How To Protect Yourself From Inflation

[crispindry]

well obviously I agree with & understand all of this. I have been discussing stuff like this for a few years.

You have changed slant from 'the local chavs' to 'GHCQ chavs' a tad different methinks.

Yes, because you were right so I changed tack because I'm flippant.

I'm off now to build my Faraday cage....

[grumpy-old-man-returns]

so your not really talking about your average chav then ?

hence my rather good line i though, about the Oxford/Cambridge chavs......

that's where you should have left it imo.

don't let the gold thingy get in your line of sight to much when discussing other stuff.

For example I may disagree with you on one thing & agree on another. I don't (or try not to) base my replies on the person, more the initial reply that I am responding to.

It is difficult to do this obviously & we all make mistakes obviously.

I think we appear to be at roughly similar stances on the current situation ?

that's called 'extending a hand' , however I resume the right to bite the hand off at a later stage if needed.

[grumpy-old-man-returns]

Yes, because you were right so I changed tack because I'm flippant.

I'm off now to build my Faraday cage....

well, you're chirpy, I'l give you that.

[MSWHPC]

Let's say the state doesn't fail.

Let's assume it carries on, just as it has done previously - lying about the inflation figures, inflating the money supply and generally stealing from everyone.

You'll still lose money.

(I wasn't really advocating suing EDM, just setting up a punchline because his responses are so predictable.)

Have to agree.

However, we are losing our savings very gradually, which i prefer to losing it rapidly with a house purchase. at the moment this is fine. i think the OP will know when to switch.

[uncle rogi]

But your constantly demanding specific answers to your very vague questions when your not entirely sure what point your actually making.

i was being circumspect because i want to know EDM's interpretation of where the issue in the video (unfunded liabilites) is going i know my opinion but i want his and in order to get it he has to watch the video it really is that simple the video simply presents facts i want his interpretaition/opinion of those facts how else do i get that without asking him to watch it, the issue presented is a central plank in my view in order to convincingly destroy or prove my case you have to attack it AFTER you see the evidence....

oh and basically my case is that the liabilites will be paid but like russia in the early 90's you will get your pension etc in the exact amount specified however it will only have 10% of its (expected) purchasing power...due to the printing of the shortfall in tax/investment to fund the commitments and the lack of cutbacks in other areas etc...just watch the film....

A typical Yogi post is to link a video that at least half an hour long. Then say answer that.

one half hour documentary, one.

But I am not going to sit their and watch the latest video you found and then explain it to you while you sound off vaguely, again.

again can you refrain from the "latest video you found" sophistry it adds nothing.

nothing vague about watching something and then presenting your opinon on it and whether it is more or less likely to influence outcomes in a deflationary or inflationary way or however, but one way to avoid harm to your own case is to ridicule and missrepresent facts wherever and however they are presented,im not saying this is true, and for the sake of proving me wrong on this once and for all 30 mins and a little thought seems a worthwhile cost.

the elephant in the room is this issue, it annoys me to see apparantly intelligent people talking round it.

[WATP]

I have been reading a lot lately, lots from economists etc. seems that many expect inflation but none of the inflationists advocate taking on more debt. The one thing that the inflationists and deflationists agree on, as far as i can tell, is that the best position to be in is debt free.

My own understanding of this is that when inflation arrives that interest rtates would also increase which would make debts more expensive. During the last recession interest rates rose sharply and quickly, peoples wages were not increased at the same time or rate as the boe was raising rates so debts like mortgagaes got far harder to pay. Isn't that why there were so many reposessions? Having assets is another matter and clearly why I hold gold, land or a house would be the perfect asset to own but thats just it, unless you can buy it outright no one is advocating taking on real estate, not deflationists or inflationists.

I take the opposite view in that holding fixed assets is probably the worst area to be. The main winners in the next 10 years are going to be wage earners. Especially those that are in productive sectors. The main problem at the moment is that there is an imbalance between the value of assets and the ability of people to own those assets through work. Either wages will go up or asset prices will come down. Find a good company with skilled staff making useful things and buy the equity.

[Number79]

I take the opposite view in that holding fixed assets is probably the worst area to be. The main winners in the next 10 years are going to be wage earners. Especially those that are in productive sectors. The main problem at the moment is that there is an imbalance between the value of assets and the ability of people to own those assets through work. Either wages will go up or asset prices will come down. Find a good company with skilled staff making useful things and buy the equity.

