What happened to European stocks starting April 2015?

[RuleNumberOne]

@Gregmal: thanks a lot for your wise perspective twice this weekend! You really are CEO material.

 

@writser: when i said 25-30% in a previous post, i had never looked at my CAGR return, i made a very rough calculation (e.g. 10x to the power 0.1) that i thought would suffice for that post. Only when John Hjorth opened that "CoBF members 2019 returns" thread did i look at what exactly my returns were for the very first time in more than 10 years. I found that last year's IRA returns were 72% in my wife's accounts and 47% in mine, averaging out to 60%. I restrict speculative experiments to my own account and not hers because she quit working long ago. My returns are lower due to the speculations. Another reason is my IRAs are in Wellstrade and ML and those websites are slow and lousy, so i trade more frequently from my wife's Schwab accounts.

 

I don't know what the "since inception" or 5-year returns for my IRA accounts are, nor would i ever bother wasting time calculating them. Are you a finance industry professional?  thepupil has said he is a pro. Boy, if finance guys spend their weekend stressing about some stranger's returns and digging through his previous posts, i hate to think what the workweek in the finance industry looks like. I have already wasted too much time talking about my returns on this board, weekends are precious.

 

 

Well, as usual, the forum police arrive. But I dont think its really worth the effort or energy getting bent out of shape over what some guy on the internet claims his returns are or arent.

 

I think, but he can correct me if I am wrong, pupil asked questions out of interest, particularly to see if there was anything inherently useful in the purported strategy that he could explore further. If there isn't, discard and move on. If there is, valuable information has been attained; one of the main purposes of existing on an internet based investment community.

 

I think its probably wise to view places like this as an ecosystem where one can both learn, and contribute. After all, one's market timing strategy works for them, no different than others who purport to fervently search for any sort of irregular M&A spread or deal with an attached CVR, buy without spending "much time on the proxy"(despite admitting "In my experience the 'background' section is usually one of the most interesting parts of a special situation proxy"), apply some plug in input from the Kelly criterion based largely on inexactly quantifiable judgment calls, and then "hold on for dear life", because after all, if it doesnt work out, its just another "short term trade that becomes a long term investment"....

 

All jokes aside though, I think its counter productive to the purposes of an investing community to go out of ones way to be a jerk to another contributing member(at least in the non politics section), as we recently saw in the Altius Minerals thread; it can have unintended(or more malignantly, intended) consequences. Read and explore/discard. Or if you're frail, just ignore the user if they bother you that much.

[petec]

RNO, you’ve explained *when* you decided to get in and out of the market, but not *how*. Yet it works. So how do you decide? Is it instinct, or are there signals you find reliable?

 

I do totally agree, by the way, that one has to understand one’s own psychology and let that guide how one invests. Different things work for different people.

[RuleNumberOne]

petec,

 

Charlie Munger's teachings really resonated with me. He says if one is very curious over a long period of time about why things are happening, they will gradually get better at mental models that explain what's happening around them.

 

I have made mistakes but the plan is to keep getting better over time. IMO the only thing we can do is read the news and see how other investors are behaving. This also includes the behavior of central bankers, politicians, investors, etc.

 

There is no method or metric, just a gut feeling that i think gets sharper over time.

 

RNO, you’ve explained *when* you decided to get in and out of the market, but not *how*. Yet it works. So how do you decide? Is it instinct, or are there signals you find reliable?

 

I do totally agree, by the way, that one has to understand one’s own psychology and let that guide how one invests. Different things work for different people.

[rukawa]

4. Bond yields. European bond yields are lower and have been for a while. Which normally lead to lower absolute results. Stock returns are a risk premium posted on bond returns. You lower bond yields and you'll end up with lower stock returns even though as a stock investor you will be adequately compensated for your risk.

