I'm not into legalized gambling, but I'm curious when the DOW "SOARS PAST 13,000" who REALLY loses?
The End My Friend
points how much money is that in reality, or is it all on paper, and again,
who REALLY gets creamed? You cannot win at any type of gambling without
taking money from somebody else...
The U.S. dollar is losing value, the housing market is the worst in 18 years,
the trade deficits are at near record highs and so is the national debt but
the Cavutos and Forbes are WILD about the DOW...is this just another story of
the rich getting FILTHY rich on the back of the poor taxpayers...?
If I had a $100,000 to stuff in the stock market, leave it, don't touch it
all in Blue Chips and don't care if I lose then I'd do it, but if I stuck
$5,000 or $10,000 in to "play" the stock market I'm sure it would be gone in
no time...
TIA for any replies
--
Spirituality without religion is like air without the smog...refreshing <g>
Steve
Wow, you need a lot of education but here's a start.
A simple investment in stock is nothing more than buying a share of a
company, ie, becoming an owner..
You don't lose money unless you sell it for less than you bought it
for.
Indexes like the DOW are simply a weighted average of the prices of a
list of stocks...
WF Peifer
news:q1u033hcrupk3od27...@4ax.com...
This is generally true, with one major exception. If you buy stock in a
company and the company goes "tits up", you lose your investment without
having the opportunity to sell for a profit or loss. There are still people
holding Enron stock who will never be able to sell, even for a loss.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people
call you the elites; I call you my base." - George W. Bush
omare...@aol.com
John Black
says...
> .and what does "1 point" represent in dollar value? If the DOW loses 10
> points how much money is that in reality, or is it all on paper, and again,
> who REALLY gets creamed? You cannot win at any type of gambling without
> taking money from somebody else...
Doesn't work that way. This is not a zero sum game. Investing is not
gambling even though results are not guaranteed. There is no "house"
that loses if you win and vice versa. You invest in a company, becoming
part owner of that company. When that company makes money, you get a
share.
> The U.S. dollar is losing value, the housing market is the worst in 18 years,
> the trade deficits are at near record highs and so is the national debt but
> the Cavutos and Forbes are WILD about the DOW...is this just another story of
> the rich getting FILTHY rich on the back of the poor taxpayers...?
No. First of all, you obviously have been indoctrinated by the liberal
doomers and gloomers trying to make you think things are bad in the face
of excellent news. The dollar rises and falls -- when it is up, that is
good for importers, bad for exporters. When it is down, that is good
for exporters, bad for importers. There is no perfect level for it.
The housing market is not even close to the worst in 18 years -- housing
has just come off one of the biggest booms ever and has pulled back only
slightly from that. Trade deficits are not like budget deficits -- they
don't represent going into debt and the way they are calculated leaves
out much of how the money returns to the U.S. The national debt has
been going up for decades and is a real problem. Right now the deficit,
while high, is not nearly as high as a percentage of GDP that is once
was but it would be great if congress could reign in the pork. All of
this has nothing to do with the rich, who do not get rich on the backs
of "poor taxpayers". Actually, the rich pay almost all of the taxes and
again because markets and economies are not zero sum games, someone
getting richer does not mean others have to get poorer to compensate.
Wealth is *created* by innovators, risk takers and hard workers all the
time.
> If I had a $100,000 to stuff in the stock market, leave it, don't touch it
> all in Blue Chips and don't care if I lose then I'd do it, but if I stuck
> $5,000 or $10,000 in to "play" the stock market I'm sure it would be gone in
> no time...
You don't "stick" your life savings into one or a few stocks all at
once. Then you are gambling. You invest consistently over time, buying
good companies and diversifying your investments among growth stocks,
value stocks, large company, small company, domestic, international,
bonds, etc. (This can be done without buying individual stocks.) This
way you minimize your risk. This is a strategy that works over a
lifetime -- its not a short term or a one shot deal so its ok if you
only invest a little each paycheck. The key is to start early,
diversify and be consistent.
John Black
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
milt....@gmail.com
> "Steve" <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote in message
rich guy whose learned in all things money.
He's never heard of a "margin call," apparently.
milt....@gmail.com
> .and what does "1 point" represent in dollar value? If the DOW loses 10
> points how much money is that in reality, or is it all on paper, and again,
> who REALLY gets creamed? You cannot win at any type of gambling without
> taking money from somebody else...
The dow is just a sampling of stocks that serves as a kind of gauge of
how the overall market is doing. It's not really indicative of how any
one stock is performing. Therefore, whether the Dow loses 1 point, 100
points or 500 points, I don't start cringing until i look up my stock
and see how it's doing.
>
> The U.S. dollar is losing value, the housing market is the worst in 18 years,
> the trade deficits are at near record highs and so is the national debt but
> the Cavutos and Forbes are WILD about the DOW...is this just another story of
> the rich getting FILTHY rich on the back of the poor taxpayers...?
Not necessarily, strangely. Sometimes, the stock market goes up
because the other factors go down. people are always looking to invest
in something, and right now, the real estate market is beginning to
take, and interest on bonds is still moderately low, so people are
buying more stocks.
>
> If I had a $100,000 to stuff in the stock market, leave it, don't touch it
> all in Blue Chips and don't care if I lose then I'd do it, but if I stuck
> $5,000 or $10,000 in to "play" the stock market I'm sure it would be gone in
> no time..
Actually, that would depend on what you invested in. A lot of people
make some pretty significant money in the stock market; it can be a
gamble, depending on which stocks you choose to invest in, but over
the long haul, it's a pretty stable place to invest your money, with a
reliable return. I certainly trust it more than just sticking your
money in the bank...
>
> TIA for any replies
>
> --
> Spirituality without religion is like air without the smog...refreshing <g>
Thats so true...
Steve
>On Apr 26, 5:15 am, The End My Friend <1...@2.org> wrote:
>> .and what does "1 point" represent in dollar value? If the DOW loses 10
>> points how much money is that in reality, or is it all on paper, and again,
>> who REALLY gets creamed? You cannot win at any type of gambling without
>> taking money from somebody else...
