Jim Rogers on China and Commodities 14 comments
- Profile & More Articles
- Tim's blog: The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Subscribe to Iacono Research
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
There's an interview with Jim Rogers in the current issue of Time Magazine.
Naturally, he's still bullish on two areas with which he has long been associated but that have fallen upon hard times lately - China and commodities.
And, of course, he's still wearing bow ties.
A couple highlights:
You were one of the first to call the commodities boom. Now that prices have fallen, has your bullishness changed?
No, no, not in the least. In the past 150 years or so, we've had eight or nine periods where there was forced liquidation of everything, with no regard to the fundamentals. Well, we're in one of those periods. In fact, what's happening now is improving the fundamentals of commodities. Farmers cannot even get loans for fertilizer. Certainly no one is going to get a loan to open a zinc mine. Supply is going down — this is very bullish. We have a decline in demand, but the world is in recession. We presume that is a business cycle.
So if I wanted to make money in oil, how long would my time horizon have to be?
I don't know whether you're going to have to wait six days, six months or six years before oil starts skyrocketing again. I covered a lot of my shorts [i.e., short positions] a couple of weeks ago and bought more commodities; I bought more agricultural commodities. I'm not a very good market timer, but I've been going back into the market. Ask me in a couple of years.
What other commodities have you been buying?
I only buy my indexes. I bought the agricultural index and I bought the general index. I think I'm going to make more money in agriculture than in other things for a while, but I'm not a very good market timer. I'm the world's worst trader.
...
How worried are you about the slowdown in China's GDP growth?
I'm not worried at all. China could have a recession, it's not going to be the end of the story. In the 19th century, America had 15 depressions with a "d," a horrible civil war, we had very few human rights, we had no rule of law, we had regular massacres in the street. China will certainly have setbacks along the way. A lot of people think China can't have a recession. That's balderdash. China can have a recession like everybody else. Is it the end of the story? No. If it happens, you buy yourself some more China.
He also had some unkind words about the recent bailouts in the U.S. - something about Wall Street calling up Hank Paulson and warning of financial market meltdown while their true motives were making their Maserati and plane payments.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
David Fry
-
2
TraderMark
-
3
Don Dion
-
4
Cliff Wachtel
-
5
Mike Havrilla
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
Which bothers you more, the bow ties or the unkind words?
Yes, perhaps it is his vocal disparagement of American Extremist-Capitalist dogma!
Perhaps its his abandonment of American markets?
Perhaps its because he moved to Singapore?
Is he not patriotic enough for you? Is that it?
www.jimrogers-investme.../
Personally, I think Jim Rogers is a hoot.
were there negative conotations conveyed in this piece? sounds like the Rogers i,ve read since the mid seventies.
I realize that Americans are so mean spirited and rude to each other that the two negatives would not seem so to you.
First negative is the third paragraph slagging his bow-ties....
Second negative is in the last paragraph slagging his "unkind words".
Both of theses negatives are designed to subliminally set the tone and attempt to establish Rogers as being on the fringe, therefore not worthy.
Apparently subtle enough for you to miss.
Agree wholeheartedly!
If he did and wasn't believed, Bernanke should be relieved of his post immediately. If he didn't, Paulson should be fired. Either way, both of these men shouldn't be exalted for their handling of the crisis.
It could have been stemmed in the bud by the elimination of the Mark to Market rule. Instead of this crap sitting at the Treasury, it would still be sitting on the Books of the financial insitutions on Level 3 - the Mark to Fantasy level. The Global financial market could have been averted.
IMHO
It's impossible to point at one factor and say it would have averted the situation we are in now. I imagine if M2M rules weren't on the books we would still have an overinflated asset bubble. With all the foreclosures happening I could see the banks still valuing assets at 100% which is ridiculous. You can only postpone the inevitable for so long before it all goes boom.
Case for China: bogus CCP statistics and very worried Jim Rogers talking up China while being billions long on Chinese equities down 70% for the year.
I doubt you even stepped onto chinese soil, let alone know anything about the country. All your remarks are worthless. So who is the head of the chinese central bank? What is their strategic economic plan for the next 5 yrs? How is the population mix? You know absolutely crap about china and I seriously doubt you know anything about economics either. Dumb arse.