Here's someone who has moved on...

[onyx1]

Setup:

 

Bill Ackman was not a Trump supporter.

Andrew Ross Sorkin, a left leaning ideologue journalist, asks Ackman about the election.

Sorkin expects Ackman to trash Trump.

 

 

Watch Sorkins' head explode as Ackman explains why he feels Trump is good for investors, and America.

 

Ackman's response is typical of very successful people.  Not bitter.  Not angry.  Not pessimistic.  Failure & setback are fuel for further success.

 

Buffett wannabes take note:  Hillary-supporting Buffett will have a similar response to Trump's election.

 

[randomep]

 

woah, hold the horses here.... I beg to differ and I am positive Buffett is too smart to change his mind.  He might tone down his criticism to appease the POTUS but deep inside he is too smart for that.

 

Ok back to Ackman. I have no confidence in what he said because of the following.

 

1. remember the saying when you combine a great manager with bad business it is the reputation of the bad business that will win. If the US economy is going downhill he isn't going to be able to fix it.

 

2. Ackman is making a economic prediction. As we know the fallibility of great investors such as him and others recently. His ability to predict the economy is no better than any other economist, and economists cannot predict the economy for crap.

 

3. I think what Ackman is saying is that Trump is for less regulation and stuff, which is in general what the Republicans stand for.  But we know full well that the economy does better under Democrat potus than Republican potus.

 

4. He is explaining why the market is bullish, but I feel the market is bullish because he is for lower taxation and regulation, which is great for investors but isn't really creating wealth, it is simply creating more inequality.

 

5. Trump is not a great businessman, let's say he inherited $50M in 1974 and he is worth $2000M today.  That is 7.6% yearly return!  That doesn't beat the S&P500.  And a lot of the money he made is not through wealth creation but wealth destruction, look at the people he ripped off at trump university and his 4 bankruptcies.  So based on his record, the country he leads will be screwed!

 

6. I think a billionaire supporting him is simply trying to be on the good graces of the government. Kinda like the oligarchs cow-towing to putin.

 

7. I bet under Trump it will be more of the SOS, look at the below... I think we'll read more articles like the below:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/donald-trump-transition-drain-the-swamp/

 

[DonFanucci]

4. He is explaining why the market is bullish, but I feel the market is bullish because he is for lower taxation and regulation, which is great for investors but isn't really creating wealth, it is simply creating more inequality.

 

Taxation and regulation obviously do destroy wealth. And inequality is one fantastic aspect of a free society. People are different and they deserve different amounts of wealth.

[wachtwoord]

4. He is explaining why the market is bullish, but I feel the market is bullish because he is for lower taxation and regulation, which is great for investors but isn't really creating wealth, it is simply creating more inequality.

 

Taxation and regulation obviously do destroy wealth. And inequality is one fantastic aspect of a free society. People are different and they deserve different amounts of wealth.

 

Exactly, word for word. Inequality is a feature not a bug.

[rkbabang]

4. He is explaining why the market is bullish, but I feel the market is bullish because he is for lower taxation and regulation, which is great for investors but isn't really creating wealth, it is simply creating more inequality.

 

Taxation and regulation obviously do destroy wealth. And inequality is one fantastic aspect of a free society. People are different and they deserve different amounts of wealth.

 

Exactly, word for word. Inequality is a feature not a bug.

 

Especially in a world (like ours) where the bottom keeps moving up too.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/05/news/economy/poverty-world-bank/

 

https://fee.org/articles/the-world-is-getting-better-and-nobody-knows-it/

 

Unequally wealthy is far superior to equally poor.

 

[DooDiligence]

Ackman's admiration for Valeant causes me to question anything he says.

 

Did anyone see Stephen Colbert last night as he made a fearful apology to the Donald (and then followed it up with "...is what a pu55y would have said.")

 

That sums up what Ackman said (someone was waiting off stage with a warm towel to wipe off his chin.)

 

(Buffet's not a pu55y...)

