Peter Schiff Answers His Critics

My popularity on television and the internet has led a very small money manager to use his popular financial blog to promote his fledgling business by attacking the recent poor performance of my long-term investment strategy. The post is causing quite a stir and compels me to provide some badly needed context.

To achieve his ends, this individual has distorted much of what I have been saying and writing, and has twisted the facts to support his own preconceived conclusion. In essence, his piece is nothing more than an overt advertisement (and a highly deceptive one at that) to use my popularity to advance his career. In so doing he has given my critics, particularly some who have been embarrassed by their roles in the "Peter Schiff was Right" video, their moments of retribution. In addition, some members of the press who have never been among my greatest fans are seizing the opportunity to discredit me as well.

The crux of the blogger's arguments are that my beliefs in "decoupling, hyperinflation, and that the dollar is going to zero" have been completely discredited by the events of 2008, and that the resulting investment losses suffered by my clients last year confirms the fatal flaws in my approach.

In addition to mischaracterizing many of my beliefs, he also is confusing short-term market fluctuations with long-term economic trends.

First of all, the hyper inflation issue is a straw man at best. While I often talk about the possibility of hyper inflation, I have always said that it would be a worse-case scenario that would play out over many years. The fact that it did not appear in the first year of the economic crash (2008) does not invalidate my position. I have always maintained that this worst-case scenario will likely be avoided by what will ultimately be a dramatic shift in policy once our leaders come to their senses. However, until then the dollar will likely lose a substantial portion of its value.

Second, I never said that the dollar would go to zero, either in 2008 or any year thereafter. I have said that in the event of hyper inflation the dollar's value would approach zero. My actual forecast in my book "Crash Proof" was that the Dollar Index would fall to 40 (currently about 85), with a realistic worst case scenario, assuming very high but not hyper inflation, of 20 or lower.

Third, the blogger points out that because the decoupling theory (foreign economies improving while the U.S. falters) that I wrote about in "Crash Proof" has yet to occur, that the theory itself was ridiculous. In my book I wrote that this process would not occur overnight, that initially our creditors would come to our aid, and in so doing our problems would become manifest abroad. I wrote that it would take time for the world to realize that what had been decoupled from the economic train was not the engine but the caboose. In fact, that is precisely the way it is playing out.

Chapter Ten of "Crash Proof" is specifically focused on the need to keep funds liquid to take advantage of the buying opportunity that would initially develop once our stock market began its collapse. I specifically mentioned that when U.S. stocks began to fall, we could expect sympathetic declines overseas. While I did not know the precise timing of those events, I advised readers to prepare.

I did not expect the huge dollar rally of 2008. But to discredit my long-term view of the dollar based on an eight month move is absurd. So while I believed that a weak dollar would cushion the temporary decline I expected in foreign stocks, a strong dollar ended up exacerbating it. In the meantime, I believed that the high dividends these stocks were paying would make it easier to ride out any correction. The problem was that the dollar fell so far leading up to the crisis (in 2005-2007) that by the time the crisis finally erupted the dollar was poised for a bounce.

Central to the argument that my investment thesis is wrong is the belief that the crisis is over or that the recent trends will continue until it is. But the crisis is just beginning and the movements thus far in the dollar, commodities, and foreign stocks, are mere head fakes. Once the speculators have been flushed from the markets, the underlying long-term trends I have been following should return in earnest.

To illustrate the flaws in my investment strategy the blogger has posted a client's statement that shows a loss in excess of 60%. In addition, he claims to know of other Euro Pacific clients who have experienced similar losses. The inference of course is that most, or all, of my clients must have suffered similar losses, and the existence of such losses proves that I am wrong. In fact, some have gone a step further, claiming that such losses prove that I am a fraud.

