Great episode and guest. PS - I have determined that there is a strong positive correlation between the millimetres of mustache (Mark) and millimetres of head hair (Ben). It appears that perhaps mustache expansion is a leading indicator for expected head hair growth. It will be interesting to see if this theory holds true over October and especially November.
I’m first! 😁 Thanks for the consistently excellent information guys. One small request, any chance of bringing on a UK-based guest for one episode on the UK housing market? 🇬🇧
@@serialmigrant you’re misunderstanding. He’s saying that countries that are EM today have underperformed in the past… not that they have lower expected returns
@49:40: Should time stamp this quote: "Commodities and bills keep you up with inflation, bonds provide a higher return of about 2% over inflation and stocks provide a return of about 5% over on inflation, that's just a general rule of thumb." Edited: as this is an odd statement to make. I think he got carried away and misspoke as this claim isn't logically supported by any of his other statements: @1:00:35 "They have underperformed, that's why they are emerging markets." -He previously defined emerging markets in a few ways, but specifically he points how in the 1980s emerging markets came on to the investing scene with their own investment markets, whereas in the past they did not have active stock markets, or their markets were closed down by communists or their stocks were historically listed as colonial markets on the London or other stock exchanges. Further, he also discussed how southern European countries, have in some cases (Italy) returned nothing over the last century. So why then aren't Italy, Spain and Greece now defined as emerging markets if they have so deeply underperformed? And then at 1:03:00 he states that "India has been one of the best performing markets in the world". Yet India is still considered an emerging market.
I think it's sloppy to label one of the four horseman as "socialism", which is an extremely broad term that means a hundred different things to a hundred different people. It gave the guest's comments a very politically partisan flavour, in my view. I think more specific terminology would be useful. Based on his examples, it sounds like he meant "nationalization of industry" -- in which case, I'd just use that term. If he means "expansion of the welfare state" or "development of labour laws" or "workforce unionization" (all of which are regularly labelled as forms of socialism by both proponents and detractors) then that correlation is likely much weaker given that, in western Europe and North America, those all occurred prior to and during the post-war economic boom.
Everytime Dr. Bryan Taylor references to past data, there's a smile on Ben's face.
Great episode and guest.
PS - I have determined that there is a strong positive correlation between the millimetres of mustache (Mark) and millimetres of head hair (Ben). It appears that perhaps mustache expansion is a leading indicator for expected head hair growth. It will be interesting to see if this theory holds true over October and especially November.
The mustache is gone. Horrible accident.
Let's see what happens with Ben's hair.
😲
Correlations are notoriously unstable.
-Ben
Fascinating stuff! As usual, I really learned a lot.
I’m first! 😁 Thanks for the consistently excellent information guys. One small request, any chance of bringing on a UK-based guest for one episode on the UK housing market? 🇬🇧
Enjoyed this. Thank you!
Very interesting. :)
Four horsemen of the financial apocalypse keeping Ben's hair looking good.
Why bother investing in emergent markets to diversify your portfolio ? If by definition they underperform across long periods
Great question, Scott cederburg guest on this show Oct 2022 he would say no to your question
Prof Cederburg University of Arizona
They by definition don’t underperform
Between 2000 and 2010 they outperfomed US market by more than 10% per year
@@serialmigrant you’re misunderstanding. He’s saying that countries that are EM today have underperformed in the past… not that they have lower expected returns
@49:40: Should time stamp this quote:
"Commodities and bills keep you up with inflation, bonds provide a higher return of about 2% over inflation and stocks provide a return of about 5% over on inflation, that's just a general rule of thumb."
Edited: as this is an odd statement to make. I think he got carried away and misspoke as this claim isn't logically supported by any of his other statements:
@1:00:35 "They have underperformed, that's why they are emerging markets."
-He previously defined emerging markets in a few ways, but specifically he points how in the 1980s emerging markets came on to the investing scene with their own investment markets, whereas in the past they did not have active stock markets, or their markets were closed down by communists or their stocks were historically listed as colonial markets on the London or other stock exchanges.
Further, he also discussed how southern European countries, have in some cases (Italy) returned nothing over the last century. So why then aren't Italy, Spain and Greece now defined as emerging markets if they have so deeply underperformed? And then at 1:03:00 he states that "India has been one of the best performing markets in the world". Yet India is still considered an emerging market.
Kinda bumped there wasnt a question on how applicable are the Fama-French factor models to equity returns from the 1600s
The data to answer that question don’t exist.
-Ben
Developing nations feel much nicer to live in. Much better quality of services and housing than developed.
I think Ben needs a bigger bookshelf :)
First! 🎉
Commodities and bills are better than bonds because they protect against unexpected Inflation. Bonds will get decimated
I think it's sloppy to label one of the four horseman as "socialism", which is an extremely broad term that means a hundred different things to a hundred different people. It gave the guest's comments a very politically partisan flavour, in my view. I think more specific terminology would be useful. Based on his examples, it sounds like he meant "nationalization of industry" -- in which case, I'd just use that term. If he means "expansion of the welfare state" or "development of labour laws" or "workforce unionization" (all of which are regularly labelled as forms of socialism by both proponents and detractors) then that correlation is likely much weaker given that, in western Europe and North America, those all occurred prior to and during the post-war economic boom.