>
>The dow is just a sampling of stocks that serves as a kind of gauge of
>how the overall market is doing. It's not really indicative of how any
>one stock is performing. Therefore, whether the Dow loses 1 point, 100
>points or 500 points, I don't start cringing until i look up my stock
>and see how it's doing.
Whereas people who really have stock, know how all their holdings are
doing most all the time... More than likely, the full extent of
Milt's holdings are in his 401K, which he has very little control
over.
>> The U.S. dollar is losing value, the housing market is the worst in 18 years,
>> the trade deficits are at near record highs and so is the national debt but
>> the Cavutos and Forbes are WILD about the DOW...is this just another story of
>> the rich getting FILTHY rich on the back of the poor taxpayers...?
>
>Not necessarily, strangely. Sometimes, the stock market goes up
>because the other factors go down. people are always looking to invest
>in something, and right now, the real estate market is beginning to
>take, and interest on bonds is still moderately low, so people are
>buying more stocks.
>>
>> If I had a $100,000 to stuff in the stock market, leave it, don't touch it
>> all in Blue Chips and don't care if I lose then I'd do it, but if I stuck
>> $5,000 or $10,000 in to "play" the stock market I'm sure it would be gone in
>> no time..
>
>Actually, that would depend on what you invested in. A lot of people
>make some pretty significant money in the stock market; it can be a
>gamble, depending on which stocks you choose to invest in, but over
>the long haul, it's a pretty stable place to invest your money, with a
>reliable return. I certainly trust it more than just sticking your
>money in the bank...
<LOL> That tells you all you need to know about Milt. Banks are much
safer than stocks.... don't return squat, but much safer....
Steve
Obviously, Milt doesn't know what a margin call is... Indeed, You
don't lose money unless you sell it for less than you bought it for,
and that includes the dreaded margin call.
Shook just can't help displaying his ignorance on Usenet for all to
see.
The End My Friend
>> points how much money is that in reality, or is it all on paper, and again,
>> who REALLY gets creamed?
>
> share of Amalgamated Dog Food one oay the stock will be worth $10, the
> next it may be worth $5, the day after that it may be worth $12. Only
> when I cash it in do I know if I "won" or "lost". Most people who say,
> "I lost a fortune in the market!" are talking about paper profits,
> btw. They invest $10,000 in a stock, see it climb to $100,000 on
> speculation, then it drops to $30,000 when the speculation bubble
> bursts, and they complain they "lost" $70K. Stocks go south, too, and
> you can lose every penny you put in but that's really far and few
> between. Enron employees who put their life savings into Enron stock
> options "lost" millions in paper profits but they usually got more
> than their initial investments back in the liquidation of the
> company's assets.
>
>> You cannot win at any type of gambling without
>> taking money from somebody else...
>
> Companies make new stock issues all the time and new money enters the
> market, allowing it to grow and prosper. When the world runs out of
> raw materials and finished goods no longer wear out or become
> obsolete, THEN the market runs down and the game ends but not until
> then.
> --
> I'm on a journey in search of myself.
> If I get back first, let me know that I'm
> looking for myself and don't let me leave.
Thanks for the reply...
The End My Friend
How many little companies did Enron "gobble-up" (another term for titts-up in
this case?" lol) through mergers?
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores. Some people
> call you the elites; I call you my base." - George W. Bush
--
The End My Friend
That's soOoOooo intelligent, Christ I thought I was clueless -lmao...
The End My Friend
I don't buy into the labels of doomers and gloomers bullshit, facts are
facts, the middle class is disappearing and that started with the DINKS 20
years ago under that goofy senile nut Mr. Star Wars 'imself Ray-gun...
I'll NEVER believe the rich pay their "fair share" until there is a flat tax
rate on every last bit of income FOR EVERYONE, the "well-off" simply have
enough money to throw away on accountants that can hide their "incomes"
(appreciative or not) for a whole persons lifetime so they NEVER come
REMOTELY CLOSE to paying their fair share, this is why I have no problem with
inheritance (or death tax whatever)...to say the rich don't get filthy rich
of the poor is disingenuous at best or to say the least. $10.00 an is not a
livable wage (i.e.; wages from companies in the stock market) in many parts
of the country yet millions break their backs until they cannot work hard
anymore for what amounts to slave wages...
>> If I had a $100,000 to stuff in the stock market, leave it, don't touch it
>> all in Blue Chips and don't care if I lose then I'd do it, but if I stuck
>> $5,000 or $10,000 in to "play" the stock market I'm sure it would be gone
>> in no time...
> You don't "stick" your life savings into one or a few stocks all at
> once. Then you are gambling. You invest consistently over time, buying
> good companies and diversifying your investments among growth stocks,
> value stocks, large company, small company, domestic, international,
> bonds, etc. (This can be done without buying individual stocks.) This
> way you minimize your risk. This is a strategy that works over a
> lifetime -- its not a short term or a one shot deal so its ok if you
> only invest a little each paycheck. The key is to start early,
> diversify and be consistent.
Back to the slave wage issue again I see, I've had opportunities to cut
checks foe $100,000 for whatever I want the only thing I know is $100,000
doesn't go very far anymore, maybe if I knew what I know now at 16 well youth
is wasted on the young is it not?
When I see these silverspoon-fed morons argue back and forth on Bulls & Bears
or Cavuto it just makes me laugh, they have guests with 4-6 different
opinions all at once yelling and screaming and they all talk like they make
money yet one person's "opinion" (investment strategy) won't work because of
someone else's "investment strategy", so how can they all have winning
strategies?, it's IMPOSSIBLE, the same way Christian Jews and Muslims ALL
claim to have the ONLY path to God, they all CANNOT BE right -lol. Somebody
is lying, being untruthful or just palin full of shit...the investment shows
are just a tool to get your money in so someone else can have their stab at
taking it. Many of the brokerages have dirty filthy hands and names ... I
guess if you're not tipped off by the word "brokerage" then you deserve to
get ripped-off. Wall Street was one of the best movies of all time because it
wasn't a movie, it was so close to the truth in every aspect...
> John Black
The End My Friend
What about a "butter" call? (: That was for you know who ; )
The End My Friend
>> .and what does "1 point" represent in dollar value? If the DOW loses 10
>> points how much money is that in reality, or is it all on paper, and again,
>> who REALLY gets creamed? You cannot win at any type of gambling without
>> taking money from somebody else...
