Schiff gets it wrong

[Mega]

I knew at some point this would happen, one of Peters share picks has gone/dead/game over.

Badcock & Brown.......what can i say, it was one of the names i knew & i picked it. Lets just hope the others recover.

Mike

[LargoWinch]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

I knew at some point this would happen, one of Peters share picks has gone/dead/game over.

Badcock & Brown.......what can i say, it was one of the names i knew & i picked it. Lets just hope the others recover.

Mike

That is what an 80:1 debt leverage ratio will do to you...in a mild downturn.

[Mega]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

He told me it was an infurstructure.....no Peter it was an investement bank!

Mike

[Mango]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

Oh Master of Brevity, would you deign to explain?

Your humble acolyte ;)

[Mega]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

I am a client of Schiff, he told me paper money going to zero, Badcock & Brown An Oz company crashed today.......I asked a few times if we should jump ship & he said NO, its just a funding problem............Peter didn't do his home work.
Mike

[Louie.G]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

I am a client of Schiff, he told me paper money going to zero, Badcock & Brown An Oz company crashed today.......I asked a few times if we should jump ship & he said NO, its just a funding problem............Peter didn't do his home work.
Mike

Link to article

Troubled investment firm Babcock & Brown Ltd (BNB) has appointed voluntary administrators following a decision by New Zealand creditors to vote against a restructuring plan earlier today.

Sorry Mega, seems the Kiwis brought the Aussies down at the expense of the Brit through bad advice of the Yank.

Yep... sure is a global economy.

[pianodoctor]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

Mega,

If misery loves company, we can be buddies. I'm in the same boat with Schiff and B&B. He makes a lot about his expertise and predictions, but I remember hearing him say that when it comes to researching companies to buy stock, he didn't do it himself. He purchases or subscribes to research from others. Once I understood the nature of B&B, they seemed to me about as "unSchiff-like" as they come. Exactly the kind of crazy overleveraged company he rails against. Apparently he didn't notice that. Yes, I got the 'infrastructure' pitch too.

[GRG55]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

Mega,

If misery loves company, we can be buddies. I'm in the same boat with Schiff and B&B. He makes a lot about his expertise and predictions, but I remember hearing him say that when it comes to researching companies to buy stock, he didn't do it himself. He purchases or subscribes to research from others. Once I understood the nature of B&B, they seemed to me about as "unSchiff-like" as they come. Exactly the kind of crazy overleveraged company he rails against. Apparently he didn't notice that. Yes, I got the 'infrastructure' pitch too.

I wonder if Schiff got Babcock and Brown confused with the US headquartered firm Babcock and Wilcox...which is an infrastructure play.

Like the mans sez, do your own Due Diligence.

P.S. Mega: Shouldn't the title of this thread be "Schiff gets it wrong. Again"

[Guest]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

Has anyone noticed how few photos there are of Peter Schiff with his mouth closed? He's always talking. Very beguiling talker is Mr. Schiff. Miker, there have been several of us who have been warning you about how beguiling this guy's nattering has always been. You were totally mesmerized by Schiff when you first opened an account there - and that was what? A year ago? 18 months ago? Once your money has been riding on his calls for a while, you start to notice what a remarkably bumpy ride it is. The point to realise about Euro-Pac portfolios is that when they talk about buy and hold, they really mean it.

That means if you get cold feet when a stock like this falls off a cliff and decide to cut your losses - you lose! They don't intend for you to sell positions when they drop 50%. You are supposed to keep your money locked up in these "ideas" for five to ten years to "invest the Peter Schiff way". That's stacking an awful lot of faith in the guy's reputation. As for me, I backed out of that bargain within a year of getting parked in their "ideas", and that was back in 2004 and I've not been tempted to solicit any investing advice from them since. The temptation to throw yourself onto the wisdom of Peter is very strong, because he sounds so self-assured.

In effect when one throws oneself entirely into a Peter Schiff model portfolio, one is paying for that momentary feeling of liberation, like suddenly growing a pair of wings to soar over the markets, thinking "Peter's great ideas are going to sustain me". So one can fling money into his portfolios feeling a sense of liberation due to the rock solid reputation of Peter for audacious wisdom on the markets. But obviously it's your money - if you lose 50% on a stock like this, it will be no great damage to Europac - much less damage even to Peter's teflon reputation as his spin machine powers forwards - stuffing people's mailboxes with emails where various hacks refer to the "great Peter Schiff" now.

