It is painful to listen to Kevin O’Leary (to steal his own phrase) go on show after show on CBC’s The Lang & O’Leary Exchange recommending that investors focus on stock markets in emerging markets that are growing rapidly. Mr. O’Leary likes to say that he wants to put his money in countries that have high GDP growth rates such as China and India, not developed markets in North America and Europe that have anemic growth. Mr. O’Leary should stop confusing economic growth with stock market returns and brush up on the vast quantities of academic research out there that shows that, if anything, the correlation between GDP growth and equity returns is negative:

Thick as a BRIC by William Bernstein

You don’t have to go cross-eyed with regression analyses to convince yourself; a few anecdotes tell the story. During the twentieth century, England went from being the world’s number one economic and military power to an overgrown outdoor theme park, and yet it still sported some of the world’s highest equity returns between 1900 and 2000. On the other hand, during the past quarter century Malaysia, Korea, Thailand and, of course, China have simultaneously had some of the world’s highest economic growth rates and lowest stock returns.

Under the ‘Emerging’ Curtain by Jason Zweig

Based on decades of data from 53 countries, Prof. Dimson has found that the economies with the highest growth produce the lowest stock returns — by an immense margin. Stocks in countries with the highest economic growth have earned an annual average return of 6%; those in the slowest-growing nations have gained an average of 12% annually.

What Does a Good Economy Really Mean For Your Portfolio by Larry Swedroe

University of Florida professor Jay Ritter found that the correlation of GNP growth and stock returns for 16 countries was actually negative. He says “whether future economic growth is high or low in a given country has little to do with future equity returns in that country.”

Growth in China, India and Brazil Might Not Mean Great Investment Returns by Larry Swedroe

Dimson notes that investors chasing returns in rapidly growing countries are “paying a price that reflects the growth that everybody can see.”

This article has 46 comments

  1. Germany’s GDP growth in 2003, 2004 and 2005 was 0.9%, 2.4% and 1.4% respectively which is fairly flat. However, the German stocks returned 38%, 8% and 28% in those three years. Japan’s GDP growth was 1.3% in 2005 but Japanese stocks rose 45%.

    The myth that the stocks in countries with strong GDP growth will increase in price accordingly is easily busted.

    If you want to bust another myth, consider what the implications are of rising interest rates for stocks. I have an entry on my blog that provides charts of US stock markets and corresponding interest rates. From 1992 to 1995, interest rates rose and so did the stock markets. Likewise from 2003 to 2007.

    Stock prices move with supply and demand. If you think that predicting the medium term path of stocks is as simple as considering GDP growth or interest rate moves you are sadly mistaken. If that wasn’t the case, economists wouldn’t be doing such a good job of making weather forecasters look good!

  2. I took a quick look at the various O’Leary funds to see if all this talk of emerging markets was just marketing for the funds, but it’s hard to tell from the fund names what they invest in. I’m not interested enough to pursue it any further.

  3. Let’s face it, while Kevin O’Leary is a successful entrepreneur, that isn’t quite the same as saying he is a successful investor. Simply put, he is a media personality; a marketer of ideas that have likely earned him a far greater return as a business operator than through pure investment skill.

    It should be obvious to all that if Kevin was as gifted an investor as the persona he projects, he wouldn’t be wasting his time in the public eye with all his various TV commitments. At best, I would describe him as a savvy business person who also happens to be a publicity junky.

  4. Outstanding post and comments, Happy New year to CC, keep up the good work, we all benefit as DIY investors!!!

  5. Canadian Capitalist

    @Michael: I don’t follow O’Leary funds too closely but Mark McQueen does at the Wellington Financial Blog. It’s early days yet but let’s just say that Kevin O’Leary’s promise of market beating returns has been underwhelming so far:

    @scomac: I agree. If KO is a such a bright investor why would he be so kind as to share his acumen with us plebes. Unfortunately though, Joe Public isn’t making the distinction between KO’s past as a successful entrepreneur and his current avatar as an investing guru. One of the strangest shows I saw was a town hall meeting on BNN in which viewers would ask KO’s opinion on whether to buy, sell or hold a stock they hold (names thrown out ranged from insurance, telecom, junior mining, tech etc.) and KO would oblige with typical showmanship. At least some of these investors probably acted on KO’s recommendation instead of treating it as worthless.