>
> The dow is just a sampling of stocks that serves as a kind of gauge of
> how the overall market is doing. It's not really indicative of how any
> one stock is performing. Therefore, whether the Dow loses 1 point, 100
> points or 500 points, I don't start cringing until i look up my stock
> and see how it's doing.
That's why I find it all so phony...cable financial shows a complete ruse.
>> The U.S. dollar is losing value, the housing market is the worst in 18
>> years, the trade deficits are at near record highs and so is the national
debt but
>> the Cavutos and Forbes are WILD about the DOW...is this just another story
>> of the rich getting FILTHY rich on the back of the poor taxpayers...?
>
> Not necessarily, strangely. Sometimes, the stock market goes up
> because the other factors go down. people are always looking to invest
> in something, and right now, the real estate market is beginning to
> take, and interest on bonds is still moderately low, so people are
> buying more stocks.
"take"? Typo I suspect...real estate HAS "tanked" for the most part
everywhere in the news, the rip-off loan sharks and sub-prime lenders still
have fallout coming as far as I can tell. There's a glut of new homes on the
market, so many builders aren't building (as fast)> Too bad the greedy
bastards don't head down to the gul states and donate some of their time but
they're just too fucking greedy
>> If I had a $100,000 to stuff in the stock market, leave it, don't touch it
>> all in Blue Chips and don't care if I lose then I'd do it, but if I stuck
>> $5,000 or $10,000 in to "play" the stock market I'm sure it would be gone in
>> no time..
> Actually, that would depend on what you invested in. A lot of people
> make some pretty significant money in the stock market; it can be a
> gamble, depending on which stocks you choose to invest in, but over
> the long haul, it's a pretty stable place to invest your money, with a
> reliable return. I certainly trust it more than just sticking your
> money in the bank...
Anything pays more than banks these days...
>> TIA for any replies
>>
>> --
>> Spirituality without religion is like air without the smog...refreshing <g>
>
>
> Thats so true...
Ahhh, one more out there, that's a start...now if we can just get to the
politicians ; )
Steve
Shook is what' commonly called, "the other spread."
I've watched Days of Our Lives off and on since I was about 13-14, and
I still read about it and watch it occasionally, but at night (Soapnet
at midnight ET)
--Milt Shook
http://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407240713.31a9ecdf%40posting.google.com
Steve
I'm pretty fucking greedy. You got a problem with that?
Steve
Toki Wartooth
<omars...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1177613553....@s33g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> No one loses, except the hysterical left :)
This kind of rightarded nonsense is why you KKKrooKKKed lying repugnigoons
can't win elections.
John Black
> I don't buy into the labels of doomers and gloomers bullshit, facts are
> facts, the middle class is disappearing and that started with the DINKS 20
> years ago under that goofy senile nut Mr. Star Wars 'imself Ray-gun...
No, the middle class is not "disappearing". Utter BS.
> I'll NEVER believe the rich pay their "fair share" until there is a flat tax
> rate on every last bit of income FOR EVERYONE, the "well-off" simply have
> enough money to throw away on accountants that can hide their "incomes"
The top 5% of earners pay more than half of all the income taxes (54%).
The top 1% pay 1/3 of all income taxes. The top 20% pay 78% of all the
income taxes. The top 50% pay almost all of the income tax (96.54%)
which means the bottom 50% pay almost none. Who is not paying their
fair share??
I'm not necessarily opposed to a flat tax by the way.
> (appreciative or not) for a whole persons lifetime so they NEVER come
> REMOTELY CLOSE to paying their fair share, this is why I have no problem with
> inheritance (or death tax whatever)...to say the rich don't get filthy rich
> of the poor is disingenuous at best or to say the least. $10.00 an is not a
> livable wage (i.e.; wages from companies in the stock market) in many parts
> of the country yet millions break their backs until they cannot work hard
> anymore for what amounts to slave wages...
Wrong. Again, because someone makes more money than someone else
doesn't mean he is getting rich off of the back of that other person.
> >> If I had a $100,000 to stuff in the stock market, leave it, don't touch it
> >> all in Blue Chips and don't care if I lose then I'd do it, but if I stuck
> >> $5,000 or $10,000 in to "play" the stock market I'm sure it would be gone
> >> in no time...
>
> > You don't "stick" your life savings into one or a few stocks all at
> > once. Then you are gambling. You invest consistently over time, buying
> > good companies and diversifying your investments among growth stocks,
> > value stocks, large company, small company, domestic, international,
> > bonds, etc. (This can be done without buying individual stocks.) This
> > way you minimize your risk. This is a strategy that works over a
> > lifetime -- its not a short term or a one shot deal so its ok if you
> > only invest a little each paycheck. The key is to start early,
> > diversify and be consistent.
>
> Back to the slave wage issue again I see, I've had opportunities to cut
> checks foe $100,000 for whatever I want the only thing I know is $100,000
> doesn't go very far anymore, maybe if I knew what I know now at 16 well youth
> is wasted on the young is it not?
$100,000 invested properly can add up to real money over a lifetime.
> When I see these silverspoon-fed morons argue back and forth on Bulls & Bears
> or Cavuto it just makes me laugh, they have guests with 4-6 different
> opinions all at once yelling and screaming and they all talk like they make
> money yet one person's "opinion" (investment strategy) won't work because of
> someone else's "investment strategy", so how can they all have winning
> strategies?, it's IMPOSSIBLE,
Ok, so if people disagree on the best investment strategy, then
investing is not a worthwhile thing to do? I see. Might as well not do
anything else in life either if you need everyone to agree on what is
the best way to do it.
> taking it. Many of the brokerages have dirty filthy hands and names ... I
> guess if you're not tipped off by the word "brokerage" then you deserve to
> get ripped-off.
Yeah, ok. Not much hope for you I'm beginning to see. Sounds more like
sour grapes because people were able to invest and make money and you
were not.
> Wall Street was one of the best movies of all time because it
> wasn't a movie, it was so close to the truth in every aspect...
