That was not particularly an endorsement of Barron's, just a way of saying I wasn't keeping up with day-to-day market gossip. That also did not mean that I didn't think I understood markets. I think I do.
When RtO started early in 2008, its constant theme was that the "rescue" of Bear Strearns was really a suspension and market failure, papered over in the interests of Wall Street, not of ordinary investors. I dated the market failure to August 2007, which I believe is pretty generally agreed by historians now, though I do not recall many other people saying so at the time. (The concept of a concealed market collapse is, I think, novel; it is an outcome of effective central banking, which can keep paper levitated for a surprisingly long time, but not forever.)
Anyhow, all through the summer of 2008 I broke my habit of not giving market advice to the extent of repeatedly advising followers of RtO to conserve cash, which meant cashing in securities -- funny word, that, in the context.
I didn't cash my own securities because I didn't have any and as far as I know, nobody else did on my suggestion either.
It wasn't the first time during my reporting life that I foresaw a capitalist coup but missed getting rich because I didn't have any capital. My heart is with the working man.
Now I do, and I've been waiting for a chance to sell short. This morning I dumped almost all my equities.
One of the brokerages I use published a roundup of expert opinion that the federal fiscal crisis should not unduly disturb markets. I think otherwise. I anticipate a correction -- marvelous Freudian word! -- by the end of October, after which I will repurchase most of the securities I held until yesterday.
Just more of them.
That's the plan anyway.
There seems to be a disconnect between newspapermen and financial men. For example, this morning Greg Sargent had this to say in the Washington Post:
* YEP: WE’RE HEADED FOR CHAOS THIS FALL: Norman Ornstein lays out the reasons he thinks a government shutdown and/or debt ceiling default are genuinely possible this time around. If anything, John Boehner is exerting even less control over the Tea Party wing than in 2011, while Mitch McConnell — facing a challenge from the right — has less of an incentive to step in and fill the vacuum. Meanwhile, the hope that a few GOP Senators splitting with party leaders and dragging their party towards sanity has waned. Utter chaos.I can't lose. Should sanity break out and I lose money (more precisely, fail to gain), my country would gain.
I'm still rankled that I couldn't buy Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel C bonds at 190 in 1970, though. They paid off at par.