  6. Excellent post as always, CC. I’ve never heard of O’Leary, but he doesn’t sound good for my blood pressure. There should be a whole new disease classification for the brain damage caused by listening to talking heads. We could call it “Punditosis.” Symptoms include an urge to kick in a TV whenever the patient hears the voice of the Shrill Shill (Jim Cramer). There may not be a cure.


  7. Knowing O’Leary from the Dragon’s Den show I suspect the only purpose of his talks is to make HIM money via selling O’Leary mutual funds and collecting fat MERs.

    If I would be him I would be selling something that “everyone knows” is a “good product”,
    …. and “everyone knows” these days that the economies of China and India are growing rapidly so why not quickly create emerging market funds and sell fast before those stock markets collapse? He would still collect his mutual fund fees no matter where the market is going..

    More about O’Leary in the Time magazine, article titled: “TV’s Shark Tank Guru: In Real Life, No Business Whiz”:
    (FYI: Shark Tank is a US show similar to Dragon’s Den in Canada.),8599,1921635,00.html

    Sorry for beeing rough but I personally don’t like his style.. 🙂

  8. Just because a country is experiencing rapid economic growth does not mean that its corporations are growing their earnings as quickly or at all. Although there are variances caused by supply and demand considerations, and nuances in valuation opinions, ultimately the main driver of equity values is the underlying cash flows the companies generate, typically measured by earnings. Rising labour productivity is a generator of economic growth, but that does not mean that capital is going to realise the value of that rising productivity. If workers are able to demand increases in wages commensurate with their rising output, then the return to capital (investors) will be nil.

  9. I’ve heard the point you’re making before and never fully understood it. If your timescale is fairly long – say 30 years – why is equity return not correlated to GDP growth? Doesn’t the lack of correlation imply that countries with low GDP growth have a progressively larger fraction of their economy due to companies listed on the stock market? That seems potentially true and might even continue for centuries, but does not seem the sort of trend where one would say correlation implies causation. That is, perhaps China will experience both high GDP growth and high growth of its corporate fraction (because it is more capitalist now).

    Or something. I suppose I am asking whether the application of correlation is all that is possible here

  10. Growth is the crack cocaine of investing. Companies that have modest growth rates and generate high EVA’s and returns on invested capital are exponentially more valuable than hyper growth companies.

  11. A moderate and prudent amount of “return chasing” is not blasphemy to all investors; only to sleepy investors who are so busy convinving themselves to ignore their investments, that they are unable to take note of opportunities in the world, and to invest in them for profit. I suspect that what really bugs you is that investors in emerging markets last year outperformed your sleepy portfolio by a wide margin. Claymore’s BRIC ETF did 85%, and Excel’s India, China and Chindia funds did 60%+. What O’Leary should have said is that, “emerging markets investors were last year rewarded with success, and that there is good reason to believe that such success will continue for many reasons including, but not limited to strong economic growth in those emerging countries.”

  12. Dale:

    Let’s go back to 2003 to 2005. China’s GDP grew by 11.5% in 2003, 17% in 2004 and 33% in 2005. China’s stock market fared poorly over this same time period (it actually lost value) despite an abolutely incredible GDP growth which begs the question “What makes you think that there is a strong link between GDP growth and stock markets?”. Also, unless you advised your subscribers to overweight in the funds that you referenced, what is the point in noting which funds did exceptionally well in the past?

    My investing style is at the opposite end of the spectrum as CC’s but I would never suggest that he is bugged by how much better my strategies have fared than his. We have vastly different risk tolerances and thus pursue different investing methodologies.

  13. I used to eat up everything O’Leary said. I started watching him on ROBTV (now BNN) back in like 2002 when he was called the “investor at large” and they put him on at 7 in the morning. That was 5 in the morning out here, in case anyone cares. What was I doing up at 5 in the morning? Great question.

    I remember an episode of Squeeze Play where he debated a fund manager on the merits of mutual funds. O’Leary’s argument was that fund managers often underperformed the market, charged too much in fees, etc. He was also early on the etf bandwagon, which I’ll give him credit for.

    So he does that, and then goes ahead and launches his own fund? Needless to say, I won’t be buying that fund anytime soon.

    He should stick to the Dragon’s Den entertainment stuff.

  14. Gabe, that article does a good job of calling a spade a spade. I was particularly interested in the business dealings with Mattel. Thanks for posting the link.

