Why Grantham Says the Next Crash Will Rival 1929, 2000

[Music] i'm eric schatzker and welcome to bloomberg's front row today i'm talking to jeremy grantham the revered value investor and co-founder of boston's gmo in the dying days of the trump administration jeremy warned u.s stocks are in a bubble of epic proportions now he worries more stimulus to fight the coven 19 pandemic will only inflate the bubble further and no amount of fed liquidity can stop it from bursting this is a monetary gain and you can keep these little monetary bubbles going for just so long as long as you keep confidence rising but when confidence is reached these levels the history books are pretty clear it's very difficult to increase your enthusiasm from a state of mild hysteria where we are today jeremy and i covered a range of timely topics what happens when the market finally cracks the right way to invest in a zero rate world how president biden can fix the market and help the economy why there's a crisis in american capitalism here's my conversation with jeremy grantham jeremy it's good to see you good to see you you believe that the bull market that started in march of 2009 the longest bull market in history has matured into a speculative fever of rare proportions in your words a fully fledged epic bubble tell me more it would be surprising if you could have one that long that didn't end up with uh animal spirits uh beginning to freak out a bit and this one has normally it takes a a nearly perfect economy and friendly uh fred be fed behavior but this one has managed to do it with a somewhat wounded economy on a global basis and to compensate for that we've had even more spectacular fed friendliness and government friendliness so we've had for once the joining of fiscal spending with the with the vets behavior and the usual moral hazard that has been going on for since greenspan arrived in in the 90s and and the result of this is the confidence has risen and risen until finally people are reaching for the greatest demonstration of confidence they have had in their investment career they're borrowing more money to throw it into the market their belief in the market is profound the common wisdom is that with the fed on your side how can you lose when they first said that back in greenspan there were a few doubters when they said it with bernanke there were less doubters but some and now finally there appear to be almost no doubters at all the belief is more or less complete that all it takes is the fed on your side and stocks will rise forever what are some of the signs we'll all look at with the clarity of hindsight and say of course it was a bubble if you want crazy ones and you need crazy by the way that's the best timing for a bubble top it's crazy behavior you look at the over-the-counter the trading i was big over-the-counter trader in a speculative bubble of 1969 i had almost forgotten there was a over the counter but they uh last february it traded about 80 million shares for the month and it worked its way steadily through the year until november uh was about 380. so it had gone up four times and and then in december it went to 1.15 trillion shares for the month having tripled it then tripled again in the single month of december i can't tell you what it's going to be in january but these are spectacular performances my my own uh stock in quantum scape it it came into the market at 10 and shot up to 130. at 130 it was bigger than general motors or panasonic and this is a a brilliant company but it has no trouble admitting that it won't be producing any batteries for four years so no sales no profits and bigger than gm there is nothing like that in 1929 nothing of that scale nothing like that in 2000 the ciscos of the world were pretty serious companies but they didn't they didn't get to this level 1929 of course ran into a great depression and global trade problems so you really just want to look at the first leg down which was big enough the analogy is much better with 2000 and 2000 it went down 50 percent and the reason it only went down 50 and and bounced back uh relatively quickly was was because the fed came charging in to the rescue and you can have a lot of rescues when you start at a 16 long government bond in 1982. you can have a bull market as you go down from 16 to 12 and another bull market from 12 to 8 and another bull market from eight to four but now you're down at two and a half or whatever you have to realize that most of the easy pickings of of saving the game by ramping rates down is behind us at the lowest rates in history you don't have a lot in the bank to throw on the table do you no at least it doesn't matter going by conventional monetary theory no that's right and and the idea that you know fundamentals the real world doesn't count all you need is money uh to generate real wealth i think most people can can feel is an illusion you can imagine a situation where you had a much more serious virus the economy really was on its knees and and the fed was obviously would be doing everything it could would that be enough uh to uh to save the system in the end the system is about the number of people working the amount of capital spending the the quality of education of your workforce that's the real world we're talking about the paper world and there's just so much blood you can get out of that would a bubble have formed absent the cova 19 pandemic it's the covid brought in spectacular excesses on the part of of the fed and the government writing checks and i say excesses perhaps it was necessary but in any case it was unprecedented and the combination was very powerful without covert we cannot know the market had resisted opportunities to bubble earlier in this 11-year cycle it looked like it was getting pretty close about three years ago and then it just kind of fizzled