I know that we are in a deflationary period now. I believe that the measures being taken are also inflationary which leads me to believe that not too far into the future we will see inflation. What I do not understand is why EDM said that if you expect inflation the best place is to be in assets and debt. Assets I understand but debt I do not. Neither camp is advocating taking on debt at any point, all are advising clearing debt. Or is it just that the inflationists are advising clear debt now while we have a deflationary period and have yet to advise anything other than buying pm's etc for later?

I think that agriculture will be the big winner in the coming years, anyone producing food, maybe anyone having to do with water and probably alternative energy but I am not brave enough to invest in this market has a long way to go i fear.

Edited February 26, 2009 by richyc

[Disillusioned]

EDM. Great post.

There has been a lot of debate here about whether we are going to get a load of deflation or a load of inflation or one followed by the other. My view, for what it is worth, is that of the former, as the forces at work and the outlook are both hugely deflationary (and if the outlook turns inflationary, I will change my mind).

I take your point about the outlook. What effect do you think this will have on the BoE base rate for the duration of this outlook? I ask because something I can't quite express just now makes me think that we may still see rate rises despite an extremely deflationary environment

[Methinkshe]

EDM. Great post.

I take your point about the outlook. What effect do you think this will have on the BoE base rate for the duration of this outlook? I ask because something I can't quite express just now makes me think that we may still see rate rises despite an extremely deflationary environment

Good question; I share the same instinct.

[Extradry Martini]

EDM. Great post.

I take your point about the outlook. What effect do you think this will have on the BoE base rate for the duration of this outlook? I ask because something I can't quite express just now makes me think that we may still see rate rises despite an extremely deflationary environment

I don’t think they will rise for some time, and if anything they will leave it just a little bit late before they raise rates again (this is really the only way I can see a likely inflation in the future, but it will probably be short-lived). The reason for this is that monetary policy is conducted on the basis – above any other – of avoiding the policy mistakes of the past. The main point of reference for this recession is Japan’s experience of the last 15 years or so, and central bankers will want to avoid choking off reflation too early and they will want to avoid above all the psychological situation that savers in Japan have now where they do not trust any reflationary policies and are as a result almost at the point where they are inclined to spend less the more reflationary initiatives they see.

[KingBingo]

I watched the video, it didn't have anything in it that I have not really herd before, I identified it with what I believe at the moment and the truth is I don't have the knowledge to fully understand what it means. Not everyone on the internet is trolling or just killing time, personally I am trying to learn about this. Reading books is great but discussion with answers and questions with those that understand is far more valueble. Please would you share your take on the video? does this mean inflation/deflation? what does it really mean to us?

All right, had nothing better to do during lunch. So I did. Fine video, I don't disagree. Pretty graphs, calm soothing tones. I don't go into the details of the American economy much but I've been warning of the same thing for years with the expansion of the UK public sector.

And on that note while Germany and France largely avoided the credit boom (well, more than us anyway) their welfare (pensions) liabilities are truly monstrous. Especially France. If you watched that video and went away thinking the Americans pension system is fecked, wait until you see the French one. Feckdidally feck feck fecked!

This is exactly why I was critical of Brown not in the last 18 months when it became fashionable. But in 1997 when he started raiding pension funds. and in 1999 he started piling on the public sector liabilities.

What it has to do with the OP I am still mystified. Presumably Rogi thinks the government will default, which is another question, and not covered in the video, nor even suggested. What the video was suggesting is that American national wealth as a percentage of global wealth will decline and that the currency will suffer as it become less desirable to invest in. Furthermore state spending will have to significantly fall. Not that index linked bonds held to maturity wouldn't be a decent medium term saving vehicle to avoid deflation/inflation.

But that's the problem with Yogi position, he still does'nt know what we are talking about at the start.

i was being circumspect because i want to know EDM's interpretation of where the issue in the video (unfunded liabilites) is going i know my opinion but i want his and in order to get it he has to watch the video it really is that simple the video simply presents facts i want his interpretaition/opinion of those facts how else do i get that without asking him to watch it, the issue presented is a central plank in my view in order to convincingly destroy or prove my case you have to attack it AFTER you see the evidence....

Well you could just say that growing budget deficits will make it increasingly likely the government will cheat and inflate the money supply to reduce the burden of its debts.