First let's deal with the one client's account. I have been following several key investment themes for the past ten years. The basis for my strategy is that recent U.S. prosperity has been false, and that the consequences of the bursting of our bubble economy would ultimately play out in a substantial decline in the value of the U.S. dollar, higher commodity prices, the re-monetization of gold, and foreign equities substantially outperforming U.S. markets. From an investment perspective, those themes played out extremely well in the eight years from 2000-2007. Recently we have seen a sharp, and I believe temporary, reversal of these trends. Those that came late to the party (at least based on where we are today) now have to ride out a particularly difficult correction.

For example, the account in question belongs to the son of a long-standing Euro Pacific client, who is still adding funds to his accounts. Without specially commenting on the performance of the father's account, it must have been compelling enough to finally persuade the son to come on board himself in early 2008. However, as is often the case, by the time he came on board, foreign stocks and commodities were about to sell off, and the dollar was about to begin its unexpected rally. Following such a sharp correction, the son now regrets his decision and must blame me for my part in helping him make it.

Perhaps as a stockbroker I should have persuaded the son to wait for a correction. However, while this clearly would have been the right call with the full benefit of hind-sight, it was certainly not as clear given the information I had at the time. However, I never held myself out to be a market timer. My advice was always geared to long-term investors. Given the thousands of clients that I have, and the large number who joined near the recent dollar peak and market tops, it's no wonder that a few have contacted this blogger to complain; especially since he has actively sought them out. Of course, the fact that the overwhelming majority of my clients are not complaining, to him or anyone else for that matter, says a lot more about what is really going on.

To the extent that the long-term trends I have been following continue, I am confident that even those whose short-term timing was bad will still do well in time. This is especially true if they take advantage of this pull back by adding to their accounts, either with new funds or by re-investing their dividends. However, to examine the effectiveness of my investment strategy immediately following a major correction by looking only at those accounts who adopted the strategy at the previous peak is unfair and distortive.

Since I have been advising investors to follow these trends for ten years, I will leave it to the public to draw their own conclusions as to how long-term followers of my strategy have fared. However, for those who only recently adopted my approach in 2007 or 2008, the road has been a lot bumpier than they or I thought it would be when they climbed on board. Yet if these long-term trends re-emerge, though the journey may be different than planned, the ultimate destination will remain the same.

The blogger in question implies that all of my clients are down by levels similar to the account he cites. He has asked me to refute his allegations by providing broader performance figures for more clients. But, since Euro Pacific Capital is a brokerage firm and not a Registered Investment Advisor, I am prohibited by regulators from providing any details on the investment performance achieved by my clients. The blogger in question makes his challenge knowing full well that I am legally prevented from accepting it. He then uses my failure to refute his false claim as validating its accuracy.

In addition, consider that 70% of the account in question happens to be invested in mining and energy stocks. These were the two sectors that got hit the hardest in the recent downturn. This is a very aggressive exposure to those sectors and not typical of Euro Pacific clients. While it is true that many of my clients are interested in these two sectors and specifically seek portfolios heavily weighted in these areas, most take a more balanced approach, with mining and energy typically representing 20% to 30% of their portfolios. I also have clients with minimal or no exposure to these sectors.

All Euro Pacific client accounts are different reflecting the individual objectives of each client. In general the goals of my clients are to get out of the dollar and hedge against inflation. However the way each client chooses to pursue these goals varies. Some choose a relatively conservative approach, consisting mainly of utilities, property trusts and bonds, others choice a more balanced approach, adding exposure to infrastructure, agriculture, energy trusts, and transportation, while some are more aggressive with heavy exposure to resources, junior mining companies, and oil and gas exploration companies. Some clients specifically seek to gain or avoid exposure to certain regions, sectors or currencies. Some are focused more on long-term preservation of purchasing power, while others look to maximize long-term appreciation. Most of our accounts are yield oriented, but many of our clients specially request more aggressive growth oriented portfolios. In a down market to evaluate my investment strategy based solely on the performance of the most aggressive accounts is completely unfair. Doing so ignores the better performance of less aggressive accounts that were not hit nearly as hard.

In addition, to look only at the performance of foreign stocks, while ignoring other aspects of my investment strategy only tells part of the story. What about gold, foreign bonds, short positions in financials, home builders and subprime mortgages (or merely avoiding long exposure to those sectors), or other investments people have made, either at Euro Pacific or elsewhere based on my insights? What about dividends earned, or gains realized on closed positions?

Mainstream economists, journalists, and investment professionals have never liked my message and have never resisted the temptation to shoot the messenger. When my investment strategies were performing well, I got little credit for it. Instead, all the attention was focused on the apparent failure of my dire economic predictions to materialize. Now that the economy is collapsing along the lines that I correctly forecast, criticism is being focused on the recent poor performance of my investment strategy (a fact that I have never tried to hide). Of course by the time my investment strategy is once again in step with my economic forecasts, an event that I believe will occur sooner than most people think, it will likely be too late for most people to do adopt it.

My critics have often referred to me as a stopped clock. I believe that the accusation is best leveled at the accusers. Having been wrong for so long, they are now enjoying their brief moment in the sun. They should enjoy it while it lasts. For now, they are creating fodder for some future "Peter Schiff was Right" piece where those who now criticize my investment performance will look just as foolish as those who once criticized my economic forecasts.

Comments

[Steven Hansen]

Peter, you laid out a vision - and are sticking with it. Timing is always a problem. I really do not understand what triggered the broadside on you. sometimes it is better to just tell your critics to FO.

2009 Jan 30 05:18 AM

[Jack K]

Peter since you read the replies, I would like to say that I was going to invest with your company, but "only" $30,000 and the guy I spoke to seemed almost insulted that I would invest that small amount. Why would I plunk down 6 figures sight unseen? So I never did, and don't plan on it at this time. But you do deserve respect. PS your Dad is a great guy.

2009 Jan 30 06:09 AM

[Firat Ünlü]

Nice post.
What I like about finances it that in contrast to nearly all other fields you stand to make a substantial loss if you're wrong. Those deciding to make up their own mind, and stick to your line of thinking did make a lot of money, whilst those trying to ride on your thinking, blindly assuming you'd provide profits every possible time-period are left with losses.
It's good to fight against critics but, at least to me, there'd come a point when I'd just put out a chart and let the numbers speak for themselves. You can only lead a horse to water...

2009 Jan 30 06:24 AM

[Archman Investor]

Let me start off by saying I am not a "kool-aid" drinker.

Wether it be Peter, or from the lying criminals of CNBC. I always try to take the middle road. Always. Taking the extreme has always been the wrong move.

I deeply respect Peter, have read his books, and understand his thinking. I respect that he has stuck to his guns. Yes, he is a bit over exposed now, so it was only a matter of time before folks started going after him.

However, Peter being temporarily wrong, pales in comparison to the thousands of so called "experts" paraded around on TV daily, who have been dead wrong for years, destroyed 100 times more wealth than Peter has, and yet are now STILL paraded around on TV doling out investment advice, acting as if they haven't lost anyone a cent. The bottom in the market was called almost 2 years ago by many of these people, then called again at DOW 10K, and again and again, each time lower and lower.

Again I am not a Peter Schiff, kool-aid drinker, worshiper.
However, there are countless hundreds of other "TV market mavens" who quite frankly should be put up against a wall and stoned for their outright lies, knowing they have zero accountability for their predictions and advice.

Now:
For those who complain that they lost money with Schiff's firm: "Get over it. Investing involves risk, and is NOT an entitlement system."

I prefer to reference my own saying which I use all the time: "Things take time to occur."

In my opinion, one should be positioned for a minor recovery in the US, and more major recoveries in other economies. I do agree with Peter and I believe that over time the world will come to realize that relying on 5% of the world population (the USA) to drive the majority of the world's economic growth is a huge mistake. Not when your own country's people have the same desire to consume and manufacture their own goods. This scenario in my opinion will take a decade to play out, and I think Peter's time frame was to short, for he assumed that things would change quickly.

