Archive - Nov 20, 2010 - Blog entry

The only time that Treasuries actually RALLIED (lowering long-term interest rates) was from April-August 2010: the ONLY time that the Fed hasn’t maintained a public QE program in the last 18 months.

I wrote this opinion piece on Sarah Palin and her populist appeal. I got mostly jeers. Mainly being accused of elitism. Tough being libertarian.

As its memory of the unhappy market collapse of 1929 becomes blurred, it may lend at least one ear to the voices of The Street subtly pleading for a return ” to the good old times.” Forgotten, perhaps, by some are the shattering revelations of the Senate Committee’s investigations, forgotten the practices and ethics that The Street followed and defended when its own sway was undisputed in the good old days.

Kind of a drab hum drum day in the market yesterday as no new countries were close to defaulting, no new IPOs of shitty companies were being sold (and yeah Harrah's, Money McBags is looking at you), and no new news on whether Milla Jovovich will be joining her country's burgeoning Femen movement.

There once was a time when the "learned" believed the sun revolved around the earth, the world was flat, and government spending led to sustainable economic growth. This week's Investment Advisor Ideas focuses on another such misconceived idea, classifying stocks with growth and value designations. While the investment consultant community has firmly adopted the growth vs. value concept, at some point, hopefully in the near future, this classification will go the way of the buggy whip, leaching, and the above silly misconceptions. After all, the classification tends to imply a choice between owning a stock that can grow but doesn't offer much value, versus one that offers a compelling value but doesn't offer much growth. Such a choice is silly - every stock valuation implies a future stream of cash flows to justify its price. If today's price implies a smaller cash stream than a company is capable of generating, it is a value stock. If a stock's price implies greater cash stream than a company is capable of generating, it is a value trap, regardless of how sexy its products are or how strong its future revenue growth appears. It does not get much simpler than that.

If you don't hate Ben yet, you will soon.