Yeesh. I remember when this stock broker was an unknown, back in 2002. The Schiff "aura-machine" powers on. But the financial damage is yours to keep.

[Mega]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

Well Luke
I used Peter on here to "Bate" a few people, but while i am unhappy with what has happened lets put in into context.

When i opened my euro-pac a/c 90% of the investement came from a stock holding i had here in Blighty. Bt (British Telecom) was trading at a recovered £3.21...........it had do the "Tec-bubble" thing and crashed back to £1 something.

I felt it had gone as far as it would (i was right) i also noticed that the £ was $2.09 & felt that the £ would never be has high again either V the $ or other major curranceys ( Again right).

The other factor was the history of failed British Labour goverments, they always bring down a "Iron Curtain". They put in alsorts of controls so that when the £ crashes you can't jump ship.

Bearing all this in mind i expected that my Euro-pac might get "Hurt" during this process...........however lets see what has happened if i hadn't gone to Schiff.

Bt was £3.21..............Now its 73p ish & because of it pension black hole its heading to ZERO. The £ Was $2.09 Now £1.38.......again the arse is about to fall out of it.

In short i was one hell of a lot better of with Schiff than doing nothing.

To peters defence i also say that he was the one whom GOT ME OFF MY ARSE to buy GOLD/Silver! (ETF/Phyical)...............I do rather well with that ;)

I also bought Euro @ .68 now .93 & again we see £1 = E1 soon.

I put no more money with Peter, i am pissed off at the fact that if i ask Euro-pac about buying oil/gas/corn etc via the Rogers index they just give me the run a round and do everything they can to say NO!, without saying NO!

I wonder why?

Does Peter not think it a good idea...........or he can't make much cash off it?


Mike

[hayekvindicated]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

Well Luke
I used Peter on here to "Bate" a few people, but while i am unhappy with what has happened lets put in into context.

When i opened my euro-pac a/c 90% of the investement came from a stock holding i had here in Blighty. Bt (British Telecom) was trading at a recovered £3.21...........it had do the "Tec-bubble" thing and crashed back to £1 something.

I felt it had gone as far as it would (i was right) i also noticed that the £ was $2.09 & felt that the £ would never be has high again either V the $ or other major curranceys ( Again right).

The other factor was the history of failed British Labour goverments, they always bring down a "Iron Curtain". They put in alsorts of controls so that when the £ crashes you can't jump ship.

Bearing all this in mind i expected that my Euro-pac might get "Hurt" during this process...........however lets see what has happened if i hadn't gone to Schiff.

Bt was £3.21..............Now its 73p ish & because of it pension black hole its heading to ZERO. The £ Was $2.09 Now £1.38.......again the arse is about to fall out of it.

In short i was one hell of a lot better of with Schiff than doing nothing.

To peters defence i also say that he was the one whom GOT ME OFF MY ARSE to buy GOLD/Silver! (ETF/Phyical)...............I do rather well with that ;)

I also bought Euro @ .68 now .93 & again we see £1 = E1 soon.

I put no more money with Peter, i am pissed off at the fact that if i ask Euro-pac about buying oil/gas/corn etc via the Rogers index they just give me the run a round and do everything they can to say NO!, without saying NO!

I wonder why?

Does Peter not think it a good idea...........or he can't make much cash off it?


Mike

I first read Peter Schiff back in March 2008. I thought he nailed it perfectly and in advance of the crash. His book "Crash Proof" was excellent economic analysis that got to the core of the problem - unlike mainstream economists who don't know their ass from their elbow.

HOWEVER, dealing with Europac was an entirely different matter. I got the feeling they just wanted me to buy some STOCKS. I was of the Rogers school that stocks generally perform poorly in high inflation environments. I actually sent e-mails to friends in India back in January 2008 (the top of the Indian market) asking them to get out. Those who listened to me avoided a 60 percent nominal plunge and an even higher correction when you take into account the Dollar rally against the Rupee (some 30 percent till date).

SO, I just couldn't understand why these guys were just pushing me to buy STOCKS. Now I have to say that some stocks today are worth considering - I think BHP and Rio are still worth a thought. BUT, I got the feeling with the advisor at Europac that they were only interested in nice FAT BROKERAGE FEES (3 percent flat on your trade) which I thought was wildly excessive when I was capable of thinking things through better than these guys.

