Maria Bartiromo talks to global investor Jim Rogers
By Maria Bartiromo
In 1970 a young Wall Streeter named Jim Rogers hooked up with George Soros to start the legendary Quantum Fund. The ensuing decades have seen Rogers build an iconoclastic career as an author, adventurer, and creator of the Rogers International Commodities Index. And throughout, Rogers—now based in Singapore—has remained an outspoken global investor. Today is no different. He has harsh words for former Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, suggests President Barack Obama and his economic team are not up to the task, and thinks tough love is the answer for America.
MARIA BARTIROMO: What do you think of the government's response to the economic crisis?
JIM ROGERS: Terrible. They're making it worse. It's pretty embarrassing for President Obama, who doesn't seem to have a clue what's going on—which would make sense from his background. And he has hired people who are part of the problem. [Treasury Secretary Tim] Geithner was head of the New York Fed, which was supposedly in charge of Wall Street and the banks more than anybody else. And as you remember, [Obama's chief economic adviser, Larry] Summers helped bail out Long-Term Capital Management years ago. These are people who think the only solution is to save their friends on Wall Street rather than to save 300 million Americans.
So what should they be doing?
What would I like to see happen? I'd like to see them let these people go bankrupt, let the bankrupt go bankrupt, stop bailing them out. There are plenty of banks in America that saw this coming, that kept their powder dry and have been waiting for the opportunity to go in and take over the assets of the incompetent. Likewise, many, many homeowners didn't go out and buy five homes with no income. Many homeowners have been waiting for this, and now all of a sudden the government is saying: "Well, too bad for you. We don't care if you did it right or not, we're going to bail out the 100,000 or 200,000 who did it wrong." I mean, this is outrageous economics, and it's terrible morality.
You have said Bear Stearns and Lehman (LEHMQ) would still be around if Greenspan hadn't bailed out Long-Term Capital Management in 1998. Can you explain?
Well, if Long-Term Capital Management had been allowed to fail, Lehman and the rest of them would've lost a huge amount of money, their capital would've been impaired, and it would've put a terrible crimp on Wall Street. It would've slowed them down for years. Instead of losing capital, losing assets, and losing incompetent people, they hired more incompetent people.
Should AIG (AIG) have been allowed to fail, too?
First of all, banks and investment banks and insurance companies have been failing for hundreds of years. Yes, we would've had a terrible two years. But you're dragging out the pain. We had 10 years of the worst credit excesses in world history. You don't wipe out something like that in six months or a year by saying: "Oh, now let's wake up and start over again."
What about Citigroup (C)? What about the car companies?
They should be allowed to go bankrupt. Why should American taxpayers put up billions to save a few car companies? They made the mistakes! We didn't make the mistakes! I'm sure they'll give them the money, but I'm telling you, it's a mistake. It's a horrible mistake.
I totally understand what you're saying, but the banks are under massive pressure.
They all took huge, huge profits. Who was the head of Citigroup? Chuck Prince? I mean, how many hundreds of millions of dollars did Prince take out of the company? How many hundreds of millions of dollars did other Citibank execs take out of the company? Wall Street has paid something like $40 billion or $50 billion in bonuses in the past decade. Who was that guy who was the head of Merrill Lynch (MERR)?
Stan O'Neal?
Right, Stan O'Neal. He got $150 million for leaving, even though he ruined the company. Look at the guy at Fannie Mae (FNM), Franklin Raines. He did worse accounting than Enron. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (FRE) alone did nothing but pure fraudulent accounting year after year, and yet that guy's walking around with millions of dollars. What the hell kind of system is this?
Are you worried the economic crisis will lead to political turmoil in China and elsewhere?
I absolutely am. We're going to have social unrest in much of the world. America won't be immune.
What does all this mean from an investment standpoint?
Always in the past, when people have printed huge amounts of money or spent money they didn't have, it has led to higher inflation and higher prices. In my view, that's certainly going to happen again this time. Oil prices are down at the moment, but that's temporary. And you're going to see higher prices, especially of commodities, because the fundamentals of commodities are enhanced by what's happening.
Which commodities are worth buying or holding on to?
