are safe Are they? COVID19 has destroyed the tax-budgets of many states and cities. Deficit spending / stimulus is the current plan, but how long can States keep it up? I know there's been a stimulus bill just passed. But is it enough to get state budgets back in order after a tough year?
All state bonds are well positioned for generous bailout terms from Washington.
Forcing a fiscal crisis is a great way of accomplishing some political goals so I wouldn't be complacent about this risk.
I don’t know a whole lot about professional investing, but if watching The Big Short has taught me anything it’s that the pros will say one thing publicly but do the opposite in private until it’s to their advantage to do a 180 and make their private stance actually public. Recently this was Jamie Dimon lambasting Bitcoin all the while a cryptocurrency trading desk was being set up at Chase. The following exchange fr…
> Recently this was Jamie Dimon lambasting Bitcoin all the while a cryptocurrency trading desk was being set up at Chase. But Jamie Dimon also has a reputation of not being the smartest bulb in the block, and also being overly cautious so.... I think the GP statement is more correct though. A lot of fund managers love to gloat about their positions rather than talk the inverse.
"he's not the smartest bulb in the block, and also being overly cautious so...."
Being overly cautious makes you a smart banker. You do not move fast and break things in insurance or banking.
The conclusion kind of scares me, especially coming from Dalio. > so they could very well impose prohibitions against capital movements to other assets (e.g., gold, Bitcoin, etc.) and other locations. These tax changes could be more shocking than expected. Who truly believes this is a likely scenario? A number of folks I know are already considering fleeing the US but if this was to pass, that number would skyrocket…
Far fewer people than imagined even flee to different states within the US because of higher taxes. The notion that everyone's going to go live in the Caribbean and eschew their social lives and their kids' fancy schools seems unlikely.