Cluster Family Office Blog

Let’s think about it. Let’s think about it again. Questions arise fascinating, isn't it? For example, quantifying this all-in-one fee It could be as simple as applying the average profit from the bank’s current customer accounts as a percentage of the amount contributed by the saver or investor. In other words, for every euro the customer deposits with the bank, the bank deducts its one-off fee annually, half-yearly, quarterly or however it sees fit. Obviously, loans and mortgages would have to generate the cost of the money itself separately, with whatever margin the financial institution wishes to add, as it would not be fair for a customer who generates an asset for the bank to pay the same as one who generates a liability (or perhaps it would). But from there on, it’s the same for everyone.

This is just a light-hearted exercise, and I hope it will prompt some comments from you all, which I’m sure will be very interesting and insightful. Some of you may think it’s unfair for a casual saver to pay the same proportion as a more active investor who will be using a whole range of financial products and tools. At first glance, it may seem that way, but Let's have a look at it One more thing: what happens to a saver who neither wants nor knows how to invest their money beyond seeing it reflected in their savings account? They are easy prey for fund managers who kindly cause to invest their money in financial products that no member of their family can understand. This harassment is constant, relentless and ruthless. The money unemployed Placing money in a simple savings account or a fixed-term deposit is considered negligence on the part of the bank employee on duty, bordering on gross misconduct. This misnamed ‘adviser’ needs sell financial products that improve their clients’ operating results if they do not want to lose their job. Furthermore, they must do so exceptionally well if they hope to progress within the organisation and move from a customer-facing role to a more senior position—in other words, to go from a rank-and-file employee to cigarette lighter. I have personally met a few honest and dedicated bank managers who try to to do as little collateral damage as possible whilst barely meeting their commercial obligations, but they all feel uncomfortable with the work they do and long to one day be able to offer independent advice without the commercial pressure they feel is being exerted on them by their superiors. Obviously Only a lucky few will succeed. The rest will continue to live by the rule that has been etched into their very being: Sell or die.

Some of you might say that this commercial pressure is common to most of the work we do, and that’s true. But as I see it, it is infinitely more serious to sell inappropriately a financial investment product which, for example, consists of a collection of DVDs that we don’t need. Ethically speaking, there is no comparison: the significance and danger of negligence when it comes to our heritage is vital not only for us but also for our children. You don’t mess about with food.

In a scenario where a bank manager generated exactly the same profit for their firm, regardless of the volume of assets or the type of investment their clients made, the advice would be provided in a manner infinitamentity more appropriate and tailored to the needs and intentions of investors and savers. Even their personal relationship with them would improve substantially if, instead of selling to them, I simply provided them with a service. A service that would be worth a fixed percentage of the total amount of money customers have deposited with the bank. The professional expertise of the fund managers and the banks themselves would do the rest, and moreover, the monitoring of these fees by a competent body would be far simpler and more effective.

This scenario would be far more hygienic and convenient than the current one. Many of you will think it’s unfeasible or utopian; perhaps it is. But at the end of the day, it’s how a family office any self-respecting to be, and therefore does not have its own financial products. Obviously, the bank should continue to develop its own products, but without shove them down their throats straight to the heart of the financially inexperienced customer – that is, the vast majority.

The current situation is unlikely to improve much with the MiFID, as reported Consumerist y Echevarri in his interesting articles. As he rightly says Echevarri: «…it ends up protecting financial institutions rather than customers.» More or less the same kind of exploitation we see on a daily basis will continue, since, unfortunately, bank profits depend largely on it.

Anyway, we just wanted to put this idea out there so that you can let us know what you think. It’s always good to give some thought to to question ourselves methods that do not have to be set in stone. Progress has always depended on this.»

You can find this on the website of The Healdsburg Housing Bubble yet another tool to help property investors. As well as being a useful tool, this new Google Maps feature allows us to see what is happening with prime and non-prime properties against the backdrop of the current property market crash. By zooming in to the right level, we can see red dots marking foreclosures in any area of the map.

Here is the link.

If we use the map’s search function to look at cities such as downtown Miami, we can see how heavily it has been affected by these court-ordered closures. The same, or worse, is happening along the entire central coastline from Los Angeles right down to San Diego. It is also interesting to see how the border at Tijuana in Baja California clearly highlights the difference in seizures between two very distinct economies and societies.

