Sell everything! My challenge to Andrew Roberts of RBS

Wed, 13 Jan 2016  |  

Andrew Roberts, the “sell everything” analyst at RBS, has certainly gained a lot of coverage for himself and his business. If that was the aim, it was a great success to write such headline grabbing 'research' on the hope the media would run with it.

So ten out of ten for Andrew.

But the work prompted me to think about what Andrew was actually saying and I am wondering whether he is will to put his money where his mouth is. To that end, I sent his the following email.

Dear Andrew

I note with interest your “sell mostly everything” note from earlier this week. I think you will be wrong and in the spirit of the market and healthy competition would like to offer you a chance to personally benefit from your forecast.

How about a bet of, say, A$10,000, that more than half of the items in list below will be stronger on 31 December 2016 than they have been in recent days? I am open to a different amount to wager, just let me know what you are comfortable with.

I note with each the recent level or market price and if it is higher on 31 December, chalk that one to me, if it is lower, that is for you. I have 11 variables that you imply are a “sell” – they cover a range of asset classes and locations and if you are correct with your forecast, most will be lower than today. SO the winner will have six or more go in their favour.

US stocks (S&P 500) 1925.0 points

Brazil stocks (Ibovespa) 39,500 points

China stocks (Shenzhen) 1,850.0 points

Japan stocks (Nikkei) 17,200.0

US house prices (Case-Shiller 20 city) 182.83 points

UK 20 city house prices (Hometrack measure) GBP228,800

Sydney House prices (Corelogic index) 915.00

Iron Ore US$40.50 a tonne

Oil WTI $US31.50 a barrel

Copper US$4,325 a tonne

AUD/USD 0.7000

Please let me know if you are happy to take up the offer. I am will to put my hard earned money where my mouth is – I hope you are too.

All the best

Stephen

 

Andrew has yet to respond to my very generous offer. After all, he only has to get six out of 11 to win – not “everything”. I will confirm whether or not Andrew is up for the challenge.

Either way, I will track this post from time to time.

comments powered by Disqus

THE LATEST FROM THE KOUK

My 2016 forecasts: A stocktake on how they are going

Sun, 24 Jul 2016

A little over six months into the year, I am doing what almost no other economist does and present a scorecard on my forecasts for 2016. The record is mixed – some big wins, some big errors.

On 1 January 2016, I had my Top 11 tips for the year for economics, politics and markets. Those forecasts are reproduced below, with my assessment of how those forecasts are travelling in bold.

1. Real GDP growth in Australia will accelerate to around 3.25 per cent, driven by strong exports, solid growth in household spending, a further lift in dwelling construction and a meaty contribution from public sector demand. Business investment will remain horribly weak, but even that might find a base during the course of the year. There seems precious little chance that GDP growth will slip below 2 per cent at any stage in 2016. [This forecast is looking quite good although there are some headwinds for GDP in the second half of the year. A reasonably good forecast.]

Infrastructure spending should be based on need, not cheap money

Sun, 24 Jul 2016

This article first appeared on The Guardian web site at this address: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/jul/22/infrastructure-spending-should-be-based-on-need-not-cheap-money?CMP=share_btn_tw 

--------------------------------------------------------

Infrastructure spending should be based on need, not cheap money

As Australian government bond yields fall to record lows, debate is hotting up over whether the government should take advantage of these low borrowing costs to increase infrastructure spending.

Such ideas are based on a nice sentiment, but fall short of sound criteria for big spending. If infrastructure is needed, if it is an essential element for aiding productivity and equity, then it should be done based on a proper cost-benefit analysis regardless of the borrowing costs.

It would be absurd to think that infrastructure spending on power generation, roads, rail and ports would not occur simply because interest rates were high. It is a similar story with low interest rates. Why borrow and build infrastructure that may not do much to boost productivity, efficiency and equity just because 10-year government bond yields are at 2%?

To see how infrastructure spending driven by low interest rates can go badly wrong, one only has to look at the experience in Japan.