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

“Bitterly disappointing”: We are seeing a once in a generation policy failure

Thu, 12 Sep 2019

This article first appeared on the Yahoo Finance website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/rba-interest-rates-government-can-stimulate-economy-but-wont-210050650.html 

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

“Bitterly disappointing”: We are seeing a once in a generation policy failure

Imagine having the power to promote economic growth, lower the unemployment rate and set in train the conditions to boost real wages growth and inflation?

It would be immensely satisfying to change policies to improve the living standards and quality of life for every day, hard-working Australians and their families.

Wouldn’t it?

Next imagine a harsh reality where economic growth is weak and slowing, the unemployment rate is rising and wages growth and inflation well below a satisfactory level, and you choose not to wield the power reverse these uncomfortable circumstances?

Doing nothing, unwilling to pump some much needed cash into the economy because of a political dogma wedded to a notion that budget surpluses are good and that holding interest rates unnecessarily high so you might dampen demand for houses – which is seen as a problem - and household debt overwhelms your power to make things better.

The RBA admits it stuffed things up – sort of

Mon, 22 Jul 2019

This article first appeared on the Yahoo website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/did-the-rb-as-monetary-policy-put-our-economy-at-risk-033940907.html

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

The RBA admits it stuffed things up – sort of

The Reserve Bank of Australia needs to be congratulated for publishing research which implicitly confirms that it made a mistake when setting monetary policy in the period mid-2017 to early 2019.

Not that the research explicitly says that, but the RBA Discussion Paper, Cost-benefit Analysis of Leaning Against the Wind, written by Trent Saunders and Peter Tulip, makes the powerful conclusion that by keeping monetary policy tighter in order to “lean against” the risk of a financial crisis, there was a cost to the economy that is three to eight times larger than the benefit of minimising the risk of such a crisis eventuating.

The costs to the economy includes lower GDP growth and higher unemployment, that lasts for at least for several years.

A few terms first.

According to the Saunders/Tulip research, “leaning against the wind”, a term widely used in central banking, is “the policy of setting interest rates higher than a narrow interpretation of a central bank’s macroeconomic objectives would warrant due to concerns about financial instability”. In the RBA’s case, the “narrow interpretation” of the RBA’s objectives are the 2 to 3 per cent inflation target and full employment.

In the context of the period since 2017 and despite the RBA consistently undershooting its inflation target and with labour underutilisation significantly above the level consistent with full employment, the RBA steadfastly refused to ease monetary policy (cut official interest rates) because it considered higher interest rate settings were appropriate to “lean against” house price growth and elevated levels of household debt.