Reply to thread

I sat down and read this and while most of it is commonsense market understanding that people should absorb, I actually disliked the article.

So OakTree went long in 2008 lows based on their assumption the market was over-reacting and it paid. Good for them. But the way the article portrays it is as if this was anything other than a big fat assumption (read: gamble) and that it made more sense than following along in the panic.

Of course Mr Marks can say that kind of thing now, and appear a brilliant contrarian stoic in the face of the average investor hobbled by crowd psychology.

Unfortunately, Mr Marks glosses over the large subsidy paid into his coffer by the Government bail outs, pump ups, guarantees and changes to the rules of the game. Where would he be if FASB had not suspended mark to market? Probably not enjoying an audience for newsletters of his carted out fund. Does he really believe that it is a coincidence that the day of the rules of the game being changed is precisely the same day that risk bottomed and reversed to form a 5 year low?

I call horse**** on that whole attitude, which IMHO should be significantly less smug and significantly more cognisant of the massive role of the Government sector in influencing outcomes.

As someone with some experience in quantitative analysis, who has looked over the evidence, I also think the dismissal of "basing ones actions on what the market knows" is equally horse****. The market knows plenty and there are reams of supporting evidence for such a claim.