  15. Wealth development in emerging economies are almost, by nature, governmental, privately driven and generational. They are the entities most able to engage in such long term risk taking without dealing with short term issues like quarterly earnings expectations of shareholders; China opened up economically in 1978; emerging economies are not over-night sensations; they take generations to develop.

    More to the point, if the economic pie is small but growing, why would you share it with the public? Hence, the rise of the Rockefellers, the Russian Oligarches, the business empire that is now the Chinese Communist Party (a walking misnomer if ever there was one). Rich people are rich for a reason. They don’t share it with others on the way up.

    For those who can stomach massive gains and losses, emerging market investing certainly has its time and place but to equate emerging economic GDP growth to public market growth is a very simplistic analysis that make issuers richer.

    Happy New Year CC.

  16. Fred and CC: Perhaps I am being too harsh, but I take offence to the incessant bashing of “return-chasing”. Done prudently it works.

  17. The majority of return chasers get smaller returns than they would have received if they hadn’t chased. When it comes to return chasing, prudence usually means luck. This doesn’t mean that it can’t be done successfully, but most who try will fail.

  18. What makes you guys think OLeary manages the funds? Check out the prospectus, the funds are his in name only, ops rests with various third parties.

  19. I do sometimes find Kevin O’Leary entertaining but that’s where it ends. I don’t take any investment advice from him.

    Good point about growth not equating to stock market returns. The hype over so-called emerging markets will likely create another bubble as people pile into those funds and as with any bubble, it will pop soon. If you really want to dive into emerging markets, I’d say that you should dive into the geographies that the TV talking heads DON’T recommend.

  20. Canadian Capitalist

    @Dale: What makes you think that my point is merely a case of sour grapes? I do hold emerging markets (VWO to be specific) in my portfolio (and in the Sleepy Portfolio) with a weighting that reflects emerging market proportion in world markets. All I’m saying is that if you recommend that investors over weight emerging markets, you have to give a better rationale than “they have higher GDP growth”. And while we are on the subject, I don’t know where recent returns entered the conversation because I didn’t bring it up. But yes, I do think that those who over weight should also have a better reason than “it went up last year”. To me “it went down a lot last year” is a much better argument, not to over weight but to bring the weighting back to target.

    @Confused: Check out the Thick as a Brick article on Bernstein’s website. The benefits of GDP growth go to other parties than owners of capital, especially is rapidly developing economies.

  21. @Michael James: Do you have any data for your assertions that: (1) most return chasers are unsuccessful; or (2) that those that are successful owe it all to luck, as oppsed to prudence and good judgement.

    @ CC Your last quoted reference from Swedroe disparages return chasers, and I took offense, perhaps wrongly attributing to you a case of sour grapes. Last year many or most return chasers were overweight in the BRIC countries and Chindia, and therefore did better than you and the index-zealots. O’Leary made the right recommendation, but partly for the wrong reason. Economic trends — (such as those underlying the recent out-performance of BRIC countries and funds) — tend not to reverse course suddenly and apruptly. There are exceptions, but the myriad of reasons, and factors that underly the recent out-performance of the BRIC funds are not likely to abruptly reverse course. Therfore, investment in the BRICs is likely to continue to reward return chasers.

  22. Dale: (1) No need for data. It’s obvious just using math. The average chaser can’t do better than average across all investors (before costs). The added costs associated with chasing give the average chaser below average results. (2) I never said that all who are successful owe their success to luck. It’s just true of most of them.

  23. Canadian Capitalist

    @Michael: I’m not sure I agree because the math is based on the assumption that momentum chasers, on average, do not beat the market. While it is true that active investors, on average, are the market and cannot all be above average, I don’t know if it also holds true for any subset of active investors — momentum chasers in this case. Maybe momentum chasers are getting their alpha from some other subset of active investors. I’m just speculating here and I don’t know if it is true either way.

    @Dale: I fail to understand your logic. IIRC, in 2008, emerging markets were down sharply — a loss of more than 50%, I think. Wouldn’t chasing momentum mean staying out of emerging markets in 2009? In fact, chasing momentum would have meant loading up on emerging markets in 2008 because (again I’m going by memory), emerging markets posted strong returns in the three prior years.

    As an aside, when you claim a market beating strategy, the onus is always on the person who makes the claim to (a) show that the strategy has worked in the past on an after-expense basis and (b) have a good reason why the strategy is likely to be successful in the future. Most market beating strategies (such as the Dogs of the Dow) fail the first test. The few that do satisfy (a) have a depressing tendency of not working in the real world. The reason is simple: excess returns are simply arbitraged away as a strategy becomes widely known. Just ask investors who tried to implement the “January Effect” strategy in real life.