As it turns out, I did ultra-defensive trades last year and they rewarded me handsomely. I may even buy some stocks now (outside Europe and the US) and they may actually give tremendous returns. But given how ridiculously bubble like stock valuations still were back in March 2008 (not just in the US but EVERYWHERE), their advice was poor.

I have also become critical of Schiff. There is a crass commercialism about Schiff that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I dislike his endless self-promotion in the media. If he was as good at making money as he is at looking at fundamental economic problems (the two things are entirely different as turning analysis into money is extremely difficult at the best of times), then he would be running his own hedge fund and getting his clients 25 percent returns rather than arguing with the morons in the MSM. But I think the reason he doesn't do that is that he is a lousy trader and would not be able to hack it as a fund manager. Ergo, he chooses this half-way house of running his brokerage firm which provides "advice" (its actually marketing to get nice fat FEES) and being a TV celebrity of sorts who sells books.

The lesson from all this for me was: listen to Schiff and other commentators but then choose your own road. No one understands what to do with your money better than you. And that's something I'm never going to change even if Im broke.

[pianodoctor]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

Just checked my records- The B&B Schiff sold me was B&B Power Ltd.

The stock is completely trashed. But it's not the B&B investment bank. Their vital signs are fading. But we can still hope for a miracle.

"Babcock babies run for cover as parent collapses

Clancy Yeates and Eric Johnston

March 14, 2009
A CLUTCH of Babcock satellites including debt-heavy Babcock & Brown Power have distanced themselves from the collapse of their parent, insisting it will have no impact on day-to-day operations.
Many of the listed satellites, including Babcock-branded infrastructure and wind funds, had already been pushing ahead with plans to cut ties with their struggling parent, mostly by buying out costly management agreements.
"Widely regarded as most vulnerable to its parent's demise was Babcock & Brown Power, which in 2007 emerged with the rump of the Alinta power assets, but owes $381 million to its stricken parent.
While the listed parent slipped into voluntary administration yesterday, Babcock & Brown Power said its "unsecured related party loans" were owed to the group's main operating entity, B&B International, which is still up and running.
The loans mature in March 2010, and the company said it was "at commercial-arms-length terms" and it had no obligation to repay the money because of the appointment of an administrator.
However, the credit crunch has landed plenty of other blows on Babcock & Brown Power.
Last month it failed to dampen fears it would default on a $2.7 billion debt facility after conceding it would breach the covenants on the debt unless it secured an investment-grade credit rating by June 3.
The company is assessing offers for its power station assets, which it put up for sale to address growing concerns that it would default on its debt.
Babcock & Brown owns a 9 per cent stake in Babcock & Brown Power, but the satellite said it was not sure of the parent company's intentions.
Babcock & Brown Infrastructure yesterday said it was hiring external advisers to assist with some of the sales as the separation from its parent company progressed.
Administration of Babcock & Brown "has no immediate impact on the entities that manage the day-to-day business of the [infrastructure] group," Babcock & Brown Infrastructure said in a statement.
Others including Japan Property Trust, Babcock & Brown Wind Partners and a London-listed fund that specialises in public-private partnerships - including constructing the Melbourne's Royal Children's Hospital - issued similar statements."

[flintlock]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

I first read Peter Schiff back in March 2008. I thought he nailed it perfectly and in advance of the crash. His book "Crash Proof" was excellent economic analysis that got to the core of the problem - unlike mainstream economists who don't know their ass from their elbow.

HOWEVER, dealing with Europac was an entirely different matter. I got the feeling they just wanted me to buy some STOCKS. I was of the Rogers school that stocks generally perform poorly in high inflation environments. I actually sent e-mails to friends in India back in January 2008 (the top of the Indian market) asking them to get out. Those who listened to me avoided a 60 percent nominal plunge and an even higher correction when you take into account the Dollar rally against the Rupee (some 30 percent till date).

SO, I just couldn't understand why these guys were just pushing me to buy STOCKS. Now I have to say that some stocks today are worth considering - I think BHP and Rio are still worth a thought. BUT, I got the feeling with the advisor at Europac that they were only interested in nice FAT BROKERAGE FEES (3 percent flat on your trade) which I thought was wildly excessive when I was capable of thinking things through better than these guys.

