“You done writing for today?” I was talking with my psychiatrist on Monday. If you’re a brilliant eccentric with a “checkered history” (to quote one mainstream media account of what I consider my personal glory days) and you don’t have a shrink, you should get one. They’ll love you.
“Hell no I’m not done,” I told him. “Market’s on fire.” He snickered: “Art of the deal.” “Indeed!” I laughed, shaking his hand on the way out the door.
Suffice to say he doesn’t believe in the existence of a medical phenomenon called “Trump derangement syndrome.” In fact, as a veteran, he finds the notion somewhat offensive to the extent it accidentally belittles real psychological afflictions he encounters on a daily basis while treating other veterans — afflictions like PTSD.
I’ve said this previously, but it really does bear repeating: Everything that emanates from Donald Trump and his supporters is a projection. That’s one of Nancy Pelosi’s great insights into Trump. “Everything he says is a projection of himself,” she famously assessed, in 2019. “When he calls me ‘Nervous Nancy,’ I know he’s very nervous,” she went on, in the same remarks. “He knows the arguments that could be made against him, so he projects [them] onto somebody else.”
That’s a simple observation, but it’s incisive all the same. And, to reiterate, the same behavior’s readily observable from Trump’s boosters, including those who inhabit the macro-market-sphere.
On any number of occasions this year, I’ve woken up to irritable emails from readers, many of whom are identifiable as investment professionals. In a lot of cases, they insist on the notion I’ve suffered portfolio losses due to what they imagine is a bad case of “TDS.” Here’s an excerpt from one such mail:
I think you’re an excellent analyst. I worked on Wall Street 29 years selling institutional research, banking deals, trading etc. I get it, but… I don’t want to get into a big cerebral discussion, just some feedback. Why are you obsessed with Trump? It’s distracting and hateful. Come on man – you’re smarter than that. It’s like reading a Goldman, Smith Barney or DLJ research report and all of a sudden the author starts raving about Jimmy Carter. You want more MAYORKASes running these agencies? Would you want KAMMELTOE? I understand you can do whatever you want which is why you do it. I value your work and use it in managing assets. Just wonder why all the ink spilled on the Trump hate. And very little criticism of this abortion nuclear wasteland the Demokratz created.
I’ll allow the longtime readers among you — particularly those of you who know me personally — a moment to stop chuckling. Pause. Gather yourselves.
There are a few things worth knowing about that reader mail. First, I’m not an “analyst.” Nor have I ever been. In fact, if you don’t include menial hourly work while I was in high school, I’ve had exactly one regular job in my entire life, and it lasted all of 15 months. I don’t punch a clock. It ain’t for me. I’d sooner rob banks.
Second, and most importantly, the sender wasn’t lying about his background. He did in fact work in finance in various capacities, and for quite a long time. I know that because he sent his ridiculous message from a real, personal email account — i.e., an address which identified him. That’s a really — really — silly thing to do if you’re going to deride America’s first female, first black and first Asian-American vice-president by likening her first name to a lewd term for vagina. I can’t imagine the credentialing bodies to which this person belonged (and maybe still belongs) would be amused.
Third, the sender is 71 years old, and the timestamp on his mail was 18 past midnight. I was asleep, but he wasn’t. That says a lot about who, between the two of us, suffers from political “derangement.”
I mention this because — well, because it’s a sleepy Tuesday and it’s funny — but more importantly, because I’m seeing the same sort of embarrassing rhetoric emanating from a few corners of Wall Street, and it’s getting worse the sillier Trump looks.
Of course, when it comes from currently-employed analysts and strategists, it’s not quite as crude as what you’d get from, say, an elderly, retired Floridian who had too many white wine spritzers at Bingo night, but it’s uncomfortably close. And true to Pelosi’s critique, it’s obviously — painfully — a projection.
I’m not going to name names just the same as I’m not going to tell you who in your local retirement community is burning the midnight oil to take their political frustrations out on my pseudonym, but I do think it’s important we recognize rants masquerading as laments for everyone else’s lost sanity for precisely what they: Projections from people who are themselves being driven insane.
With that in mind, I heard on Tuesday that never before in the multi-decade career of one chief market strategist have “emotional drivers had as large an impact on price action as they are having now.” “Our ever-expanding societal divisions along political lines have created this outcome,” this person wrote, to clients. “And those, in turn, have made rational macroeconomic conversations on fiscal, monetary, trade and regulatory policies nearly impossible.”
So far, so good. Mostly. There’s no doubt that society’s divided and that those fissures color our discussions about markets, macro and everything else. But the same strategist went off the rails shortly thereafter.
“We have too many investment professionals with TDS spinning themselves into a frenzy,” he declared, despairing that some of his peers have taken to warning “on the risks of empty shelves, the end of dollar dominance, a collapse in Fed independence and that all-time hater favorite, threats to democracy.”