No, it was entertaining but far from realistic. Typical (liberal)
Hollywood cluelessness about how the world actually works.
milt....@gmail.com
>
> I've watched Days of Our Lives off and on since I was about 13-14, and
> I still read about it and watch it occasionally, but at night (Soapnet
> at midnight ET)
> --MiltShookhttp://www.google.com/groups?selm=49983a09.0407240713.31a9ecdf%40post
You know, I still don't understand why you think I would be insulted
by you re-posting this. Are you so insecure in your "manhood" that you
think admitting such things makes you less of a "man"?
Ann Coulter is more of a man than you'll ever be...
Steve
>On Apr 26, 5:11 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>> Obviously,Miltdoesn't know what a margin call is... Indeed, You
>> don't lose money unless you sell it for less than you bought it for,
>> and that includes the dreaded margin call.
>>
>> Shookjust can't help displaying his ignorance on Usenet for all to
>> see.
>
>Okay, smartass...
>
>Why don't you give us a circumstance whereby you get hit with a margin
>call and do NOT lose money...
Easy, I simply put a few more bucks into my margin account to meet the
requirement.
>You have to not know what a margin call is, Canyon. If you knew what
>it was, you'd know how stupid your assertion above is.
>
>Put it this way; the only way to meet a margin call is to either put
>cash or assets into your account,
<LOL> Which doesn't result in any loss..
> or sell off some stock to bring the
>asset level back up. It's not possible to do either without
>experiencing a reduction in asset levels somewhere.
Nope...my margin account is still my asset.
>If I empty out one
>account to meet the minimum equity level in another account, I must
>have lost some money somewhere.
LOL> Only if I sold something at a loss...
>And if I sell stock, my asset level is
>reduced by the amount of that stock,
<LOL> It doesn't occur to Milt that when you sell stock you get paid
for it... Well, of course, he's never sold stock.
>EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
>for more than I paid for it.
No, dummy, it's still in my margin account...
>Sure, the stock or stocks that caused the
>margin to be called in the first place haven't necessarily been sold
>yet, so I haven't technically lost money on THOSE STOCKS yet, but I
>have lost assets.
Nope.... but don't get me wrong. it's not something I do.
>Your assertion is semantic bullshit without meaning, as usual.
irony anyone?
Steve
Soaps are for people who have no lives of their own, Milt.
milt....@gmail.com
One could say the same about Usenet, couldn't they?
milt....@gmail.com
The real estate market is looming as one of the most destructive
boondoggles we've ever dealt with before. A few friends and I have
started buying old run down rowhouses in Baltimore City and rehabbing
them, because the market in new homes is flat as a board, and even if
the market price in our area is cut in half, we'll still make plenty
of money. One house we purchased for $10,000; even after we finish
gutting it and rebuilding the inside, our total investment will be
between $60-70,000, and right now, the house would sell for about
$200,000. If the market goes down to where we "only" sell it for
$150,000, we'll still make plenty of money. And we're trying to warn
people away from mortgage scammers, too, although if they ultimately
go with one, it's their choice.
> >> If I had a $100,000 to stuff in the stock market, leave it, don't touch it
> >> all in Blue Chips and don't care if I lose then I'd do it, but if I stuck
> >> $5,000 or $10,000 in to "play" the stock market I'm sure it would be gone in
> >> no time..
> > Actually, that would depend on what you invested in. A lot of people
> > make some pretty significant money in the stock market; it can be a
> > gamble, depending on which stocks you choose to invest in, but over
> > the long haul, it's a pretty stable place to invest your money, with a
> > reliable return. I certainly trust it more than just sticking your
> > money in the bank...
>
> Anything pays more than banks these days...
Yeah, that's true. That's why I don't see the stock market as a huge
gamble. All in all, I win some and lose some, but at the end, I end up
with a net gain. Last year was almost 20%; the year before was about
22%. I'm being a little more aggressive this year, and I'm hoping for
25%. If not, I won't lose any money.
>
> >> TIA for any replies
>
> >> --
> >> Spirituality without religion is like air without the smog...refreshing <g>
>
> > Thats so true...
>
> Ahhh, one more out there, that's a start...now if we can just get to the
> politicians ; )
We just have to take seriously the "religious test" clause in the
Constitution.
milt....@gmail.com
Why would you think we even give a shit?
milt....@gmail.com
>
> >On Apr 26, 5:15 am, The End My Friend <1...@2.org> wrote:
> >> .and what does "1 point" represent in dollar value? If the DOW loses 10
> >> points how much money is that in reality, or is it all on paper, and again,
> >> who REALLY gets creamed? You cannot win at any type of gambling without
> >> taking money from somebody else...
>
> >The dow is just a sampling of stocks that serves as a kind of gauge of
> >how the overall market is doing. It's not really indicative of how any
> >one stock is performing. Therefore, whether the Dow loses 1 point, 100
> >points or 500 points, I don't start cringing until i look up my stock
> >and see how it's doing.
>
> Whereas people who really have stock, know how all their holdings are
> over.
>
>
>
> >> The U.S. dollar is losing value, the housing market is the worst in 18 years,
> >> the trade deficits are at near record highs and so is the national debt but
> >> the Cavutos and Forbes are WILD about the DOW...is this just another story of
> >> the rich getting FILTHY rich on the back of the poor taxpayers...?
>
> >Not necessarily, strangely. Sometimes, the stock market goes up
> >because the other factors go down. people are always looking to invest
> >in something, and right now, the real estate market is beginning to
> >take, and interest on bonds is still moderately low, so people are
> >buying more stocks.
>
> >> If I had a $100,000 to stuff in the stock market, leave it, don't touch it
> >> all in Blue Chips and don't care if I lose then I'd do it, but if I stuck
> >> $5,000 or $10,000 in to "play" the stock market I'm sure it would be gone in
> >> no time..
>
> >Actually, that would depend on what you invested in. A lot of people
> >make some pretty significant money in the stock market; it can be a
> >gamble, depending on which stocks you choose to invest in, but over
> >the long haul, it's a pretty stable place to invest your money, with a
> >reliable return. I certainly trust it more than just sticking your
> >money in the bank...
>
> safer than stocks.... don't return squat, but much safer....