However (and never has a phrase been more apt), the island of Manhattan is relatively free of red dots compared to its surrounding areas: the Upper West Side, the entire perimeter of Central Park, Midtown East, the West Village, Battery Park, Greenwich Village, Downtown and even Chinatown. In contrast, on the Upper East Side east of 3rd Avenue (more than four or five blocks from Central Park), and generally throughout Midtown, they are more common. But above all, we’ll see many more repossessions outside Manhattan, in areas such as West New York, Jersey, Newark, etc…

This is the major difference in how property values depreciate between one of the many small beach houses along the coast of Florida or California, and unique, prime properties situated in certain neighbourhoods on a limited, unique and irreplaceable island such as Manhattan, where tourism This summer, its streets are more crowded than ever. The fact is that this property bubble – be it American, Irish or Spanish – shows us that during bull markets, when everything is exorbitantly expensive, the differences between prime properties and those that aren’t become dangerously blurred. When we wake up from this dream, the market (not the valuations) slaps us in the face with the true current value of our properties. But whilst owners of prime properties suffer temporary falls in solid values that will recover in the future, other investors will have paid (or will have to pay for a lifetime and a half) prices that their generation is unlikely ever to see again, at least until inflation devours them.

It’s not a joke or a witty rhyme, but a newspaper headline. According to this article from El Economista, the number of Spanish fund management companies that have notified the CNMV this summer of an increase in their fees has more than tripled. Some believe this is due to the fall in returns on fixed-term deposits and on savings in general, which is causing money to flow back into collective investment funds (and as demand rises, fund managers are taking the opportunity to raise prices). But the reality is that, amidst the frenzy surrounding fixed-term deposits offering above-market rates—which highlighted the banks’ accounting desperation—and with massive outflows from almost all funds, the fees charged by these IICs they did not fall substantially. And the same can be said if we look for the reason in the inflow or outflow of money on the stock market.

Perhaps one of the reasons for this summer rise is the fall in asset management firms’ revenues, which have seen a sharp decline in assets under management over the past year, as well as the virtual elimination of the HWM and performance fees in their various forms. Faced with this scenario of lean times and falling commission income, fund management companies have opted for the same strategy as the Spanish Government: tax increases. This ‘bread for today’ approach is deeply ingrained in these parts. However, with so much volatility, fleeting euphoria and the need to recoup in speculative markets what has been lost in the real labour economy, the fund managers are unlikely to go hungry tomorrow either.

We are still living through turbulent times, including on the stock market despite the current rally, with extremely high volatility and nervousness. And this turbulence opens the door to excessive fees. Let me explain: unlike in calm markets, where modest returns call for commissions that do not unduly erode returns, high market volatility provides the perfect cover for expensive commissions. If a client makes a profit in a highly volatile stock market environment, they will probably do so in substantial amounts and won’t mind paying large and well-deserved (?) fees; whereas if they have suffered losses in a highly volatile environment, they will probably not find it so bad to lose a further 2 or 3 points on top of the 20 or 30% that the market has already taken from them. In both scenarios, there will be a volatile and chaotic market to blame or hold responsible.

Blame it on the Market!

It’s from yesterday…

Pilar, Pilar… you’ve missed the point of our article. And of our blog, too. Happiness is one of our guiding principles when it comes to wealth management. Therefore, a celebration – the sort where you really go all out – is not only advisable but also essential. A lavish treat for yourself. What we mean is that you shouldn’t buy expensive items that take up a significant proportion of your wealth before you’ve generated sufficient income from it – such as a house, a luxury car or a yacht, etc… But a party, a celebration, a trip, a seafood feast, a treat, countless other indulgences, etc., etc… of course that’s perfectly fine. If your new fortune doesn’t make you happy, what the hell’s the point of it then? But bear in mind, this must be compatible with the fortune growing and being passed on to the heirs of your choosing, if that is your wish.

A fortune of a certain size should fulfil your desires and bring you happiness, whilst also growing at a healthy rate. If this isn’t the case, you’re not doing it right, or you’ve got it wrong, and your windfall has one less zero than the euphoria led you to believe. And it shouldn’t just satisfy your own whims, but, as you rightly say, those of the people around you (your niece’s driving school). Remember that relatives and friends will come out of the woodwork, but if that satisfies you and fits in with your wealth’s ability to generate income and grow, then go ahead. Of course!

