Everybody's Lying to You

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/05/18/everybodys-lying-to-you.aspx?source=ihpsitota0000001

by landist • 17 years ago

33 30 17 years ago

TomOfTTB3• 17 years ago

Basically this article boils down to one central point: This isn't a downturn it's a correction so don't expect things to "bounce back".

My opinion is they're probably half right. I don't think anything is going to bounce back to where it was but I also think panic caused things to drop further than they needed to. So we'll probably see a small bounce eventually but from there it'll probably be a decade before we reach pre-bust levels.

villageidiot2• 17 years ago

-> it'll probably be a decade before we reach pre-bust levels.

How do you know?

The same people who didn't see it coming are all of a sudden experts on when it's going to end.

TomOfTTB3• 17 years ago

OK, pardon the sarcasm here, but what exactly do you think the word "probably" means? Because to me it means "the author is stating an opinion and is in no way saying that opinion is authoritative"

In other words I don't "know", I never claimed to "know" so you shouldn't accuse me of it.

If you're going to go so far as to quote the line at least read it first and try to look at what the author's actual meaning was.

For the record I based my opinion on the simple fact that things around me shouldn't cost as much as they do. The house two doors down from me is 2 bedroom, needs a new roof and was still valued at $750,000. In my opinion a two bedroom house simply isn't worth that so I don't expect it to bounce back to that value.

mynameishere2• 17 years ago

Quick point: Having money, a depreciating asset, forces everyone into being a speculator. You have to make prophecies, because the alternative is an assured -2.0 percent return (roughly).

Here's why the long term outlook is bad: An aging population will necessarily convert assets of all classes into money in order to finance their retirement. Simple as that.

Short term, who the hell knows? Buy Citi on margin short term, if you feel like it.

mattculbreth• 17 years ago

They left out another big lier: themselves. The financial media are as much to blame as Citigroup, the government, and whoever else. Hell, perhaps even more so given the press's traditional role of watchdog and investigator.

villageidiot2• 17 years ago

->Hell, perhaps even more so given the press's traditional role of watchdog and investigator.

I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic here. Alternatively, perhaps you're not from the United States.

berntb2• 17 years ago

The US media looks better than my local Swedish one.

In a small country, the interests are more aligned, for good and bad.

For instance, the US media have different opinions on lots of subjects! Here, you get at most two opinions.

But mainly, the US media seems to find lots of real scandals in your president administrations. That doesn't happen much with the local government and media...

Maybe there aren't any scandals here to find? (And if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell, if you want to make a good deal?)

That said, there are lots of crappy media in the US. But obviously, some of the world's best ones, too.

xiaoma• 17 years ago

>They left out another big lier: themselves. The financial media are as much to blame as Citigroup, the government, and whoever else. Hell, perhaps even more so given the press's traditional role of watchdog and investigator.

That's really unfair. The Motley Fool is about as much a part of "the financial media" you speak of as Slashdot is a typical "news corporation". They have been acting as a watchdog and warning about various bubbles for a long, long time.

The Fool has always been an outsider, unafraid to speak the truths that no one else could-- that brokers don't have your interests at heart, that the market can't be timed, that 99%　of all mutual funds lose to the market over a five year period, that all the great long term investors are value investors rather than technical traders, etc. The vast majority of "financial media" writers simply couldn't write those things and keep their jobs.

In that sense they really are like the Shakespearean motley fool.

Tichy• 17 years ago

"Everybody is lying to you [...] Our stock experts, David and Tom Gardner, avoid fish tales. These are two straight shooters who take their big catches in stride and don't lament the ones that got away."

Right...

ilitirit2• 17 years ago

> one-half of 1% per year

What's the intent here? Why not say "0.5% annually"? And why do people say "one-half"? Is this typical of economics journalism?

[edit] The whole sentence seems redundant anyway.

the average annual investment return from 1950-2000 was less than one-half of 1% per year

"annual investment return" implies "per year" and vice versa.

pchristensen• 17 years ago

There are four numbers (1950, 2000, one-half, 1%) between annual and per year. Even though it's redundant, it makes it easier to read. A big part of Motley Fool's appeal is the accessibility of their writing and explanation.

ilitirit2• 17 years ago

I'm not sure if they would have put it like that themselves though. They extracted the quote from USA Today.

jbm2• 17 years ago

In reference to housing prices; I don't understand how it is the "best time to buy" if prices are still falling. Wouldn't it be the "best time to buy" once it has hit rock bottom and just begun a slight upturn?

_cbsz• 17 years ago

Sure, but if you can identify that situation on a financial asset, you can go ahead and quit your day job now.

Everybody's Lying to You

Related Stories