away the confidence dissipated the market had a decline and those bull markets can go on forever and you don't know how long and you don't know how high they can go the back of every bear's mind must surely be japan japan in 1989 managed to get to 65 times earnings it had never previously gone over 25 until that cycle so that is the thing that makes the bears wake up in the middle of the night sweating so you just don't know how long and how high a market can can go if you avoid the burst of euphoria it's the burst of euphoria that typically brings these things to an end and we are seeing it all around us today jeremy you recently called out tesla as emblematic of crazy investor behavior and there's no question that by any measure tesla's valuation is high and possibly extreme but i'm reminded of the experience of david einhorn for example or jim chanos anyone who has bet against elon musk has lived to regret it so far anyway well that would be the case when the stock is at its high right any stock at its high you could say that with a straight face and i suppose i i suppose i just did i guess what i'm getting at is um those shorts turned out to be painful because the stop kept going up going short is for a handful of superstar experts isn't it because you know when you go short you can not just lose your money you can lose multiples of your money at least when you're going long all you can do is lose what you put in you go short and you can get margin called uh into bankruptcy and a lot of people have done over over the years so uh my recommendation is do not do not go short individual stocks going short the market is painful enough on occasion but going short individual stocks is is for mugs and for the three or four people who are brilliant enough to get away with it as you've noted just because stocks are overpriced it doesn't mean that that a bubble if we're in one is necessarily about to pop what is to stop valuations from climbing even higher for years possibly put it this way when you have reached this level of obvious super enthusiasm the bubble has always without exception broken in the next few months not a few years it's always you can't maintain this level of near ecstasy it can't be done because you've put in your last dollar you are all in what are you supposed to do beyond that point you can't borrow any more money you can't take any more risk in fact you know in your heart of hearts you have never taken this level of risk and you never thought you would it's just that this opportunity is so exceptional this is going to be your once in a lifetime okay and and how do you keep that level of enthusiasm going indefinitely what if it's not your money what if it's the fed's money what if it's the treasury's money yeah no that that of course is a very good point and you can never call a bubble to a few weeks or even a few months and if the government is going to write unprecedentedly large checks to some of the players in the market but then indeed their all-in position can can expand one last desperate notch and the the sad truth of a lot of the quote stimulus is that it didn't increase uh capital spending um it didn't increase much in the way of of real production but it flowed a lot of it eventually into the market one way or the other and i have no doubt uh some of this new round of stimulus will and if it's as big as they talk about this would be a very good making of a top for the market just of the kind that the history books would enjoy and we will have a few weeks of extra money and a few weeks of putting your last desperate chips into the game and then an even more spectacular bust the market is going to end up as we know where it is going to end up and all the paper in the world will not change the level that is justified by the flow of dividends and earnings that is after all the only thing you can end up eating is the flow of dividends and sooner or later the stock market will once again boring boring sell on the future flow of dividends and that is not going to be changed materially by the size of the check we get in the next few weeks jeremy even some of the skeptics were awed by the power the fed displayed back in march in a single day with a single announcement on march the 23rd it was able to engineer a revival of the credit market and ultimately a spectacular rebound in stocks and those same people wonder if the fed could prevent a bear market collapse then why can't it through whatever means it conjures up prevent a bear market collapse now if you go back to before the covet what you see is we have lost considerable strength in the economy we have fewer people working and we have a a reduced stream of goods and services and yet the price is much higher so if you believe in market efficiency which is wrong was it wrong before or is it wrong now but is it really justified that we have delivered a serious wound to the global economy and the global stock market has gone way up it doesn't feel right i think we all know that this is a monetary game and you can keep these little monetary bubbles going for just so long as long as you keep confidence rising but when confidence has reached these levels the history books are pretty clear it's very difficult to increase your enthusiasm from a state of mild hysteria where we are today there are many arguments for why current valuations are appropriate even conservative i suspect you've considered them all they range from discounting future cash flows at a lower rate to reach for yield by institutions that have targets to meet to the difficulty of modeling modern businesses i take it jeremy you find none of these arguments the slightest bit persuasive you know i've been around to see a 16 30-year bond uh and i now see it or whatever it is two and a half and and we've seen real rates um in 2000 real rates on the