 

I don't really understand this argument and I think its wrong. I've heard both Buffett and Graham argue the exact opposite repeatedly. As bond yields rise, earnings mulitples contract (and earnings yields rise) and current stock prices go down which increases future returns but depresses current returns. On the other hand when bond yields go up, earning yields go up and stock prices go up which improves returns looking backwards (from historical time point to present) but depresses returns looking forwards (from present to future time point).

 

This makes sense as its the bond yield which competes with stocks. Higher bond yields tend to attract people away from stocks and lower bond yields tend to push people towards stocks. Incidentally this does not really contradict the return premium argument since return premiums are about future stock returns and not current ones. A higher bond yield means a greater required future return on stocks which means stock prices now must be lower. Similarly a lower bond yield means a lower required future return on stocks which means stock price now must be higher.

 

Lower bond yields therefore should have led to higher stock prices in Europe.

[petec]

4. Bond yields. European bond yields are lower and have been for a while. Which normally lead to lower absolute results. Stock returns are a risk premium posted on bond returns. You lower bond yields and you'll end up with lower stock returns even though as a stock investor you will be adequately compensated for your risk.

 

I don't really understand this argument and I think its wrong. I've heard both Buffett and Graham argue the exact opposite repeatedly. As bond yields rise, earnings mulitples contract (and earnings yields rise) and current stock prices go down which increases future returns but depresses current returns. On the other hand when bond yields go up, earning yields go up and stock prices go up which improves returns looking backwards (from historical time point to present) but depresses returns looking forwards (from present to future time point).

 

This makes sense as its the bond yield which competes with stocks. Higher bond yields tend to attract people away from stocks and lower bond yields tend to push people towards stocks. Incidentally this does not really contradict the return premium argument since return premiums are about future stock returns and not current ones. A higher bond yield means a greater required future return on stocks which means stock prices now must be lower. Similarly a lower bond yield means a lower required future return on stocks which means stock price now must be higher.

 

Lower bond yields therefore should have led to higher stock prices in Europe.

 

Quite.

 

One other thing I suspect is true (but haven’t checked the stats) is that Europe has relied almost entirely on monetary stimulus whereas the US has applied both monetary and fiscal. The latter boosts the economy and profits growth, which are lacking in Europe. I suspect the time to buy Europe is when this changes.

[wachtwoord]

4. Bond yields. European bond yields are lower and have been for a while. Which normally lead to lower absolute results. Stock returns are a risk premium posted on bond returns. You lower bond yields and you'll end up with lower stock returns even though as a stock investor you will be adequately compensated for your risk.

 

I don't really understand this argument and I think its wrong. I've heard both Buffett and Graham argue the exact opposite repeatedly. As bond yields rise, earnings mulitples contract (and earnings yields rise) and current stock prices go down which increases future returns but depresses current returns. On the other hand when bond yields go up, earning yields go up and stock prices go up which improves returns looking backwards (from historical time point to present) but depresses returns looking forwards (from present to future time point).

 

This makes sense as its the bond yield which competes with stocks. Higher bond yields tend to attract people away from stocks and lower bond yields tend to push people towards stocks. Incidentally this does not really contradict the return premium argument since return premiums are about future stock returns and not current ones. A higher bond yield means a greater required future return on stocks which means stock prices now must be lower. Similarly a lower bond yield means a lower required future return on stocks which means stock price now must be higher.

 

Lower bond yields therefore should have led to higher stock prices in Europe.

 

Quite.

 

One other thing I suspect is true (but haven’t checked the stats) is that Europe has relied almost entirely on monetary stimulus whereas the US has applied both monetary and fiscal. The latter boosts the economy and profits growth, which are lacking in Europe. I suspect the time to buy Europe is when this changes.

 

LOL. That will be after the demise of the EU then. Fiscally it will get worse before it gets better in Europe. Socialism is in a strong upwards trend.

[rukawa]

Gregmal,

 

Buffett and Munger agree with us too, they have said so on many occasions that it is the attitude to market fluctuations that makes the money, not the modeling or advanced accounting or a PhD in economics or a DCF model.

