really bs, really. he was hyper bullish on china at 5000. that’s all that needs to be said. he shouldn’t bring down the discourse by saying china is a great buy 40% below when he was pumping it.
also, there’s nothing really to discuss. China has been stimulating like crazy for 5 years and we’re still down 3-4% in annual GDP growth per year. the best they can do, and what they’ve been doing, is allowing for a slow decline in GDP growth. their market is screwed and should find itself back where it started around 2000. if a bank or any financial institution goes down, the state will simply eat it up. no prolonged credit crunch.
the key risk isn’t what is happening in China, it is how surrounding economies deal with China’s support for its economy. watch Japanese, Korean and Indonesian growth and markets for clues about whether this turns into an Asian Financial Crisis II.
Matt, my issue is that for reasons unbeknownst to me, purealpha is being civil as of late. He has his opinions and they are backed by a lot of good reasoning and I respect that. I don’t have to reach the same conclusion, but I get that he has at least done a good deal of homework. His trades are also to his credit documented and time stamped around the forum. Lastly, any good value investor will tell you an investment that is lower than the price at which it was a good buy is just a better buy, so long as your thesis remains intact, which he clearly believes is the case.
Other than that, nobody needs you chasing him around the forum on some vendetta making attacks and trying to drag things down to the point of a stupid argument. You guys had your little argument, neither of you came out looking better for it. Just let it drop.
your perception of valuable discourse is much different than mine. i’ll leave it at that.
In Matt’s defense, Matt’s posts tend to include harder data than most posters here and even when there isn’t hard data, the arguments are solid, even if they are not completly lock-tight (nor does he present them as lock-tight).
purealpha is more variable, more of a Jim Cramer like mix of data and, “it’s the future!”, and “It’s mathematically impossible to for me to lose!!!” remarks.
haha. thanks for the rep boost and the cramer slam bchad!
My point wasn’t to compare poster dicks, I’m just saying lets keep the bickering to the watercooler and try to keep the investments forum a little more on target. As of late PA has been better at that, so I’m just saying lets not drag it back down.
saying virtually the same thing over and over again is hardly a good contribution to the Investments forum. but fine, i’ll lay off him until he clearly needs to be reigned back in.
bs, i think you’re just upset because that abx trade isn’t working out so much anymore. shoulda put an onstop
I’m actually perfectly happy with my ABX trade. My options are still at a gain. Not a lot of people saying that about their positions right now. You gotta realize I got deep OTM 2017 calls and volatility is good for them. I mean, I’m not going to say no to non-stop ABX equity appreciation, but I’ll take what I’ve got going on right now as well.
true story. i forgot you owned such long-dated options. why if you don’t mind my asking, didn’t you just buy the stock? everytime i’ve looked at buying 2 year options, it almost always makes more sense to just buy the stock outright, or on margin if you want to put up less than whole capital.
I didn’t want to put up much capital, and for a larger move (which is what I’m targeting) it gives you compounding returns. Plus, as a Talebian sort of guy, I usually find the deep OTM options are often underpriced owing to Wall Street’s general lack of imagination and give you that casino jackpot if it pays off.
Basically, for a small amount of expendable capital, I get heavily leaveraged long dated option exposure with limited downside to a heavily leveraged gold mining firm (volatility in the underlying is good too), which then is exposed to the base of my thesis on gold.
The position is small enough (a couple thousand) that I could lose it all and not be kept up at night, but if ABX were to surge back to early 2014 levels at any point over 2016 (gold around 1300-1350), I would be seeing like >800% returns, which is nice. At 2011 levels (which I wouldn’t expect), you get 15,000% returns. So, known and limited downside + optionality + leveraged underlying + potential catalyst = a position I’m willing to take.
not bad reasoning. i suppose in this type of scenario where a 100-200% gain in a year or so is not out of the question, it’s a decent bet. if you can execute the trade at low cost, it certainly could be worth it. my options trading costs are brutal if you’re buying small dollar options.
Yawn. Matt, it would be great if you would stop intentionally warping what I said. 
My correct calls on Chininese equities are well documents on Analyst Forum. I started a new thread Dec '14 calling a buy at 3000, nobody here showed any interested in that thread, there were zero responses. I was right, and sold May '15 which is also documented. If I thought it was a buy at 5000, why did I sell at 4500? What I actually said was that although CN certainly had shot up a lot, it was an increase from an undervaluation of 8X, thus at the index level, there was not actually “a bubble”. The fact is, at 20X CN was not overvalued comparatively, given India at 22X and US at 18X (CN has 7% GDP growth and tons of monetary bullets left, US has 2% and no bullets left). Saying that it was fairly valued comparatively was true, that is not the same as saying it was a buy. I don’t know about you, but I buy undervaluations, not fair ones. I posted my stock picks the other day. With the CSI-300 hitting 13X that is absolutely a buy as long as you are a long term investor that can hold thru volatility. Anyhow I know twerps like you are just interested in arguing, and thus do this childish straw man thing, but some of us are busying making money!
LOL, oh get real man. You are a smart dude, but sometimes you say very strange things, in the interest of being a politician. That’s fine, forums need politicians.
But Matt is completely ignorant of what is happening in China (fact), and his posts are massively biased, racist, contain no real facts, just warped stats (fact), probably from some newbie kid in his 20s (unknown). My posts are macro-economics and fundamentals from an industry vet, someone who as an excellent understanding of what is happening in Asia, and someone who has been right on China over and over for 10 years now.
Show me one post proving Matt has actually traded and made money on his silly opinions.
This is why we can’t have nice things.
I like the beef between Purealpha and Matt. You guys are two cool posters.
That being said, as far as the reasoning is concerned, I would generally have to side with Matt.
I recall thinking on many occasions that Purealpha was pretty bold and impetuous in his conclusions.
I am not a politician. Perhaps you meant I try to be diplomatic, which is different.
There you go again!
agree that bchad = Ban Ki-moon.