Based on the amount of rhetoric we are hearing from the worlds leaders, the US is no longer going to be the "model" the world follows for economic growth. Consumptive lifestyles, fueled by very easy credit, financed thru debt bought by others, is not going to be the model for the world going forward.

While our leaders do everything they can to return the US to that model, instead of seeing what the future should look like, the rest of the world (except for the UK, they are in really bad shape) will come out of this crisis sooner than later.

The US will always be relevant, however contrary to the lies the gov't and financial media put out, we are not going to have the same level respect we once enjoyed nor the same level of persuasion we once had.

Best of luck to all in this tough environment.

2009 Jan 30 07:19 AM

[tdillian]

Thank you Mr. Schiff for the rebuttal... I really don't understand why you were broadsided by critics who weren't even critising you on your words. I noticed they weren't even quoting things you said.

Anyways... if you are to be critized, then I expect people like Dr. Marc Faber, Jim Rogers better be critized for saying the same stuff as you.. but low behold they are not.

Sorry.. I can't watch the Corrupt News Network of CNN anymore.. but I do catch you on bloomberg and Fox business and sometimes CNBC (as long as Larry Kudlow isn't pushing mustard seeds)

Anyways.. just wanted to say... good rebuttal! and keep up the good work!!..
I don't agree with you on everything, but I do agree with the overall macroeconomic trends you are outlining.

2009 Jan 30 07:26 AM

[tdillian]

Also... I meant to add, I stopped watchting the Corrupt News Network about 10 months ago b.c I noticed they are deliberately lying to the point where where they report news they don't tell the whole story, they are calculatingly misleading its audience.

I mean I know Fox has a right tilt, but they alway allow both sides to be told... Not so with the Corrupt News Network
I noticed they cut you off several times on CNN when you critized CNN's employer -- Barack the Messaih

I mean if you or anyone can't even critize a PUBLIC OFFICIAL then what kind of country is this??

Anyways.. keep up the good work and don't hold back in your critism of ANY democrat or republican!
we need at least a few americans who are willing to tell the public the truth.

2009 Jan 30 07:33 AM

[You're Kidding]

There is a guy named Joe Granville, who was a big investment Guru in the '70s. He did really, really well...for awhile, then started being wrong...and bingo, lost his Guru crown.

He was just one of many who have come, conquered, and then faded, and who will be followed by many more. They appear to be prescient and attract droves of followers, but alas, it turns out that they are soothsayers but for a limited time only, and not for always. Bummer.

Why is it that they always fade out? Well, obviously, because they weren't really Gurus at all. They were just lucky for awhile.

There are even some around today, and if you were to get into a time machine and jump into the future, you would find them there. They would have predicted, say, for example, the bottom of the Great Recession in late 2008 (or 2009, or 2010, or...whenever it was.) There they are...the Gurus..and they were right!

Except they weren't. They were lucky. How they saw the future happened to be somewhat correct. But do you think this correlation really means anything?

Well, lets say it does. The question now becomes how do I find a Guru before
we all discover he was right, which will then probably be too late to take advantage of his "predictions." There are lots of Gurus around making their prognostications; but which one is going to be right? If you think about this for very long, you'll discover that you can't ever know. How can you possibly know ahead of time which "Guru" will be right, and at what time in the future, unless...

You are a Guru, too!

In that case, you don't need one, do you? Just listen to yourself. But, alas... you know you're not a Guru. So, its impossible to pick one out and know ahead of time when they are going to be right, unless you just make a lucky guess.

So we only know who they are, and when they are right, after the fact, and not before. Again, big Bummer.