But then you would have to stop and think for minute as to how to phrase it (like I did) or maybe read a few books before hand so you understood the principles and terms (like I did) but you don’t so you find a video that seems good and just demand people watch it. If you spent as much time reading as you do surfing for videos and posting demands, you would have a better rounded informed view.

... oh and basically my case is that the liabilites will be paid but like russia in the early 90's you will get your pension etc in the exact amount specified

The UK pensions or other state welfare liabilities are not denominated. They are a promise ‘to provide’ so they either let pensioners starve, or pay them an amount to fed them. Besides you can inflate away future funding requirements. Because the amount the requirements are expressed in inflate at the same rate, because they’re in the same currency.

You could break the link with inflation that pensions have at the moment. But essentially your not suggesting inflation, your suggesting reneging on promises.

...just watch the film.... one half hour documentary, one. again can you refrain from the "latest video you found" sophistry it adds nothing.

Nor do you. Which is exactly my point.

nothing vague about watching something and then presenting your opinon on it and whether it is more or less likely to influence outcomes in a deflationary or inflationary

You could inflate to some degree out of your current debt requirement, has no impact on future spending. And none at all on index linked saving products, BECAUSE THEY ARE INDEX LINKED.

however, but one way to avoid harm to your own case is to ridicule and missrepresent facts wherever and however they are presented,im not saying this is true, and for the sake of proving me wrong on this once and for all 30 mins and a little thought seems a worthwhile cost.

1: Its not that your wrong, its that your not understanding the issue

2: As if you would admit it anyway

3: I’m not ridiculing the facts. I’m ridiculing your inability to even express them let alone argue them.

4: You don’t need a video to make your case for you, if you understand what case your making.

the elephant in the room is this issue, it annoys me to see apparantly intelligent people talking round it.

OK so this week the elephant in the room is the demographic time bomb and cumulative debt requirement. Good, let’s hope it says so for another week until you find another video.

I think short term there is inflationary pressure of fixed assets (like houses), while we will no doubt see inflation in consumer goods. Longer term we will certainly see reduced consumption to match our actual ability to produce. You take a more drastic view on inflation fine.

Still doesn’t mean inflation linked national savings products won’t be linked to inflation now does it.

And if you really think its going to get so bad that the western governments start defaulting on mass, you don’t want gold either, because you can’t eat it.

You want to buy lots of tinned food, and stuff that can kill people who try to steal your tins.

[Methinkshe]

I don’t think they will rise for some time, and if anything they will leave it just a little bit late before they raise rates again (this is really the only way I can see a likely inflation in the future, but it will probably be short-lived). The reason for this is that monetary policy is conducted on the basis – above any other – of avoiding the policy mistakes of the past. The main point of reference for this recession is Japan’s experience of the last 15 years or so, and central bankers will want to avoid choking off reflation too early and they will want to avoid above all the psychological situation that savers in Japan have now where they do not trust any reflationary policies and are as a result almost at the point where they are inclined to spend less the more reflationary initiatives they see.

Surely this crisis is different from all that have preceded it - including the Japanese deflationary decade. So why is policy being conducted with reference to these historical examples?

To my mind it is the difference between an air-traffic controller trying to bring an aeroplane in to land when it has suffered a slight problem with the undercarriage, and an air-traffic controller trying to bring in safely to land an aeroplane that has suffered double engine failure. The first is a fairly frequent occurrence, the second is very rare.

The encouraging thing is that the Hudson River landing proved that a double engine failure can result in a crash landing where all survive.

I think the economy can be likened to this kind of situation; what we need to do is to properly diagnose and respond to the gravity of the situation. We are faced with a crash landing, not a hiccup that might result in a bumpy landing.

The pilot of the aeroplane that landed in the Hudson River made the best choice from many options and any other than the one he chose would have meant certain disaster for all on board. Yet, he made the right choice.

The first thing to recognise, imo, is that we are looking at a crash and not a bumpy landing. So the next thing to look for is a means to survive the inevitable crash and not attempt to avert it.

Or maybe I'm just getting carried away with my metaphor.....

[KingBingo]

Surely this crisis is different from all that have preceded it - including the Japanese deflationary decade. So why is policy being conducted with reference to these historical examples?

Because they think the best way to help an economy sick from debt is to fed it more debt.

Plus economic models tell you nothing helpful. So any set of numbers you look at you can read into it whatever political motivated solution you want.

I want radically less spending, but there you go.

