Jim Grant vs David Rosenberg...

[GRG55]

49 minutes of decent debate...on the topic that "Treasuries Are For Losers"

[FRED or Rajiv can figure out how to imbed...I've given up on technology]

http://www.grantspub.com/about/jim.cfm

Jim Grant:

"...To begin to atone for the hash it made of the Madoff investigation the SEC might abolish the phrase Treasury Security..."

"...You'll find more bargains in your hotel mini-bar than you will on the Treasury yield curve..."

"...The State of Wisconsin Investment Board is undertaking a program in leveraged Treasuries, and that is the marginal buyer."

[Rajiv]

Re: Jim Grant vs David Rosenberg...

Embedding as you requested

[MEDIA]http://www.grantspub.com/video/GPL007-007.mov[/MEDIA]

[FRED]

Re: Jim Grant vs David Rosenberg...

Thank you Rajiv!

[Rajiv]

Re: Jim Grant vs David Rosenberg...

Got the wrong one -- here is the correct one

[MEDIA]http://grantspublishing.s3.amazonaws.com/GrantsFullx.m4v[/MEDIA]

Can the itulip player be modified to accept m4v?

[Rajiv]

I will embed using iframe

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Jim Grant vs David Rosenberg...

Thanks, GRG55, I think the video is a worthwhile debate, and with some question about understanding how the audience voted before and after the debate, it was my impression for those who thought bonds were for losers, the count from before to after went from 134 to 192. Though Grant's congratulating Rosenberg (perhaps flippantly) seemed contrary to the results as I think I heard them.

Prieur du Plessis has a negative piece on bonds today. http://www.investmentpostcards.com/2...r-bull-market/

du Plessis quoted Richard Russell "To sum it up, I believe the great bond bull market (1980 to 2010) has ended and that we’re now entering a great bear market in bonds.”

How to short bonds is discussed--use TBF or TBT(-200%).

I believe Bill Gross is negative. Jim Grant is negative. And I believe Finster is negative.

Below are the data from Barron's commitments of traders dated March 30.

The first column is "long", second column is change in longs, third column is "short," and fourth is change in shorts.



Rosenberg quoted Bob Farrell's Rule no. 9. When all the experts and forecasts agree - something else is going to happen.

Personally, I'm holding and hanging onto my positions in TLT and IEF because I don't think what has happened so far is close to unwinding all the debt that has been created over the past 20 years or so. I'm cheered a bit to see the Commercial Hedgers going against what seems to have become the conventional wisdom. I hope those dudes are correct.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Jim Grant vs David Rosenberg...

And here is a comment by Tyler Durden, which doesn't resolve the debate, not that any one individual will resolve it. Time will resolve it, and someone will be proven correct. But, who?

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/jim...ack-ben-bernan

[jk]

Re: Jim Grant vs David Rosenberg...

sketchy notes for those who watched the video:

1930- bad comparison, gold standard means a strong dollar,albeit fdr repriced gold


japan- internally funded, able to export to a still-strong world economy

grant - us able to recognize failure- not so much with tbtf banks, unwillingness to write off debt

the end of the dollar regime- the biggest elephant in the room, referred to glancingly by grant- rosenberg is predicting a weak u.s. economy for a long time. this will support bond prices, but it won't support the dollar. core inflation may have been the best predictor of bond rates, as rosenberg said, but [i hate to say it] this time is different because of the end of u.s. dollar hegemony.

6% of household asset in fixed income, demographic push for income- but the sheeple will be screwed once again. they'll lock in their income streams at current low rates, and maybe bonds won't sell off, but the dollar's value will fall. [THIS MEANS THEY COULD BOTH BE RIGHT. ROSENBERG- BONDS WILL OUTPERFORM EQUITY. GRANT- THEY WON'T BE WORTH ANYTHING, NONETHELESS.]

rosenberg- bull flattening of the yield curve with short rates at zero- could happen, especially with the banks playing the fed against the treasury in a carry trade [borrow at 0%, buy bonds at 3.x%], so bonds may benefit, NOMINALLY. but what will your purchasing power do?