And to go one step further, if after all that we still decide to follow what someone says because it appears they were right once, or for awhile, how on earth do we know if they are going to be right again? Jo Grandville was "right" for awhile, and then he wasn't. Peter Schiff was right, it seems, for awhile, if you give him a lot of leeway time wise, (and now recently has been faltering, or just judged incorrectly, perhaps?) Nevertheless, he seems to have known what was going to happen in that future that now is happening...right???

Well, I've got great news for all. Here's a way to find a real Guru who can pick the direction of the DOW at least 10 times in a row! So he's got to be correct on the 11th, too, right?

Get a thousand people together on your web site to pick whether the Dow will go up or down tomorrow. The next day we'll find that about half of the group was right. Keep only those in the group who were correct. Then repeat for nine more days. In the end, one or two people will be left who will have been correct for ten days in a row! Will this be the Oracle we are looking for?

This is what PURE CHANCE gives us: people who stand out and appear to "know something" and have methods which appear to "predict" what is to come. But its all just a coincidence.

We all have to have a very strong desire for the truth in and of itself, in order to be objective enough to see past our own rose colored glasses. Whether we have this desire or not, says far more about us in this present moment - our desires, our agendas, our beliefs, etc., than we will ever be able to accurately predict about the future.

2009 Jan 30 08:05 AM

[TruthSayer]

The truth is investing is hard - and its really all about timing. I have predicted so many things in my career from the asian financial crisis which lead to the oil collapse in 1998 - dig deep I had my 10min of fame in the press - to the impending doom of the real estate market - to now our current situation. You would think I would be the richest man alive. Well it does take money to make money and being at the right place at the right. Lets look at some examples: I was shorting Toll brothers starting in 2006 - however they kept lying every qtr how things were well and I just couldnt bear the dividend and stock loss I was taking. Now look - but net I lost money on that trade. Lets look at 2008 - I started shorting natural gas in May and June - margins were a pain in the rear as it shot to $13 on irrational exuberance - i couldnt bear it anymore and I lost - now look $4.50/mmbtu. Now dont be all sad for me I did make money in other areas its just you cant win it all the time particurlarly in the short term. As a good trader friend once told me "the market can be illogical longer than you can be solvent"

Lossing money does not mean your wrong in the longterm - just bad timing and not enough money in my case. If you read my articles I have publish - I do hope Peter and I are wrong but the facts are clear if your read the writing on the wall without any preconcieved notions. I estimate there will be need to be at least $15 trillion dollar of deleveraging in the US market. I will end on a good note - one of my article leaves hope of a silver bullet Peter and I could be missing - some sort of PC like revolution to propel productivity. Let me know if you do see one - I am on the watch.

2009 Jan 30 08:17 AM

[De Graaf]

I agree with the Hand.
Your critics are always hard on timing. Thinking they are 'capable' of doing that. They can't and neither can anyone else.

Your strategy is good, and you are sticking with it. Thats leadership. You can't tell that of those TV pundits. I and many others are laughing at those pundits on FOX and CNBC. 'Experts in knowing nothing' thats what they are.

Anyway, Trolls don't need replying. They continue to feed on your active thrive of counterattacks. I think this is not necessary. Time will tell who is right. Your continued (over) exposure on TV feeds that critic base. The repetitive slogans tend to dull people. Critics foremost.

I say, moderate appearances on shows and broadcasts and in particular after significant happenings in our world economy could strenghten your vision/strategy. Critics have nothing else to do then talking crap and getting paid for that.

You have more important things to do I guess. Making sure your strategy remains right and build in a few safety valves for the short term volatility in the markets.

Keep up the good work Peter. Your on the right side of the game.

2009 Jan 30 08:48 AM

[Roberm73]

"Perhaps as a stockbroker I should have persuaded the son to wait for a correction" Early 2008 I think we all agree was a unsettled time. No advisor would have told someone to go 100% in stocks at the start of 2008. Most people with a clue where hoarding cash to see if the market would take another leg down. As for commodities it was clear in the begining of 2008 where look at a very large bubble in Oil and other 'hot' items at the time. So I find it self serving to say you could have but thought different. As for the long term investor the correct advice is to always buy in at a slow amount to any market especial for a readjustment. So if you placed all his money at work in 2008 then clearly you did not care if your client lost money.