[Disillusioned]

I don’t think they will rise for some time, and if anything they will leave it just a little bit late before they raise rates again (this is really the only way I can see a likely inflation in the future, but it will probably be short-lived). The reason for this is that monetary policy is conducted on the basis – above any other – of avoiding the policy mistakes of the past. The main point of reference for this recession is Japan’s experience of the last 15 years or so, and central bankers will want to avoid choking off reflation too early and they will want to avoid above all the psychological situation that savers in Japan have now where they do not trust any reflationary policies and are as a result almost at the point where they are inclined to spend less the more reflationary initiatives they see.

Thanks for this. I am inclined to start a thread similar to one I started somewhere else on what mortgage the forum would choose.

I take it you are in agreement that quantative easing is going to happen, but your opinion is that it will be insufficient to prevent continued deflation (in terms of goods as measured by RPI) and therefore insufficient to result in increased BoE rates over the next (say) 5 years.

[KingBingo]

Disillusioned I love your sig. Says it all really.

[InternationalRockSuperstar]

historical precedent.

do you know what happened to holders of index-linked gov't savings in Argentina, Iceland, Russia, Wiemar etc?

to cut a long story short: they got f*****.

How pathetic - you just made that up. Why should anyone take you seriously?

Well you could check what he says against the historical record or use basic first principles to work it out.

In either event, you'd find out that it's a factually correct statement.

Look it's obvious to me and everyone else that you made it up. Why? Because we are not morons. Most - if not all - of those countries did not have index-linked investments during the relevant periods.

talking sh1t again, EDM.

If you'd even bothered to look at, for instance, the Icelandic Central Bank website, then you'd find out for yourself.

[uncle rogi]

What it has to do with the OP I am still mystified. Presumably Rogi thinks the government will default, which is another question, and not covered in the video, nor even suggested. What the video was suggesting is that American national wealth as a percentage of global wealth will decline and that the currency will suffer as it become less desirable to invest in. Furthermore state spending will have to significantly fall. Not that index linked bonds held to maturity wouldn't be a decent medium term saving vehicle to avoid deflation/inflation.

But that's the problem with Yogi position, he still does'nt know what we are talking about at the start.

no the problem is the mechanics of how these issues will be resolved who will suffer i.e. what parts of the state will be sacrificed etc and as the scale is so massive the whole thing is leaning toward effective collapse like the ending of the soviet system etc

the arguement then can take several turns in so far as the state can simply print the shortfall and rely on other means to stimulate the economy and provide social cohesion i.e. military keynesianism.

or allow a deflationary spiral to state collapse that way but that has no historical precedent.

Well you could just say that growing budget deficits will make it increasingly likely the government will cheat and inflate the money supply to reduce the burden of its debts.

But then you would have to stop and think for minute as to how to phrase it (like I did) or maybe read a few books before hand so you understood the principles and terms (like I did) but you don’t so you find a video that seems good and just demand people watch it. If you spent as much time reading as you do surfing for videos and posting demands, you would have a better rounded informed view.

rounded view ? you are joking right ?

the whole point of the video is it presents the system as fundamentally broken i.e.the post 71 petrodollar system to all intents and purposes with all the background debt is an obvious ponzi scheme and what is the result of all ponzi schemes ?

the details of the bailouts and so forth thus far indicate an inflationary endgame to the ponzi is about to be played out what will emerge on the other side is what i am more interested in at this point.

right or wrong this debt riddled bloated state monster is going down, we are coming to the end of the mexican standoff stage now.

does EDM and or kingbongo work for a bond fund is he an economist at a mid level pension fund would this infomation make his advice to "buy bonds" even in the face of obvious goverment manipulation of the metrics of the inflation measures used more or less likley to be self interested propaganda..

im just asking, as one of the now tired criticisms of goldbugs is "man who has gold says buy gold" equally i can say man who has bonds says buy bonds......

it cuts both ways mate, but the elephant in the room says russia and china are not waiting to find out, game theory kicks in right about now.

good luck.

[uncle rogi]

talking sh1t again, EDM.

If you'd even bothered to look at, for instance, the Icelandic Central Bank website, then you'd find out for yourself.

ask EDM if now be a good time to ask for redemption of my tzarist russia issued bonds now please, oh wait.....

[KingBingo]

no the problem is the mechanics of how these issues will be resolved who will suffer i.e. what parts of the state will be sacrificed etc and as the scale is so massive the whole thing is leaning toward effective collapse like the ending of the soviet system etc

At least half of it I would hope.

