GuruFocus Premium Membership

Serving Intelligent Investors since 2004. Only 96 cents a day.

Free Trial

Free 7-day Trial
All Articles and Columns »

Fiscal Cliff Does Not Worry Jim Grant

November 21, 2012 | About:
Dheeraj Grover

Dheeraj Grover

18 followers
Well-known economist and Fed critic James Grant of Grant's Interest Rate Observer newsletter was on CNBC to discuss his views on the upcoming fiscal cliff. He said he is not worried about the cliff; he called it a Y2K moment. He thinks there are much bigger issues to be concerned about.

Credit and source: www.cnbc.com, CNBC

Here is the video:



About the author:

Dheeraj Grover
I am an individual investor with deep interest in the field of value investing. My ideas and thinking is inspired by highly respected value investors like Ben Graham, Warren Buffett, Walter Schloss, Bill Ruane and Tweedy Browne

Rating: 3.0/5 (8 votes)

Comments

LwC
LwC - 1 year ago
Excuse me, but with all due respect Grant is not an economist though he may think he's one. In fact he earned his university degree in International Relations and has spent almost his entire career working as a journalist and publisher.

[Edit] Grant is also a writer, an author, an editor, a financial historian, a columnist, a TV commentator, an Op-Ed opinionator, a bridge player, a dapper dresser, a husband, a father, a son, a grandson, an uncle, and certainly other things that I don't know about and so this list is not intended to be all encompassing. But he's not an economist.
vgm
Vgm - 1 year ago
In addition to "journalist and publisher".... Seth Klarman once described Jim Grant as one of the finest financial historians.
LwC
LwC - 1 year ago
How is that relevant to my observation that the writer erred in qualifying Grant as an economist? It took me only a few seconds using a well known www search engine to confirm my understanding about Grant's educational and professional background before I posted my comment. Why couldn't the author do the same? Don't facts matter any more?

Anyway, FWIW here's what Klarman actually said about Grant's writing in the interview with Jason Zweig at the CFA Institute 2010 Annual Conference:

Anything Jim Grant writes is wonderful. Even if he’s not always right on his predictions, he is among the best thinkers and financial historians.

And here's Klarman's full answer to Zweig's request for book recommendations:



Certainly. First, however, let me


say that Graham’s The Intelligent Investor, which

you recently revised, is probably more accessible

than Graham and Dodd’s Security Analysis,

although the nifty thing about the sixth edition of

Security Analysis is the updated comments.

Joel Greenblatt’s You Can Be a Stock Market

Genius is tactical and includes some very specific

and interesting strategies, and The Aggressive Con-

servative Investor, by Marty Whitman and Martin

Shubik, is also very interesting.

Anything Jim Grant writes is wonderful. Even

if he’s not always right on his predictions, he is

among the best thinkers and financial historians.

Michael Lewis has never written a bad book.

Moneyball is about value investing. Looking back

20 years from now, The Big Short may be the defin-

itive book about this era. It is about a microcosm,

but the microcosm explains everything. Andrew

Ross Sorkin’s Too Big to Fail is fabulous, as is

Roger Lowenstein’s The End of Wall Street.11 In fact,

all of Roger Lowenstein’s books are excellent, and

so we should read everything Roger has written.

Never stop reading. History doesn’t repeat,

but it does rhyme. Jim Grant has a wonderful

expression: In science, progress is cumulative, and

in finance, progress is cyclical. Fads will come and

go, and people will think we are on to a new thing

in finance or investing; but the reality is that it is

probably not really new, and if we have seen the

movie or read the book, maybe we know how it

turns out.

Here's a link to the full interview:

http://investing.kuchita.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/Seth-Klarmanm-Interview-Financial-Analyst-Journal.pdf

vgm
Vgm - 1 year ago
"How is that relevant to my observation that the writer erred in qualifying Grant as an economist?"

It's relevant to correct you in describing Grant solely as a "journalist and publisher". I was taking Klarman's description from that very interview with Zweig, so no need to read it again.

But in essence your unnecessarily verbose reply is basically confirming what I said. Thanks.
LwC
LwC - 1 year ago
Well actually I didn't use the word "solely", but thanks for putting the word in my mouth and then arguing against it. LOL.

It is accurate to describe Grant as a journalist and publisher, even if it is not all encompassing, and it is clearly a misstatement of fact to refer to him as an economist. Do you dispute that?

Of course my point is that the writer could have, and IMO should have, checked his assumptions for factual basis before publishing. IMO your response regarding Klarman's opinion about Grant's writing just isn't relevant to that point, even if you insist it is. IMO facts matter.

And your ad hominem attack IMO does not make your comment more relevant. I'm sorry that you found my comment "unnecessarily verbose". In the future you probably will be better served if you ignore my comments so you don't waste your valuable time reading and responding to them, especially when my comment isn't directed to you. Thank you.

vgm
Vgm - 1 year ago
LwC,

You go from inaccuracy to inaccuracy, contradicting yourself and accusing someone of something they haven't done. LOL!

Not for the first time, I marvel at your ability to expend so many words saying nothing. A definite talent.

But thanks or the fun. And Happy Thanksgiving!

Please leave your comment:


Get WordPress Plugins for easy affiliate links on Stock Tickers and Guru Names | Earn affiliate commissions by embedding GuruFocus Charts
GuruFocus Affiliate Program: Earn up to $400 per referral. ( Learn More)
Free 7-day Trial
FEEDBACK