As it turns out, I did ultra-defensive trades last year and they rewarded me handsomely. I may even buy some stocks now (outside Europe and the US) and they may actually give tremendous returns. But given how ridiculously bubble like stock valuations still were back in March 2008 (not just in the US but EVERYWHERE), their advice was poor.

I have also become critical of Schiff. There is a crass commercialism about Schiff that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I dislike his endless self-promotion in the media. If he was as good at making money as he is at looking at fundamental economic problems (the two things are entirely different as turning analysis into money is extremely difficult at the best of times), then he would be running his own hedge fund and getting his clients 25 percent returns rather than arguing with the morons in the MSM. But I think the reason he doesn't do that is that he is a lousy trader and would not be able to hack it as a fund manager. Ergo, he chooses this half-way house of running his brokerage firm which provides "advice" (its actually marketing to get nice fat FEES) and being a TV celebrity of sorts who sells books.

The lesson from all this for me was: listen to Schiff and other commentators but then choose your own road. No one understands what to do with your money better than you. And that's something I'm never going to change even if Im broke.

My thoughts exactly.

[Guest]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

Very well said, Hayekvindicated. A very measured and balanced depiction of what Schiff has become. Lots of good points in the guy but the constant, brassy sounding, trumpeted crass commercialism gets overwhelming and wearying after a while.

And Miker - please note, that your good performance for every single asset you've listed is due to the absolute collapse of the GB Pound. If it were not for that localized event (which has not been delivered to many American Schiff clients at all) all of these recos of his would have been singularly crappy alternatives to cash in this period of time.

I first read Peter Schiff back in March 2008. I thought he nailed it perfectly and in advance of the crash. His book "Crash Proof" was excellent economic analysis that got to the core of the problem - unlike mainstream economists who don't know their ass from their elbow.

HOWEVER, dealing with Europac was an entirely different matter. I got the feeling they just wanted me to buy some STOCKS. I was of the Rogers school that stocks generally perform poorly in high inflation environments. I actually sent e-mails to friends in India back in January 2008 (the top of the Indian market) asking them to get out. Those who listened to me avoided a 60 percent nominal plunge and an even higher correction when you take into account the Dollar rally against the Rupee (some 30 percent till date).

SO, I just couldn't understand why these guys were just pushing me to buy STOCKS. Now I have to say that some stocks today are worth considering - I think BHP and Rio are still worth a thought. BUT, I got the feeling with the advisor at Europac that they were only interested in nice FAT BROKERAGE FEES (3 percent flat on your trade) which I thought was wildly excessive when I was capable of thinking things through better than these guys.

As it turns out, I did ultra-defensive trades last year and they rewarded me handsomely. I may even buy some stocks now (outside Europe and the US) and they may actually give tremendous returns. But given how ridiculously bubble like stock valuations still were back in March 2008 (not just in the US but EVERYWHERE), their advice was poor.

I have also become critical of Schiff. There is a crass commercialism about Schiff that leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I dislike his endless self-promotion in the media. If he was as good at making money as he is at looking at fundamental economic problems (the two things are entirely different as turning analysis into money is extremely difficult at the best of times), then he would be running his own hedge fund and getting his clients 25 percent returns rather than arguing with the morons in the MSM. But I think the reason he doesn't do that is that he is a lousy trader and would not be able to hack it as a fund manager. Ergo, he chooses this half-way house of running his brokerage firm which provides "advice" (its actually marketing to get nice fat FEES) and being a TV celebrity of sorts who sells books.

The lesson from all this for me was: listen to Schiff and other commentators but then choose your own road. No one understands what to do with your money better than you. And that's something I'm never going to change even if Im broke.

[Mega]

Re: Schiff gets it wrong

Luke
That was part of the "Caluation", i knew a fall (Its not a collaspe YET!) would help. I thought it most unlikely that i get off scott free, but it would be a good idea to hide a bit beyond Gordons reach.

2 further points:-

Schiff is getting borned with being the "Prez of Euro-pac"..........He is clearly thinking of becoming the love child of Ron Paul/ Barry Goldwater......I think he walk away in 2-3 years.

I realy like to buy into the Rogers funds, Luke are you into them?

Mike