
Jim Rogers: The worst crash of our lifetime is coming - nopinsight
http://www.businessinsider.com/jim-rogers-worst-crash-lifetime-coming-2017-6
======
petulla
2011: 100% Chance of Crisis, Worse Than 2008: Jim Rogers

2012: Jim Rogers: It’s Going To Get Really “Bad After The Next Election”

2013: Jim Rogers Warns: “You Better Run for the Hills!”

2014: JIM ROGERS – Sell Everything & Run For Your Lives

2015: Jim Rogers: “We’re Overdue” for a Stock Market Crash

2016: $68 TRILLION “BIBLICAL CRASH” Dead Ahead? Jim Rogers Issues a DIRE
WARNING

2017: THE BOTTOM LINE: Legendary investor Jim Rogers expects the worst crash
in our lifetime

[https://www.fool.com.au/2017/06/14/why-you-should-totally-
ig...](https://www.fool.com.au/2017/06/14/why-you-should-totally-ignore-jim-
rogers-worst-crash-in-our-lifetime-call/)

~~~
dws
Eventually, in the stopped-clock sense, if he lives long enough he might be
right.

~~~
melling
“Being Right but Being Early Simply Means That You Are Wrong”

------
autogn0me
Jim has been saying this for past 6-8 years. He will eventually be right.

~~~
jokoon
A broken clock is right twice a day

~~~
tomsthumb
One going backwards is right four times.

I'm not totally sure this extends your analogy appropriately, but it's an
entertaining thought.

~~~
sssilver
Interesting.

\- A broken clock is perfectly right twice a day

\- A clock going backwards is perfectly right 4 times a day

\- A normal, working clock is probably never perfectly right

~~~
mercer
In the second case at least four times, no?

------
outsidetheparty
The entirety of his supporting evidence:

> We’ve had financial problems in America — let’s use America — every four to
> seven years, since the beginning of the republic. Well, it’s been over eight
> since the last one.

Well I'm certainly convinced!

~~~
WalterSear
It's why I won't fly Qantas Airways.

------
mullen
A fringe nobody screaming the world is going to collapse for the last 30
years. The only thing this guy can predict is that if he yells and screams the
sky is falling loud enough, his next book will do well.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rogers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Rogers)

~~~
drraid0
Where's your Wikipedia page then?

------
pascalxus
Well, the shiller CAPE 10 year averge is at 30 right now, which is as high as
it was in 1929 right before the great depression.

But, If you look at the CAPE graph for the last 30 years, the average seems a
bit higher than normal. I wonder if we're heading for a new normal where the
CAPE averages higher due long term changes in allocation of capital, and long
term reduced productivity gains.

all the technical analysis says the next 10 years won't be pretty but that
doesn't mean it's going to be a steep drop, we could just be going sideways
for a long time.

~~~
crdoconnor
>long term reduced productivity gains

the robots aren't taking over then?

------
justboxing
Don't know anything about Jim Rogers' creds / authority in this matter. How
much should be we concerned / alarmed at these statements?

> Rogers: It could be an American pension plan that goes broke, and many of
> them are broke, as you know. It could be some country we’re not watching. It
> could be all sorts of things. It could be war — unlikely to be war, but it’s
> going to be something.

and

> Rogers: It’s going to be the worst in your lifetime.

Most of my little 'nest egg' is in Total Market Index ETFs (ex: SPY, QQQ ).
Should I take action, or will that be foolish / premature optimization?

~~~
kartD
Typical advice is if you're older, say within 10 years of retirement push
towards treasury bonds, commodities etc. (ultra safe investments). If you're
young, you can try to time it, but even if you screw-up just hold through the
crash and it'll recover in a couple of years. Do some more research, you don't
want to put stock in random internet comments... including mine!

~~~
uptown
>you don't want to put stock in random internet comments... including mine

Anybody got the ticker for the Internet Comments ETF?

~~~
thesehands
[http://www.alpsfunds.com/overview/buz](http://www.alpsfunds.com/overview/buz)

------
ringaroundthetx
Everyone buying put options, expecting doom and gloom, is contributing to
keeping the markets high.

When you buy a put, the market maker sells a put and stays delta neutral by
buying shares (or more generally, goes long the underlying asset). When
everyone buys puts, everyone is making shares get bought.

The puts expire worthless and no affect was done to the market except keeping
it bullish.