tips was 4.1 4.2 real guaranteed forever and now they're nothing of course they're negative and the negative all over the world and and what you're doing there for is you're saying we've got an artificial interest rate structure clearly artificial that has been driven down all over the world into negative territory uh 20 of government bonds have a negative real return and we're going to use that as a yardstick we're going to say stocks are cheap because they are less utterly ludicrous than a 30-year bond or cash which is deeply negative this is not typically the way you measure things by taking a ludicrously mispriced comparison and that's what we're doing makes people feel happy it doesn't make me feel happy jeremy if you're right and we're on the cusp of the bursting of an epic bubble is now the time to as they say sell everything i suspect selling everything would work out just fine however having said that there are major discrepancies as there were in 2000 between the u.s tech um which is overpriced the same as it was in 2000 and everything else so the value stocks um the low growth stocks if you prefer it are about as cheap relative to the high growth stocks as they ever get so they will not have the same pain but they're still at risk to some degree i suspect the good news is that overseas they have not had this same huge bull market and the same overpricing that we have had and that and that of course is a heaven-sent opportunity because you can go out into the emerging markets and they are absolutely not that expensive despite the ridiculous argument of comparisons with a overpriced bond market they're simply not that bad anyway and compared to the s p they're as cheap as they have ever been about they've been this cheap two or three times and each time it's worked out very well so you can buy emerging markets and you can look at the intersection of those two ideas which is the low growth stocks or the value stocks within the merging and they are handsomely priced you should be able to make a really decent 10 20 year return there you will not make a handsome 10 or 20 year return from u.s growth stocks there is in the end a simple arithmetic the higher you big bid up the price of an asset the lower the long-term return you will get there is nothing you can do to change that equation every day the market goes higher you know only one thing with certainty that the long-term return will be less than it was the day before jeremy growth stocks have over the course of the bull market outperformed value stocks by almost 400 basis points what if after the bubble pops growth is still ahead and there is no redemption for the value investor what happens if that happens then there'll be a lot of sad value managers now the question is will it happen and it would be historically unprecedented with that to happen i'm pretty certainly will not however having said that let me say one thing about value um i have no confidence and have not had any for over 20 years in price to book and pe and price cash flow price of sales even as a measure of true value a measure of true value is the long-term discounted value of the future stream of dividends a growth stock is of course worth a higher ratio of this that and the other than the low growth stock but that doesn't mean they can't be overpriced so value should be cheap for what you are you should build in the growth you should build in the quality and if it's overpriced it's overpriced but to use a simple-minded measure of book is a crazy idea a cheap book is the market's vote on the worst assets out there in the marketplace the lowest pe is the market's vote on the worst earnings most likely to be overstated or downgraded and the same with yield it's the markets vote of the most likely to be cut these have no business being a good indicator of future performance besides cash and value and emerging market stocks is there anywhere else for an investor to hide i'm also worried by the way about inflation it if you think you live in a world where output doesn't matter and you can just create paper sooner or later you're going to do the impossible and that is bring back inflation you know that we haven't seen for 20 years and and you keep it up on a global basis you will you will have inflation and and i can't help but notice that around the world the commodity prices of all of all kinds really but particularly critical uh food and and critical metals are going up and if you have that happening and you have a rapidly declining growth rate in in the workforce um towards zero and negative uh you were really set up for this time is different so we are not just in in a bubble market but we're looking at a global economy that is at an inflection point uh to turn down in in long-term growth rate so this is this is a bad time to be caught uh over speculating what is the right way to allocate irrespective of the bubble what is the right way to allocate in a world of zero rates stimulus ad fin item declining productivity the potential for inflation and the list goes on yeah first of all very difficult secondly of course diversify it's always a huge advantage and thirdly amazingly the low growth stocks in in the emerging market world are are perfectly reasonable if you if you need to own stocks and and most people do that would be a perfectly good way to go and i also think shares that benefit from the greening of the economy will do much better than the rest anything to do with renewable energy the electrification of the system electric cars etc these are all going to have top-line revenues that dwarf the declining growth rate of the rest of the of the global economy it will take trillions of dollars to to decarbonize the global system it will dominate everyone's portfolio and if you have to own u.s stocks they're the ones to own and look around for for a