Jim wrote: A bigger question is whether it's possible to be an insightful commentator on finance and economics without having a history as a market-beating money manager. I think so.
...
I don't think so! The proof is in the pudding!

Hmm, I beg to differ. The proof of the pudding is in the eating of the pudding, not in the eating of something else.

I'm not arguing that the fund results are good. But to suggest that someone with a fund return history showing a low CAGR is not able to provide useful and thoughtful commentary on finance and investing is like to suggesting that someone without a #1 hit can't ipso facto be a good songwriter. They are different skills. (and as aside, the second one in each case is dependent on a lot of underappreciated external factors)

His fund performance isn't great. Roughly market tracking 2000-2017, for example, poor but positive since then last I checked. Even bearing in mind that the investment goal is, to paraphrase, primarily not to lose money and to have a decent positive real return consistent with that stance, over the cycle.

But his writing is generally extremely insightful, as a rule. He considers things a lot of people don't, and it's grounded in hard facts and statistics. It's the weighting of the different comments (and the weighting of commercial exigencies) that determines what a fund knowing that advice might do.

Jim