 __edit: I got that wrong, way wrong. __Is there any way that hedging is
having the effect of buoying the market?

~~~
misja111
That's only half the story. To stay completely delta and gamma neutral, the
market maker typically buys not just the share but additionally shorts a call
with the same strike as the put.

When he shorts the call it means that someone else buys it. Probably another
market maker, who might want to hedge as well, this time by selling the share
and buying a put, etc..

------
yuhong
My favorite right now is the ad bubble:
[https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/912750677331283968](https://twitter.com/BrendanEich/status/912750677331283968)

------
santoshalper
He would be a lot more credible if he could explain what will cause a crash.
Basically, he is just betting on a crash every year for whatever reason.
Doubtlessly, he is selling something.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
He kind of did. He expects the market to become a bubble. Bubbles always
crash.

What is a bubble? Here's my definition: A bubble is an asset going up because
it's been going up. It works like this: Something (the stock market, say)
looks good because of fundamentals: because earnings are up, or because
interest rates are down, or whatever. People take note: Hey, the stock market
looks good. So people buy stocks, so stocks go up. Then more people take note:
Hey, the stock market's going up. So more people buy stocks, because they want
to own stuff that's going up. So stocks go up more. So more people buy stocks.
That's the start of a bubble.

But it doesn't get truly dangerous until people are buying stocks with
borrowed money. _Then_ a drop means that people sell in a panic, because they
can't take a loss, so the price drops more, so more people sell in a panic,
and so on. And the people that lose money, lost (at least in part) borrowed
money, which means that it can ruin not just the borrower, but also the
lender.

Now: Are stocks currently in this territory? My impression is no, not yet, but
I don't know for sure. Is there a good measure of how much borrowed money is
invested in the stock market?

~~~
Lost_BiomedE
"But it doesn't get truly dangerous until people are buying stocks with
borrowed money. "

Currently, the borrowed money is nearly free money via low interest rates. A
lot of games are being played to juice out every cent that can be made on
being able to get cheap money. When the value of assets used to play these
games are ignored vs. the diminishing profit. It becomes musical chairs.

I doubt we get your everyday Joe betting on margin like the dotcom bubble, but
we have the same effect, just different users.

------
jasonmaydie
The market has been going up at record pace. It's going to come down at some
point, of course none of this is benefiting us average Joe's

------
petraeus
The market will remain irrational longer than he will remain solvent (if in
fact he is even playing the contrarian game)

------
tryingagainbro
I bet everything thing I have that Jim Rogers will be right--one day. He
doesn't know it either when

------
lobut
Great, now I'm scared. What can I do? Shall I learn mandarin and go to China
too?

~~~
jff
Given that the current practice for anyone with money in China is to get that
money out of China and converted to foreign currency as quickly as possible...
I'd counsel against it.

~~~
xenihn
Learn Mandarin and go to / stay on the west coast, where the majority of that
extracted Chinese money is going

~~~
jff
Better get a real estate license while you're at it, since that's where the
extracted money ends up.

------
ckluis
How many jobs are we replacing with software annually? It will happen sooner
or later.

~~~
joobus
First jobs were replaced by simple tools, then by livestock, then by machines.
What makes software any different from any other advancements made throughout
history?

~~~
defined
It's the only advancement where making a million copies of an item takes a few
minutes and no raw material. Try that with tools, livestock and machines. Or
anything physical.

~~~
convolvatron
but before that you have to go through several iterations of failure with a
bunch of costly entitled developers before you get something which sort of
approximates what you wanted and is so internally broken its almost impossible
to extend

not really ragging on the developers, but its not a cheap or risk free
process. and if you aren't actively investing in maintenance it will die. the
costs are all just per-type not so much per-instance

~~~
defined
> but before that you have to go through several iterations of failure with a
> bunch of costly entitled developers before you get something which sort of
> approximates what you wanted and is so internally broken its almost
> impossible to extend

This is too often true, subject to the following observations:

\- Project failure is almost always a management failure (no citations needed,
really), because:

\- The thing to be built is poorly conceived and explained by the
leadership/stakeholders, who are seldom the devs

\- The delivery schedule is wildly optimistic or infeasible, because
unrealistic promises were made to customers or investors

\- The operational parameters of the system (peak users, load, transactions,
data size, availability, etc) are overestimated by the leadership by a couple
of orders of magnitude and pushback tends to be career-limiting

\- When the leadership eventually realizes the failure of its vision, it
"pivots", and keeps pivoting at the speed of a turbine, "reframing" the so-
called vision.

\- The "costly, entitled" developers often come from some body shop which pays
them $25/hour and charges $75 (illustrative values only)

\- Costly, unentitled, competent developers probably ran for the hills or were
rejected because they weren't "with the program" \- they said something
realistic in the interview.

\- The process is not cheap or easy or risk free, yet many companies hire and
pay as if it is.

\- The mere act of getting cohesive requirements out of people is one of the
hardest parts of software, and one of the largest reasons for failure.

\- The rest isn't easy, either, unless it's a conceptual copy of some vanilla
CRUD system that does nothing novel or "web scale" (whatever that is).

OTOH, I read some devs stating that software development is just bolting legos
together, what's the problem?

If you are referring to these devs, I see your point, but they and their ilk
are the creations of corporates and startups who pushed the view that devs are
commodity items - _resources_ \- who aren't really skilled and can be churned
out of bootcamps and will be good enough to meet the deadlines.

Now I am _not_ criticizing bootcamps or the people who make it through them.
There are many smart people who have no formal CS background who could make
good devs, given time and experience. There are even more people who should
not be allowed near a computer, sadly, who IMO are more commonly encountered.

I am criticizing the social forces that put money above useful education,
profit above knowledge, ideology above science and engineering, the short term
against the entire future.

------
jeffdavis
"admired about you as an investor is that you don’t talk about what should be"

Kind of a cynical view. Investors can change the future, so the idea that they
are passive players is disappointing.

In fact, if they are on the sidelines, what purpose do they serve?

------
clamprecht
Isn't his statement a tautology?