 

In the foreword to the Intelligent Investor Buffett also says your investment success will depend on the amplitude of market fluctuations you see in your career. My original point before we went off on a tangent was that central bankers have impaired Buffett's approach by removing market fluctuations.

 

Buffett and Grahams approach is the opposite of yours. THe point Graham was making in Chapter 8 was that massive money could be made if one knew how to time the market which was the obvious thing to do if you KNEW how to do it. But that this naive strategy was in practice impossible though it was incredibly seductive.

 

The Intelligent Investor was to AVOID the approach you are advocating.

[thepupil]

Since 10/2013, the S&P 500 has returned 13.1% / year.

 

If one had perfect monthly market timing and only invested in the up months (meaning if you were able to know in advance that a month was going to be a down month and then went to cash (0.0%) for that month, and knew when to get back in for the positive months), one would make 24.7% / year.

 

If one had even more perfect timing and knew when a down month was going to happen and shorted the market at the beginning of the month basically take S&P returns and use the Absolute value function, then one would make 36.8% / year since October 2013

 

There's obviously benefit to market timing if it can be done well; making 24.7% is a lot cooler than making 13.1%, and making 36.8%/year is even cooler.

 

But do you see why people are having trouble not concluding that false or misleading statements are being made? The stated strategy is unlevered, no options, market timing based on feel. When we do a simple compounding of s&P returns where one had PERFECT hindsight, we are still waaaay short of the claimed returns.

 

If I'm being a member of the dreaded "forum police" or "going out of my way to be a jerk" by countering someone who is claiming that market timing is the road to compounding at ridiculous rates, then so be it.

 

[Cigarbutt]

...

One other thing I suspect is true (but haven’t checked the stats) is that Europe has relied almost entirely on monetary stimulus whereas the US has applied both monetary and fiscal. The latter boosts the economy and profits growth, which are lacking in Europe. I suspect the time to buy Europe is when this changes.

Isn't this an example of linear thinking based on a rear-view mirror analysis?

Why is there a built-in expectation by many that further fiscal stimulus is necessary 10 years into an economic 'recovery' with monetary support still in a full-fledged form?

How can further crowding out of the private secret-sauce sector result in a lasting boost?

 

Although I think RNO's bottom line does not survive the baloney detection test, I wonder if what is said about sentiment does not hold more than a figment of truth?

 

Opinion disclosure: The private sector has already internalized the growing deficit picture and this will likely impact somehow the asset price levels, especially given where we stand in terms of the total debt to GDP levels. i think the multiplier idea is dead for now.

Potential bias disclosure: I've always been fascinated by financial restructurings (liquidity vs solvency analysis) and perhaps the wrong analytical prism is used here.

[Gregmal]

Since 10/2013, the S&P 500 has returned 13.1% / year.

 

If one had perfect monthly market timing and only invested in the up months (meaning if you were able to know in advance that a month was going to be a down month and then went to cash (0.0%) for that month, and knew when to get back in for the positive months), one would make 24.7% / year.

 

If one had even more perfect timing and knew when a down month was going to happen and shorted the market at the beginning of the month basically take S&P returns and use the Absolute value function, then one would make 36.8% / year since October 2013

 

There's obviously benefit to market timing if it can be done well; making 24.7% is a lot cooler than making 13.1%, and making 36.8%/year is even cooler.

 

But do you see why people are having trouble not concluding that false or misleading statements are being made? The stated strategy is unlevered, no options, market timing based on feel. When we do a simple compounding of s&P returns where one had PERFECT hindsight, we are still waaaay short of the claimed returns.

 

If I'm being a member of the dreaded "forum police" or "going out of my way to be a jerk" by countering someone who is claiming that market timing is the road to compounding at ridiculous rates, then so be it.

 

To me at least, the question is, who cares? The only one with a material benefit from RNOs returns are RNO. If we dive in, as has been done, its probable to conclude that the returns are of course "possible" but very "unlikely". But again, whether they are or arent doesnt really impact anyone but the author.

