You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

I'm Trollish? I guess I didn't read the rules where it says you can't give feedback about the site's layout, writing skills, etc. Sorry to break your adoring reverie by pointing out that the site looks like those of circa 1999, doesn't say a lot on a regular basis that is actionable (why 99.99% of people pay for this stuff, even if the action is to do nothing) and that these sort of things must affect membership. It's also sometimes needlessly awkward to read when I already have 20 other columns to read that day after work. In the age of instant gratification, not many will put up with that. I think it's a pretty fair assumption to make that EJ would not have brought up visitor counts if it didn't matter to him in some way. Or that he doesn't want more people to get his message than Mish's. One obvious way to make that happen is to make a few easily done improvements to the site, editing, and writing. Oh the horror! You'd think I farted in the Pope's face.

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

You are crossing the line here SalAndRichard. If you don't like the site, simply go back to the hole where you came from.

Lastly, since you are obviously new here and never had access to the select content; I will tell you that iTulip is the best value hands down on the web or elsewhere. The track record is there to prove it. So do yourself a favor and unlike Mish, simply look it up - it is not that hard - you can even use google and I am sure even you can manage that.

1. I have paid for the site, on and off, for a long while. Off, because for weeks at a time little is published worth the price.

2. I agree it has great value. The issue is the ease with which that information is conveyed.

3. What line? It's a fact, this costs more than I pay for garbage pickup and that during some months there is little or nothing new.

4. Pot calling kettle black type hypocrisy with the "crawl back in your hole" comment. Except unlike you, I didn't resort to any ad hominem attack.

5. You are too emotionally invested. It's not your website, you just subscribe. If someone criticizes it it doesn't reflect on you. You're behaving like rednecks with their Chevy/Ford feuds. They didn't design or build it, but they get mad when someone points out a flaw in their pickup truck.

6. It's an economics website, not a cult. Try to remember that.

7. When you're good and know it, in your confidence you don't feel the need to bristle at every opinion disagreeing with yours. I made what I think are valid criticisms that would vastly improve the site and its subscriber base. It's pretty obvious they're sensitve about not being as popular as a guy they think is completely wrong. Sometimes one can be so brilliant they don't take good advice and feedback, eh?

8. It is impossible to improve anything in this world without first looking at it critically. Unfortunately some are too immature to realize that. The wise and earnest truth-seeker eagerly accepts such feedback knowing he benefits most from it. The vain egotist lashes out at the source of the criticism.

[Pangolin]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Thanks, EJ, for your clarification.

I don't fully understand Sprott's take either. I was lucky enough to select CEF (and its 50-50 gold/silver mix) as my principal precious metals vehicle several years back, and am still holding on to it. At various points I have also held PSLV, GTU, USAGX, BGEIX, and PRPFX.

One thing that might support Sprott's view is that investors worldwide who were buying gold to get away from dollars are perhaps now looking for even more diversification and moving to add silver. So purchases of gold may taper off a bit and purchases of silver pick up some steam. We'll see.

[jiimbergin]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Up to EJ to answer of course, but I don't think he bought more gold. I think gold as a percentage of his position went from 15% to 30% due to the price increase in gold from 2001.

Actually I found where EJ increased the allocation of gold from 15% to 30% and went to short term treasuries and in the second he kept the 30%, but went back to long term treasuries.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...ight=Road+Ruin
Our primary concern at this stage is no longer our readers' portfolios but their ability to weather a US dollar crisis if one erupts. In response, we are increasing our gold allocation to 30% and moving all Treasury holdings to the very shortest maturities, to three month Treasury bills, until we see indications that conditions are stabilizing. We encourage you to engage with the community to actively discuss strategies that are appropriate for you.

http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthr...urve-says-what

At this point the only change we plan to make to our 30% gold and 70% Treasuries position is to move from the short to the long end of the Treasury yield curve.

[Down Under]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

But there is something else that seems wrong to me. Sometime in 2009 EJ went from 15% to 30% gold.

Up to EJ to answer of course, but I don't think he bought more gold. I think gold as a percentage of his position went from 15% to 30% due to the price increase in gold from 2001.

[EJ]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

I have a query.

EJ desribes his holdings to Mish as the following:

From 100s of articles on iTulip since 1999, here is a summary of my portfolio over the past decade:

• From 2000 to 2001, 25% cash, 75% 10-year Treasury bonds
• From 2001 to Aug. 2010, 10% cash, 15% gold, 75% 10-year Treasury bonds

OK, then, where is the silver that EJ said he started buying in 2001 and held until selling it all earlier this year?

Can anyone explain this? Not trying to bash anyone, I bought the Post-Catastrophe Economy and loved it.

Fair question. The answer is that the portfolio as frequently cited here on the site is a simplified version of my actual portfolio. It is the spirit of my portfolio. The letter of my portfolio is too complicated to express every time I talk about it; I'd lose readers' attention in the act of explaining it.