[onyx1]

 

woah, hold the horses here.... I beg to differ and I am positive Buffett is too smart to change his mind.  He might tone down his criticism to appease the POTUS but deep inside he is too smart for that.

 

Ok back to Ackman. I have no confidence in what he said because of the following.

 

1. remember the saying when you combine a great manager with bad business it is the reputation of the bad business that will win. If the US economy is going downhill he isn't going to be able to fix it.

 

2. Ackman is making a economic prediction. As we know the fallibility of great investors such as him and others recently. His ability to predict the economy is no better than any other economist, and economists cannot predict the economy for crap.

 

3. I think what Ackman is saying is that Trump is for less regulation and stuff, which is in general what the Republicans stand for.  But we know full well that the economy does better under Democrat potus than Republican potus.

 

4. He is explaining why the market is bullish, but I feel the market is bullish because he is for lower taxation and regulation, which is great for investors but isn't really creating wealth, it is simply creating more inequality.

 

5. Trump is not a great businessman, let's say he inherited $50M in 1974 and he is worth $2000M today.  That is 7.6% yearly return!  That doesn't beat the S&P500.  And a lot of the money he made is not through wealth creation but wealth destruction, look at the people he ripped off at trump university and his 4 bankruptcies.  So based on his record, the country he leads will be screwed!

 

6. I think a billionaire supporting him is simply trying to be on the good graces of the government. Kinda like the oligarchs cow-towing to putin.

 

7. I bet under Trump it will be more of the SOS, look at the below... I think we'll read more articles like the below:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/10/politics/donald-trump-transition-drain-the-swamp/

 

 

Ramdon,

 

You might be 100% correct.  So might Ackman.  No one really knows.  But that wasn't my point.

 

Ackman's reaction to the the election setback (and the journalist's incredulousness) is what I see as worth noting. 

 

It's a perfect example of the old saying that "Success isn't determined by what happens, but rather how you react to what happens."

 

 

 

[DooDiligence]

I prefer proactive to reactive...

[onyx1]

I prefer proactive to reactive...

 

 

If I could proactively plan out my life and the entire world around me I would too. 

[rkbabang]

I prefer proactive to reactive...

 

If I could proactively plan out my life and the entire world around me I would too. 

 

The best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry

[DooDiligence]

Proactivity minimizes fear of pain or loss & requires confidence in your abilities & ideas.

 

Reactivity is a defensive posture exhibited by those who have been surprised & lack the courage of their convictions.

[wachtwoord]

Proactivity minimizes fear of pain or loss & requires confidence in your abilities & ideas.

 

Reactivity is a defensive posture exhibited by those who have been surprised & lack the courage of their convictions.

 

Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change

Courage to change the things I can

and wisdom to know the difference.

[Mephistopheles]

It's obvious to me that Ackman's extremely positive views on Trump are to stroke his ego as he has reason to be on his good side (Fannie and Freddie). And I bet Buffett or anyone significant who is smart if asked publicly about Trump would be as diplomatic and gracious as they can be as you don't want the madman exacting revenge.

 

Having said that I agree about being optimistic and positive

[Packer16]

Buffett may change about his assessment, I do not know.  I am sure he was not thrilled by the election of Reagan but he dealt with it & profited from it by not making it effect his approach to the market.  If Buffett really thought Trump was the second coming of Hilter (as some espoused) he would have sold his stocks but he did not.  A key attribute of a successful investor is changing his mind when the circumstances change.  If Trump does little or none of what his critics say, I think it would be wise to change your view on him.  Part of the issue here is most of the media believed there own propaganda and are becoming de-hyponotised but it will take awhile.  When you see headlines from Bloomberg & others in the MSM that acknowledge that Trump has some good policies and not rehashing what they have been espousing for months, then we will have a more information from a more unbiased source.

 

Packer

[rkbabang]

There is no law of nature that says you need to like who is president.  That doesn't mean you can't get on with your life and do what needs doing.  That doesn't mean you should go around butt kissing though.  There isn't any reason for Buffett to say anything at all.

