QUESTION: Why do nearly 40% of billionaires drop out of school? It seems like the most successful people are all dropouts. Would you explain why?

• Bill Gates
• Steve Jobs
• Mark Zuckerberg
• Rush Limbaugh
• Ralph Lauren
• Steve Madden
• Rachael Ray
• Coco Chanel

ANSWER: Very simple. Formal education is incapable of teaching creativity. This is why there is the old saying, “A students work for C students, and B students work for the government.” Formal education is merely the way we perpetuate mistakes from one generation to another. Even Albert Einstein ended up with an HONORARY degree in science. Albert was trained as a teacher in physics and mathematics. In 1901, he gained his diploma but was unable to find a teaching post. Einstein took a position as a technical assistant in the Swiss Patent Office. By mid-1905, he was awarded his PhD in physics when he had published four seminal papers (they would later be known as the annus mirabilis papers), which established special relativity, the existence of atoms, and the photoelectric effect. It then took until 1915 before he published his General Theory of Relativity. But he did this work on his own. Albert received honorary doctorate degrees in science, medicine, and philosophy from many European and American universities.

The difference between Einstein and economics is rather simple. Physics is a subject-based upon proof. Economics is a social science and has nothing to do with proof. What I have found is that less than 20% of CFOs in major companies have any degree in economics. They say 37% have MBAs, but I have encountered more with degrees in engineering than economics. The degrees these days are becoming worth less and less because they are certifications from institutions and teachers who have no real-world experience.

In truth, rarely do you find someone other than a doctor or lawyer doing what they have a degree in. This is why degrees have become worthless for many companies no longer even require a degree for that has no bearing upon your skill set. I hated economics in school for it made no sense and it was all about manipulating society with competing theories. I enjoyed physics for it was not subject to random theories that sounded nice (i.e. Marx & Keynes).

I find it curious that I ended up in economics ONLY because I was a trader who really specialized in foreign exchange. That specialty caused me to be called in during financial crises because they still do not teach foreign exchange in schools. It is also what brought Milton Friedman to come to listen to me at a Market Technician’s conference in Chicago. Milton explained to me that I was doing only what he had dreamed of back in 1953 of how the world would work under a floating exchange rate system.

When I was 13, my family took me to Europe for the summer. We traveled from Sweden down to Italy. Traveling through all those countries and having to constantly change currencies taught me about the foreign exchange at a very early age. I grew up understanding FOREX, and when 1971 came and the floating exchange rate began, my own experiences came into play. By the time the first bank failures appeared by 1974 due to currency fluctuations, I was asked to help. There were no formal classes in foreign exchange and there still are none today. One had to abandon economic analysis which is domestically focused and adopt an international view.

In the summer of 1985, this is when the Plaza Accord took place that created the G5 with the intent to manipulate the dollar lower. I was called in because expertise in foreign exchange was not something you went to school to get a degree in. This was a new subject and they had to turn to people in the real world, not academia.

I warned that such manipulation would lead to a crash in two years. The presidential commission to investigate the 1987 Crash had to call me in.

I was called in to testify about international economics and the impact of taxes and foreign exchange on July 18, 1996.

In May 1997, again, the Treasury under Robert Rubin was back at it and talking the dollar down while engaging in trade disputes. Again, I warned not to do this and again the Treasury had to respond.

My own personal career has been built upon experience. There are no degrees in hedge management any more than there are degrees to be the head of the country, no less run for Congress.

So why do a major percentage of successful businessmen not have degrees? There is no degree that teaches them to be creative. All great innovations are NEVER taught. They come only from those who are CURIOUS and question the status quo. This is why A students indeed work for C students or dropouts, because the A student accepts the status quo and teachers love that. When teachers are questioned and challenged, they typically are hostile and give lower marks to students who do not blindly accept what they say. Thus, it is not always because someone is stupid that they get the C or dropout. They do not accept the status quo. This is where ALL innovation comes from. It does not come from the A student who surrenders to the status quo, but from the dropouts or C students. As Einstein said, it is curiosity which is so essential to innovation.

Hence, degrees have become far less important today than ever before. Despite the fact that Einstein was given a degree, he studied and reasoned on his own. There is a growing list of companies no longer requiring any degree which includes Google, Apple, and the accounting firm Ernst & Young.