I recently bought more of all of them. But I really think agriculture is going to be the best place to be. Agriculture's been a horrible business for 30 years. For decades the money shufflers, the paper shufflers, have been the captains of the universe. That is now changing. The people who produce real things [will be on top]. You're going to see stockbrokers driving taxis. The smart ones will learn to drive tractors, because they'll be working for the farmers. It's going to be the 29-year-old farmers who have the Lamborghinis. So you should find yourself a nice farmer and hook up with him or her, because that's where the money's going to be in the next couple of decades.
Maria Bartiromo is the anchor of CNBC's Closing Bell.
---------------------------------------------
The Obama economic team is either going to have to do an about face, or my theory that the Dow will hold 6,000 is going to get blown out of the water. Oh, well.
The markets are like an election that is held everyday. No matter how the Left might spin it, Obama keeps losing in this election. If you find yourself still saying silly stuff like "give him a chance", you are clearly tone deaf (not to mention you are a "true believer" and perhaps a brain dead groupie) to the world's market participants. They gave him a chance, and he flunked it.
Good Luck!
Mentatt (at) yahoo (d0t) com
Thursday, March 5, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Do you think Obama cares about the economy beyond preventing a revolution? I'm beginning to doubt it. Obama was a DSA member until 2003. I don't think he has changed his politics just because he gave up his membership to achieve national office. The DSA is about international socialism and equal distribution of wealth and resources across the world. Until they achieve power, they intend to press their agenda through legislation to the extent the American people will tolerate it. The Speaker of the House and at least 11 House committee members are present or former members of the DSA.
They are bailing their elite buddies, and the unions, and spending on increased welfare, and nationalizing health care, all in the name of economic recovery. It looks a lot more like fulfillment of the DSA's agenda than good economics. And as for Americans getting poorer, well, that's also as it should be as long as we don't start shooting.
As I said in a previous post, don't pay too much attention to the rhetoric, look at the legislation. The evidence is rolling in, and it's not looking good.
People look at me like I have two heads when I say stuff like this. They absolutely can't believe that such radicals are in charge. I wouldn't either, except that they publish it to the world on their own website. Why wouldn't we believe that they are trying to do exactly as they say?
You still haven't defined what a "DSA" is. Must be a very small group.
And all us neo-semi-bureaucratic-Scandinavian-democratic-socialists wouldn't have an economic leg to stand on today if the crypto-Republican fatheads (and Dodd and Frank) hadn't set us up for the worst economy since the Great Depression. Near-free credit for anyone and their dog, and asset bubbles everywhere you looked! I mean, you know how incompentent the conservatives/libertarians got with their "get government out of the way" nonsense and their "redistribute the wealth to the very rich" bullshit? They did SO BAD that we now have a BLACK president!!! That's how colossally delusional the right became! While socialism probably is not the solution, you guys deserve every tax increase that lands on your heads.
Oh, by the way, Mr. Rogers' commodity fund is still closed to new investors, but it should be opened again eventually, and a brokerage in Chicago, were I am, is the only place to get into it. :) (or just invest in the Rogers TRAKRS)
Bureaucrat:
Scandanavian Socialism is funded entirely by North Sea Oil.
Wanna see its future? GO visit Iceland.
Coal Guy:
I am starting to believe that you are essentially correct... though I am disappointed to admit it.
Greg,
I do think that Obama is basically a decent man, although he comes off a bit cocky considering the soup his country is in. I just don't like his politics.
Bureaucrat,
You don't see me defending the Republicans. If they weren't so rotten, Obama wouldn't have stood a chance. Most of this is more of a basic lack of morals and character across the political spectrum than left or right. Both sides are big into supporting their constituencies at the expense of the common good. It is just plain rotten at the top. Overall, we're quickly becoming a socialist police state. Both sides of the aisle have contributed. Do you hear anybody complaining?
Regards,
Coal Guy
Amen, Coal Guy. Amen.
If we are becoming a "police state," you might want to tell the cops that. Here in Chicago, the relatively new police superintendent is hugely disliked by the street cops here, police hiring has now stopped because of the city budget issues (for the same reasons as every other city), and while they have a dozen+ of these big, beautiful new "paddy wagon" trucks parked at one of the districts downtown, I doubt they have anywhere to put the people they do pick up. :) A police state is expensive!
Post a Comment