If your car is 15 years old, it’s definitely time for a new one. If the new car is a mere trifle compared to the lottery prize, you can go and buy it today. But if that red convertible costs a pretty penny, it might be wiser to buy it in a quarter or two or three’s time. After all, you’ve been driving the same old banger for 15 years, so a few more months won’t make much difference if it means doing the right thing. What’s more, with a bit of luck, the carmine red one you fancy will have to be special-ordered from the factory, and by the time it comes off the production line, the growth in your fortune will have paid for it in full. To do otherwise is to burn through your money in a capricious, compulsive, stupid and irreversible manner.

As I’ve told you before, knowing what lies beyond Chinchón should not hinder the growth potential of a considerable fortune, if what we want is for that prize to change our whole life (and that of our heirs) and not just for a few years.

Be careful with your cousin’s business because Not only do you risk what you invest, but you also face the risk of future losses. Losses that could easily exceed the cost of your trip to Canada and your big splurge. A bad business deal can be a bottomless pit that leaves you penniless without even having had the chance to enjoy or blow your fortune. It could also ruin your relationship with your cousin, although that would be the least of your worries, because, as I’ve told you before, you’ll have cousins popping up everywhere. I’m not saying you shouldn’t invest part of a prize in a business, but you need to be very wary of the dent a business venture can make in your fortune. After all, if the chances of that business succeeding are very high, why haven’t you tried it with money from the bank? And if they aren’t, you’d be better off spending your lottery prize on something more down-to-earth.

You shouldn’t worry that you’ll get bored because your friends are working and you aren’t, or because you have more free time than your friends. In fact It will be difficult to maintain some of your social circle, either because of conflicting schedules and/or unbearable jealousy. But don’t worry, because you’ll make new friends who’ll have just as much free time and money to spend as you do, and what’s more, you won’t have to treat them. But you won’t save any more money with them, because, even though everyone pays their own way, your activities will be more expensive. Your main focus, as well as enjoying life (because remember, you’ll be richer but not necessarily live longer), can – or indeed should – be the learning how to manage your own assets. This coaching is something we provide to many of our clients so that they become less and less dependent and increasingly capable of making decisions regarding their wealth. In other words, that his abilities should be as close as possible to those he would have had if he had been able to build up that fortune himself, rather than having it bestowed upon him (Jurassic Park syndrome).

The issue of housing is directly linked to improving quality of life. And it’s something that simply has to happen. But in the current climate in Spain, you shouldn’t buy a property at all; instead, you should rent the one you like best. With its little garden, library, east and west wings. But as a rental. If you do buy a property because you can’t sleep without bricks under your pillow, make sure you choose it very carefully in terms of country, city and neighbourhood, and ensure it offers a solid return through rental income and retains its value in the face of cyclical depreciation. I repeat, to live in Spain, choose whatever you like best but for at least a few years, let’s keep it as a rental.

As you can see, my dear Pilar, the poles of the awning don’t necessarily have to fall over. Nor the rings, for that matter. But even so, and having learnt that there is a way to enjoy a fortune whilst managing it properly, you are entirely free to decide that your estate should come to an end with you. Or even long before that. After all, it would be yours and yours alone, until you start to share it, whether voluntarily or involuntarily.

Thank you very much, Pilar, for your friendly and insightful comment. I hope that reading our posts helps you realise that joining the ranks of impoverished millionaires must be a wholly voluntary (and reckless) act. You are absolutely right that Being a millionaire isn’t a state, because if that’s all there is to it, it will be short-lived. But the downfall of someone who spent months or even a few years riding the wave of an inheritance or a lottery win (sudden windfall), it’s much harder even though the sand seems soft. Because of the tremendous impact caused by the speed that had been reached, and also because of the despondency of someone who knows that in their bloody life they’ll never be able to stand on a board again. Despite the previous video (the exception that proves the rule), these sudden moments of fortune are unique, and there’s no room for manoeuvre to put right the mistakes made. That’s just the way it is.