good climate change fund i'm happy to say gmo has one and and they're doing very well now that the focus is clearly uh finally took 20 years to wake up but in the last year people really are beginning to understand the size of the problem and the need to move money uh in into greening the economy jeremy you've invested in gold before do you see any promise as a growing number of investors do in bitcoin or other forms of cryptocurrency what what is the future value of of the dividend stream of bitcoin i can tell you that that doesn't take a prize-winning mathematician it is nil um it will never pay you a dividend if you're desperate can you eat it no you can't its entire value is on the greater full uh is it not so bitcoin could be worth a million dollars a unit if you can find someone to pay it so could we say the same about gold it doesn't generate any a dividend stream there are two things you can't eat it either yeah that should give you a measure of restraining your enthusiasm for gold granted but gold has had the odd 12 000 year test which is passed pretty well and bitcoin has got a few years to go yet to catch up and secondly gold does have some fallback qualities um it doesn't tarnish uh it's unique in that sense everything that was ever made of gold is still around and that's a pretty handy characteristic that bitcoin also lacks so i would say yes i'm nervous about gold because i can't eat it and because it pays no dividend but it has two wicked advantages over bitcoin bitcoin is 100 faith and come the next market phase where faith is at a minimum what do we think will happen to a stark whose entire reason for existence is faith and nothing but faith jeremy you and your partners at gmo are willing to lose assets in the conviction that you'll be proven right what's the incentive for publicly traded asset managers firms with trillions in assets to test clients patients if the outcome might not be known for years this is the easiest question of the day they have no incentive it makes no commercial sense at all for them to attempt to warn the clients of impending do ever it is terrible business to blow the whistle on a major bull market if you're a commercial enterprise you make your money by having the bubble keep going so let me ask you this who or what do you hold most responsible for the excesses of the present mania i ironically i i'm tempted to say alan greenspan only because he set us on this course of talking and and acting along the lines of moral hazard he he bragged that he had contributed to the strength of the economy through the wealth effect there is indeed a wealth effect if you have the market double three or four percent of that gets spent and helps the economy uh he was right and he bragged about it and then following him that bernanke bragged about it uh that he they had contributed uh to the health of the economy and they have and now the fed also brags that it has done its part and it's helped encourage the economy through through high asset prices all of it's true the bad news however is we live in a world that is in the end a real world of people and production and in the end therefore despite alan greenspan's enormous willingness to create a new permanent golden era of productivity et cetera et cetera the the s p still came down 50 and the nasdaq still burst and went down 82 despite his fanatical uh interest in moral hazards and helping out stock market prices the point is they did not brag of the negative effect of the market mean reverting back to normal it comes in at just the time you don't need it and it sucks out of the economy a negative wealth effect and as it will this time should the binding administration take steps to curb speculation in financial markets or rein in spax perhaps or robin hood yeah they should but they won't that's easy spikes are completely should be a completely illegitimate instrument they're just an excuse for people with reputation and marginal ethics to um to raise a lot of money take 20 percent of it for themselves for a quick dash around the country for six months and a complete rip-off in the sense that the professional hedge funds then always liquidate before taking any real risk and take the premium that they can get and a few warrants and leaving the half of the marketplace that retains it who put their money up on aggregate with a very bad return of course they'll make some money in in the late stages of the bubble but if you look at the first six years they have a handsomely sub-average return for taking all the risk no they don't have enough legal requirements enough restraints enough checking they're they're a thoroughly reprehensible instrument in my opinion and should be disallowed they they should of course reform the ipo the ipo is a license to reward the fidelities of the world at the open you could do better than that direct listing made a little easier would be the way to go but spikes are terrible you've become a big believer in green investing jeremy i'd like to know more about the story behind quantum scape the battery maker you invested in and which somewhat ironically went public via a spack merger it's full of ironies um and i i hated spikes long before i i found myself owning one uh but it wasn't just owning one it was owning slightly the biggest investment of my life and um one that's made you hundreds of millions of dollars as i understand it well a whole lot less now the stock has come down from 130 to uh to 54 in in a month which is by the way a typical precursor of a bubble breaking if you're looking for the very early warning signs of a bubble breaking you find the stocks that have done the best spax and and particular specs and tesla and and bitcoin and and you wait until they start to have these big daily drops and then they recover and they drop and they recover uh and and that's the