Anyone who thinks a degree is necessary to be even a fund manager, good luck on that. It is the track record that matters, not a degree since there are no such degrees in how to be a hedge fund manager. I was never named hedge fund manager of the year in 1998 because of a degree — it was based solely on performance.

Some people have actually asked did the government buy the entire printing to prevent people from reading this book? No. Apparently this has been the fastest selling book ever on Amazon. What we have determined is that there were many people who purchased several copies to hand out as gifts. One client said he bought five copies and sent them to politicians he knew.

We will publish a Third Edition and add a reference index to the back and perhaps provide an update with the Impeachment and the events for year end. We will have this out before the end of January and we will double the edition size. We are approaching a million viewers worldwide now in 137 different countries to our various websites so we obviously underestimated the demand.

QUESTION: Dear Amstrong,

Thank you for all the training you have been teaching us for years. Even though I have gone through 3 universities and have special titles in economics and finance, only after accompanying you for these 15 years, I could understand a little of the true world in which we live.

I have two points that I would like you to please update us on. One about the serious problems in emerging economies that you have been constantly warning us about and the other about the real estate market in which you anticipated it would only gain momentum after 2032 according to your cycle chart attached.

About the BRICs I am seeing the Brazilian economy making a major restructuring in public spending, decreasing social security spending and other measures that have improved the accounts and greatly increased confidence. Millions of dollars are flowing into real estate with an appetite I haven’t seen in a long time. What is your opinion about these flows? Will real estate grow vigorously or not? I see that funds like Blackstone etc …. are creating thousands of funds for real estate. Are we going to have now another boom in real estate in Brasil and all world? How does this fit in with your constant predictions and analyzes?
You have been predicting that the capital available to finance new homes would decrease but I see it has been growing absurdly.

You have repeatedly stated that low-interest rates for a long time were destroying pension funds. However, I do not see USA popular uprising after 11 years with rates close to zero which combined with hidden inflation certainly lost more than half of purchasing power.

I see Brazil obsessed with lowering the interest rate more and more on the grounds that it will stimulate the economy. I found that this drop in rates boosted real estate sales. Certainly capital is seeking better rates of return in real estate than in the bank.

How do these “apparent” divergences confront your analysis and predictions?

Thank you for your continued help. Please help me get out of this big conflict in my head between the real world that  I am seeing and your statements.

SP

ANSWER: There is a huge difference between lowering the interest rate in a third world economy that has risen sharply because of a lack of confidence and lowering interest rates artificially to below zero. Interest rates follow a bell curve. They are NOT linear. Raising interest rates to stop inflation is the first part of the curve. If capital loses confidence in a country, then the economy turns down and interest rates rise because of risk. This was the position of Brazil. You are also making the PRESUMPTION that the efforts in Brazil WILL BE successful simply because that is their public opinion. There has been no Bull Reversal election on a monthly level in the Brazilian bond markets so you are talking about anticipation.

The Central Bank of Brazil voted unanimously to trim its key Selic rate by 50 bps to 4.50% during its December meeting. It was the fourth consecutive rate cut bringing borrowing costs to its lowest on record. This Keynesian economics plan is neither negative nor experimental as the negative rates in Europe and Japan. Brazil is lowering rates because of the global economic slowdown in HOPES that it will help the domestic economy recover (which it has not just yet). Brazil is NOT following Europe, and that said, any further lowering of rates will be data-dependent. The peak in rates was 45% back in March of 1999, and a record low of 4.50% in December of 2019. You seem to have a lot of faith in central banks being able to manipulate the economy. That is your conflict. You believe them too much.

The average person in the USA is not going to rise up because of pensions until it starts impacting more people. Up to now, the bulk of the pension crisis has been in the public sector. It has begun to spread to some large companies. If you expect everyone to start rioting before it even hits them, I think you are being unrealistic. Major companies are already freezing pensions, but this is impacting unions so far. For the first time, you have organizations forming because of pension freezes. Illinois is going bankrupt because its supreme court ruled they cannot renegotiate public pensions. There has been an open discussion that they should just dissolve Illinois because they cannot default on the pensions. CALPERS of California has politicians looking to usurp all private pension in California and hand them to CALPERS to save public pensions. CALPERS has been lobbying in Washington for such authority to seize even 401K plans of private individuals. There are many starting to look at CALPERS, they have dubbed the pension fund that ate California.