>
experienced the fee-ding frenzy.
I didn't use the word "safe," you moron. I was talking about rate of
return. Burying cash in the backyard is probably safer than a bank,
but that wasn't what I was talking about.
Steve
Bank savings are federally insured, you moron.
>I didn't use the word "safe," you moron.
You used the word trust...in regards to a question about gambling..
>I was talking about rate of
>return.
Sooooo, what has "trust" got to do with that?
Steve
>On Apr 28, 11:26 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>Oh really...
>
>So, the bank asks for $10,000 to cover the loss of equity on your
>home, and keep your mortgage. You're not out $10,000? When you're
>handing over cash to cover LOSSES, your wealth has decreased by that
>amount.
<LOL> except putting money into your margin account isn't covering
your losses...
>I agree that a stock price going down isn't a loss until you sell, but
>when you borrow money to buy stocks, and you're hit with a margin
>call, you're out the amount of that margin call, any way you look at
>it, Mr. Spin.
<OFLMAO>The money you put in your margin account is still your money,
you hapless moron.
>I've often wondered why you people are so intent on being right all of
>the time, to the point that you say things that make absolutely no
>sense whatsoever. Only you could claim that writing a check to someone
>else only constitutes a paper loss, because you have to be right all
>of the time...
>>
>> > or sell off some stock to bring the
>> >asset level back up. It's not possible to do either without
>> >experiencing a reduction in asset levels somewhere.
>>
>> Nope...my margin account is still my asset.
>
>If you borrowed the money to start it, that's not an asset, that's a
>liability;
Now Milt introduces a new element... borrowing money... but even if
I borrow money to put in my margin account, it's still my money in my
account... The money in my account offsets the loan... I've yet to
lose anything except, in that case, the interest on the loan.
> it only becomes an asset when you pay it . When you're
>margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset. If you have an
>account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to buy with, you
>only have $100,000 in assets;
No, <LOL> I also have the $10,000 I borrowd,you moron.
>until you pay the loan, that $10,000 is
>not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is called (for shits
>and giggles, let's say for the full amount of $10,000), there is no
>way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In fact, you're actually out
>$20,000, because you're out the $10,000 for the loan and the $10,000
>to call the margin.
Milt, Milt..... they don't take the money in your margin account.
It's still yours... Well, not yours... cause you'll never have a
margin account.
>Jesus, why do you think you can spin basic math and make yourself not
>sound stupid?
>>
>> >If I empty out one
>> >account to meet the minimum equity level in another account, I must
>> >have lost some money somewhere.
>>
>> LOL> Only if I sold something at a loss...
>
>Um, do you even KNOW what a margin call is? I don't think you do.
>You're being forced to sell stock or hand over cash, in order to make
>up for stock you purchased with borrowed money, which lost in value.
No, Milt.... LOL> You're being asked to bring your margin account
back up to the proper percentage of the loan you're making.... You
own the stock, or at least rights to it, and as always, you don't
actually lose any money until you <tada> sell it for less then you
bought it for....
Here's some help, Milt.. No t that you'll ever get involved in the
stock market...
http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/margin1.asp
>It's a loss, you idiot...
Nope, not till you sell the stock at a loss... If it's value returns
you can even sell it at a profit.. and the money in your margin
account is still yours, too.
>> >And if I sell stock, my asset level is
>> >reduced by the amount of that stock,
>>
>> <LOL> It doesn't occur toMiltthat when you sell stock you get paid
>> for it... Well, of course, he's never sold stock.
>
>Yep, that tears it. You don't know what a margin call is. And yeah, I
>buy and sell stock a lot, thanks... apparently a lot more than you...
>but then, they won't lend you money on your trailer to buy Enron, will
>they?
<LOL> Milt buys and sells a lot but he obviously doesn't know what a
margin call is
>> >EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
>> >for more than I paid for it.
>>
>> No, dummy, it's still in my margin account...
>
>Jesus Christ!! You're amazing! You must be one of those people that
>thinks, because he has checks, there must be money in the account!
>
>If you have to pay someone to cover the margin, the money has to come
>from somewhere, you jagoff! It's a LOSS. Now, you might get lucky, and
>the stock may rebound. Maybe. But at the moment of the margin call,
>you're out cash.
Nope...
>You can't spin that. If you don't hand over cash,
>then your account holder can start selling your stock until he makes
>back the money you owe him.
Look at what you said,Milt.... if you already owed someone... how
is paying off that loan reducing your assets?
>Any way you look at it, you have less
>money than when you started. That would seem to be a loss. Even if you
>still have $100,000 in that account, you're out money somewhere...
Go read up on it Milt... you're making an ass of yourself again...
like usual.
>> >Sure, the stock or stocks that caused the
>> >margin to be called in the first place haven't necessarily been sold
>> >yet, so I haven't technically lost money on THOSE STOCKS yet, but I
>> >have lost assets.
>>
>> Nope.... but don't get me wrong. it's not something I do.
>
>Yeah, obviously.
>>
>> >Your assertion is semantic bullshit without meaning, as usual.
>>
>> irony anyone?
>
>You are so irony deficient, it's not funny.
>
>You're actually telling us that someone who has a $100,000 account
>with a broker, borrows $10,000 to buy a stock, sees that stock price
>goes below its floor price, and has the broker ask him to hand over
>$10,000 or he'll start selling off your stock until he makes up the
>$10,000 you owe him, and claim you didn't lose a dime, because THAT
>account didn't go below $100,000. Unbelievable.
If I borrow money to buy a house, and the house value drops, have I
lost money? Nope, not until I sell the house for less than I paid for
it.
Now if I had an agreement with my mortgage holder that the value of
the house must always be at least as high as the amount of my loan,
they might require that I give the cash to reduce the loan amount...
that would be similar to what a margin call is... so I pay off part
of my loan... so how did I lose money?
Answer.. I didn't... not until I sell the house for less then I paid
for it...
>Again... it's not that you're ignorant beyond belief; it's that you're
>so arrogant about it. Most ignorant people don't strut like you do...
Milt is still a hapless moron... but now we also know that he doesn't
have a clue about buying and selling stocks....
