Tweet
Live thread here:
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...ed=1#post99268
_____________________
Changed - to engage Fred's attention a little better here on the "complaint" thingy.
Fred - Your editorial discretion as to what constitutes real news on the News page seems quite broad. Also, setting high vetting, or admission requirements of other analysts being quotable, can be read two ways - On the one hand you get your stringent standards, but on the other hand it also sets up a hefty moat around the iTulip theme.
That can be interpreted in some cases as iTulip not considering it's core themes open to challenge within it's forum pages, when that is in the form of a simple divergent analyst call. This is certainly your prerogative. But it's not set against a backdrop of perfection. I've noted in minor ways' iTulip can fudge at least a few details on occasion.
EJ said a while back he was only $40 off on his bottom in gold call. But it actually bottomed at $681, not $740, while EJ called it at $780. I think he then referred more than once to the bottom for the gold price as being "only $40 off" his call.
Now there's lots of superb stuff here at iTulip, and this is a trivially small point, but maybe with iTulip being just a thin hair less than flawless, that is enough of a hair-thin discrepancy to allow a "second-rater" like Birinyi a modest season ticket in the iTulip news forums? I understand meanwhile, that he is disqualified because his past record contains an unsatisfactory number of errors?
I remember iTulip adopting the Peak Oil story, which it had been totally oblivious about in early 2007. I managed to get you interested enough about it to check the story out. You took a second look, and adopted it. I remember being a bit bemused afterwards that I never obtained so much as a two word acknowledgement in any post.
Well I also certainly understand that the inclusion of Peak Cheap Oil the iTulip accepted themes was only achieved after some wrangling about it. Meanwhile, iTulip has been just a hint reluctant to tip it's hat to some other analysts out there who may be "generic" as opposed to practicing economists, and this may in a certain light also be regarded as a "cutting off at the knees" of all the rest of the analysts voices.
And it also bears noting that it still is a little early in the year to be pronouncing Birinyi completely deluded on this question. As for the news pages being kept free of marginal content, there are all sorts of quotes more tenuous than Birinyi on the news pages. Nothing pejorative to that at all - it's just the regular iTulip conversations routinely discussing all sorts of minor topics anyway.
I'll note however that all of the everyday posting in forums, with lots of comments wandering into hundreds of secondary topics, don't seem to meet nearly the same stringent guidelines for "admission" to "viable news discussion" as the occasional analyst like Birinyi does! Perhaps the stringency applied in his case therefore, is not entirely unaffected by his having a diametrically contrary market view?
I am wondering if the assertion "we are open to challenge" offers a bit of latitude for implementation. Maybe if Birinyi's posted article had been about some other more neutral market topic, it would have been permitted to remain? And setting such a high bar to entry for quotable other analysts, also works pretty efficiently as an "idea" or "thesis" moat.
It's not impossible that the markets go net-up from here. Birinyi is not a "total loss" as an analyst, and Biggs even a good deal better. Some others seem to migrate to this view each month now. I got a hint of this thesis six months ago, and mentioned it here a few times. I get the generalized impression that this "the market can rise" notion has not gotten the most cordial reception here.
Arguably, iTulip's view about 2009 / 2010 turning into a "rising inflationary environment", actually overlaps with Birinyi's and Barton Bigg's own suggestions as rising consumer inflation is not incompatible with some sharp moves up in the equities. But you seem to assert "categorically" that in all inflationary environments sustained and significant stock moves "can't ever happen".
Here's Barton Biggs on why stocks are going to rally hard. My 0.02 cents: iTulip really need to be a little less high handed with how they dispose of dissenting opinions:
http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?N=av&T=Biggs%20Forecasts%20%60Strong%20and%20Powerful'% 20Recovery%20in%20Stocks&clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vfbY4JouYEhA.asf
I am going to re-post this as a new thread in "Rant & Rave" to make sure enough people get a chance to read this comment.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...ed=1#post99268
_____________________
Changed - to engage Fred's attention a little better here on the "complaint" thingy.