Following on from the article we published at the end of July: «What you would have done with your lottery prize«, we’ve received a lovely comment from Pilar. We liked its content and its sincere, humorous tone. We’re publishing it in full and will add our own comments later:

«For some time now, four or five times a year, I’ve been spending a little money on treating myself to one of the most satisfying pleasures in my life. I buy a «Primitiva» lottery ticket and for a few days I find myself thinking, ‘What shall I buy? What shall I buy?’ Travelling, buying and renovating a lovely village house, helping out the people I love financially, a whole library… A couple of times, however, I’ve been on the verge of panicking when, whilst checking if I’ve got the winning numbers, I hear there’s a jackpot of over a billion (pesetas, of course). At that moment, I’ve actually felt a bit shaky (please, please, don’t let me win it all on my own) at the thought of what to do with so much money. I’ve almost gone so far as to think about how to get rid of it. A millionaire… well, yes, but a millionaire in stages.

So, the day I came across your website, I breathed a sigh of relief: if my fears do come true, here’s the solution. ‘Don’t worry, sweetheart,’ I told myself (I’m very kind to myself), ‘just leave the money in the bank for a week and get some advice – there are expert professionals here to guide you through these complexities.’.

But after reading this blog post, I’m not so sure anymore. I don’t think you’ll be much help. Here’s what it says: «how I want to live from that moment onwards» (direct quote)

First of all, I want to celebrate. What’s the point of an occasion like this if you can’t share it with the people you love? And I can’t see myself phoning my brother to say: «I’ve won the lottery, let’s go and stuff ourselves with prawns, but bring your card, as we’ll split the bill – it’s just that right now I’ve got it all tied up in a fixed-term deposit until next year, and as I’m still paying off the mortgage…»

I’d like to share this next. My third niece has signed up for driving lessons. Shall I splash out a bit and pay for them? And I’ve got a dozen nieces and nephews (their mums and dads are family too – hey, you! – and they might be hoping for a proper treat).

I want to keep my friendships going. A bit of extra cash would come in handy for that. Guys, I’ll treat you to dinner and a jazz concert! But it’s a bit of a hassle. Tagging along for free every time would spoil the good vibes. And besides, they won’t have as much free time as I do – my friends have jobs, after all. You’ve got to spend your spare cash sensibly so as not to throw things out of balance.

My car is already fifteen years old, and today it’s back at the garage again. If I didn’t live in the middle of the countryside, I might well buy a travel pass with the prize money. Do I have to wait until it’s earned enough interest to replace it? By the way, my partner’s car is from the same era, and when the road goes uphill, you have to pedal to get to the top.

Oh my, that trip to Canada you’ve been longing for… the time has come to discover what lies beyond Chinchón.

I want a job. I’ve already said that all the people I enjoy spending time with are working. And from now on, I’ll have too much free time to devote solely to myself and my partner. How about starting a business – «that thing» I’ve always wanted to do? And what’s more, your cousin has suggested you invest in a project she’s working on? Whatever you think is best, darling – of course I’d be happy to.

And finally, I want a new home. One that’s better quality and a bit bigger – yes, I’d like a couple more bedrooms. And a little garden. And a library. And two parking spaces. Or three, for that matter…

Hmm… I’m afraid that trying to reconcile the above with your advice and having the poles of my sunshade fall over are one and the same thing. Oh well. There’s no way round it. We’re destined to swell the ranks of the impoverished millionaires. And I’m not at all sure I’d want it any other way.

It strikes me that being a millionaire isn’t a status, like being from Valencia, but rather a profession, like being a plumber. To be a millionaire, you need skill and a calling; money is merely the tool. That’s why, if the money falls into the hands of, say, Dalamar, I imagine he’ll make a very flash millionaire and hardly «broke» at all; and if it falls into «our» hands, it’ll sweep into our lives like a wave; we’ll ride the cash right to the top, and then we’ll take a proper tumble. (The sand’s soft, isn’t it?)

»Thanks, lads. You gave it a go."

My dear Pilar, our comments tomorrow…

There are many highly respected and eminent voices predicting an imminent crash in the equity markets. And they have good reason to do so. But we must not forget that La Bolsa and La Razón They don’t always get on, even though they’re old friends. There are times when they don’t even look each other in the face; however, as time goes by they usually make up. But only temporarily, until the next outburst, gaffe, shock, blunder, childish prank, misdeed or witty remark of the volatile and chaotic stock market, which will once again undermine its relationship with Reason for an unforeseeable period of time.

