You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

[LargoWinch]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

1. I have paid for the site, on and off, for a long while. Off, because for weeks at a time little is published worth the price.

2. I agree it has great value. The issue is the ease with which that information is conveyed.

3. What line? It's a fact, this costs more than I pay for garbage pickup and that during some months there is little or nothing new.

4. Pot calling kettle black type hypocrisy with the "crawl back in your hole" comment. Except unlike you, I didn't resort to any ad hominem attack.

5. You are too emotionally invested. It's not your website, you just subscribe. If someone criticizes it it doesn't reflect on you. You're behaving like rednecks with their Chevy/Ford feuds. They didn't design or build it, but they get mad when someone points out a flaw in their pickup truck.

6. It's an economics website, not a cult. Try to remember that.

7. When you're good and know it, in your confidence you don't feel the need to bristle at every opinion disagreeing with yours. I made what I think are valid criticisms that would vastly improve the site and its subscriber base. It's pretty obvious they're sensitve about not being as popular as a guy they think is completely wrong. Sometimes one can be so brilliant they don't take good advice and feedback, eh?

8. It is impossible to improve anything in this world without first looking at it critically. Unfortunately some are too immature to realize that. The wise and earnest truth-seeker eagerly accepts such feedback knowing he benefits most from it. The vain egotist lashes out at the source of the criticism.

I agree that my comment was not gentlemen-like and as such removed it.

However, if you think your "garbage" analogy was not offensive and out of line you are either dishonest or worse.

[jpatter666]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

I agree that my comment was not gentlemen-like and as such removed it.

However, if you think your "garbage" analogy was not offensive and out of line you are either dishonest or worse.

+1 -- which brought on my response as well. That was apples and oranges.

[cjppjc]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

In the age of instant gratification, not many will put up with that.

Very true. But homemade takes longer than fast food, with a comenserate difference in quality.

[flintlock]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Well apparently there is a history of Mish misrepresenting EJs work. This entire exchange did not happen in a bubble. There is also a word for those who think repeated slights are always an "accident" . Naive. EJ was merely bringing to light this possible PA behavior, which tends to dissolve it quickly. I regret the use of the term douchebag, and was not necessarily confirming Mish as that( know nothing about him) but rather bringing up the fact that PA types do need to be spanked when they get out of line, or the behavior continues. In other words, I cut EJ some slack on the whole thing because he was doing exactly what, in my opinion, is the best way to stop this kind of BS. Call them out. My first instinct was like yours, to think EJs response was petty and unprofessional. But then I read some more posts and thought about it. I almost feel like I know EJ and would not expect him to make these claims if they were not true. Anyway, if it was an simple accident, bringing that up the fact his name was misspelled is hardly paranoid.

Surely you understand that PA types RELY on people giving them the benefit of the doubt. The tactic wouldn't work otherwise.

[metalman]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

1. I have paid for the site, on and off, for a long while. Off, because for weeks at a time little is published worth the price.

2. I agree it has great value. The issue is the ease with which that information is conveyed.

3. What line? It's a fact, this costs more than I pay for garbage pickup and that during some months there is little or nothing new.

4. Pot calling kettle black type hypocrisy with the "crawl back in your hole" comment. Except unlike you, I didn't resort to any ad hominem attack.

5. You are too emotionally invested. It's not your website, you just subscribe. If someone criticizes it it doesn't reflect on you. You're behaving like rednecks with their Chevy/Ford feuds. They didn't design or build it, but they get mad when someone points out a flaw in their pickup truck.

6. It's an economics website, not a cult. Try to remember that.

7. When you're good and know it, in your confidence you don't feel the need to bristle at every opinion disagreeing with yours. I made what I think are valid criticisms that would vastly improve the site and its subscriber base. It's pretty obvious they're sensitve about not being as popular as a guy they think is completely wrong. Sometimes one can be so brilliant they don't take good advice and feedback, eh?

8. It is impossible to improve anything in this world without first looking at it critically. Unfortunately some are too immature to realize that. The wise and earnest truth-seeker eagerly accepts such feedback knowing he benefits most from it. The vain egotist lashes out at the source of the criticism.

folks are passionate about the site here... for 13 yrs ej has made us money (gold) or saved us from losses (dot com crash & 2007 crash). his record is i'd say... er... 80% or maybe 90%... no one's perfect.

mish is 80% wrong... loses his readers' $$$ & lies about it & lies about ej's record on his site... calls anyone who disagrees with him a fool... etc, etc. if that's your thing... go for it. what are you doing here?

you made your point once... twice... @ 6 times & it's called 'trolling'.

