The Jeremy Grantham Interview

madhedgefundtrader's picture

Comment viewing options

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

so humble...

#The diminutive Englishman is brilliant, is one of a few who possess a truly global view, #is as rich as Croesus, but keeps at it for the shear love of mastering the three #dimensional chess game that is international finance. In other words, he’s a lot like me.

so you are

# brilliant

#one of a few who possess a truly global view

#rich as Croesus

let me SIR do not agree.. you are stupid as SARA PALIN ASS..

at least after reading you so called analysis thats my impression..



Deus Ex Populo's picture

By just posting the link to the Bartiromo interview of Grantham ( ), MHFT could have spared himself (and us) about 1100 words, his sheer/shear display of literary ineptitude, and the small helping of self-aggrandizement we've become so accustomed to finding in his iconoclastic out-of-consensus missives.


The weak synopsis given here scores at a B level for what it is - a freshmen level rewritten version of a 30 minute video.


revenue_anticipation_believer's picture

MHF is your $900/yr 'shear' per subscriber proving out, back-testing OK?  Or is it 'sheer' walking the walk, talking the talk, amusing always...

revenue_anticipation_believer's picture

delightful, excellent narrative as usual, always johnny on the spot, huh! Love the cute Jesus story .....from a while back....cannot find it, so long long ago..

Hold USA CASH for the moment, eh?

how about a sell/buy pair for some leverage, while waiting, preparing for the S.F. "big one"....short SF CRE real estate, long Mumbai CRE,  or such thing?

the grateful unemployed's picture

I question his call on Blue Chips. I see the current economic malaise as a war between corporate and non-corporate businesses. Profit margins started to decline, and Wall Street bankers directed money to those companies listed on the NYSE, and applied the rule of usury to the rest. The political class, (which is all in on the corporate side) did their part to help, boosting stock valuations, which freed up more money for buybacks, and made credit for the corporate class almost free. 

The decline of blue collar America was built as the age of entrepreneurship, but the moneyed interests pulled the rug out from under grass roots economic development (while spouting propaganda about green shoots). Many government employers, also forced workers to assume the position, of independent contractor. 

At the same time they created massive mortgage fraud, (which kept consumers spending, at zero APR, while the same guy was paying 20% interest to meet his business financing needs. 

The future of the corporate business model is gloomy, because of (foreign) competition, and the lost allure of mass produced products, the head of Coke said, a few years ago, that someday, there will a Coke for everyone. Such a statement contradicts the corporate premise of a uniform product distributed to a diverse global market. There is no one size fits all anymore.

The second premise (or promise) in corporate distribution, includes access to all products at all times. If consumers in India have their own Coke product, should that be available in all stores? The basis of uniform products and distribution comes into question, and raises new challenges to the benefits corporations gain through synergy, or will the special brand of Coke for India, be made in Mexico because its' cheaper? 

The death knell to the corporate model is the demise of big government, which needs access to massive amounts of uniform products. (think military uniform, a pun to be sure) As governments shrink, the role of corporations in government shrinks, and the ability to lobby for benefits disappears. Without corporate welfare, there is no corporation.

And for a long time corporations were thought of as public trusts. That is if they did something wrong, blew up an oil well for instance, the government would forgive the mistake, to the degree that the corporation could stay in business and continue to supply our needs. SCOTUS has taken the view that corporations are individuals, and have rights, but they also have accountability.

In the future businesses which have real profit margins will suffice. that is products with value added like alternative energy solutions. That's where i would be looking. businesses which function as middle men, the people at Coke take some sugar and some water, and then brand themselves, they are really middlemen, in that sense of the word. I want to see value added, and to that end a true VAT, is acceptable, which excludes the vast majority of consumables.


jeff montanye's picture

he may be a lot like you but i bet he knows the difference between sheer and shear.

doolittlegeorge's picture

reread your "Liar's Poker."  It's called a "Confidence Game" (another great book btw) and surprisingly to the author of Liar's Poker "he had to right another one called The Big Short." Clearly "he should be working on a third" because "this is government business now." 

ATG's picture

The diminutive Englishman is brilliant, is one of a few who possess a truly global view, is as rich as Croesus, but keeps at it for the shear love of mastering the three dimensional chess game that is international finance. In other words, he’s a lot like me

You can play with a pretty good chance of winning for a few more quarters. The time to start acting conservatively is now

Classic MHFT gobble

Looks like Mr Market was maybe dry cleaned and crease pressed early courtesy of FBI, margin calls and Sinn Fein

TD ZH WR Flash crash anyone?

Market does often turn around holidays 3:02



Bill Lumbergh's picture

I think the aforementioned content was already posted via a video on ZH.

Orly's picture




Mr Lennon Hendrix's picture

Orly, they ain't fillin' the gaps in silver!!


I kid, I only kid.  Hope you are serving the 4X its ass today, but remember, please buy some physical  ;)