Steve
Not at all... Usenet is inter-active
Usenet can be sport...
milt....@gmail.com
that's just sad...
>
milt....@gmail.com
You have to be kidding.
Well, tell you what, idiot; the people holding your account must think
you lost something, or they wouldn't be asking you to make up the
margin in the first place.
Only you could think that writing a check top cover a reduction in
assets doesn't consitute a loss.
>
> >I agree that a stock price going down isn't a loss until you sell, but
> >when you borrow money to buy stocks, and you're hit with a margin
> >call, you're out the amount of that margin call, any way you look at
> >it, Mr. Spin.
>
> <OFLMAO>The money you put in your margin account is still your money,
> you hapless moron.
Again; do you know what a margin call IS? I think you don't. Most of
the money in that account is BORROWED. Therefore, it's not your money
yet. But you owe far more than appears in the account, so you're
replacing borrowed money. In other words, if you borrow $10,000 in
stocks, and your brokerage account's value goes below the agreed
minimum maintenance level, you have to pay the difference. I'm trying
to figure out how writing a check out of your liquid assets to cover
the "reduced value" of a liability, can be seen as anything but a
loss.
You must be one of those morons who thinks that taking out a Home
Equity Loan results in a net gain for you, huh?
>
> >I've often wondered why you people are so intent on being right all of
> >the time, to the point that you say things that make absolutely no
> >sense whatsoever. Only you could claim that writing a check to someone
> >else only constitutes a paper loss, because you have to be right all
> >of the time...
>
> >> > or sell off some stock to bring the
> >> >asset level back up. It's not possible to do either without
> >> >experiencing a reduction in asset levels somewhere.
>
> >> Nope...my margin account is still my asset.
>
> >If you borrowed the money to start it, that's not an asset, that's a
> >liability;
>
> NowMiltintroduces a new element... borrowing money... but even if
> I borrow money to put in my margin account, it's still my money in my
> account... The money in my account offsets the loan... I've yet to
> lose anything except, in that case, the interest on the loan.
It's not a new element, you idiot. if you pay cash for your stock,
there can be no margin call! A margin call means you owe the broker
money, got it?
It's not a "new element." Without that element, there can BE no margin
call.
>
> > it only becomes an asset when you pay it . When you're
> >margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset. If you have an
> >account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to buy with, you
> >only have $100,000 in assets;
>
> No, <LOL> I also have the $10,000 I borrowd,you moron.
Um, no, you don't, which is why you've received the margin call.
>
> >until you pay the loan, that $10,000 is
> >not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is called (for shits
> >and giggles, let's say for the full amount of $10,000), there is no
> >way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In fact, you're actually out
> >$20,000, because you're out the $10,000 for the loan and the $10,000
> >to call the margin.
>
> Milt,Milt..... they don't take the money in your margin account.
There IS no money in your margin account; just stock! And it's stock
that was purchased with money borrowed from the broker. If you're
paying cash for stocks, there's no reason for a margin agreement, now,
is there?
Jesus Christ, Canyon! How can a rich man like you not know this very
basic aspect of securities?
Could it be that you're not really rich, and you've been lying to us
all of this time? It's okay, I'm not rich, either. It's actually okay
to not be rich.
> It's still yours... Well, not yours... cause you'll never have a
> margin account.
I may or may not. Frankly, I don't want one right now. I like being
mostly debt-free for a change.
>
> >Jesus, why do you think you can spin basic math and make yourself not
> >sound stupid?
>
> >> >If I empty out one
> >> >account to meet the minimum equity level in another account, I must
> >> >have lost some money somewhere.
>
> >> LOL> Only if I sold something at a loss...
>
> >Um, do you even KNOW what a margin call is? I don't think you do.
> >You're being forced to sell stock or hand over cash, in order to make
> >up for stock you purchased with borrowed money, which lost in value.
>
> No,Milt.... LOL> You're being asked to bring your margin account
> back up to the proper percentage of the loan you're making....
The loan you're MAKING? No, Canyon. It's a loan you TOOK!
>You
> own the stock, or at least rights to it, and as always, you don't
> actually lose any money until you <tada> sell it for less then you
> bought it for....
Then please explain why my bank account is $10,000 smaller.
>
> Here's some help,Milt.. No t that you'll ever get involved in the
> stock market...http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/margin1.asp
Hmmm... methinks you didn't read this...
"Buying on margin is borrowing money from a broker to purchase stock.
You can think of it as a loan from your brokerage. Margin trading
allows you to buy more stock than you'd be able to normally. To trade
on margin, you need a margin account."
and
"You can keep your loan as long as you want, provided you fulfill your
obligations. First, when you sell the stock in a margin account,
******the proceeds go to your broker against the repayment of the loan
until it is fully paid.******* Second, there is also a restriction
called the maintenance margin, which is the minimum account balance
you must maintain before your broker will force you to deposit more
funds or sell stock to pay down your loan. When this happens, it's
known as a margin call."
>
> >It's a loss, you idiot...
>
> Nope, not till you sell the stock at a loss... If it's value returns
> you can even sell it at a profit.. and the money in your margin
> account is still yours, too.
Gee, Canyon... that's a lotta "ifs."
But even so, it's still a loss. Put it this way; if the equity in your
account goes below a certain level, you have two choices; either sell
your stock, which would then constitute a loss, unless you only sold
the most valuable stock you hold, which would make you a complete
idiot, or you write out a check to the brokerage. Either way, you're
out that amount of money.
Here's the problem with your theory. If I sell stock to cover the loss
in equity on money i don't have yet, I either have to sell the shitty
stock for a loss (which then blows your theory to bits, because you
lost money, even by your idiotic standards), or I can sell my most
valuable stock for a net gain on that stock.
Um, except that the money I GAINED is being paid to the brokerage to
cover the loan.
Hmmm... such a vexing problem...
>
> >> >And if I sell stock, my asset level is
> >> >reduced by the amount of that stock,
>
> >> <LOL> It doesn't occur toMiltthat when you sell stock you get paid
> >> for it... Well, of course, he's never sold stock.
>
> >Yep, that tears it. You don't know what a margin call is. And yeah, I
> >buy and sell stock a lot, thanks... apparently a lot more than you...
