Bruman's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/166634/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/176697/comments?source=feed#comment-792598 792598 Sun, 06 Dec 2009 11:15:27 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/176034/comments?source=feed#comment-786300 786300 Wed, 02 Dec 2009 09:53:21 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/175935/comments?source=feed#comment-784751 784751
Be realistic about what you need money for, and strip that quantity out and put it in money market instruments. Then apply the remainder to investment options consistent with your ability or desire to take risk.

One thing to think about is the idea of matching your assets to your liabilities such that the duration of your assets matches up with the duration of your liabilities. In that case, you start to realize that stocks tend to have very long durations, and therefore are inappropriate for matching to liabilities that come due sooner than 15 or 20 years.]]> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:47:19 -0500
Be realistic about what you need money for, and strip that quantity out and put it in money market instruments. Then apply the remainder to investment options consistent with your ability or desire to take risk.

One thing to think about is the idea of matching your assets to your liabilities such that the duration of your assets matches up with the duration of your liabilities. In that case, you start to realize that stocks tend to have very long durations, and therefore are inappropriate for matching to liabilities that come due sooner than 15 or 20 years.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/169128/comments?source=feed#comment-733386 733386
I used to live and work in Brazil, and during the Brazilian Miracle of the late 1960s, it was said by the military government "Brazil is doing well; Brazilians, not so well." I see this unfolding in the US these days. US-based corporations may end up doing well by globalizing, but the benefits of that growth will not trickle down to the average US citizen or resident until we can unburden ourselves from the consumption debts that we've accumulated.]]> Wed, 28 Oct 2009 00:27:58 -0400
I used to live and work in Brazil, and during the Brazilian Miracle of the late 1960s, it was said by the military government "Brazil is doing well; Brazilians, not so well." I see this unfolding in the US these days. US-based corporations may end up doing well by globalizing, but the benefits of that growth will not trickle down to the average US citizen or resident until we can unburden ourselves from the consumption debts that we've accumulated.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128087/comments?source=feed#comment-442917 442917 Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:22:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/126399/comments?source=feed#comment-429885 429885
Stocks did drop around 90% peak-to-trough in the Great Depression. If we are about 50% down from the peak, a similar fall today would still represent an 80% loss, which I find kinda scary.
]]> Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:35:22 -0400
Stocks did drop around 90% peak-to-trough in the Great Depression. If we are about 50% down from the peak, a similar fall today would still represent an 80% loss, which I find kinda scary.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/116667/comments?source=feed#comment-367560 367560 Tue, 27 Jan 2009 10:53:19 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/116297/comments?source=feed#comment-366159 366159
Eventually goods production may slow so that prices can creep up for markets to clear, but this may mean that employment is down, reducing people's income, and forcing other prices down. Thus, these are money supply issues.

There is also the question of the velocity of money. Inflation/deflation can happen if the number of transactions rises or falls rapidly. This is a part of the money equation MV = YP or (money supply)*(velocity) = (output)*(price levels). Usually money supply changes faster than velocity, but that may not be the case presently.

At the same time, I do agree that central banks are flooding the system with money, and that is likely to produce inflation down the road. But I think that deflation has happened and may persist for another 3 months or so.
]]> Mon, 26 Jan 2009 02:02:57 -0500
Eventually goods production may slow so that prices can creep up for markets to clear, but this may mean that employment is down, reducing people's income, and forcing other prices down. Thus, these are money supply issues.

There is also the question of the velocity of money. Inflation/deflation can happen if the number of transactions rises or falls rapidly. This is a part of the money equation MV = YP or (money supply)*(velocity) = (output)*(price levels). Usually money supply changes faster than velocity, but that may not be the case presently.

At the same time, I do agree that central banks are flooding the system with money, and that is likely to produce inflation down the road. But I think that deflation has happened and may persist for another 3 months or so.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114079/comments?source=feed#comment-351733 351733
Roger makes a very valid point about something that a lot of people don't necessarily think about. They see their portfolios down and think "The market is tanking, finances are tight, I might be laid off; maybe I'll not contribute to my 401(k) this year."

Roger's point is that's crazy. You can put the money into a money market/cash, and the match will mean that you're up 50% on day one (or whatever the match value is). This happens whether the market goes up or down. If you think we've returned to a growth trend, then put it in the market; but if you think we're in for more rough waters, keep the 50% and put it in cash for now.

The two things Roger should have added:

1) Don't leave it in cash forever. At some point, if it's going to serve for retirement, you're going to need that money to grow (unless we have very long term deflation, which is a whole other issue), so you'll eventually want it invested somewhere else... but lock in that 50% gain right now.

2) That 50% gain isn't going to compound at 50% every year. You'll get one shot of 50% returns, and then it will return whatever your investment plan justifies... but don't use a down market as an excuse to forget about grabbing that 50% right now.]]> Sat, 10 Jan 2009 12:39:33 -0500
Roger makes a very valid point about something that a lot of people don't necessarily think about. They see their portfolios down and think "The market is tanking, finances are tight, I might be laid off; maybe I'll not contribute to my 401(k) this year."

Roger's point is that's crazy. You can put the money into a money market/cash, and the match will mean that you're up 50% on day one (or whatever the match value is). This happens whether the market goes up or down. If you think we've returned to a growth trend, then put it in the market; but if you think we're in for more rough waters, keep the 50% and put it in cash for now.

The two things Roger should have added:

1) Don't leave it in cash forever. At some point, if it's going to serve for retirement, you're going to need that money to grow (unless we have very long term deflation, which is a whole other issue), so you'll eventually want it invested somewhere else... but lock in that 50% gain right now.

2) That 50% gain isn't going to compound at 50% every year. You'll get one shot of 50% returns, and then it will return whatever your investment plan justifies... but don't use a down market as an excuse to forget about grabbing that 50% right now.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113517/comments?source=feed#comment-350751 350751 Fri, 09 Jan 2009 11:08:53 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/106043/comments?source=feed#comment-311609 311609
It is possible that the inflation of the 1970s is a result of monetary effects from both the Vietnam war and previous Keynesian spending, and this may be why Reagan's policies were so effective for a while, but none of this suggests that government shouldn't be providing stimuli in difficult times. One of the main problems we face now is that government did not pay back its debt during the recent good times.

As for the 3 farmers, remember that we have a fractional reserve banking system, so it should not be possible to lend out 100% of the money supply. If you could lend 100% of the money supply, your example would work. But even lenders keep some money around to pay for next week's groceries (at least for their own consumption).]]> Fri, 21 Nov 2008 09:18:10 -0500
It is possible that the inflation of the 1970s is a result of monetary effects from both the Vietnam war and previous Keynesian spending, and this may be why Reagan's policies were so effective for a while, but none of this suggests that government shouldn't be providing stimuli in difficult times. One of the main problems we face now is that government did not pay back its debt during the recent good times.

As for the 3 farmers, remember that we have a fractional reserve banking system, so it should not be possible to lend out 100% of the money supply. If you could lend 100% of the money supply, your example would work. But even lenders keep some money around to pay for next week's groceries (at least for their own consumption).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/90933/comments?source=feed#comment-230132 230132 Thu, 14 Aug 2008 10:05:29 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/90384/comments?source=feed#comment-228534 228534 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:38:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/83008/comments?source=feed#comment-194721 194721 Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:15:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/69415/comments?source=feed#comment-129852 129852 Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:14:06 -0400