I — umm — hate to be the bearer of bad news, but those are legitimate concerns. Maybe not so much the empty shelves, but on a scale of one to five, where one’s “completely overblown” and five’s “it’s happening right now, right in front of us,” the end of dollar dominance is a solid three, threats to American democracy a four and a diminution of Fed independence a five.
The same strategist went on to describe “a highly-charged market with a set of emotionally damaged investors bringing about some excellent arbitrage opportunities for those of a more alexithymic ilk.” That, he exclaimed with a flourish, “creates even more potential EXCEPTIONALISM in US capital markets, just as we watch those TDS-infused defenders of Chinese mercantilism slowly fade to red. Good luck trading.”
What can you say? Methinks the pot’s calling the kettle black. If those excerpts don’t read like something that’d emanate from an “emotionally damaged investment professional,” then I don’t know what does. You’d never — ever — hear anything like that from, say, Goldman’s David Kostin, nor from Morgan Stanley’s Mike Wilson, nor even from BofA’s Michael Hartnett, who has a pretty long editorial leash for a sell-sider.
Hell, I’d go so far as to say that even SocGen’s Albert Edwards — who, as evidenced by an ill-advised decision to cite that Looney Tune Jeffrey Sachs in obliquely blaming Ukraine for the war in Eastern Europe a few months ago, can say any damn thing he pleases — would’ve hesitated before sending out such a flagrantly petulant, overtly partisan and transparently insecure editorial to God only knows how many professional money managers.
The irony of that strategist describing himself as “alexithymic” in the middle of a breathless, pro-Trump rant complete with all-caps and references to “TDS-infused haters” is truly epic. Olympic-level irony. The lack of self-awareness on display there’s almost impressive.
The same person last week spoke of “TDS-induced drawdowns,” but here’s the thing: The only people suffering drawdowns in 2025 are those who bet on a continuation of US exceptionalism. Here’s the chart (again):
There’s your “drawdown,” right there. When I read screeds like the one cited above, I can’t help but wonder if some folks might’ve hung around too long in the US > RoW trade or worse, advised clients against cutting their losses before it was too late.
I mean, Jesus Christ, just look at the YTD cross-asset leaderboard coming into this week. What were the worst-performing assets as of last Friday’s close — i.e., pre-US-China truce? US stocks, US bonds and the US dollar.
And you all know — or should know — what the flows picture looked like as of the last EPFR update. The rotation out of US stocks and into European and other RoW shares was ongoing.
So, whenever you see (or hear) someone carrying on in what seems to be an agitated mental state about an unhealthy Donald Trump obsession and the undesirable side effects thereof, just know it’s very likely a projection. That person’s probably been up all night, and might be down on the year.
I have my political beliefs-they are left of center, and I loathe Trump. I try hard not to let that influence how I manage client assets. Except for important policies, and off the rail stuff such as impaired rule of law, tariff policy, geopolitical bashing of allies or fed independence which I will factor since that influences tail risk. That isn’t TDS. That is risk management. And sometimes even Trump and his lackeys make some valid points, nobody is always wrong.
Agree. Best investing is when you can put your emotions aside. I have my own separate feelings about Trump the individual – I don’t like his character one iota. However, if he was sane and making thoughtful, smart moves to improve financial conditions in this country, I would certainly trade it. Bottom line, an investor is always in the game no matter who’s in charge of the country, like um or not. If calling out Trump for being of low intellect, in early stages of dementia and making decisions my 9 year old granddaughter could do better, means I have TDS then I plead guilty. But don’t conflate economic reasoning with character analysis.
The overarching point, though, is that it’s a total straw man. Just like the notion that I’m fretting about Trump at 11:00 PM instead of, you know, watching Miller’s Crossing for the 550th time.
The idea that a majority of professional money managers are going to work every day and investing clients’ assets based on last night’s MSNBC or CNN coverage is just ludicrous. Literally no one’s doing that. No one’s suffering “TDS-induced drawdowns.” That’s not a thing. And it’s no coincidence it sounds like it walked out of a TruthSocial post. Relatedly, no one’s “pro-CCP mercantilism.” Saying Trump, Navarro and Lutnick are delusional (and Lutnick’s not really delusional, he’s just a sycophant) isn’t the same thing as saying “Go, Xi, Go! Yay, totalitarianism!” Again: No one’s saying that. That’s not a thing either outside of the Chinese mainland.
And really, if we’re honest, this isn’t even the most emotionally-charged investment environment of the past five years, let alone in all of modern history. You want to see “emotionally-charged”? Go back and re-live the GameStop frenzy. That’s emotion.