Some they overlook the Reason and they’re only concerned with the Stock market, following it through its ups and downs wherever it goes, with a few managing to understand and interpret it well enough to benefit from it, at least for a short while. But many of us cannot understand one without the other in the medium and long term, despite their repeated disagreements.

It seems clear that, at present, Razón and Bolsa are going through one of their periods of squabbling and estrangement, but personally I like to try, from time to time, to look beyond the obvious, as we did in the banking meme. It’s not that I’m naturally suspicious, but it wouldn’t hurt to consider the possibility that, even though they appear to be at loggerheads, they might actually still be very good friends and, as the song goes, shake hands under the table:

Let us imagine that perhaps we are misinterpreting the sentiments of Reason, and that in reality the stock market is following criteria similar to those of its partner through thick and thin. Perhaps the behaviour of an exuberant stock market is more reasonable than it seems, now that the US financial system has overcome the imminent threat of collapse. The ground that had vanished from beneath our feet (and I am not referring to the stock market floor but to that of systemic risk) was not regained until early 2009. Let us remember that a global collapse of the system was a real possibility as recently as 10 months ago.

Back then, when – despite the scepticism of the majority – the banks’ zero value could be justified (in an impeccable and pioneering manner by Investorsconundrum), we also seek to go beyond the obvious logic. And we try, in the article The Broken Bank on 3 November 2008, we sought to find arguments to justify the banks retaining a certain value despite being bankrupt both in accounting and practical terms. In short, we tried to find reasons where there appeared to be none. And we found them. It turned out that the irrational reasons the factors we had sensed were necessary for the banking sector to be worth more than zero were confirmed. Proof of this was what we were able to write six months later in The Broken Bank II. And ever since we said in that article of 27 April: «»If we’re thinking about a high-risk speculative investment, perhaps now is the time to buy shares in major US banks", Bank of America’s shares have risen by 70% and those of Goldman Sachs by more than 40%.

Perhaps that hand under the tablecloth It is the elimination of systemic risk that is driving the current stock market frenzy. Given that the stability of the financial system has been guaranteed, with hyperinflation on the horizon – a scenario that is also reasonably plausible – with the share prices of financial institutions rising sharply from the depths of hell, with macroeconomic figures showing a slowdown in the rate of decline in the US, and with interest rates practically at zero, etc., perhaps their apparent indifference is not what it seems. And so we should not expect them to make up in the form of significant falls or new lows, but rather to continue their clandestine romance beneath the gaze of most analysts. Of course, if the rises take hold over time, more and more analysts will bend down to take a closer look under the tablecloth...

…But let’s not jump to conclusions, because what is clear is that Bolsa and Razón are not on speaking terms at the moment.

Our previous article in which fictional, almost cinematic alternatives to the use of money were put forward, has sparked interesting comments on the possibility (or impossibility) of replacing money as we know it. ManuelMad, now a regular contributor to this blog, has been kind enough to send us this article in which he debunks Andrea von Roth’s proposal:

«In these times of economic – and theoretical – crisis, many have jumped on the bandwagon of an electronic monetary system. In particular, theorists from the Marxist school, who, having realised that a system without prices leads to the impossibility of economic calculation, that is to say, to the impossibility of entrepreneurs or planning bureaucrats estimating future prices, have realised that the creation of public, electronic money is the solution to the ‘top-hatted bankers’. Once again, they demonstrate the flaws in their theory and, above all, their fatal arrogance. These social engineers, with master’s degrees from some university hardly worthy of the proletariat, intend to control people’s daily lives through methods they claim are scientific. All in the name of the common good. They fail to realise that their policies will be determined on the basis of their value judgements—that is to say, on their individual and personal interests. There is no such thing as this supposed collective good in any of their actions.

Following this introduction, I invite you to delve into the wonderful world of money. Money fulfils two fundamental functions in the economy: preserving value and serving as a medium of exchange; therefore, the object intended to serve this purpose will be the one that possesses the quality of being the most liquid asset in the economy. It is worth clarifying that money does not arise from any social contract, nor is it created by the state, as some seem to think; rather, it is society that determines which assets are the most liquid through subjective judgements in a process that knows no end. With regard to liquidity I’ve already spoken about this here for anyone who would like a broader overview of it.

The idea of legal tender, whether under the current monetary system or a fully electronic one, undermines the concept of money. This system forces the acceptance of money as a means of payment at its face value. This triggers Gresham’s Law, which states that bad money drives out good.