very early warning and the market in 2000 for example didn't go together they took out the pet.coms and shot them the rest of the market continued to go up it didn't even gain to notice the shooting of those little guys they were only worth scores of millions or a couple hundred million then they took out the junior growth stocks and shot them and the market kept going up and then they took the medium growth stocks and shot them and and finally by the summer they were shooting the cisco's and the entire tech part of the market had been shot and that had been 30 at the market peak of the total market cap and yet the s p by september was at the co-equal high of march which meant that the other 70 had continued to rise so that is a typical way bubbles don't necessarily break on mass but having having sliced off the tech and and the dot coms at the end then finally the 70 like a giant iceberg rolled over on mass for 70 percent and went down for two and a half years uh by 50 percent you've been concerned and written about the state of economic inequality for years tell me what do you think is the right way to correct it i i think the the nurturing of moral hazard uh and and management through monetary policy as opposed to fiscal policy has been um dreadful for income inequality because by pushing up asset prices you do two things you make it difficult to impossible for people to get on on into the game the purchase of the house is just too expensive the purchase of anything in stocks uh is a much higher a per unit of of uh dividend or yield than it was so that's brutal secondly the compounding the long-term compounding of wealth is is reduced if you have a six percent yield on your re on your assets you can by reinvesting that you can double your money in 12 years if you turn it into a three percent yield by doubling the price um yeah you you're worth more on paper but in real life you only eat the dividends and now they're three percent a year and you double your money in 24 years so in 48 years you're down to a quarter of what you would have been and and so on and the gap becomes ruinously wide in other words the higher the asset price the lower the rate at which you can compound wealth and if you're not on the game you're not in the game you're a beginner you you can have great difficulty ever getting into that game and by definition it means that the rich get richer as you price down uh the the yield and you mark up asset prices and and the poor get squeezed because you're not creating any real value you're not creating more production and government spending is quite different if we can have instead of writing checks to everybody if you can write checks for infrastructure particularly green infrastructure you're killing two birds with one stone you're doing necessary investing and decarbonizing the economy that if you don't do maybe such a shock in as little as 20 or 30 years that it begins to destabilize the global system of civilization it becomes unstable you have to do it and you turn it into a virtue because many of the areas have a high societal return if you put in an efficient grid everybody benefits if you put in well-insulated homes in every cold area of the country the society makes a huge return we use less energy these are handsome returns at the societal level how do you go wrong by doing more of that and less buying of of chinese stuffed dogs so i i certainly hope that the incoming administration will have a continuous strong public spending program emphasized at repairing bridges and roads that is fine but doing a green infrastructure wins solar storage research training retraining of people for green jobs and and all the tens of trillions of dollars we need to spend get it done it has a high return in the end it may save our baker i've heard you say american capitalism is too fat and happy too conservative too monopolistic is american capitalism in crisis yeah it's not the crisis that comes over a weekend it's a kind of rolling crisis that starts very slowly bit like bankruptcy very slowly at first and then maybe or very quickly at the end but this has been going on since the mid 60s which was the sweet spot of american capitalism and the social contract by the way a corporation in the mid 60s felt it had responsibilities to its workers it was on the cusp of starting a a nice pension fund a defined benefit it didn't have to do that but it did and it was a very generous well-constructed important program and and it felt it had responsibilities to the city it it was working in the state and and and of course the federal the country all of that has largely gone but it didn't go overnight it drifted slowly away in the 70s particularly in the 80s and 90s and milton friedmanism he has a lot to ask for you know the idea that the only social responsibility of a corporation is to maximize profits it's a terrible business formula uh we believe at gmo anyway but it's a shockingly a moral a way to run anything and we treat corporations as if they are individuals and they have a lot of individual rights which which is uh ludicrous in my opinion but we do but if you look at milton friedmanism at the corporate level that's sociopathic by any definition if you say as an individual my only interest is to maximize my advantages which is what they say at the corporate level you're a sociopath for heaven's sake and and and we are not as individuals like that a lot of us do the odd altruistic act and um and those odd altruistic acts are incredibly important in the long run that a few people uh hopefully like biden come out of the woodwork and set a good set a good example and lead um that's the difference between an autocracy in the end and a healthy democracy jeremy i want to thank you very much for taking this time to talk to me no it's a pleasure thank you for having me [Music]

