The Roubini Portfolio 18 comments
an article to
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
Is Nouriel Roubini really 100% invested in equities, as Eddy Elfenbein and John Authers think? I asked him directly, and of course it's a bit more complicated than that.
Roubini, as a professor at NYU, has a 401(k) -- and that is invested in a broad range of domestic and international equities. Whatever percentage of his NYU salary that Roubini puts into his 401(k), then, will indeed be allocated 100% to equities. But apart from that, Roubini is 100% in cash. He's a boldface name these days, in high demand as a speaker around the world, and all those speaking fees -- which I should imagine add up to a substantial sum over the past three years or so, and which undoubtedly dwarf his 401(k) contributions over the same timeframe -- have gone into nothing but cash.
What's more, Roubini has a large equity stake in his company (and my former employer), Roubini Global Economics. Does that count as being "invested in equities"? Or is it more what Barbara Kiviat is talking about when she says that increasingly our jobs are our most important asset?
My feeling is that Nouriel, like me, is at heart old-fashioned when it comes to money: we don't believe we can beat or time the market, and we reckon that the best way to improve our net worth is to make money on the labor market, spend less than we earn, and save the difference. Gone are the days of making more money from your home than from your job: now we all need to go back to working for a living.
Related Articles
|
























NOOOOOOO!!!!
That's just SO unAmerican!
:-)
So now younger workers should just put their savings in the bank?
That will give me one day off per week...!
On Mar 16 05:33 PM Jolly_Rancher wrote:
> Bring back the 6 day work week.
At the bottom of the cycle/market we all tend to feel poor and sorry for ourselves. At the top of the market, we all feel rich and overspend. Well, most of us, anyway. Most people who are truly wealthy are invested, and stay invested. They know the same portfolio now worth a pittance will, without changes, be worth double in three years or so, without having to do anything. For them, the only time the prices matter is when they cash out.
Hypocrites.
I really get PO'd at the executives, advisors, analysts, and economists who talk one thing and do something else. Take Dick Fuld, please: "Here by this crap I'm selling, but I'm getting out of Dodge." I have no sympathy, indeed, I despise these hypocrites.
Cramer had a very small article on TheStreet near the end of last year where he stated all of his 401k was in bonds as he had too much exposure to equities.
On Mar 17 09:51 AM kelm wrote:
> I don't consider owning your own business or a substantial portion
> of a business with your name on it being "in equities". I take him
> at his word.
>
> Cramer had a very small article on TheStreet near the end of last
> year where he stated all of his 401k was in bonds as he had too much
> exposure to equities.
On Mar 16 06:40 PM William Cowie wrote:
> It is how most people feel. Most people are also poor, or rather,
> not wealthy.
>
> At the bottom of the cycle/market we all tend to feel poor and sorry
> for ourselves. At the top of the market, we all feel rich and overspend.
> Well, most of us, anyway. Most people who are truly wealthy are invested,
> and stay invested. They know the same portfolio now worth a pittance
> will, without changes, be worth double in three years or so, without
> having to do anything. For them, the only time the prices matter
> is when they cash out.
Vanguard touts its index funds - and they aggressively & efficiently marketed these products in the plans I worked with - and contributing participants likewise took a bath. TIAA-CREF products are uniformly among the most expensive MFs. (It's possible that either of these fund companies offerred NYU a custom managed retirement product that dodged a bullet, but that's verrrrry unlikely: NYU lost $25 mil. with Madoff, after all.)