    As another aside, if you have a strategy of beating the pants off the benchmarks, why share it with us? What have we done to deserve this kindness? You can implement it yourself or apply to become a trader at Goldman Sachs and earn millions in bonuses or manage money for other investors and get a piece of the action. The fact that you are selling newsletters convinces me that there is more money in the newsletter business than in your strategy itself.

  24. CC: My remarks were meant to apply to all return chasers whether they chase based on momentum reasoning or any other type of reasoning. So, I was treating “return chasing” as being synonymous with “active investing”. You’re right that a subset of active investors may beat the market as long as they can exploit other active investors. However, I’m sceptical of any claims of outperformance unless it comes with a convincing explanation of who is being exploited.

  25. CC and Michael: Is it true that investing must necessarily be a zero-sum game whereby someone wins only by someone losing? What if market capitalization and/or P/E ratios increase? Can’t there be more winners than losers?

    I agree with CC that Michael’s intuitive math on “Return chaser’s can’t beat the market” is faulty.

    CC: Prudent momentum investing in 2009 wasn’t based on the year-end results from Calendar 2008. Rather, it was based on the ongoing quarterly results from 2009, as 2009 developed. I do have 8 years of positive experience with momentum investing, and you have already told me that it is a statistical fluke, so I won’t be able to convince you untill many years have passed, at which time we might both be dead, or interest rates are so high that equity investing makes no sense. Why will it work in the future? Because the “trend is your friend” as seasoned analysts often remind us. See Siegal’s book which gives a “cautious nod to momentum investing”. I share because I am angry that you have impugned my life’s work.

  26. Dale: If you compare investments to cash in a mattress, then there can be more winners than losers, but if active investors compare their returns to a passive index, then they cannot, as a group, outperform. The average active investor must receive the index return (during the time they are in the market) less commissions, spreads, taxes and any other costs. For a subset to beat the index, they must be taking money away from some other subset.

    If you have found a way to beat the index, then you must be taking money away from people who are losing to the index. To convince people that your system will work into the future, you must identify what forces will cause the “dumb” investors to continue losing to you. Because the market is now heavily dominated by professional money managers, these dumb investors who are to keep losing to you are pros.

  27. @Michael: I still think that you are mistaken, or perhaps we differ on the definition of “active” investors. The average investor cannot beat the index, but the average”active” investor can, if most of the non-indexers are not “active” at all, but bought into dog funds long ago, and are not “actively” changing into winners.

    I have now identified the main factor for why I will probably continue to beat a majority of the “dumb” non-professionals. I will probably continue to beat the majority of professionals by continuing to pick the equity funds run by the winning professsionals. Since the dawn of the internet, this has not proven to be difficult.

    The fault in your reasoning is that indexers wrongly extrapolate from, “most equity managers don’t beat their index” to “an average investor can’t beat an index”. But they can ……………… by continually picking the index beating managers! Now, with the resources on the web this is easy, and a lot easier than picking stocks.

  28. Canadian Capitalist

    @Dale: Where are the studies that show that the average active investor can earn their alpha from the poor passive non-indexer? Do we have to simply take your word on faith?

    In fact, I think the opposite is likely to be true. DALBAR has shown that a passive non-indexer is likely, on average, to earn returns of the mutual fund they own. But fund investors, on average, badly trail returns of their funds. Therefore, it is investors who are constantly buying and selling who account for all the shortfall. So, if you do earn alpha, it comes from investors who are buying and selling funds like you do.

    Michael is right in that average investors don’t beat the index. Not even close. Take a look at DALBAR studies. The average fund investor trails the mutual fund return very badly. In fact, emotions are a bigger expense than expenses incurred by the much-maligned fund managers. Those of us who index, try to earn as close to market returns as possible by lowering our investing costs as much as possible and buying-and-holding to avoid the emotional traps.

    (This is my last comment on this topic and I think we should simply agree to disagree. Also, I’m sorry that my comments are construed as impugning your work. I simply try to show healthy skepticism.)

  29. CC: I was not claiming that average “active” investors have ever beaten anything. I was responding to Michael’s claim that it was a mathematical or logical impossibility for them to do so. It is not an impossibility as Michael claimed.