> >but then, they won't lend you money on your trailer to buy Enron, will
> >they?
>
> <LOL> Miltbuys and sells a lot but he obviously doesn't know what a
> margin call is
You really have to be kidding me...
>
> >> >EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
> >> >for more than I paid for it.
>
> >> No, dummy, it's still in my margin account...
>
> >Jesus Christ!! You're amazing! You must be one of those people that
> >thinks, because he has checks, there must be money in the account!
>
> >If you have to pay someone to cover the margin, the money has to come
> >from somewhere, you jagoff! It's a LOSS. Now, you might get lucky, and
> >the stock may rebound. Maybe. But at the moment of the margin call,
> >you're out cash.
>
> Nope...
Then you're out stock. Either way, your net worth just dropped.
>
> >You can't spin that. If you don't hand over cash,
> >then your account holder can start selling your stock until he makes
> >back the money you owe him.
>
> Look at what you said,Milt.... if you already owed someone... how
> is paying off that loan reducing your assets?
You didn't read the article you posted, did you?
"You can keep your loan as long as you want, provided you fulfill your
obligations. First, when you sell the stock in a margin account, the
proceeds go to your broker against the repayment of the loan until it
is fully paid. Second, there is also a restriction called the
maintenance margin, which is the minimum account balance you must
maintain before your broker will force you to deposit more funds or
sell stock to pay down your loan."
In other words, you have to pay off borrowed money that is not worth
as much as you borrowed. By any capitalist measure, that would be a
loss. It's the same reason you lose money the minute you drive a car
off the lot; the investment you made is worth less than when you
started; that's a loss.
> >Any way you look at it, you have less
> >money than when you started. That would seem to be a loss. Even if you
> >still have $100,000 in that account, you're out money somewhere...
>
> Go read up on itMilt... you're making an ass of yourself again...
> Miltis still a hapless moron... but now we also know that he doesn't
> have a clue about buying and selling stocks
Unbelievable amount of irony in the above. I encourage the irony-
deficient to partake.
Steve
That's from Milt Shook, who'd rather watch soap operas like the other
little old ladies with no lives of their own..
Say, how about if you expound a little more about Margin Calls,
dummy... <LOL> ..... tell me how I'm going to lose assets by
transferring them into a margin account...
--
"You don't know what a margin call is. And yeah, I
buy and sell stock a lot"
Milt Shook apr 28,2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
"Put it this way; the only way to meet a margin call is to either put
cash or assets into your account, or sell off some stock to bring the
asset level back up. It's not possible to do either without
experiencing a reduction in asset levels somewhere."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?&hl=en
" If I empty out one account to meet the minimum equity level
in another account, I must have lost some money somewhere"
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?&hl=en
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is
reduced by the amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
"When you're margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset. If
you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
milt....@gmail.com
> On 28 Apr 2007 16:46:11 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Burying cash in the backyard is probably safer than a bank,
> >but that wasn't what I was talking about.
>
> rate of inflation. An interest-bearing account offsets inflation to
> at least some extent.
> --
Spoken like someone who hasn't had a bank account in a while, and
hasn't been "fee"'d to death...
Steve
They're only asking for more collateral, dummy
>Only you could think that writing a check top cover a reduction in
>assets doesn't consitute a loss.
>>
>> >I agree that a stock price going down isn't a loss until you sell, but
>> >when you borrow money to buy stocks, and you're hit with a margin
>> >call, you're out the amount of that margin call, any way you look at
>> >it, Mr. Spin.
>>
>> <OFLMAO>The money you put in your margin account is still your money,
>> you hapless moron.
>
>Again; do you know what a margin call IS? I think you don't. Most of
>the money in that account is BORROWED.
all assets there belong to the account owner....
>Therefore, it's not your money
>yet.
Nope.. Dumbass.... all the assets in a margin account belongs to the
account holder. the only constraint is it serves a collateral for a
loan.. The same stipulation as if you secure your car loan with your
car... or if you ever manage to buy your own home....
You don't even know what a margin account is,do you? It's simply part
of the collateral for the loan
>But you owe far more than appears in the account, so you're
>replacing borrowed money. In other words, if you borrow $10,000 in
>stocks, and your brokerage account's value goes below the agreed
>minimum maintenance level, you have to pay the difference.
You don't "pay" anything, you hapless moron, you simply keep the
required level in your margin account, which still belongs to you....
> I'm trying
>to figure out how writing a check out of your liquid assets to cover
>the "reduced value" of a liability, can be seen as anything but a
>loss.
Your premise makes no sense... transferring assets from one account to
another isn't a loss... and the stock you bought which is the only
thing that has "reduced value" isn't a liability.. it's an asset..
you own it and presumably, it's still worth something...
But do keep trying to figure it out.... here's some help..
Sorry, I didn't realize how really ignorant you are about this..... I
thought maybe the Constitution was the only thing you were this
ignorant about...
You've already agreed that you haven't actually lost any money on a
stock until you sell that stock for less than you bought it for....
and it still holds true.
So here's how a margin call works...
Since the market value of the stock you bought with that borrowed
money has been reduced, but you haven't sold it, so you haven't lost
anything there yet..... which you already agreed was the case.
But the guy that loaned you the money says, "the market value of your
loan collateral, the stock you bought, has been reduced, so kindly
provide some more collateral by putting more assets in your margin
account, which also serves as collateral."
You see, in the original agreement, you agreed to keep assets in that
account that add up to a given percentage of value of the stock you
bought with the borrowed funds. that's called the maintenance level,
which is actually less than the amount you needed in there to be able
to make the initial margin purchase....
So you transfer assets from somewhere else into that margin account,
which is still your account, and he is happy.... cause if you default
on the loan, he can snag your margin account... but your "asset
level" hasn't changed one iota considering the reduced market value of
the stock doesn't constituent a loss until you sell it, which you
already agreed was the case. ..and the margin account and everything
in it is still 100% yours as long as you don't default on the loan.
You simply transferred some assets from one account to another....
Now if you sell that stock... at the lower price, you didn't receive
enough money from the sale to repay the loan.... so when you repay
the loan from some other source, perhaps, in part from the margin
account, because it was collateral for the loan.... THEN, and only
then, you've lost money...