And the BBC.

the arguement then can take several turns in so far as the state can simply print the shortfall and rely on other means to stimulate the economy and provide social cohesion i.e. military keynesianism.

Won't work, even Brown (whom I am no supporter) knows this. And you can't inflate away spending, when the factors of production get inflated along with it.

You just want to make every thread about inflation, but you don't realise that is a symptom not a cause.

or allow a deflationary spiral to state collapse that way but that has no historical precedent.

Well a deflationary spiral has a very good precedent, state collapse is again your fantasy.

the details of the bailouts and so forth thus far indicate an inflationary endgame to the ponzi is about to be played out what will emerge on the other side is what i am more interested in at this point.

yes, less spending sooner or later, either that or negative real growth for several generations.

right or wrong this debt riddled bloated state monster is going down, we are coming to the end of the mexican standoff stage now.

Quite possibly.

does EDM and or kingbongo work for a bond fund is he an economist at a mid level pension fund would this infomation make his advice to "buy bonds" even in the face of obvious goverment manipulation of the metrics of the inflation measures used more or less likley to be self interested propaganda..

I think EDM was a bond trader. I was an equity fund manager. I can't speak for EDM, but I do not approve of government or central bank action, and have not for a long time.

good luck.

And good luck to you.

You make every damn thread about hyper inflation. And miss every point put to you. You link videos that other cleverer people made, but you then misapply what they are talking about. I cannot go on breaking this down for you. Follow my advice and read those economics books. They support the ideas you find appealing, but they explain it properly, if you read them, you would understand the issues properly.

I actually thick your right about a lot of this stuff. But that's just because you copied other people who are right. So your right by accident. Too often you misconstrue and then can't engage in discussion on it sensibly.

Edited February 26, 2009 by KingBingo

[Methinkshe]

I was an equity fund manager.

Did you manage to remain of independent thought and action, even counter to prevailing opinion? Or were you forced to follow majority opinion at risk of losing your job if you did not?

I ask as a matter of interest, not to throw stones.

[mdman]

I don’t think they will rise for some time, and if anything they will leave it just a little bit late before they raise rates again (this is really the only way I can see a likely inflation in the future, but it will probably be short-lived). The reason for this is that monetary policy is conducted on the basis – above any other – of avoiding the policy mistakes of the past. The main point of reference for this recession is Japan’s experience of the last 15 years or so, and central bankers will want to avoid choking off reflation too early and they will want to avoid above all the psychological situation that savers in Japan have now where they do not trust any reflationary policies and are as a result almost at the point where they are inclined to spend less the more reflationary initiatives they see.

The trouble is the past is more complex than we remember and the lessons we 'learn' are the ones that conform to our own biases.

To take an example, there is a lot written about the disastrous economic effects of protectionism during the Great Depression. What we conveniently forget is the severe political pressure imposed on national politicians to become protectionist at these times, with the 100% probability they will lose power if they don't cave in to those pressures. So they cave in naturally. In fact after this is over, the economic texts may be rewritten to acknowledge the fact that protectionist policies become inevitable in global recessions.

So to Japan - some argue the lesson to learn is not to maintain zombie banks on taxpayer life support for so long. You argue for more reflationary efforts than they implemented. Some argue the Swedish nationalisation model is a better solution. Some argue Japanese ZIRP had a massive impact on the global credit boom (and bust). And some argue the Japanese ZIRP/ QE / Zombie bank triple decker with cheese has driven the country over the abyss socially (with collapsing birth rates and increasingly non-salaried workforce

Set against all those contradictory lessons (let alone other ones involving free trade, globalisation and imbalanced national economies etc), the right thing for them to do is difficult to predict, let alone the thing they'll actually do.

The 10yr bond went down today despite the Dow/ S&P staying neutral - all to do with incontinent spending plans. I think real interest rates will go up

[KingBingo]

Did you manage to remain of independent thought and action, even counter to prevailing opinion? Or were you forced to follow majority opinion at risk of losing your job if you did not?

I ask as a matter of interest, not to throw stones.

As a general rule there is not much by way of general opinion. If there was I could not buy any stock, as to buy stock someone else needs to think its a sell. However, the market does move at the margins of course, it is superb at very quickly finding the market rate at which buyers and sellers want to come together.