    I do not understand your point that “fund investors trail the returns of their funds”, and I do not know who DALBAR is. Please explain this point a little more fully, and give me some more info about DALBAR.

    I take it that you do not deny that one of the “Dons of index- investing”, Jeremy Siegel, gives a “cautious no to momentum investing” in Stocks for the Long Run, page 304. See also “Beating the Market 3 months at a Time” by Dr. Marvin Apppel, 2008 FT Press. See especially pages 63 and 64 in which the author back tests a momentum method of picking actively managed U S funds from 1986 – 2006, and finds that it returned almost 2% per year more than the Vanguard S&P 500 Index fund.

    • Canadian Capitalist

      @Dale: DALBAR is a famous study that periodically looks at returns that investors actually earn (as opposed to the returns that the funds they are invested in earn). You should be able to Google it but I’ve written about it:

      I dusted off my copy of the “Stocks for the Long Run”. The “cautious nod” you refer to is filled with caveats and “yeah, buts”. Hardly a ringing endorsement. Siegel also ends that chapter with Benjamin Graham’s point that excess returns have a habit of getting arbitraged away.

  30. Dale: When you put your momentum strategy into action, you purchase and sell shares, possibly indirectly through a fund. For your strategy to beat the index, you must be buying and selling at good times. However, to buy shares at a good time, there must be someone on the other side (another active investor) who is selling shares at a bad time. The average of all active investors cannot beat the index. They must match the index less costs. This argument makes it clear what an “active investor” is in this context. An investor is active if he owns mutual funds whose managers use an active approach. This is true even if the investor buys and holds the fund.

  31. Michael: If you define “active” investors as all non-indexers, you are correct in saying that for every index beating transaction there is an index-inferior one, but why would we define “active” investors as those who buy and hold funds for years on end? They are very “inactive” to my way of thinking. More importantly, why are we not focussing on the pros and cons of “Momentum investing”? I assume that you are not so dogmatic that you won’t concede that at least some Momentum investors can consistently beat an index. I don’t think any of the published dons of indexing would go that far.

    CC: Thanks for the explanation of DALBAR. I accept that the average investor does worse than the index, and that Siegal’s “cautious nod to momentum” is lukewarm. I posit that Siegal’s lukewarm endorrsement is an attempt to dissuade “novices and dabblers” from attempting a momentum strategy. However, you me and Michael James, and many of your regular readers all have above average investment wisdom. Aren’t we likely to be those that can consistently out-perform an index? (I know that you will argue that my attempts to out-perform are an illusive and futile search for “alpha,” and that my past successes are a statistical fluke which will be “arbitraged away”, which phrase I confess confuses me.) But what interests me is how you came to your conclusion that you and your readers couldn’t beat an index? Was this the result of reading Bogle, or bad personal experience, or some other factor(s). I’d appreciate Michael’s thoughts as well.

  32. Dale: Beyond clearing up misunderstandings, it’s pointless to debate the definition of a term. Substitute whatever phrase you like for the collection of investors I called “active”.

    While I like reading Bogle, I think others make the case for indexing better. Take a look at “Winning the Loser’s Game” by Charles D. Ellis (see my review here). Ellis claims that beating the index long ago was fairly easy because most investment money was controlled by small investors who had little information. Today, 90% of investment money is controlled by professionals with up-to-the-millisecond information. To have genuine positive alpha after costs, you need to be better than a strong majority of these pros who themselves are losing to the index, on average.

    As for the reasons for holding the views I have, I think for myself. I read plenty, but am more interested in ideas than credentials. I suspect CC is the same. My personal experience has been to beat the market (slightly) during the years I was an active investor, but I’m now convinced that this was just luck on three big bets that worked out well (and many small bets that worked out poorly).

  33. Canadian Capitalist

    @Dale: “Arbitraging away” refers to market participants piling onto a market beating strategy that makes the strategy itself ineffective. Just ask investors who found that small-cap stocks outperform in January in the 1980s. You don’t hear much about it anymore because investors started buying in late December to exploit the January effect so much that you don’t observe it anymore.

    Active investing can generate alpha for some skilled investors even consistently. But such investors are rare — how many Warren Buffett types do you know? Like Michael points out, active investing is practiced today by extremely smart, extremely hard-working people with access to the best research and resources money can buy. Retail investors searching for alpha are not even in a David-Goliath battle — it’s more like a gnat against an army of Goliaths. That’s one reason I’m almost fully indexed today.