TSLA certainly has been a bit-o-emotional-rollercoaster..
The reality of TDS is that TRUMP Is deranged – and that is a very real and serious threat to the economy, the markets, our democracy and a lot more.
Quoting Nancy Pelosi? Now that’s really going to piss off your disgruntled reader; especially when she’s absolutely correct.
Sounds like you have a good psychiatrist. Understanding projection (and defenses in general) is a very useful tool for understanding other people’s thinking and behavior. It’s even more useful for understanding one’s own thinking and behavior.
He actually hit up an online thesaurus for synonyms for “unemotional” and chose the one he thought sounded smartest.
I’ll admit, I had to google the definition, but it’s so perfect that he opted for the word meaning a mental disorder characterized by being unable to identify or express your own emotions.
That’s beyond Olympic-level irony. That’s the Platonic ideal of irony. Wow. Just… Wow.
“He actually hit up an online thesaurus for synonyms for ‘unemotional’ and chose the one he thought sounded smartest.”
He sure did! You know he did. And I thought exactly the same thing when I read it.
Also yes, the fact that the word he chose accidentally attests to the projection point is doubly ironic and also plainly suggests he didn’t (and still doesn’t) know the meaning of that word.
Seeing that we’re talking projection, that choice of word by the guy was a Freudian slip of epic proportion.
But, I couldn’t get my head around the size of the counter rally, especially on Monday, till it struck me that it’s being bought by the same people who thought Trump x2 was an excellent idea.
Denial is such a great survival mechanism but now even denial is suffering a strange manifestation.
Make denial great again.
I kept asking everyone what that slogan meant
Does noticing that gold has hung in pretty well despite the step back from the abyss and subsequent USD rally a manifestation of an unhealthy Donald Trump obsession?
I imagine your septuagenarian correspondent was up at midnight waiting on a TrUTH from on high.
Mr. Trump does seem to project (women like it when I grab…; my opponent is hateful and crooked for criticizing me). However, what Ms. Pelosi seems to refer to there is a situation where he uses the strategy knowingly, while in the context of narcissism projection is intended to preserve the exalted self-image from flaws and the success of this hinges on the process being unconscious. So Ms. Pelosi is properly describing deflection or blame-shifting rather than projection. That said, narcissists do both.
As for “TDS”, explaining a cultural phenomenon in terms of individual depth psychology would imply everyone has a similar makeup to Mr. Trump. Maybe you know better, but I’d analyze it as a rhetorical meme instead, although one originating in Mr. Trump’s self-understanding. It seems to be used also to describe extreme emotional reactions to Mr. Trump’s policies, with the implication that causing distress to your political opponents is funny; but when used by authors to explain opposition to Mr. Trump, like any great fallacy it has some face validity as it refers to an extreme and inverse version of the halo/horns effect which most people likely are aware of as a psychological fact even if they don’t know the term. Use of the term this way is saying all criticism of Mr. Trump or his policies is because you don’t like him as a person or don’t like some unrelated aspect of his politics, but also with an extra twist of “only someone with a mental illness would disagree with me/my support of Mr. Trump” and using derogatory terms for mental illness as slurs. Also, you are using leader-approved language and clearly identifying yourself as in-group and cruel which is apparently good. It doesn’t say great things about the person using it and if it’s really widespread in America maybe you are really in trouble. What a bizarre read (and I don’t mean your writing).
I love nitpicking and hair splitting so just to split one more, the part about calling your opponent nervous if you are nervous would work as projection/externalization but the “arguments could be made” and related would be properly the other stuff.
I have spent virtually my whole life as a student or a “teacher.” I started school in 1949 and went straight through to earn a doctorate in 1970. I taught my first course in 1965. I retired in 2007 and since that time I have co-founded a couple more businesses (for no remuneration), served on a few small firm boards, and become something of a local minor league philanthropist. Through all the time since retirement I continue to serve as an editorial reviewer, something I have done for over 50 years. I just can’t stay away. I don’t really do politics. I was offered a chance once to be someone’s campaign manager and I refused because I knew I would wreck his dreams in that role. Instead, I served as a pro bono consultant to the city which elected him as the youngest mayor ever of an actual city way back in the day. He was also my student as well as my friend. I am a teacher not a politician. I hate Trump and his destructive behavior because I hate stupid in any of its many guises. I have few friends because it’s really hard to hang around people who just can’t think and act rationally/logically/ethically. When I react to things on various sites on the web I usually project from something in my career or experience I think would be helpful. Like my late and former boss, I hate labels and arguing about who should be called what. He always said, “I don’t care what you want to call [something or other]; shut up and call it Fred and get on with [whatever we were discussing].” I just hate stupid and that leaves me more or less alone, always an academic in my heart, especially since my wife and best friend and colleague passed.