My fund invested in smaller companies, I could not do much about macro picture, I mostly just cared about finding the best companies I could. The rules of fund management are that you need to stay 90% invested. So if that day I had net inflows of £100,000 I needed to find a home for it, so I would put it into whatever stocks I liked at the time. If I had net outflows I might run down cash or sell £100,000 of the company I held that I liked the least.

There were 9 of us at the (small) firm, we would discuss what we thought was going on in the market.

We would draw up lists of companies that were low on debt, high on cash flow, and then try and figure out if the market price for those companies we liked was too high or too low.

We argued about stocks a lot. Never felt I would lose my job about any of those though. When it came to the view of the economy we actually almost always agreed. National debt was too high, housebuilders and fad fashion were all fecked. That includes everything from coffee shops to estate agents.

Our biggest mistake was calling the debt bubble far too soon. We missed out on some nice profits on the way up.

[uncle rogi]

Follow my advice and read those economics books.

economics certainly since post WWII is simply an extension of geopolitics do you really need me to tell you this ?

i have read many books, the geopolitical arena is far more uncertain and tainted with emotion and other messy human motivations than dry theory.

as bruce lee said boards dont hit back, you have to study the origin of things not just the structure as presented to gain any real understanding of how the various stresses will effect the whole.

You make every damn thread about hyper inflation

what is the title of this thread and did i in fact start it.

i would advocate a biflationary state collapse scenario unfolding like iceland/argentina/soviet era russia etc.

hyperinfaltion is certainly a possibility.

[Methinkshe]

As a general rule there is not much by way of general opinion. If there was I could not buy any stock, as to buy stock someone else needs to think its a sell. However, the market does move at the margins of course, it is superb at very quickly finding the market rate at which buyers and sellers want to come together.

My fund invested in smaller companies, I could not do much about macro picture, I mostly just cared about finding the best companies I could. The rules of fund management are that you need to stay 90% invested. So if that day I had net inflows of £100,000 I needed to find a home for it, so I would put it into whatever stocks I liked at the time. If I had net outflows I might run down cash or sell £100,000 of the company I held that I liked the least.

There were 9 of us at the (small) firm, we would discuss what we thought was going on in the market.

We would draw up lists of companies that were low on debt, high on cash flow, and then try and figure out if the market price for those companies we liked was too high or too low.

We argued about stocks a lot. Never felt I would lose my job about any of those though. When it came to the view of the economy we actually almost always agreed. National debt was too high, housebuilders and fad fashion were all fecked. That includes everything from coffee shops to estate agents.

Our biggest mistake was calling the debt bubble far too soon. We missed out on some nice profits on the way up.

That's a very honest appraisal - thank you.

Do you think that it might have been different if, say, you were a manager of a much larger fund?

Would you, for instance, have felt the pressure to remain out of cash and fully invested even if your better judgement suggested otherwise? Would you have felt the pressure to jump on the latest bandwagon/bubble if your results were being measured against the results of other fund managers who were investing in bubblenomics?

I get the impression that inasmuch as there is a herd of the financially UNwashed (amongst which I count myself) there is also a herd of the financially knowledgeable.

[KingBingo]

Would you, for instance, have felt the pressure to remain out of cash and fully invested even if your better judgement suggested otherwise?

Yes, to an extent. If your running a big mainstream fund and you buy BP and BP goes down, people ask what's wrong with BP. If you buy some small company that most people are not familiar with and it goes down, people ask whats wrong with you.

Incidently this book is a great read and will explain this better than I can

There have been fund managers sacked for taking a contrarian view, although I can think of many more that proudly boast their contrarian views. For example fund managers were the most bearish (on houses) city sorts I knew as a general rule.

For fund managers the bubble was more to do with commodities and mining stocks.

I wouldn't think too much about a herd view. If on a average day 60% of fund managers are bullish on BP, and the other 40% are bearish, that's going to massively push it up. But there is still 40 who are bearish.

Normally at any given price the market is evenly divided and only a small handful change that either way.

Would you, for instance, have felt the pressure to remain out of cash and fully invested even if your better judgement suggested otherwise?

Not at my place, several times we pushed cash up to the legal limit, and then cheated the rules to get it higher. However, I have no experience of working in a larger house where a house view is X and I think Y. Depends who has the great force of will, the manager or the Chief Investment officer I guess.

Edited February 26, 2009 by KingBingo