Channel: Bloomberg Markets and Finance

Views: 3,630,418

Rating: 4.6986032 out of 5

Keywords: Bloomberg

Id: RYfmRTyl56w

Length: 38min 25sec (2305 seconds)

Published: Fri Jan 22 2021

Reddit Comments

[u/Wizofsorts]

Someone says this every year. They become legend when they're right. Most of the time they're wrong.

[u/pbyte]

I'm not sure how many people watched the full interview here, but I thought that the most interesting parts of this had little to do with any kind of concrete prediction of a looming crash. Here's a bit of the discussion towards the end of the interview:

Interviewer: You’ve been concerned, and written about, the state of economic inequality for years. Tell me—what do you think is the right way to correct it?

Grantham: I think that the nurturing of moral hazard and management through monetary policy as opposed to fiscal policy has been dreadful for income inequality. Because by pushing up asset prices you do two things: you make it difficult to impossible for people to get into the game (the purchase of a house is just too expensive, the purchase of anything in stocks is much higher per unit of dividend or yield than it was). So that’s brutal. Secondly, the compounding, the long-term compounding of wealth is reduced. If you have a 6% yield on your assets, you can, by re-investing that, you can double your money in twelve years. If you turn it into a three percent yield by doubling the price, yeah you’re worth more on paper but you only eat the dividends and now they’re only 3% a year and you double your money in twenty-four years. So in 48 years you’re down to a quarter of what you would have been. And so on. And the gap becomes ruinously wide. In other words, the higher the asset price, the lower the rate at which you can compound wealth. And if you’re not in the game, you’re a beginner, you can have a great difficulty ever getting into that game. And by definition it means that the rich get richer as you price down the yield and you mark up asset prices, and the poor get squeezed because you’re not creating any real value, you’re not creating more production. And government spending is quite different. If we can have, instead of writing checks to everybody, if you can write checks for infrastructure, particularly green infrastructure, you’re killing two birds with one stone. You’re doing necessary investing—decarbonizing the economy—that if you don’t may be such a shock that in as little as twenty or thirty years it begins to destabilize the global system of civilization. It becomes unstable. You have to do it. And you turn it into a virtue because many of the areas have a high societal return. If you put in an efficient grid, everybody benefits. If you put in well-insulated homes in every cold area of the country, the society makes a huge return—we use less energy. These are handsome returns…

[u/jz187]

It's very unlikely that we have a crash like 1929. The main reason is that the Fed today is not the Fed of 1929. Far more likely than a stock market crash is a currency crisis.

The US has had many stock market crashes in the past, Americans know how to deal with stock market crashes. What the US has little experience with is a currency crisis. The set of policies necessary to deal with an emerging market style currency crisis will come as a massive shock to Americans.

[u/rustynosebleed]

This guy is an asshole. Fed reserve pumps trillions into the market for 10 months and he’s blaming retail investors for over valuations. Go fuck urself. Must be nice to have lived in a time where u can be that stupid/out-of-touch with reality and still get to be a billionaire

[u/SteveSharpe]

I can tell who actually watched the video by the comments here. The title of the video is pretty misleading to what is actually talked about.

He does at one point signal that he thinks a large correction is only months away, but the rest of the conversation is more about the long-term implications of what is happening today.

For those who say “why doesn’t he short if he’s so sure of it?”, he addresses this by saying that shorting carries way too much risk because you can be correct in the long run but still lose more than 100% of your committed capital by being wrong in the short run.

His main thesis is that starting with Greenspan we created this idea that the Fed can basically juice the bull market forever and assets increase in price forever. He talks about how we juiced a bull market by taking rates from 16 to 12, then another one by taking them from 12 to 8, and another from 8 to 4, and now essentially nothing. So his argument is that they are running out of tools to artificially prop up the system.

I don’t particularly agree with the thought that this artificial market we’ve created over the course of 40 years needs to explode in a single incident. Grantham sometimes says this, but then occasionally in the video reverts to the more reasonable opinion that the end result is just a much more difficult way to compound wealth in American capitalism.

If asset prices are pushed to such a level that they yield very little, then it’s much more difficult to buy in now and compound your gains by reinvesting the returns (there is no yield to reinvest). This works out okay for those who already own a lot of assets. It works out poorly for those who are just starting out.

Maybe ultimately the big trigger for popping the bubble is when inequality reaches such a level where it can no longer be sustained. I think we’re more than a few months away from that moment, but Grantham thinks it’s sooner.

[u/saml01]

People like him are looking to blame the retail investor because it's easy, it's in the news, but the public are too laymen to understand any better so it works. The shitty part is people like him can pay off the media to keep blaming the retail investor. I want to know how much Cramer gets paid to blame WSB. Most people dont understand it's a show.

[u/sport1987]

I respect Jeremy Grantham a lot and he has the track record to show on having spotted other bubbles in the past.

Seth Klarman has also been alerting recently about a bubble in the market and I find it appalling how the comments of such successful investors has been met with so much scorn.

To me, it seems as just another sign (among so many others) that we are indeed in a stock market bubble.

[u/v248565]

In the end these wise old owls(Jeremy, Buffett, mungar, Bogle and Sir John Templeton) will be right. Unfortunately it very hard to call a absolute top and until it tops out lots of people think the know it all.

[u/ytts]

Can somebody tell me when it's going to happen so I can exit my positions at the right time. Thanks in advance.