 

If we wanted to be scrupulous jerks, we could literally attack just about every single person on the board who ever posts an investment idea, analysis, or makes a statement. We are all(hopefully) at least in the category of moderately sophisticated investors; we can all come to our own conclusions without being pompous jerks and risk alienating other(and future) posters, especially ones who actually take the time to engage. I've actually been quite surprised by how many people read, but dont post. Ive been contacted via PM a bunch of them over the years and the reason is always the same...

 

Further, sometimes, there are people who go far out of their way to do the above, when their own "analysis" could just as easily be picked apart and disparaged unnecessarily, probably to an even greater degree. All I'm saying is that I dont think engaging in that sort of stuff is productive. For all the whining about politics from people, at least those of us that engage there know what we are getting into and its largely contained to its own section. Someone taking the time to post their thoughts or share their "strategy", and being called a "liar", or having posts from the past dug up and ridiculed...I dont really see what purpose any of that serves. (especially again with the nitpick bs like "oh you said easily 25-30% here, and now say 50%! OMG. well, 50% is "easily" better than 25-30%..." Who fucking cares? We all do our own thing. We're all going to be wrong if we invest enough. We're all going to make mistakes. If there are folks who claim they dont lose money or make mistakes, well, I think most of us are capable of drawing our own conclusions..... I'd point to Cigarbutt as probably a good example of doing it the right way...

[thepupil]

You might want to consider calculation methodology.

Assume 1,000 invested day-1 of yr-1, and another 1,000 invested day-1 of yr-2. Assume that each 1,000 makes 20, each yr.

What is the 2-yr CAGR? And why is it a lot different that the roughly 2% that was actually being made?

SD

 

what do you mean by this?

[rb]

Ok I'll keep an eye on those as well. I'm long a little bit of AIB actually for all the reasons you laid out above but another European bank I've been digging around on is Svenska Handelsbanken which has less market share than AIB at 22-23% while AIB in Ireland is closer to 31% market share.

 

Another nice thing about Svenska is Sweden has its own currency and while the krona is quasi-pegged to the euro they have more ability to stray from the ECB's policies than anyone using the euro for sure. They also don't have any issues like Lloyds may have with Brexit so it could be an interesting alternative.

 

If you want a quick summary of Swedens banking sector this may be helpful [https://www.swedishbankers.se/media/3854/competition-in-swedish-banking-sector.pdf]

 

Full disclosure I got these ideas from reading an interview with John Hempton at Bronte Capital so he deserves full credit for sniffing them out.

:o did you just mention "he who must not be named"?!

[rb]

Thankfully i didn't waste any of my life learning to build an "economic model". Probably you are an expert at economic modeling which is why you would obsess over tiny fluctuations in WFC financial statements.

Have nothing to add to the topic, but just wanted to echo this sentiment.

Having spent some time as a junior in IB/PE, I realized building detailed financial models add very little, if any, value to the investment process.

There's a difference between hyper detailed financial models and no models at all.

 

Just like everything in life there are diminishing return and that is true with modelling as well. At some point it becomes clear whether something is a good investment or not. But how do you determine that? Through some sort of a model. Of course if you have to increase the number of decimal palaces to determine if something is a good investment or not then it most likely isn't.

 

Sure IB takes this really far, but they have to. Otherwise how do they justify the fees? So they take a few juniors and make then crank up the decimals. But going from there to no models is basically taking to the extreme in the opposite direction and pretty much committing malpractice.

 

As for economics, there pretty much everything is a model. If you make a statement about something, it's basically the result of a model. Making an economic statement and then saying you don't know jack about modelling is akin to saying "look at this pretty thing i just pulled out of my butt".

[thowed]

Gregmal, I agree with you that you shouldn't take things too seriously on a damn internet forum.

 

On the other hand, I think you've got to watch out a little for blatant misrepresentation, because if it becomes OK to tell untruths, the useful exchanges of information here become worthless.

 

So sure, who cares if RNO got 30% or 35%.

