You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Letter from Paul Tudor Jones
- Thread starter Chuck Krug
- Start date
Quote from Chuck Krug:
Eh?
China did devalue it's currency with 50% on Jan 1 1994. Where did you get that this isn't true?
OK. Suppose it did happen. So on Jan 2 1994, 1 US dollar = 2*8.7 or 1US dollar = 16 RMB? If so, the RMB must have been apreciated more than 50% since 1994 so that now 1 US dollar= 6.7 RMB.
If you cannot follow my calculation, show me yours.
Quote from Trader666:
And you're obviously an idiot. You might want to check your facts before making such stupid pronouncements out of total ignorance... especially when the one who you "think" is wrong has traded foreign exchange for 30 years and is worth $3 billion.
Oops. I forgot that I have less money than he, so I should consider him my god.
In any case, I don't know whether the article was really written by HIM.
Quote from crgarcia:
Remember Tudor Jones halted withdrawals from his ponzi, errr hedge fund.
Tudor Jones is trying to blame his fund losses into the weak economy.
You wish you had 1% of the intelligence, common sense or wealth PTJ has.
You criticizing PTJ is like a 3 year old criticizing Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Everytime you post you show the world just how stupid one individual can truly be.
Quote from psytrade:
As much respect for the guy I have, the article is well-intentioned (but not as good as Jeremy Grantham's recent "Night of the living fed"), but he doesn't seem to acknowledge the zero sum nature of Markets. Sure economies grow, and the Chinese may succeed in revaluing and inflating their economy successfully, but the Markets themselves are subject to zero-sum price action.
It mentions correlation in a discretionary, passive way, as if suggesting that money could be made relatively easily in this case. The correlation is close to contagion and has the potential to unwind chaotically.
One of the dumbest posts I've read on here. Markets are NOT zero sum, not in the slightest bit. Companies conduct business that earns profits which inflates the value of their business ( and in a properly valued market their stock value ).
How on earth did you miss the boat so much on this basic fact ?
The only market that seems subject to zero-sum price action is Japanese, and they had a deflationary economy for many years.
Last I read, he was in fact up single digits YTD. I doubt an attempt at being contentious by invoking some comments about an illiquid currency pair is going to bring him into the big money this year... or next.
His story on global growth back in late 09 was fairly accurate however (note that no mention was given to the underlying reality of the situation, that the usd is falling, triggering bubbles in Asia and South America, which he neglected to mention is a low interest rate bubble rather than REAL growth in other parts of the world, I think at some point the rate and USD issue takes precedence over any growth metric he obvious didnt mention this distinction if he neglected to mention the first distinction) It doesn't seem that he capitalized on that very much given the returns posted on various sites - opalesque, hedge fund letters.. etc..
His story on global growth back in late 09 was fairly accurate however (note that no mention was given to the underlying reality of the situation, that the usd is falling, triggering bubbles in Asia and South America, which he neglected to mention is a low interest rate bubble rather than REAL growth in other parts of the world, I think at some point the rate and USD issue takes precedence over any growth metric he obvious didnt mention this distinction if he neglected to mention the first distinction) It doesn't seem that he capitalized on that very much given the returns posted on various sites - opalesque, hedge fund letters.. etc..
Quote from Nine_Ender:
One of the dumbest posts I've read on here. Markets are NOT zero sum, not in the slightest bit. Companies conduct business that earns profits which inflates the value of their business ( and in a properly valued market their stock value ).
How on earth did you miss the boat so much on this basic fact ?
The only market that seems subject to zero-sum price action is Japanese, and they had a deflationary economy for many years.
This is like the 3rd comment that is falling over this zero-sum comment. The bigger economy is zero sum. Unless you are printing money over the short term, you're not magically getting any positive sum, positive carry wealth transfer going on here. There is NO free lunch. Aside from the unveiling of money printing, the transfer of wealth is ZERO SUM unless somehow, through productivity and/or savings, wealth is created by the USA and and by China.
Unless the world is a giant Value Village, and I throw my shit out, and you get it for nothing or close to it, there is no idle transfer of production and any savings benefit. The zero sum reference is in terms of that. If you can't see that, go read Austrian or Post-Keynesian Economics for starts.
And it matters because Tudor Jones article is diagnosing the symptoms of the symptoms, not the disease here. They are second order comments and over the long-haul wrong. But perhaps over a minutiae of time in hedge fund land it all makes sense and he can live happily ever after in Connecticut. Once you get past that, you'll see very few hedge fund letters aside from Hugh Hendry, Kyle Bass and Ray Dalio make any real economic sense.
The only exception i can raise to myself is one - Tudor Jones sees the Transfer of Wealth as being LIQUIDITY and all of its distortions that we see in the Markets. I see liquidity as the direction of risk.
There is an important distinction.
Liquidity is not a market calculated "direction of risk".
There really was no risk for china when it was buying agency bonds... if the fed told them not to worry - we will switch out your agency bonds with government bonds when the crisis comes. in the mean time you pay your investment banking fees to the the owner of the federal reserve banks and we will help you keep your peg to the dollar.
Hence china bought 1.5 trillion of the last 20 percent of mortgages even though they were paying the mortgage brokers 3-5% kickers.
Even though in CA at least when they were making those loans on residential purchase they were non recourse loans.
Hence liquidity came from gross market distortions.
Don't even get me started on the idea of setting up AIG as the guarantor of stupid loans which also created stupid liquidity.
There really was no risk for china when it was buying agency bonds... if the fed told them not to worry - we will switch out your agency bonds with government bonds when the crisis comes. in the mean time you pay your investment banking fees to the the owner of the federal reserve banks and we will help you keep your peg to the dollar.
Hence china bought 1.5 trillion of the last 20 percent of mortgages even though they were paying the mortgage brokers 3-5% kickers.
Even though in CA at least when they were making those loans on residential purchase they were non recourse loans.
Hence liquidity came from gross market distortions.
Don't even get me started on the idea of setting up AIG as the guarantor of stupid loans which also created stupid liquidity.
Quote from crgarcia:
Remember Tudor Jones halted withdrawals from his ponzi, errr hedge fund.
Tudor Jones is trying to blame his fund losses into the weak economy.
Clown....every weekend this clown turns up like a bad smell....
Next, Garcia will be telling us Jones doesn't make a profit from trading....:eek:
NiN