Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion - page 298. (Read 647196 times)

Again we are all right about this stuff, ive said dow to 32k aswell before but timing is everything cause noone will get that part right

let us wait and see if $ 150 materializes.

I have been reading this thread and i can say with confidence, you are generally right on your calls.

I dont know why folks are bashing you and MA, but you've been  making pretty accurate forecasts of the longer term variety ( the hardest to make in IMO).

Lets see if Gold dips back to below $1000


As a side opinion, i feel the general atmosphere is a bluff before the real bottom/top eg Gold going up, bitcoin going up, S&P falling.

I dont agree nor disagree with you .... But all effort you must love him that much huh?

See:  https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/news/lead-developer-quits-bitcoin-saying-failed-212828836--sector.html


Now logically-  Gov of some nation will step in and ensure it works or illusion of it working... And it will be deployed tested and mainstreamed.

This is mostly incorrect allegations.


Since Aug 2012 when he reiterated the Dow would continue rising (which it did), he stated two scenarios:

• 32-40K before 2015.75; or
• 32-40K before end of 2017

And that was the upper end of the prediction. The lower end was roughly a doubling of the Dow. We paused around 2015.75, thus the second scenario is in play.


I've never seen that prediction. It was always that gold would decline after 2011 to reach a low in Q12016 of < $850. I am talking about a prediction in a copy of his paid report.


It has been clearly explained that in the second scenario this would be transition from 2015.75 with Europe failing first, then the USA failing after 2017.9.


It has been stated innumerable times that the dollar would grow stronger from 2015.75 to 2017.9. That is part of his main theme of the dollar the last man standing.


That was the (inflation-adjusted) high overall for real-estate in the USA, excluding the following sector. The sector attracting foreign capital (Chinese, Canadians) is still rising and made higher highs than 2007. This sector will top out no later than 2017.9. That sector was predicted by Armstrong's model of USA last economy standing and foreign capital ingress into the USA.


Entirely incorrect. He predicted the exact $54 year end closing price for oil for 2014 back when the price was $100+. His low target has been $35.

You make up a lot of lies.

He predicted the Ukraine hot spot well before it was news.

I can't believe people wrote almost 80 pages trying to figure out whether MA is a con or not. To me the answer is pretty clear. Let me summarize for those who don't want to dig through (and rightly so) all that MA bs :
1. Dow to hit 32-40K by 2015 - wrong
2. Gold to hit 5K by 2015 - wrong
3. Peak in government (which in his own interpretation means high in bonds and further collapse) by 2015.75 - wrong
4. USD to further decline in 2011 - wrong
5. Absolute high in real estate in 2007 - wrong
and the list goes on...
So, not just 1%-10% wrong but wrong big time. Also, he missed the recent commodity collapse and particularly oil.

Ok, everybody makes mistakes, no big deal, right? However, MA never ever admits he is wrong. Has anyone witnessed he ever admitted he was wrong? Yet he always bashes politicians for not admitting their mistakes. Furthermore, he keeps repeating that people with no trading experience are capable of nothing, can't run anything etc. Yet he, with no experience in politics, law, and many other things including economics, always comment on those and many other issues in which he clearly has no knowledge whatsoever. In fact, he did not even have a college degree.
Now, how does he manage to get away with all that? Just a few of many more tricks below:
1. Not being specific by obfuscating everything and making predictions very vague (ex: "everything will go nuts from there" or "when people lose confidence")
2. Giving a wide range of possibilities (ex. "the resistance levels on the euro 1.16, 1.20, 1.40 etc)
3. Using words like "can", "may", "possible", "there is a chance", etc. (you can't be wrong making such predictions, can you?)
4. Shifting dates (ex. with the Dow first it was 2015, then it became 2017 and now he is shifting the date to 2020-2021)
5. Using his 3.14 model
6. "It's not me, it's the computer" (if a prediction is right, he claims he is right, if wrong - he never admits it but it is assumed that it's the computer's miss)
7. Throwing lots of predictions (incl contradictory ones). One of them will always be right by definition. Then he goes like "I warned", "I told you so", but never mentions failed ones so it gives you a false impression that MA is a genius and is always right
8. Constantly bullshitting you by bringing up something on history and physics so that his predictions could look more credible and to create an aura of a guru
 
What is also interesting is that he goes way out of his way to reinforce that idea of exclusivity of his analysis by keeping babbling about:
1. Unique computer model
2. Unique historic data that cost hundreds of millions
3. Unique approach etc
that you may wonder why? Looks like somebody is trying to sell you something, no? The reality is that nobody saw his computer (so it may very well be yet another bs), his data or anything. He claims that everybody  sells you their newsletters, subscriptions etc. He is the only one who does not because he is filthy rich (in his own words "the markets have been like an ATM machine for me") and has a higher calling in life - to bring knowledge to the masses and all that. Yet he sells some bs dvds, reports, coins, etc, at exorbitant prices and charges thousands for conferences.
Something just does not add up here to say the least.