 

[handycap5]

I recommend going to trump's website and reading the proposed policies. It is inherently a political document and not a true policy document (i.e. not a lot of math). But I was surprised how: 1) it largely conformed to standard republican pro-growth policies, and 2) it will be very stimulative in the coming years.

[Jurgis]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/11/investing/warren-buffett-donald-trump-stock/

[wachtwoord]

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/11/investing/warren-buffett-donald-trump-stock/

 

Buffett wannabes take note:  Hillary-supporting Buffett will have a similar response to Trump's election.

 

Nice call :)

[vinod1]

Setup:

 

Bill Ackman was not a Trump supporter.

Andrew Ross Sorkin, a left leaning ideologue journalist, asks Ackman about the election.

Sorkin expects Ackman to trash Trump.

 

 

The fun starts at at 1:30

 

Watch Sorkins' head explode as Ackman explains why he feels Trump is good for investors, and America.

 

Ackman's response is typical of very successful people.  Not bitter.  Not angry.  Not pessimistic.  Failure & setback are fuel for further success.

 

Buffett wannabes take note:  Hillary-supporting Buffett will have a similar response to Trump's election.

 

Come on. A prominent investor has a few positive things to say about your point of view and suddenly you find him admirable and attribute to him qualities that successful people have.

 

Ross Sorkin, a left leaning ideologue. Ann Coulter & Sean Hannity are fair and balanced :)

 

I voted for Hillary holding my nose, just because I find Trump behavior unacceptable.

 

If you are the kind of person who looks at an 8 year old girl and think in 10 years I am going to be dating her,  you would be perfectly fine with Trump. If you have assaulted women in the past, you would be saying "What is the big deal". Many find that offensive and that by itself rule him out as POTUS. If you find all his past behavior closer to how you yourself have behaved, you would just be fine with him.

 

No, not all of his supporters are like that of course. A decent proportion of his supporters are like that. Now you can find equally offensive people on the democratic side. But when your leader is exactly like that, these are the kind of people you are going to attract. So that is why you see many people (remember less people voted for him than Hillary) who find him and many of his supporters so offensive. As Liberty put it so eloquently "Human Garbage".

 

Now, I see a lot of positives also with Trump.

 

1. He put an end to two dynasties (Bush and Clinton). So he gave democracy a push and a blow to crony capitalism. This by itself is a big achievement. 

 

2. He is talking about the issues that are directly impacting the low income workers but which are completely being ignored by both the parties - not being smart about what Chinese are doing trade wise (not just about currency) and acknowledging that immigration is a big problem. These are not going to magically solve all the problems with wage stagnation among low income workers but it is a step in the right direction.

 

3. He is likely to reduce regulation on businesses which I think went to the other extreme.

 

4. He seemed less driven by ideology and a bit more practical stuff. He might be a mediocre businessman but that is better than policy wonks who lost touch with the common man and women. I would guess that I am a lot closer to many of his likely policy positions than Hillary's - because it is not clear what his policy positions are going to be.

 

I knew all this but still voted for Hillary just because of his behavior. I can understand people who held their nose and voted for him for various reasons. There are also people who admire him and are his very enthusiastic supporters. I do not have much respect for them. Nothing changed just because he won.

 

Vinod

[arcube]

Great post Vinod. Thanks for sharing. Great perspective.

 

Setup:

 

Bill Ackman was not a Trump supporter.

Andrew Ross Sorkin, a left leaning ideologue journalist, asks Ackman about the election.

Sorkin expects Ackman to trash Trump.

 

 

The fun starts at at 1:30

 

Watch Sorkins' head explode as Ackman explains why he feels Trump is good for investors, and America.

 

Ackman's response is typical of very successful people.  Not bitter.  Not angry.  Not pessimistic.  Failure & setback are fuel for further success.

 

Buffett wannabes take note:  Hillary-supporting Buffett will have a similar response to Trump's election.

 

Come on. A prominent investor has a few positive things to say about your point of view and suddenly you find him admirable and attribute to him qualities that successful people have.

