Comment by throw0101a | Hacker News Reader

Comment by throw0101a | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The James Grant that, in 2010, was one of the co-signers of the Open Letter to Bernanke:

> We believe the Federal Reserve's large-scale asset purchase plan (so-called "quantitative easing") should be reconsidered and discontinued. We do not believe such a plan is necessary or advisable under current circumstances. The planned asset purchases risk currency debasement and inflation, and we do not think they will achieve the Fed's objective of promoting employment.

* https://economics21.org/html/open-letter-ben-bernanke-287.ht...

The same James Grant that, in 2011, thought we should go back to the gold standard to head off the looming debt catastrophe?

> How does America, looking up from the bottom of a $14.3 trillion sinkhole, claw its way out of debt? For starters, says perennial Wall Street bear James Grant, go back to the gold standard.

> In an interview with The Fiscal Times, the editor of investment newsletter Grant’s Interest Rate Observer, says: “No other reform would accomplish so much to hasten the return both of growth and fiscal balance. The reserve currency franchise, which America uniquely possesses, is a kind of global credit card on which the outstanding balance never seems to come due and payable. This country needs a debit card--and the gold standard is that debit card.”

* https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2011/06/28/A-Solid-G...

> The James Grant that, in 2010, was one of the co-signers of the Open Letter to Bernanke:

Not sure if you are asking but yes that was him, and you can make a very good argument that those people were correct that QE should have been discontinued back in 2010. Lots of economists thought so at the time and yet here we are 15 years later and that QE is still on going.

At what point do you con sider him to be correct that its time to end QE, unless you think that continuous QE is a good thing?

I mean, like another poster pointed out, like him or not, What he writes get read by some of the most influential people on the planet.

If you are in government monetary policy you read his news letter, if you work for any sort of macro hedge fund you read his news letter. IF you are on the sell side you read his news letter for nothing more than to understand what your clients are thinking about.

You may not like him, but the top people at investment banks, hedge funds and central banks all read(and pay for that privilege) what he has to say.

In finance there are alot of people who have limited success, those who are good tend to have prolonged success and stick around. He's been writing for 4+ decades, in finance where the average career is 7 years or so that like 6 generations of traders who listen to him.

So if you are asking if its that James Grant then yes, one of the single most successful and influential people in finance, then yes that guy:)

QE is neither a good or bad thing. Low stable inflation is a good thing.

The same James Grant that predicted the junk bond meltdown, the same James Grant that predicted the dot-com bust, the same James Grant that predicted the housing crash, the same James Grant that predicted the meltdown in Chinese resi...if you have experience in markets, you will learn two things: everyone makes wrong predictions, and you can be wrong now/right later.

Also, you appear (for some reason, have you ever read Grant's?) not to mention any of the numerous calls on individual stocks they have got right. The macro is only part of what they do.

When you are read by pretty much every hedge fund manager in the world, when they will pay $2.5k to come to your conference, and $1.3k/year for a subscription...you are doing something right (also, as someone who studied economic history, his book are first-rate...compare his books to Philip Coggan, a columnist at the Economist who has written books on economic history, it is night and day...Grant's books are academic tier quality, people who work in finance today still read books he wrote three decades ago).

> The same James Grant that predicted the junk bond meltdown, the same James Grant that predicted the dot-com bust, the same James Grant that predicted the housing crash, the same James Grant that predicted the meltdown in Chinese resi..

He's a permabear. When you predict (for possibly years) that things will go down, and then they finally do...

> The macro is only part of what they do.

Macro/monetary is the focus of this discussion.

> When you are read by pretty much every hedge fund manager in the world, when they will pay $2.5k to come to your conference, and $1.3k/year for a subscription...you are doing something right

Robert Kiyosaki (of Rich Dad, Poor Dad) also charges quite a lot and is financially successful. Is he doing something right? :)

He isn't. And the standard of proof in finance for claims is slightly higher than that...he isn't predicting "things will go down", he is making specific predictions that occurred (again, you seem to have these very specific views about someone whose work you have never read...interesting).

No, it isn't. Bank stocks aren't macro. There are macro consequences but Grant's wrote extensively about individual stocks pre-08.

How many hedge fund managers are paying Kiyosaki for resarch? :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com