I've explained before when asked that my ten year portfolio includes a small position in stocks, real estate, platinum, and until April silver. The representation of silver in my portfolio was de minimis as is my platinum position.

Eric Sprott recently got out of gold and went all-in on silver, calling gold the trade of the last decade and silver the trade of the next.

That statement confused me.

In terms of performance relative to gold, silver was a better trade of the last decade than gold. Since buying both in 2001, silver was up 770% at the time I sold it while gold as of today is up 465%.

If anything, I wish I had diversified my PM holdings in 2001 to include more silver. The PM trade of the decade was selling silver at $48 the last week of April and buying gold at $1500.

I think Sprott may have it backwards going forward but time will tell.

[jiimbergin]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

I have a query.

EJ desribes his holdings to Mish as the following:

From 100s of articles on iTulip since 1999, here is a summary of my portfolio over the past decade:

• From 2000 to 2001, 25% cash, 75% 10-year Treasury bonds
• From 2001 to Aug. 2010, 10% cash, 15% gold, 75% 10-year Treasury bonds

OK, then, where is the silver that EJ said he started buying in 2001 and held until selling it all earlier this year?

Can anyone explain this? Not trying to bash anyone, I bought the Post-Catastrophe Economy and loved it.

Since it was only $100,000, I am guessing that gets lost in the rounding for EJ. But there is something else that seems wrong to me. Sometime in 2009 EJ went from 15% to 30% gold. Also for about a year he switched from long term treasuries to short term before switching back. At least that is how I remember it.

[Pangolin]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

I have a query.

EJ desribes his holdings to Mish as the following:

From 100s of articles on iTulip since 1999, here is a summary of my portfolio over the past decade:

• From 2000 to 2001, 25% cash, 75% 10-year Treasury bonds
• From 2001 to Aug. 2010, 10% cash, 15% gold, 75% 10-year Treasury bonds

OK, then, where is the silver that EJ said he started buying in 2001 and held until selling it all earlier this year?

Can anyone explain this? Not trying to bash anyone, I bought the Post-Catastrophe Economy and loved it.

[flintlock]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

I just think that most people, when attempting to spell a somewhat unusual name like Janszen, and then send that person a note, would look it up first. Could have been an honest mistake, but when taken in context I think it probably was not. To misspell an adversaries name is to make him appear not worthy of the bother to look it up. EJ picked up on this too, obviously. I give him the credit for recognizing what Mish was doing here.

If it was an innocent mistake, then of course I apologize profusely for misinterpreting Mr. Shedrock's intentions.

[Ghent12]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

It also skews the search engines when people search for EJ. Hmmmm....

Normally I would be quick to point out that the "cui bono" line of reasoning is only useful in populating a list of suspects or suspected motives, and not at all relevant in any further aspects of determining the truth. In this instance, however, it is all but impossible to tell precisely why the name was misspelled.

[shiny!]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Glad to hear it, but having blown the spelling initially is quite telling about his general care in research, and his lack of real & complete research over the years.

It also skews the search engines when people search for EJ. Hmmmm....

[bart]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Mish corrected the mispelling error when he learned of it.

Glad to hear it, but having blown the spelling initially is quite telling about his general care in research, and his lack of real & complete research over the years.

[raja]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Sometimes douchebags have to be called out or they go on forever. Sounds like EJ turned both cheeks before posting this. There is a difference between being polite and being a wimp. I know nothing about Mish but just the misspelled name thing shows him for what he is. Anyone who thinks that's not passive aggressive is naive.

Mish corrected the mispelling error when he learned of it.

[flintlock]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Sometimes douchebags have to be called out or they go on forever. Sounds like EJ turned both cheeks before posting this. There is a difference between being polite and being a wimp. I know nothing about Mish but just the misspelled name thing shows him for what he is. Anyone who thinks that's not passive aggressive is naive.

[bart]

Re: You're not going to believe this - Eric Janszen

Originally Posted by bart
I should also note that I do read him frequently, like I also sometimes read Krugman and others with whom I strongly disagree or believe have vested interests that blind them to a fuller and more complete picture.

I prefer to not pollute my sensibilities with the outputs from morons. Even if I know what I am reading is wrong, the repetition of said idiocy is difficult to keep out of the mental horizon.

This in essence is how the Bullhorn works.

Of course I freely admit that I rely on all you avid pan-spectrum readers to bring in the rare examples of useful information from said myriad moronic sources.

Understood and agreed, but my purpose in reading folk like Krugman and Mish-Mash is primarily to see what kind of crud and half truths and outright lies etc. that they're promoting.

I take notes and can and may write some hard hitting articles that easily debunk most of their "special moments" and BS etc. Its far from tough - just in my last post I named subjects for at least 6 articles that could be written that would incontrovertibly prove how little clue (pun not intended) Mish Mash has.

And to be fair, they each do very occasionally come up with something decent - mostly by quoting someone who really does know something. The most recent one I recall is when he mentioned Reinhart & Rogoff... which EJ mentioned literally years ago.