...

Risk Mgmt

I presume you write of the price of gold (Armstrong did today as well -- he writes that in his opinion gold will below $1000 before long).  He or you might very well be right.

Let's just say that Armstrong is correct for sake of exploring this idea.  He then goes on to say that gold would then go on to $5000 as confidence is lost in government. 

OK, just making up something here...:

Gold is now around $1175.  Let's say you bought some (say 10 oz).  Gold goes down to $900, or even $800, but you do not sell.  Then gold goes to $5000 (call this an Armstrong Scenario).  You then sell some at $2000, maybe some more at $3000, and more at $4000 or $5000.  You would likely not feel badly at all should it do that...  Buy at $1200, sell at an average of, say, $2500.

Could the price of gold do that?  Would it?  Who knows.

One thing I do know is that gold has been valued by almost all of humanity for 5000 years...

double bottom below $1000 in March
Than one more time on 2017

Look at long term we at 1999 levels

Very much agree.


I was interested to read Armstrong's comment today: "...Short term, we still have the risk of gold going under $1,000 per ounce..." http://www.armstrongeconomics.com/archives/40680

I'm wondering from that if MA is expecting a possible dip which will be the bottom, or a temporary dip until a bottom at a later date (Feb/March going by earlier arrays?), according to how his fabled "Time & Price" line up.

On 29th July 2015, he wrote: "...A weekly and month-end closing beneath this should signal we will break the $1000 barrier and test the 1980 high of $875 to $904...level. And on Feb 4th 2015, "...GOLD will bottom between $680 and $1000..."

We havent seen closings regularly below this level, so should we therefore wonder if the low could be slightly above $1,000; in other words that we are broadly there now? (Followers of Dent I imagine would expect the bottom to be nearer $700.)

$1050 was going to be my signal to begin taper buying. Currently in the $1070s as I type.

Good to hear any opinions on this.

Correct, Risk Mgmt.

Because nobody can well predict the future, I read a fair number of different observers, including and especially Armstrong.  What I like about Armstrong is that he works a couple of different niches that others do not.

Rickards.  Reinhart & Rogoff.  FOFOA.  Zero Hedge.  bitcointalk.

There are a number of websites where I get quality ideas as to what is happening, and what we can do about it.

One thing I see is that because no one knows what will happen, is that managing risks almost always leads to asset diversification.

Nobody can predict the future...but MA does a good job using history and logic to do a decent job of prediction work.
It will never be accurate / perfect / ---

Mention of ELECTO CURRENCY IN TODAY ENTRY in MA's Blog

I'm surprised there can be so much vitriol against MA, even on here. His macro argument of sovereign debt defaults isnt exactly unique or particularly unlikely, although he has been saying it basically since he got out (just looking at debt/gdp gives you a sense a few nations could well be in trouble if things don't go their way). Most recently you have Reinart of 'This time is different' saying 2016 is the year of the default along with a number of other prominent people. Others, like Rickards, also believe defaults or events worse than the Great Depression are on their way (starting with junk bond & USD denom corp debt), but probably not for a year or two (which also is in line with MA's 2015.75 into 2020 downturn). Then TV pundits like FastMoney's Brian Kelly have also jumped on board and predicted a tumultuous year at best, calamity at worst.

Beats me, seems like a good number of people who look through different prisms see similar things.

You could be right, not sure. Majority of retail investors never shorted any stocks. It takes a lots of nerve to short when the CNBC cheerleaders hype the market and the Goldman's central bank shills do the talk.

Heh i think we are all long term stock market bears around here... that's kinda what brought us here no?

On the note on what Armstong knows, of course he never claimed that he can predict that next day the market bounce or dip. Who can do that?  However, his long term analysis and expectation that the money will flow into private assets is very much logical and I am convinced that will happen.

I am just waiting the floor and will be long on DJIA and SPX, having this strategy partly based on Armstrong analysis.

So far so good, the market is still going down, bears like me are happy.

The key to understanding my comment is the phrase "long running...". The professionals of the market are better at deciding an average allocation of stocks since they know where the market is at (watching it everyday all day) and where it seems to be going.

You being a dumb person who makes dumb posts regularly have failed to consider Anti-fragility in your statement above. I have no time to explain.

This is payback for your inane comments in my recent Altcoin Discussion thread.

haha yea funny eh... hes only been right with 90% of his calls, better than armstrong. Alot of them short/medium term too.

long running hedge funds will rarely if ever underperform S&P.. in a crazy bull market that we are in its easy for you to dollar cost average but in choppy markets hedge funds win. Hedge funds and mutual funds spread the risk and allocate more efficiently, the ones that underperform are quickly replaced by ones that don't