 

But I confess I don't slightly buy someone who says they've made better returns than pretty much anyone except Greenblatt at his peak just by market timing, because it feels like more people would be able to do it.

 

Though I also don't see why anyone would be so pathetic to make something like that up, so maybe it is true.

 

Very happy to be corrected, and even more happy to be taught how to do it.

 

[rb]

4. Bond yields. European bond yields are lower and have been for a while. Which normally lead to lower absolute results. Stock returns are a risk premium posted on bond returns. You lower bond yields and you'll end up with lower stock returns even though as a stock investor you will be adequately compensated for your risk.

 

I don't really understand this argument and I think its wrong. I've heard both Buffett and Graham argue the exact opposite repeatedly. As bond yields rise, earnings mulitples contract (and earnings yields rise) and current stock prices go down which increases future returns but depresses current returns. On the other hand when bond yields go up, earning yields go up and stock prices go up which improves returns looking backwards (from historical time point to present) but depresses returns looking forwards (from present to future time point).

 

This makes sense as its the bond yield which competes with stocks. Higher bond yields tend to attract people away from stocks and lower bond yields tend to push people towards stocks. Incidentally this does not really contradict the return premium argument since return premiums are about future stock returns and not current ones. A higher bond yield means a greater required future return on stocks which means stock prices now must be lower. Similarly a lower bond yield means a lower required future return on stocks which means stock price now must be higher.

 

Lower bond yields therefore should have led to higher stock prices in Europe.

You are absolutely correct.

 

What I was trying to say in the point you quoted was that European yields were lower from the start. So European stock multiples were already elevate and returns should have been lower from a market risk premium perspective, all else being equal.

[Viking]

Since 10/2013, the S&P 500 has returned 13.1% / year.

 

If one had perfect monthly market timing and only invested in the up months (meaning if you were able to know in advance that a month was going to be a down month and then went to cash (0.0%) for that month, and knew when to get back in for the positive months), one would make 24.7% / year.

 

If one had even more perfect timing and knew when a down month was going to happen and shorted the market at the beginning of the month basically take S&P returns and use the Absolute value function, then one would make 36.8% / year since October 2013

 

There's obviously benefit to market timing if it can be done well; making 24.7% is a lot cooler than making 13.1%, and making 36.8%/year is even cooler.

 

But do you see why people are having trouble not concluding that false or misleading statements are being made? The stated strategy is unlevered, no options, market timing based on feel. When we do a simple compounding of s&P returns where one had PERFECT hindsight, we are still waaaay short of the claimed returns.

 

If I'm being a member of the dreaded "forum police" or "going out of my way to be a jerk" by countering someone who is claiming that market timing is the road to compounding at ridiculous rates, then so be it.

 

To me at least, the question is, who cares? The only one with a material benefit from RNOs returns are RNO. If we dive in, as has been done, its probable to conclude that the returns are of course "possible" but very "unlikely". But again, whether they are or arent doesnt really impact anyone but the author.

 

If we wanted to be scrupulous jerks, we could literally attack just about every single person on the board who ever posts an investment idea, analysis, or makes a statement. We are all(hopefully) at least in the category of moderately sophisticated investors; we can all come to our own conclusions without being pompous jerks and risk alienating other(and future) posters, especially ones who actually take the time to engage. I've actually been quite surprised by how many people read, but dont post. Ive been contacted via PM a bunch of them over the years and the reason is always the same...

 

Further, sometimes, there are people who go far out of their way to do the above, when their own "analysis" could just as easily be picked apart and disparaged unnecessarily, probably to an even greater degree. All I'm saying is that I dont think engaging in that sort of stuff is productive. For all the whining about politics from people, at least those of us that engage there know what we are getting into and its largely contained to its own section. Someone taking the time to post their thoughts or share their "strategy", and being called a "liar", or having posts from the past dug up and ridiculed...I dont really see what purpose any of that serves. (especially again with the nitpick bs like "oh you said easily 25-30% here, and now say 50%! OMG. well, 50% is "easily" better than 25-30%..." Who fucking cares? We all do our own thing. We're all going to be wrong if we invest enough. We're all going to make mistakes. If there are folks who claim they dont lose money or make mistakes, well, I think most of us are capable of drawing our own conclusions..... I'd point to Cigarbutt as probably a good example of doing it the right way...

