« Scattershots – 20may22 (updated 22may22) | Main | “… to protect the children.” (addended with 9jun22 update) »

21 May 2022


The Estonian Fox

Ken Fisher has run his own money (and 60,000+ others at 1-1.5%) for years. Since his net worth is now over $4.5B, he does pretty well for himself. He's got over $180B assets under management. But I have never seen any investment managers provide their annual return percentages. So I avoid them too.

I read Fisher's Market Outlook every quarter, to see his gross analysis of what's happening in the U.S. & the world. To access his Outlook generally rates a call from them of course.

I have to end here George, call coming in from Lizzie Warren about why am I commenting on something that the government has yet to control - an individuals own mind. It may be coming sooner than you think though.


As the world's shittiest investor, it's always interesting to see people's thoughts on the matter.

It seems to me that if a person wanted a "Performance Registered Advisor", they'd simply buy BRK.A

Bill Tozer

Dr. Rebane. Try presenting your Performance idea to a bookie. A winner every time. :)
Scenes. I watched some of this and thought of you.

Peter Navarro


Bill Tozer

Dr. Rebane

Kindly check spam folder. Thank you.

Bill Tozer

To the the world's shittiest investor, you are not alone. I would not even touch real estate right now. Overvalued, not enough buyer suddenly cannot qualify due to mortgage rates and real estate inflation….price has to drop to get sellers in line with buyers…and it will in time. Not at this time. Not since inflation reared it’s ugly head. That ugly head looks like Biden.

I called my broker and asked him where to invest some money. He said “Ammunition and non-perishables.”

Where to park money right now? Where to invest? If you asked me 18 months ago,I could have rattled off a few ideas to consider. But, since Biden screwed up the entire ball of wax, I am clueless. It only took 18 Months!
Larry Kudlow has a good interview with Dr. Art Laffer. Recommended. Man, that dude is ageless.



re: BillT@1:56PM

I guess that a lot of the wealth out there wasn't real and someone has to pay the bills.

Naturally, all the 'good' investors look like geniuses until they don't. I admit that I've always looked askance at a wealth building exercise that produces no value-added aside from lending lucre to a .gov or .corp. Why a nation's aggregate investment wealth would ever outrace an accurate (if such a thing existed) calculation of GDP is a mystery to me.

Even the most obvious local investment, a boom truck, pickups and chainsaws, and a crew of Mexican nationals probably isn't a smart move as it's likely we've hit Peak Tree Removal at this point.

Funny thing is how hard Fidelity was workin' the lines 6-12 months ago. Mr. Scenes, we notice that you don't have this chunk o' change in properly exotic instruments. Get off the stick sir!

George Rebane

scenes 219pm - Mr scenes, would you please rephrase your question. What is your definition of 'investment wealth'? Does it include invested wealth and then add on uncommitted free cash?



I don't see an outright question there but am happy to think about it some. Always willing to be educated.

Put another way, why should growth in aggregate savings outstrip GDP (assuming GDP numbers are accurate)?

Using stock as a stand-in for wealth (God knows bonds have risen even faster).


I imagine that one factor is the heavy push for the 401k at about where the inflection is (1990). I definitely remember the selling of the things in companies right about then. It was fun watching a CFO indelicately ask the fund salesman about the value of actively managed funds.

You know, maybe I could just look at all the paper rushing around as a relative to fractional reserve banking.

George Rebane

In many ways GDP is a total amount of money that changed hands (i.e. was spent) during a 12-month period. The spent money need not have been generated by producing or servicing something; it could just have been borrowed from savings or from another economy, and, of course, simply printed (immaculate conception).

The Estonian Fox

"to retain our account by modifying his fee structure so he would have more skin in our game."

George, that sounds an awful lot like your previous thoughts that universities should be guaranteeing 50% to 100% of their students' loans. Which might prevent the moral hazard of letting the unsuspecting high school graduate step into an oven of his (parents) own burning cash, without an extinguisher in hand. Why aren't they willing to do that? My guess is colleges aren't really risk-takers, but more like caretakers, or soon-to-be undertakers, of the college loan wildfire.

Of course, loans to STEM students might not have to be backed by universities, only the majors with "justice", "studies", "psycho", "gov" or "socio" in the degrees.


"George, that sounds an awful lot like your previous thoughts that universities should be guaranteeing 50% to 100% of their students' loans."

In a sense they do that beforehand by heavily subsidizing or outright paying for tuition beforehand in some cases.

That's the super-brilliant thing about the system. You drive the price to infinity by chumming it with cash via .gov and loans, and then pay the tab for your special friends. I believe that well over half of UC and CSU students pay no tuition.

If economics were at work, you could simply subsidize all the STEM degree tuitions. If fairness were at work, you could make all the degrees the same cost (even $0) and get rid of 'scholarships'. If Crazytown were at work, you make it super-expensive and then pass out 'scholarships' to useless degree programs by tuning the requirements.

If a person could invent a way to produce energy from Grievance Studies, they might have something. It seems to me that generating useful work from what is basically Dark Energy sounds unlikely although it might explain the universe expanding.

George Rebane

Efox 318am - Colleges have been out of the risk business for years. Why worry as long as govt pays for students' tuitions with loans to which you are not a party? Yes, I'm a 'skin-in-the-game' kinda guy. Selling degrees that certify worthless skillsets is IMHO outright fraud.

scenes 707am - One approach is to make a certain percent (say, 67%) of student loans be to majors that are currently sought by employers. The same could be applied to federal scholarships.


"majors that are currently sought by employers. "

Given the growth in the Woke HR departments and Diversity Equity Grievance divisions of large companies, it could be that you just end up with status quo.

Of course, the generation following should probably all become Chinese Language majors (or work on their post-apocalypse skills if the Biden Ministry of Peace keeps it up).


I recall a comic strip where Dilbert explained how investment works to Dogbert:
"Basically, I give my money to my broker, and then he buys nice things for his family".

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad