The Masked Tulip Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Towards end of video mentions Mayfair property in passing as a rush into assets, thinks it is now vulnerable in his view. Marc Faber: Market Setting Up for Serious Setback http://www.planbeconomics.com/2012/10/10/marc-faber-market-setting-up-for-serious-setback/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustYield Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Towards end of video mentions Mayfair property in passing as a rush into assets, thinks it is now vulnerable in his view. What a pussy. All that conviction and he's on the sidelines with cash, waiting to get Bullish after a 20% pull-back, rather than being massively short. He's a frustrated Bull! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 This is consistent with Knight Frank's recent report into 'Super-Prime' London property (>£10Million), the annual growth rate in prices has dropped hugely this year. They expect prices to drop to flat though, and resume growth in 2014.... I've linked it on 'thecrashingisles' £2million thread recently. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Towards end of video mentions Mayfair property in passing as a rush into assets, thinks it is now vulnerable in his view. Marc Faber: Market Setting Up for Serious Setback http://www.planbeconomics.com/2012/10/10/marc-faber-market-setting-up-for-serious-setback/ 'Six to nine months....asset prices down 20%'. Some neck the man's got. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonguest Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 (edited) 'Six to nine months....asset prices down 20%'. Some neck the man's got. Not sure if that comment is sarcasm at his choice of time frame (i.e he's allowing himself such a large time frame that the odds of it happening are stringly in his favour)? I think the quote actually says WITHIN six to nine months. In other words IF a 20% decline starts today and is over in a fortnight he could still claim predictive success? and likewise IF such decline commences 8 and half months from now..... My question is IF quoting timeframes such as this are not unreasonable in the world of financial markets? (i.e anyone who claims to be able to predict a 20% decline in exactly 23 days time or some other such highly specific timeframe is invariably a publicity seeker - who will be wrong 99.9% of the time). Edited October 14, 2012 by anonguest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Masked Tulip Posted October 14, 2012 Author Share Posted October 14, 2012 My question is IF quoting timeframes such as this are not unreasonable in the world of financial markets? (i.e anyone who claims to be able to predict a 20% decline in exactly 23 days time or some other such highly specific timeframe is invariably a publicity seeker - who will be wrong 99.9% of the time). I don't really care - I want it to crash on Monday. The markets, house prices, the seemingly endless appetite for Jennifer Aniston Rom Coms. Crash them all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
council dweller Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Not sure if that comment is sarcasm at his choice of time frame (i.e he's allowing himself such a large time frame that the odds of it happening are stringly in his favour)? I think the quote actually says WITHIN six to nine months. In other words IF a 20% decline starts today and is over in a fortnight he could still claim predictive success? and likewise IF such decline commences 8 and half months from now..... My question is IF quoting timeframes such as this are not unreasonable in the world of financial markets? (i.e anyone who claims to be able to predict a 20% decline in exactly 23 days time or some other such highly specific timeframe is invariably a publicity seeker - who will be wrong 99.9% of the time). Yes he did say within 6 to 9 months and no I wasn't being sarcastic. Given the lies we are being told about recovery put against the reality of QE, falling full-time work, wage stagnation V's inflation etc. etc.then I'd say a 20% fall would be a disaster that would take years to recover from. Pick any year since the war and it wouldn't be so bad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spork of Damocles Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Yes he did say within 6 to 9 months and no I wasn't being sarcastic. Given the lies we are being told about recovery put against the reality of QE, falling full-time work, wage stagnation V's inflation etc. etc.then I'd say a 20% fall would be a disaster that would take years to recover from. Pick any year since the war and it wouldn't be so bad. He's talking purely about a fall in asset prices – stocks, bonds, housing etc. All stuff that's in a bubble right now (to varying degrees) and pumped up by QE. Although the shock would be immediately damaging and might tip asset prices lower very quickly, people could well come out of it thinking, blimey, some of this stuff seems cheap now. A slide in stocks seems inevitable and timing the prediction around the US election: it doesn't sound that outlandish. The year after a US election is often bad anyway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.