    I’ve been investing for 10 years now and writing this blog for five of those years. Over time, I’ve gradually come to terms with the fact that being average is a great place to be in investing. What really counts is whether you are able to meet your financial goals in life, not whether you beat some benchmarks.

  34. CC and Michael: Thanks for your views. We hold near-religious views about our respective investing credos, and are not likely to dissude eachother. The one point I would try to make to Michael is that a momentum mutual fund strategy attempts to consistently pick the best of the professionals (fund managers); this may explain why retail “amateurs” such as me can claim success against the benchmarks. Your man Ellis is right when he sates that retail investor’s are out-gunned by professional managers when picking stocks; I don’t pick stocks, I pick managers.

    If either of you write a blog in the future comparing momentum investing to indexing, I would like to be notified so that I can attempt to keep you honest. If you do so, please review “Beating the Markets 3 Months at a Time” by Dr. Appel, and the back-testing on pp 63-64.

  35. Dale: My views and approach couldn’t be further from being religious.

  36. It is very true that GDP growth is not necessarily correlated to equity market returns. The reason IMO is two-fold:

    1. Often times the growth is already priced into equities. The soundness of an investment is the excess of the intrinsic value compared to the price paid.

    2. Growth often isn’t profitable for corporations in the short-term or medium-term. Look at all those tech stocks in the tech bubble that were trading at multi-billion market caps despite having never made one red cent (and many of them never did!).

  37. I almost forgot to take a shot at O’leary! I find that kind of show (Lang & O’leary exchange) to be despicable, and it has no place on our public broadcaster. It will do much more harm than good, giving out daily advice ala Cramer on CNBC. The vast majority of viewers don’t have the background to adequately process it, and I cringe when I think what horrible decisions they may make based on his random musings…

  38. @MJ: That’s why all of these shows have the disclaimer that the views are not of the station and always consult with an investment advisor before choosing any of their recommendations… Blah blah blah… It’s the same thing as going to a fortune teller – they state that their psychic readings are “for entertainment purposes only” and so you should only look at them that way.

    I don’t really watch the Lang & O’Leary Exchange on CBC, but I used to watch them on Squeezeplay. I occasionally find O’Leary’s rants amusing, but usually only when he does it right in front of a guest who is a CEO or economist or union leader or whatever. The reason why I find it amusing is because it usually elicits some sort of a reaction from the guest and I’m always curious about what that reaction is… Regardless, he is a buffoon and he plays that role on TV in order to get reactions. That’s what’s interesting and what sells.

    @CC, Michael James & Dale Rathgeber: Your long exchange here looks like a group of so-called “technical investors” who all think they found the perfect mathematical model for the stock market. For me, I am a stock picker and I mainly pick stocks on fundamentals. I have to like the business that they’re in, the management team should have a history of making smart moves, they need to have a clean balance sheet and a healthy cash flow statement. Oh, and I also like to get in at a price that is below the majority of the officer’s stock option strike price and I will only buy when the P/E multiple is in the single digits and my preference is for dividend yielding stocks. The trend chart itself is really irrelevant to me if the rest of everything looks good.

    With all of that being said, I’d have to agree that there’s next to nothing that’s a screaming buying out there right now. That hasn’t stopped me from making some small speculative purchases on stuff like Natural Gas futures and some junior mining companies. But those are small speculative investments, small meaning 1% of my total portfolio.

  39. Pingback: A Lap Of The Blogs :

  40. Pingback: Canadian Personal Finance Blog » Blog Archive » Random Thoughts: So Many Questions

  41. Pingback: Some Weekend Links « Daily News

  42. Ahhh yes. Kevin O’Leary. He of the “gov’t subsidies are bad” who has 2 shows on the CBC which is subsidised to the tune of over $1 billion tax dollars.

  43. Just another Donald Trump, balloons all eventually come down!

  44. kevin Oleary quote on cbc. “i’m happy jack layton is in opposition because he has no teeth”

    Just watch Jack Layton chew harper’s butt until he can’t sit down. He will be better than Ignatiev at

    ripping the conservative policies apart. Buying new unecessary jets is a great deficit reduction plan.

    Canada will need many more Billions to maintain and service them not identified by harper.

    Good analysis Kevin…

  45. Kevin O’Leary is just like Kramer, a D level investor, but an A level media personality.
    We’ve all seen what happened to all the Chinese stocks this year. Just take a look at RENN and DANG as good examples.
    Not looking too good for high GDP countries.