Real estate is a LEVERAGED market in many economies. Each market will depend upon what extent the real estate is leveraged. The problem is that real estate has is this dependency upon bank lending. If banks refuse to lend long-term, then real estate collapses to the degree of leverage. The average market remains well below the 2007 high. The high-end market rallied in particular areas where foreign capital was moving in to escape places elsewhere. So you saw new highs in Vancouver, Miami, New York, LA, and London just to mention a few. This was not the trend outside of those cities in the regional markets. So do not confuse the regional centers with the targets of foreign capital high-end sectors. Also, you better understand the leverage. The critical factor is that when confidence in the long-term collapses, banks will not lend long-term so to sell a place will require a cash buyer. I just had a friend who bought a place that had been sold for $7 million in 2007, which he bought at auction for $2.6 million because there were no buyers in a regional market.

Buying up real estate for cash in these BRICS is all currency based. I have explained that in 1985, when the British pound fell to $1.03, the Americans were buying up everything for the country was on sale like at Harrods. The Brits thought we were crazy for paying high prices in pounds. But the foreign investors were coming in with dollars. This will be the same in the BRICS as the dollar moves even higher. It is the real estate markets in USA and Europe where taxes are rising and lending will become questionable. Not cash deals in the BRICS.

The attempts of Brazil to reform are in line with the Economic Confidence Model turn on January 18, 2020. The next cycle should be one where commodities begin to rise mainly between 2022 and 2024.

The unannounced meeting between the Fed and Trump was a briefing on the Repo Crisis BECAUSEthe real crisis cannot be discussed publicly. I have not been getting much sleep lately. This is a very serious crisis and all the BS on TV of these pretend analysts giving their two cents is really amazing. They are making up stuff and speculating because they have no idea how the global economy truly functions and they do not advise institutions. They do not understand the risks for year-end and calling this QE proves they do not understand what is taking place.

There are too many people trying to sound authoritative when they are clueless. Yet they seem to have to say something to pretend they know what is going on when all they are doing is creating confusion. We have more institutional clients around the globe on every side than anyone would imagine. We are in the front row with real live clients in the middle of this issue.

I appreciate the severity of this crisis. Requests to attend board meetings I have only been available by phone. I simply cannot fly all over the place. I really wish I could just come out and spill the beans, but this situation is too critical at this point and I fear that if someone does not blink here, we are headed into a global political contagion.

This is why a deal had to be tentatively arranged with China on trade. There are politicians out of the loop and this whole thing which is way too far above their heads to even grasp an understanding.

QUESTION #1: Would you comment on Zoltan Pozsar of Credit Suisse calling this QE4 for year-end.

QUESTION #2: Martin,

You said that the Fed didn’t raise rates a few days ago because the Repo crisis won’t let them. Interestingly, Trump hasn’t blasted Fed chairman Powell for not lowering rates more over the past few weeks. Do you think Trump is aware that the Fed can’t lower and that’s why he’s hasn’t attacked Powell lately on Twitter? Perhaps Powell told Trump the Repo situation in their Nov. 18th unannounced meeting.

Jack

ANSWER: I do not know if Pozsar is being too caviler with his comments or if he’s deliberately trying to spread disinformation. This is by no means a “fourth version of quantitative easing” when the US economy remains strong and the Fed has acknowledged that fact. It does seem to me that he is trying to deflect people from looking at Europe and pointing his finger at the Fed. The Fed is compelled to be the man in the middle because banks have withdrawn from lending to banks because they do not know who has the risk with Europe. The US Treasury stated it is investigating the over-regulation by the BIS, which has impacted the repo market. The Fed is trying to control short-term rates and this has NOTHING to do with “stimulating” the economy. The BIS has impacted the regulation with Basel III, which the BIS will not accept responsibility.

Calling this Repo Crisis QE is up there with calling Trump a racist because of his wall. Yet, Mexican is not a “race” any more than being American, German, Greek, Italian, Spanish, or British. The term is ethnicity, not race. This is not Quantitative Easing, which is lowering interest rates and stimulating the economy. The Fed is trying to prevent short-term rates from rising because there is a liquidity crisis created by banks refusing to participate in the repo market.

The suggestion that the Fed will have to move to long-term bonds fails to understand what is taking place. I cannot imagine that any banker would make such a statement. They either do not know what the repo market is or they are trying to create disinformation to protect Europe. This is very curious.

I believe the White House has been briefed on the crisis and it has also impacted the China trade negotiations.