Fred - Your editorial discretion as to what constitutes real news on the News page seems quite broad. Also, setting high vetting, or admission requirements of other analysts being quotable, can be read two ways - On the one hand you get your stringent standards, but on the other hand it also sets up a hefty moat around the iTulip theme.
That can be interpreted in some cases as iTulip not considering it's core themes open to challenge within it's forum pages, when that is in the form of a simple divergent analyst call. This is certainly your prerogative. But it's not set against a backdrop of perfection. I've noted in minor ways' iTulip can fudge at least a few details on occasion.
EJ said a while back he was only $40 off on his bottom in gold call. But it actually bottomed at $681, not $740, while EJ called it at $780. I think he then referred more than once to the bottom for the gold price as being "only $40 off" his call.
Now there's lots of superb stuff here at iTulip, and this is a trivially small point, but maybe with iTulip being just a thin hair less than flawless, that is enough of a hair-thin discrepancy to allow a "second-rater" like Birinyi a modest season ticket in the iTulip news forums? I understand meanwhile, that he is disqualified because his past record contains an unsatisfactory number of errors?
I remember iTulip adopting the Peak Oil story, which it had been totally oblivious about in early 2007. I managed to get you interested enough about it to check the story out. You took a second look, and adopted it. I remember being a bit bemused afterwards that I never obtained so much as a two word acknowledgement in any post.
Well I also certainly understand that the inclusion of Peak Cheap Oil the iTulip accepted themes was only achieved after some wrangling about it. Meanwhile, iTulip has been just a hint reluctant to tip it's hat to some other analysts out there who may be "generic" as opposed to practicing economists, and this may in a certain light also be regarded as a "cutting off at the knees" of all the rest of the analysts voices.
And it also bears noting that it still is a little early in the year to be pronouncing Birinyi completely deluded on this question. As for the news pages being kept free of marginal content, there are all sorts of quotes more tenuous than Birinyi on the news pages. Nothing pejorative to that at all - it's just the regular iTulip conversations routinely discussing all sorts of minor topics anyway.
I'll note however that all of the everyday posting in forums, with lots of comments wandering into hundreds of secondary topics, don't seem to meet nearly the same stringent guidelines for "admission" to "viable news discussion" as the occasional analyst like Birinyi does! Perhaps the stringency applied in his case therefore, is not entirely unaffected by his having a diametrically contrary market view?
I am wondering if the assertion "we are open to challenge" offers a bit of latitude for implementation. Maybe if Birinyi's posted article had been about some other more neutral market topic, it would have been permitted to remain? And setting such a high bar to entry for quotable other analysts, also works pretty efficiently as an "idea" or "thesis" moat.
It's not impossible that the markets go net-up from here. Birinyi is not a "total loss" as an analyst, and Biggs even a good deal better. Some others seem to migrate to this view each month now. I got a hint of this thesis six months ago, and mentioned it here a few times. I get the generalized impression that this "the market can rise" notion has not gotten the most cordial reception here.
Arguably, iTulip's view about 2009 / 2010 turning into a "rising inflationary environment", actually overlaps with Birinyi's and Barton Bigg's own suggestions as rising consumer inflation is not incompatible with some sharp moves up in the equities. But you seem to assert "categorically" that in all inflationary environments sustained and significant stock moves "can't ever happen".
Here's Barton Biggs on why stocks are going to rally hard. My 0.02 cents: iTulip really need to be a little less high handed with how they dispose of dissenting opinions:
http://www.bloomberg.com/avp/avp.htm?N=av&T=Biggs%20Forecasts%20%60Strong%20and%20Powerful'% 20Recovery%20in%20Stocks&clipSRC=mms://media2.bloomberg.com/cache/vfbY4JouYEhA.asf
I am going to re-post this as a new thread in "Rant & Rave" to make sure enough people get a chance to read this comment.
Comment