 

Gregmal, well said. :-)

[John Hjorth]

What happened to European stocks starting April 2015?

 

They went upwards, like everything else.

[rb]

John, is it possible that you've blocked me?

 

I tried to reply to your PM but it said I can't because you're not accepting messages from me.

 

Normally I wouldn't send this message, but by the nature of the message I was trying to reply to, I got the feeling that I wasn't on your "bad" list.

[John Hjorth]

rb,

 

That would be the day! [Well, at least intentionally!] Tomorrow, I'll review my settings, to get this right! -I'm so embarrassed about this as of right now.

 

Personally, I'm very happy to see you back active here on CoBF!

[writser]

To me at least, the question is, who cares? The only one with a material benefit from RNOs returns are RNO. If we dive in, as has been done, its probable to conclude that the returns are of course "possible" but very "unlikely". But again, whether they are or arent doesnt really impact anyone but the author.

 

If we wanted to be scrupulous jerks, we could literally attack just about every single person on the board who ever posts an investment idea, analysis, or makes a statement. We are all(hopefully) at least in the category of moderately sophisticated investors; we can all come to our own conclusions without being pompous jerks and risk alienating other(and future) posters, especially ones who actually take the time to engage. I've actually been quite surprised by how many people read, but dont post. Ive been contacted via PM a bunch of them over the years and the reason is always the same...

 

Further, sometimes, there are people who go far out of their way to do the above, when their own "analysis" could just as easily be picked apart and disparaged unnecessarily, probably to an even greater degree. All I'm saying is that I dont think engaging in that sort of stuff is productive. For all the whining about politics from people, at least those of us that engage there know what we are getting into and its largely contained to its own section. Someone taking the time to post their thoughts or share their "strategy", and being called a "liar", or having posts from the past dug up and ridiculed...I dont really see what purpose any of that serves. (especially again with the nitpick bs like "oh you said easily 25-30% here, and now say 50%! OMG. well, 50% is "easily" better than 25-30%..." Who fucking cares? We all do our own thing. We're all going to be wrong if we invest enough. We're all going to make mistakes. If there are folks who claim they dont lose money or make mistakes, well, I think most of us are capable of drawing our own conclusions..... I'd point to Cigarbutt as probably a good example of doing it the right way...

 

Well said Greg. From now on I'll try to be nicer when people are spouting nonsense. It's a bad habit of mine and I wasn't aware that I was discouraging your friends from doing the same. I admire your notion that this forum should be like a college campus safe space where all minorities (chartists, macro traders, ..) are welcome to post whatever they want and where we don't criticize anything or anybody, lest people are offended. Some might call that 'pandering to snowflakes' but not you. You are simply fighting for the rights of the oppressed minorities. Standing up to the bullies. I applaud you for that. Your post has been an eye-opener. Until today I never realized that I actually am one of the villains, and that you are the Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of this forum. Who would have thought ..

 

Also a big thanks for not picking apart my superficial stock picks last year, even though it would have been very easy for you. You correctly deduced that I don't care about my analysis being correct, I just want to feel appreciated. Negative feedback does not help with that. In that light would it be too much to ask if you could post a kind word in every thread I opened last year? It would make me feel really good. I'll do the same thing with your threads if you would appreciate that. Consider it a peace offering. We could maybe watch a Michael Moore movie together afterwards. Thanks.