 

Ross Sorkin, a left leaning ideologue. Ann Coulter & Sean Hannity are fair and balanced :)

 

I voted for Hillary holding my nose, just because I find Trump behavior unacceptable.

 

If you are the kind of person who looks at an 8 year old girl and think in 10 years I am going to be dating her,  you would be perfectly fine with Trump. If you have assaulted women in the past, you would be saying "What is the big deal". Many find that offensive and that by itself rule him out as POTUS. If you find all his past behavior closer to how you yourself have behaved, you would just be fine with him.

 

No, not all of his supporters are like that of course. A decent proportion of his supporters are like that. Now you can find equally offensive people on the democratic side. But when your leader is exactly like that, these are the kind of people you are going to be attract. So that is why you see many people (remember less people voted for him than Hillary) who find him and many of his supporters so offensive. As Liberty put it so eloquently "Human Garbage".

 

Now, I see a lot of positives also with Trump.

 

1. He put an end to two dynasties (Bush and Clinton). So he gave democracy a push and a blow to crony capitalism. This by itself is a big achievement. 

 

2. He is talking about the issues that are directly impacting the low income workers but which are completely being ignored by both the parties - not being smart about what Chinese are doing trade wise (not just about currency) and acknowledging that immigration is a big problem. These are not going to magically solve all the problems with wage stagnation among low income workers but it is a step in the right direction.

 

3. He is likely to reduce regulation on businesses which I think went to the other extreme.

 

4. He seemed less driven by ideology and a bit more practical stuff. He might be a mediocre businessman but that is better than policy wonks who lost touch with the common man and women. I would guess that I am a lot closer to many of his likely policy positions than Hillary's - because it is not clear what his policy positions are going to be.

 

I knew all this but still voted for Hillary just because of his behavior. I can understand people who held their nose and voted for him for various reasons. There are people who admire him and are his very enthusiastic supporters. I do not have much respect for them. Nothing changed just because he won.

 

Vinod

[RichardGibbons]

Unequally wealthy is far superior to equally poor.

 

Just keep on whacking that straw man. Nobody's wanted equality since Lenin. 

 

What people want is low enough inequality that the poor don't rise up and shoot the rich, but instead have the income mobility to rise up and become the rich.

[DonFanucci]

Unequally wealthy is far superior to equally poor.

 

Just keep on whacking that straw man. Nobody's wanted equality since Lenin. 

 

What people want is low enough inequality that the poor don't rise up and shoot the rich, but instead have the income mobility to rise up and become the rich.

 

If an ideal means the violation of rights and destruction when consistently implemented, why would you want to implement it to any degree at all? It's silly to think that people will rise up if there's inequality. They will rise up if they perceive inequality as unjust. They will be happy with inequality if they think it's just. And earned inequality that results from freedom is just.

[rkbabang]

Unequally wealthy is far superior to equally poor.

 

Just keep on whacking that straw man. Nobody's wanted equality since Lenin. 

 

What people want is low enough inequality that the poor don't rise up and shoot the rich, but instead have the income mobility to rise up and become the rich.

 

If an ideal means the violation of rights and destruction when consistently implemented, why would you want to implement it to any degree at all? It's silly to think that people will rise up if there's inequality. They will rise up if they perceive inequality as unjust. They will be happy with inequality if they think it's just. And earned inequality that results from freedom is just.

 

I agree.  Of course there will always be some who think they are entitled to what other people have worked hard for simply because they have been born and draw breath, people who let envy get the best of them, and those who play on the envy of others to obtain political power, but hopefully those will always be the minority.  Envious people don't scare me as much as those who wish to use them as a base for power.

 

 

[rukawa]

What people want is low enough inequality that the poor don't rise up and shoot the rich, but instead have the income mobility to rise up and become the rich.

 

Right now they are too busy shooting each other to shoot the rich.

[RichardGibbons]

They will be happy with inequality if they think it's just. And earned inequality that results from freedom is just.

 

Yeah, except you missed the second part of what I said.  If you don't have reasonable income mobility, you don't have justice.  Why would anyone believe the system is just if it's basically impossible for the poor to become rich?