Global Decoupling Thesis was also one your key items you pushed in 2007-2008. Clearly this was wrong. In fact it is now clear the globalazation is full effect either for the good or the bad of the world.

To me it sounds like you are just another guru who was humbled by the market and can not admit it.

2009 Jan 30 09:17 AM

[DaveW]

Peter, you are paying a high price for being right. Human nature is such that when a lone wolf is right and the sheep are wrong, the sheep are gleeful and celebrate when the wolf comes on hard times. I think it's pathetic that you've been publicly attacked on your timing. Keep to your guns, the game is not over, there is a last laugh out there somewhere...

2009 Jan 30 09:20 AM

[Crude Oil Trader]

True American hero is what Peter Schiff is. Could CNBC please rerun the videos from 2007 and early 2008 where all the guest are literally laughing at Peter.

2009 Jan 30 09:31 AM

[Long Silver John]

Austrian economic theory predicts that when the central bank inflates the money supply, this will create a "cluster of errors" by large segments of otherwise smart investors. The easy money encourages them to push too far out on the risk curve. Then it collapses.

This is what happened in the 1920s and it's what is happening now. The long term trend is not going to be reverse, so long as government pushes even more money into the economy (rather then letting the market sort out the mess).

I believe Austrian economic theory is correct and therefore Peter will be proven right. Time will tell.

2009 Jan 30 09:32 AM

[Tatertot]

Oh, there's plenty to criticize about his words too, take a look at a piece from earlier this year, back at the end of may.
www.usnews.com/article...
"My main theme is the global economy will survive and the U.S. economy is a disaster."
"Asian markets are the place to be."
(to a prompt asking him what his best call has been. Think it was financials?...)
"I've been bearish on bonds." -So his best call has been one that not only didn't go his way, but compared to his investment advice has been a veritable goldmine.
(on a prompt of whether oil, grains and other commodities were a bubble)
"These prices do not constitute bubbles."
" I'm confident that by next year we'll see more aggressive movements to abandon the dollar by the [Persian] Gulf region and by the Asian bloc."

Of course, he did have some great calls in that interview including anti-financials, anti-homebuilders, anti-retailers, pro gold (well, it's maintained value since the article). And in some respects, I do expect some of the aforementioned plays to work out well. Treasuries do look pretty bubbly, and long term they are definitely not what you want to own. But for the next couple years, we may see the long bond maintain the elevated price. The moment inflation appears again would probably be the safest time to pick up any shorts on it. But it can be a long wait, especially if you are using double inverse ETF and lose a lot to slippage in the meantime.
Resources are a good play, but only because they have come down in price. At the peak, they were trading at such elevated levels and there was really no justification for such pricing. They were a bubble, and it is okay to criticize Schiff for failing to recognize that bubble when it was a month away from bursting, when it took him over 5 years for his housing bubble to burst. Resources will not shoot back up, but there will be a nice steady rise. If we see an L shaped recovery, however, it may be a while before we really see solid increases.
But what should always be done, even if you are sure of your investment thesis, is hedging your bets. This, I think, is the biggest fault that may be laid at the feet of Mr. Schiff. There was no plan B. There was no recourse for a down movement in commodities. No put positions, (seemingly) no stop losses, no short hedges. One of the better points in Mish's article is that for large losses it takes even larger outsize gains to make up for it.

The reason people take issue with you, Mr. Schiff, is that you are one of the most arrogant people in the media. Now, clearly you think that it is somewhat justified, but this year has just gone to show that pride really does come before a fall. When you make statements such as (taken from the interview)
"The reality is I don't think I've been wrong on anything."
It makes you look conceited and unwilling to bend on anything. If you showed even just a small token of contriteness, I think the criticisms against you would be much more muted. Abrasive is met with abrasive. This is probably the biggest problem with your investment thesis. It's so sure of itself, it doesn't leave much, if any room for diversification across a wide range of businesses, not just the miners, energy producers, and gold related fields. Or, barring that, even a good way to hedge against losses.