[wachtwoord]

Hahaha this thread delivers! Thanks for the laugh Writser ;D

 

I have to say I'm with Writser and thepupil on this one. @Greg: what do you think is the added benefit of allowing people to spreas uncontested bullshit on the forum? (keyword being uncontested)

 

It's optimal to allow the flow of information to be as free as possible but that must include rebuttals! [at the same time this is also why how the silly concept of "fake news" is being handled through censorship so bad .... just rebute (if you can ;))]

[Gregmal]

Watchwood. I think thats missing the point.

 

Its not "uncontested bullshit". Its also unequivocally unverifiable, so theres that. It's not "just" contesting it, its piling on and then taking it down a path of disparaging him. I mean, its not like everyone here is going to run around spreading like wildfire the idea that "OMG RNO does 50% a year" if somebody doesnt take it upon themselves to call him a liar and dig up old posts to conclude that "he previously said he easily beats 25-30% so thats proof he cant be doing 50!"

 

Then of course too, theres the about face. Writser is usually one of the first ones to cry about "oh politics" with the backdrop being the sanctity of the investment site, but also semi regularly one to be unnecessarily condescending to people about investments. I dont think its a hard bridge to cross to see that this is 1) inconsistent, and 2) probably errs on the side on unproductive to encouraging investment discussion.

 

We can all challenge a thesis or give pushback in productive or unproductive ways. There's plenty of examples of that which dont involve unnecessarily being a pos. Nobody should give two hoots about what people claim their returns are on the internet.

[wachtwoord]

@Greg: Firstly, you probably know that on the politics discussion I'm much closer to agreeing with you than Writser. Sadly, in the world that we live in with large and powerful nation states politics and investments are connected unseperably, at least on a macro level.

 

However, that doesn't stop me from agreeing with him here. RNO is almost certainly lying and thus spreading misinformation (in this case claiming timing the market is possible in a repeated fashion). This is damaging: at least it reduces the signal to noise ratio for everyone and at worst some (naive, young, starting out investors) might be pursuaded by it. There's enough misinformation in general society, let's not accept it in a place we have control over. Outlandish claims need proof. evidence or at least some logical explanation to be made believable or need to be dismissed

 

If it's about the way he communicates it you might (probably) have a point. Objectively thepupil is more constructive and less aggressive in his wording.

 

However, 1. I personally found Writser's wording amusing (perhaps a flaw of mine) and 2. you yourself are no stranger to (overly) aggresive wording of matters  ;)

[writser]

Dear Greg, if you actually read the post I referred to, our friend stated that the 5-year CAGR of his IRA's was lower than his wife's, which was 38%. A few months after that he claims that his IRA's 5-year CAGR was 56%. That is a huge discrepancy and I thought it was interesting to point that out. Of course, given that you feel offended by such nitpicking I will have to rethink my behavior in the future. Macro traders are some of the nicest people out there but they are a minority that is often subject to abuse. I respect that you stand up to fight for their rights. The righteous fire in you is as strong as it is in Ellen DeGeneres.

 

That said, please allow me to table a minor suggestion: I believe the term 'a pos' stands for 'a piece of ****' and I'm sure we can both agree that that term is far too controversial for the safe space you and I are trying to create here. I have received several PM's over the last few years from people who are dissuaded from posting here because of profanity like that. You have to be more careful, it is very easy to offend people inadvertently. May I politely suggest 'inconsiderate' as an alternative phrase? Also, I am not sure about the term 'two hoots'. Are we talking about the cry of an owl here? Animals have feelings too and it seems a bit offending to suggest that the cry of an owl is inferior, to, for example, the clucking of a chicken.

[RuleNumberOne]

@Gregmal: looks like i will have to get back into the sewage one last time, i thought i was done posting on CoBF. My advice to you is to stop interacting on this thread right now. I felt really liberated after i decided to stop posting here. Its a complete waste of time. Life is too short and precious to waste. This thread has been very helpful in deaddicting me from posting on CoBF.

 

I will leave the pros with their pea-sized brains to their pea-sized returns. There is no cure for envy. You can find hundreds of thousands of low-IQ people in the finance industry who will have a similar reaction. They have always been around and there is no cure for envy.