Another Julian Robertson Interview

Tyler Durden's picture

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Gilgamesh's picture

There was absolutely, positively ZERO frontrunning the ISM number and selling on the news today...

AxiosAdv's picture

Not true - the spoos looked like they were having an epileptic seizure 30-45seconds before the number hit.

Anonymous's picture

No mergers, nothing...yet the markets find ways to rally....this is a joke. Looks like another triple digit move up on no logic and no volume.

Daedal's picture

"ROBERTSON:  No, I'm not optimistic about the government getting anything right.  And I think that they are very much responsible for the situation which we are in and which, to me, the most damning part of it is the dependence on the Chinese and Japanese lenders for our very existence.
And I think it is a tragedy that that is happened to the United States.
And I think that has been done by a group of politicians over long period of time, you know, 30 years.  And they've encouraged leverage.  They thought it was a good idea for everybody to own a great home."

Leo Kolivakis thinks otherwise.

Anonymous's picture

Exactly. He sees no catalyst for future disruptions. It
must be nice to live in a world where you can
look at Wells Fargo's delinquent loan %, the fact
that the FDIC is broke and numerous other
financial data that would upset most human beings
and think that either it isn't an issue or that
it'll all be worked out.

Anonymous's picture

How is it that Asia ceasing to buy our debt causes inflation? I understand interest rates would rise, but wouldn't a spike in interest rates along with a dearth of buying of government bonds cause asset values to plummet as people can refinance.... And less néw money enters the system

chindit13's picture

I believe Robertson's belief is that if China and Japan stop buying, Bernanke will do the buying and further expand the Fed's balance sheet.

Anonymous's picture

more than any one else, I can't wait for this bogus economy, consuming and borrowing, to totally collapse, so those cheer leaders at mainstream media can be permanently fired, and so that people in america can wise up and elect a new party into power.

naiverealist's picture

Be careful what you wish for.  An economy collapsing can result in a lot of chaos, pain, and hardship.  It goes far beyond firing MSM cheerleaders and a new political party in power.

Anonymous's picture

I don't think a new political party will get traction in the US anytime soon. Sure, we've seen 5-15% of the population gravitate to 3rd parties here and there, but that isn't enough. Two hundred years of inertia I guess. Grocery stores see people buying oranges when apple quality declines and vice-a-verse, but when both oranges and apples fail, kiwi and mango fruit sales don't pick up the slack. And if by some miracle a 3rd party did get power, our twisted political incentive environment would keep it well leashed. Public campaign finance reform and long term limits on the revolving door is likely our best hope to lower political capture rates. However, even these considerations are likely simplistic. Our 3 tier system of checks and balances is far too 'gamed' at this point. The biggest boondoggles have little opposition while common sense policy stalls in pileup.

duffelpud's picture

Guns and guillotines hold the only prospect of reform.  Always have, always will.

Anonymous's picture

a "new" party into power?
------------------
and which party would be that "new" party?

bugs_'s picture

ARRRRR! The ZeroHedge Party ye know it!

Anonymous's picture

Yes, this is all the gooberments fault. The banking cartel, extreme leverage, wallstreet created CDO's, squares, regulatory capture...etc. had nothing to do with our situation.

Anonymous's picture

"they thought it was a good idea for everyone to own a home"

oh, that's right, only a certain privledged few should own a home.

i don't think that has anything to do really with our problems.

the situation is a stock bubble and a derivatives bubble most of which is related to a stock bubble.

housing, sorry to say to doom and gloomers, is not the bubble made out to be.

paper or a house? its sort of a quiz. can you answer correctly?

Anonymous's picture

here's sort of answer:

who now holds the paper that gives it 'legal' right to own the house (and the land) should the signer of the paper not fulfill their 'contractual' obligations?

Plainview's picture

The derivatives bubble leveraged off debt far more than it did off equities and much of that debt was, eventually, backed by property.

And positing that Robertson was implying "only a certain privledged (sic) few" should own a home is utter nonsense; rather only people who can afford the required debt and are responsible enough to not borrow more than that amount should own a house.

Guessing you're looooong & wroooong Anon.

 

 

Anonymous's picture

it's a question of education
or lack of that stuff
and of information
or information
democracy cannot work with illiterate citizens

and oligopoly in media
break down media conglomerates rather than big banks and usa will, maybe work again
and shut down dmn hollywood

now who owns media, hollywood and goldman sachs

stop talking about political parties

solve the info crisis and things shold work , maybe again as the founding fathers, brtw freemasons, intended to

read a b franklin autobiography and was deeply impressed