On Jan 30 07:26 AM tdillian wrote:

> Thank you Mr. Schiff for the rebuttal... I really don't understand
> why you were broadsided by critics who weren't even critising you
> on your words. I noticed they weren't even quoting things you said.

>
>
> Anyways... if you are to be critized, then I expect people like Dr.
> Marc Faber, Jim Rogers better be critized for saying the same stuff
> as you.. but low behold they are not.
>
> Sorry.. I can't watch the Corrupt News Network of CNN anymore.. but
> I do catch you on bloomberg and Fox business and sometimes CNBC (as
> long as Larry Kudlow isn't pushing mustard seeds)
>
> Anyways.. just wanted to say... good rebuttal! and keep up the good
> work!!..
> I don't agree with you on everything, but I do agree with the overall
> macroeconomic trends you are outlining.

2009 Jan 30 09:35 AM

[MarcVdB]

A revered investment manager who thinks he has to start his defense against criticism with an 'ad hominem' attack falls off his pedestall. The main other arguments are: "my clients believe I'm right" and "I'll be proven right in the long run".

So, sod your investment returns dear clients, you just paid a good fee to Peter Schiff for him being right too soon.

2009 Jan 30 10:22 AM

[Allah]

Here's another form of decoupling: having great insight into the state of the economy and being a great investor.

2009 Jan 30 10:31 AM

[debtacid]

Yeh, I read that cheap shot that Mish took at Schiff the other day. Schiff may have been wrong about a few of the details but he was dead on about the big picture. When wall street talking heads were wallowing in happy talk minutia, he offered a sobering contrary view that made too much sense to ignore. I rode gold to $980 on Schiff’s advice for a nice profit and shorted the Financials and real estate for more free money. In addition, I notice that Mish hasn’t posted to Seeking Alpha in quite a while.

2009 Jan 30 10:49 AM

[know nothing]

Most people don't want to hear the truth, but believe me, they will never foreget who told them the truth when this is all over! If they live that long!

2009 Jan 30 11:29 AM

[CJJ]

Wow. If anything this blog caused Peter Schiff to fully lay out his thoughts and strategies. I think this post clearly points out Schiff's ideas from the source himself and not in clips from 1 minute spots on television where the media creates headlines out of two or three words spoken quickly while being interrupted, hurried, talked over.
One thing I disagree with is that Schiff claims the blogger was just taking a shot at him to pump his own business up. Peter, why do you go onto television? The same reason of course.
If its okay for Peter to fail at his JOB over a 1 year period, why are CEO's not allowed the same favor?

The whole problem I have with these people is they are all selling you something(not just Schiff)..the people with blogs, the people with books, the people with newsletters, the people in the media...They act to be concerned about the economy(and some are to a point)...but they are ultimately trying to sell you on their investment strategy and not trying to actually improve the economy...This crisis is actually a heyday for all of these people...No matter right or wrong more people then ever are fixated on the economy and while staying 100% in cash is probably the easiest, safest thing to do in the near past and the near future, there are a million theories, etc of what to do next...This is a chance for people to convince investors to move from the institutional money management to them...
As always, make your own desicions and if the desicion is to give someone else your money...if they lose it, its still your fault.

2009 Jan 30 11:45 AM

[MGA_1]

Well, I've been avidly watching Peter's stuff on youtube since discovering him several months again. Did he predict the dollar's rally correctly... well maybe not - he even admits that, but he's been right on regarding just about everything else. Everything he says makes sense and he also provides the eventual solution (savings + manufacturing). Keep on trucking.

2009 Jan 30 12:36 PM