[bart]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Not sure that you can/will understand, but those of us that have been here for some years like the site the way it is. It is something like a great friend that has a big wart on the side of their face. You look at the individual underneath and ignore the disfigurement because you know that, in the end, it simply does not matter.

What you seek is to define the parameters of what you believe the site should look like; when, in truth, if you feel so strongly, you should go out and start up your own version and see how far you get. You will discover that it takes many decades to get to where EJ and his small team have today; widely respected and accepted my the many, warts and all.

Please, you have made your point, so, with the very greatest of respects; do us all a favour and can it.

+1

...you made your point once... twice... @ 6 times & it's called 'trolling'.

A lack of manners too.




And now, let's get back to Mish Mash bashing... ;-)

[astonas]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

To always keep quiet in those type of circumstances just isn't in my nature these days.

"All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing."
-- Edmund Burke

[raja]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

mish is 80% wrong...

Care to back that up?

You'd have to be a regular reader of Mish's blog to have any idea of how often he was wrong . . . or else you'd be relying on hearsay . . . or just making it up.

Bart, you are a frequent reader of Mish's blog . . . do you agree with the 80% inaccuracy figure that metalman throws out?

calls anyone who disagrees with him a fool...

Not true.

Take Mish's post that set EJ off.
In that post, Mish said he disagreed with EJ, but did not call him a fool. He actually complimented him for his gold call.

[LargoWinch]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Care to back that up?

Care to back Mish's track record for us raja?

[bpr]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Such pearls of wisdom here bpr: "if you get the timing wrong you're wrong". In fact, even early on a trade you may make money, it all depends on your investment horizon and how long you can sustain your positions. So no, even "timing wrong" doesn't mean "you're wrong". Let me give you a very simple example: say I was short AIG in 2006, was I wrong?

Excellent points. The bottom line is always directly related to risk tolerance and time horizon. Speaking to your AIG example, if you shorted in the summer and couldn't tolerate a 30% loss, you were indeed wrong. Bottom line, you hit the margin call and had to exit your position. You may mitigate this with niceties like saying, "I was early," but the bottom line is you were wrong and had to exit the trade.

More importantly, are you implying that the ka-Poom process timing is wrong? If so, prove your argument instead of making empty statements.

What I'm implying is that the time horizon has been extended longer than I had anticipated after first becoming aware of the process.

here's a theory... ej is tired of mishmash the liar using his platform to lie about ej & his own record over & over & over & wants mishmash to stfu & stop lying?

where does ej say he's 100% right about everything? only 100% right re deflation... the topic of the article... that mishmash lied about ej in... again.

I don't read either site frequently enough to know the inner details, but you're likely spot on. Truth be told, I haven't been to Mish's site in a number of years, and only came about it via Minyanville, which I will visit occasionally (when a "market event" happens).

[raja]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Care to back Mish's track record for us raja?

No, why should I?
I didn't attack any one. I'm not making any claims.

The burden of proof lies with Metalman, who attacked Mish by saying that Mish was 80% wrong. I'd like to know on what metalman bases that charge.

Mish writes several blog posts every day, and makes a call almost everyday. For example, yesterday he said that the housing market will stay depressed, and gave a detailed explanation of why he thinks that will be so.
To actually figure out Mish's accuracy rate would be a gargantuan task because of the great frequency with which he posts and makes calls. So where does metalman come up with this 80% figure?

In comparision, EJ rarely makes calls. Maybe once every two years or something? EJ's articles appear once a month or less. So it would be much easier to assess his accuracy rate. I don't dispute metalman's assessment of EJ's accuracy rate at 80%-90%. It would not be hard to verify that claim. (By the way, EJ's 10%-20% inaccuracy has lost me some money.)

Success rate of predictions aside, the fact is that Mish vs. EJ each have their own styles of presentation. Personally, I eagerly read Mish's blog every day, and I get a lot out of it. I check in with iTulip periodically to see if EJ has written anything, and I eagerly read his articles when they appear. Criticizing Mish for not writing in-depth articles like EJ is as foolish as criticizing EJ for only writing an article once a month or so.

[bart]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

...
Bart, you are a frequent reader of Mish's blog . . . do you agree with the 80% inaccuracy figure that metalman throws out?