An electronic monetary system replicates the weaknesses of the current system and, worse still, encourages further fraudulent behaviour. Indeed, a public electronic system with legal tender status would displace sound currency and impose unsound currency, just as the current monetary system does. Economic agents would not be able to choose which asset is more liquid; instead, this would be imposed by decree. Furthermore, the fundamental problem is ignored: the current system, based on fractional reserve banking, is designed to increase the power of politicians and bankers, whilst the population suffers from inflation; and the process of credit expansion, unsupported by real savings, leads economic agents to make disastrous investment errors, thereby jeopardising the system’s solvency.

None of this would be possible were it not for a central bank acting as a lender of last resort and backed by the state through deposit guarantee schemes, which “utopically” underpin this fraudulent activity. As history has shown, all such measures ultimately fall short, leaving no alternative but to recapitalise through debt and higher taxes.

If such public institutions did not exist, the very nature of banking would lead to the principle of prudence. No one here is suggesting that banking fraud would be eradicated, but let us not forget that a banker is nothing more than a businessman who wishes to make money and thrive in the market for as long as possible. Under such a system, the only option is to serve their customers’ needs faithfully. No one prospers by bankrupting their creditors or failing to meet their obligations, as happens in the current system or would happen in a public electronic system.

We can surmise that under a private system, policies and liquidity ratios will be much more conservative and, most importantly, bankers will once again be held accountable for their debts and contractual obligations – something they are not at present and would not be under a public electronic system either.

In a private currency system, banks that expand the money supply beyond their available funds are running the risk of going bankrupt due to insolvency. The proposed electronic system means that the only incentive is to expand the money supply, thereby jeopardising the entire system with the risk of insolvency. Furthermore, it prevents individuals from leaving the system by withdrawing their deposits.

We must be clear that the state has not developed any technology or theory for issuing optimal money; what is optimal is determined by economic agents. The liquidity of an asset is not determined by the state, but by economic agents through their personal assessments and judgements. The state has merely systematically eroded our purchasing power through laws on legal tender, both as a means of raising revenue and as a way of enriching the political and banking elite.

As we have seen, the electronic system would lead to more abuses being committed than is currently the case, as it encourages the infinite expansion of the money supply, which would undermine all arguments regarding stability, distort prices, create massive bubbles, prevent individuals from escaping this trap, and institutionalise crime by stripping people of their money’s purchasing power.

»The solution, therefore, is not public money with legal tender status; the solution is the free market and private money subject to the forces of supply and demand among consumers.’

Thank you very much, ManuelMad; as always, a fascinating insight.

We have received another interesting comment that we would like to publish as an article, both because of its content and its unusual origin. It was sent to us signed by Andrea Paredes von Roth, whom we thank for her opinion, even though we do not share it. The comment reads as follows, verbatim:

The New Economic Paradigm:

One of the articles I remember most fondly is the one entitled Fasten your seatbelts, in which we compared the state of the global economy to that of a flight experiencing technical difficulties. We wrote it three days after 11 September 2007, having just lived through what was potentially the most dangerous anniversary since the attacks of 2001. At a time when the global economy was collapsing and the ground was vanishing from beneath the System’s feet, with no idea where we were headed. Read it, and then I’ll tell you how I see the current situation:

Personally, I believe that in the second half of 2009 and throughout at least 2010, we will experience a hard landing, and that is when we will see and suffer the consequences of the situation in which we find ourselves. Once we’ve managed to come to a halt, we’ll see just how much damage we’ve caused and how many years it will take to repair the aircraft so that we can fly safely again. Let’s hope the landing ends up like the one in the video, with only material damage.

Next week we’ll be discussing a topic that’s been the subject of much discussion recently…

In June 2007, we sensed that something big was about to descend upon us all, and we wrote about it in an article. However, two summers ago, the banks were still offering facilities and incentives to encourage the middle class to «get deeper and deeper into debt» (as Echevarri put it in a comment on the article at the time). A year and a half later, we wrote another one entitled «Do Not Riots«, the link to which we’ve included below so you can see for yourselves how the setting has changed. I’ll leave you with Crisis? What Crisis? written on 23 June 2007:

On 4 February 2009, we wrote the following article: Do Not «Disturb» And some dismissed him as a doomsayer.