I'd put it at 67% or higher over the years, and won't exclude over 75%.
Two out of the three main funds where he works did very poorly last year, and at least one actually lost money if memory serves.
Some of my opinion is a value judgement of course.

His primary issue by far is the deflation and related stuff - in my opinion, it's a vested interest and severely colors his overall views.

Not true.

Take Mish's post that set EJ off.
In that post, Mish said he disagreed with EJ, but did not call him a fool. He actually complimented him for his gold call.

While I won't exclude the possibility that he has changed, I'm not holding my breath at all.

I recall a thread on ZH about Mish about a year ago in which he and I participated, and he was very critical and lied egregiously about EJ's position - and others positions too, including my own. I have no reason to think he has truly changed, especially in private.

I also just did a quick Google on his site: "fool" turns up 365 times, "clown" 64 times.
His blogging is quite emotional and frequently highly critical (sometimes with good reason of course) and quite repetitive, with lots of cut & paste from others.

I will also note that he has done much less in the economics area for over a year, and concentrates much more in the political area - in my opinion because he has received so much flak about his facts and sloppy/imprecise language, etc. in economics and in general.

[CanuckinTX]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

To actually figure out Mish's accuracy rate would be a gargantuan task because of the great frequency with which he posts and makes calls.

It would not be hard to verify that claim. (By the way, EJ's 10%-20% inaccuracy has lost me some money.)

Personally, I eagerly read Mish's blog every day, and I get a lot out of it.

You're certainly right you have no burden of proof. Apparently though you track your success rate of EJ's calls since you are aware some of them have cost you money. So are you saying you don't act on Mish's calls or you just don't have any idea if you've made money or not since they're so numerous? By calling out that EJ has lost you money it would be informative in this particular argument if you can state what Mish's success rate has been for you.

[raja]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

You're certainly right you have no burden of proof. Apparently though you track your success rate of EJ's calls since you are aware some of them have cost you money. So are you saying you don't act on Mish's calls or you just don't have any idea if you've made money or not since they're so numerous? By calling out that EJ has lost you money it would be informative in this particular argument if you can state what Mish's success rate has been for you.

Yes, I have tracked my success rate with EJ.
Yes, I sometimes act on Mish's calls.
Yes, I know exactly how much I've made with Mish.
No, the number of calls I've acted on are not numerous.
My success rate with Mish so far is 100% -- never lost a penny.

But what's the point of your questions?

No single investor's success rate with any advisor's calls provides statistically significant information . . . unless those investments represent a high number of the total calls within a certain time period, and my level of trading is quite modest compared with the huge number of Mish's calls.

Furthermore, I am not making any claims about Mish's success rate. What I'm doing is asking metalman what is the basis for his claim that Mish is 80% wrong. My guess is that he's just pulling it out of his hat . . . but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt by posing it as a question.

[raja]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Two out of the three main funds where he works did very poorly last year, and at least one actually lost money if memory serves . .

Did some brief fact-checking . . . .

The company Mish works for, Sitka Pacific, had an annualized return since 2005 of 8.57%, while the S&P was 3.50%.
I'm not saying that there weren't better investments available -- there were -- but I am saying that you seem to want to portray Mish as a loser, and he isn't. Also, I believe I recall reading that he does not determine the composition of the funds -- he just advises, so the performance of Sitka can't be attributed entirely to Mish.

I'd put it at 67% or higher over the years, and won't exclude over 75%.
Two out of the three main funds where he works did very poorly last year, and at least one actually lost money if memory serves.
Some of my opinion is a value judgement of course.

I ask the same question of you as I did of metalman . . . can you back up your "67% wrong" assertion with some facts or statistics? You say, "Some of my opinion is a value judgement of course." What does that mean?
Are you saying that what Mish would describe as a successful call, you wouldn't? Or do you mean something else?

I also just did a quick Google on his site: "fool" turns up 365 times, "clown" 64 times.
His blogging is quite emotional and frequently highly critical (sometimes with good reason of course) and quite repetitive, with lots of cut & paste from others.

Don't you think "clown" and "fool" seem like perfect descriptors for most of the politicians and economic "experts" out there? I certainly do.

I like the cut-and-paste approach Mish uses.
He quotes the 3rd pary sources, then comments with his opinion. Instead of rehashing the facts in his own words, he presents directly where he gets his info. A very credible approach, and very valuable, imo. Different than EJ's approach, but as I have said before, both have something to contribute. You must agree, or you wouldn't be reading Mish "frequently".