<merciful snipping of more of Milt's ignorance...>
--
"You don't know what a margin call is. And yeah, I
buy and sell stock a lot"
Milt Shook apr 28,2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
"Put it this way; the only way to meet a margin call is to either put
cash or assets into your account, or sell off some stock to bring the
asset level back up. It's not possible to do either without
experiencing a reduction in asset levels somewhere."
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?&hl=en
" If I empty out one account to meet the minimum equity level
in another account, I must have lost some money somewhere"
-- Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?&hl=en
"And if I sell stock, my asset level is
reduced by the amount of that stock, EVEN IF the stock I sell is sold
for more than I paid for it."
Milt Shook Apr 2007
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0f58111c6acb0ce8?hl=en&
"When you're margin is called, that's a liability, not an asset. If
you have an account with $100,000 in it, and you borrow $10,000 to
buy with, you only have $100,000 in assets; until you pay the loan,
that $10,000 is not an asset; it's a liability. When the margin is
called (for shits and giggles, let's say for the full amount of
$10,000), there is no way to say that you haven't lost $10,000. In
fact, you're actually out $20,000, because you're out the $10,000
for the loan and the $10,000 to call the margin."
Steve
>On Apr 29, 3:09 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>> >> >> >> >He's never heard of a "margincall," apparently.
>>
>> >> >> >> Obviously,Miltdoesn't know what amargincall is... Indeed, You
>> >> >> >> don't lose money unless you sell it for less than you bought it for,
>> >> >> >> and that includes the dreadedmargincall.
>>
>> >> >> >> Shookjust can't help displaying his ignorance on Usenet for all to
>> >> >> >> see.
>>
>> >> >> >Okay, smartass...
>>
>> >> >> >Why don't you give us a circumstance whereby you get hit with amargin
>> >> >> >call and do NOT lose money...
>>
>> >> >> Easy, I simply put a few more bucks into mymarginaccount to meet the
>> >> >> requirement.
>>
>> >> >> >You have to not know what amargincall is, Canyon. If you knew what
>> >> >> >it was, you'd know how stupid your assertion above is.
>>
>> >> >> >Put it this way; the only way to meet amargincall is to either put
>> >> >> >cash or assets into your account,
>>
>> >> >> <LOL> Which doesn't result in any loss..
>>
>> >> >Oh really...
>>
>> >> >So, the bank asks for $10,000 to cover the loss of equity on your
>> >> >home, and keep your mortgage. You're not out $10,000? When you're
>> >> >handing over cash to cover LOSSES, your wealth has decreased by that
>> >> >amount.
>>
>> >> <LOL> except putting money into yourmarginaccount isn't covering
>> >> your losses...
>>
>> >You have to be kidding.
>>
>> >Well, tell you what, idiot; the people holding your account must think
>> >you lost something, or they wouldn't be asking you to make up the
>> >marginin the first place.
>>
>> They're only asking for more collateral, dummy
>
>Um, yeah. And yet, the value of the loan doesn't drop at all. Go
>figure.
Actually, the "value" of the loan is still exactly what was
borrowed...
>Say the margin is $10,000, the minimum is $5,000. Your equity goes to
>$2500, and they issue a margin call to get it back up to $5,000, You
>usually have maybe 24 hours to get them the $2500 cash. Say you
>transfer that money into that account, from an account that had
>$10,000 in it.
>
>Before, you had $20,000 worth of stock, with a $10,000 liability, and
>a $10,000 account.
>
>Now, you have $12,500 in stock, you still have a $10,000 liability and
>your account now has $7,500.
Actually, the $2500 cash that got transferred is still mine... Sot he
only reduction is the market value of the stock... which you agreed
doesn't become a loss untill you sell it.
>Um, that's a loss. Might you recover? It's possible. But I wouldn't
>bet on it.
>
>Now, if you DON'T Give them the cash, they get to sell your
>securities, and THEY get to choose which ones. Guess which ones
>they're likely to sell?
It's your responsibility to keep the maintenance level...
>It's hard to articulate just how stupid you are on this. This is
>almost as bad as your stupidity on the First Amendment.
>>
>> >Only you could think that writing a check top cover a reduction in
>> >assets doesn't consitute a loss.
>>
>> >> >I agree that a stock price going down isn't a loss until you sell, but
>> >> >when you borrow money to buy stocks, and you're hit with amargin
>> >> >call, you're out the amount of thatmargincall, any way you look at
>> >> >it, Mr. Spin.
>>
>> >> <OFLMAO>The money you put in yourmarginaccount is still your money,
>> >> you hapless moron.
>>
>> >Again; do you know what amargincall IS? I think you don't. Most of
>> >the money in that account is BORROWED.
>>
>> all assets there belong to the account owner....
>
>Yes, they do. So does the liability for the loan. If your account is
>worth less than the amount you owe, you have to make up the
>difference...
The amount you owe hasn't changed.. It's still the amount you
borrowed.
>> >Therefore, it's not your money
>> >yet.
>>
>> Nope.. Dumbass.... all the assets in amarginaccount belongs to the
>> account holder. the only constraint is it serves a collateral for a
>> loan.. The same stipulation as if you secure your car loan with your
>> car... or if you ever manage to buy your own home...
>
>Exactly!!!!!!!
>
>You've got it now!!!!!
>
>A Margin call is much like a repo or a foreclosure!!
Not at all.... but that's another keeper for my Milt is stupid file.
>Now, you're getting this...
>>
>> You don't even know what amarginaccount is,do you? It's simply part
>> of the collateral for the loan
>
>Uh huh. It is. And a margin call happens when the value goes below a
>certain level and they call the loan due and payable.
<RTFLMAO> Another keeper...
>> >But you owe far more than appears in the account, so you're
>> >replacing borrowed money. In other words, if you borrow $10,000 in
>> >stocks, and your brokerage account's value goes below the agreed
>> >minimum maintenance level, you have to pay the difference.
>>
>> You don't "pay" anything, you hapless moron, you simply keep the
>> required level in yourmarginaccount, which still belongs to you....
>>
>Jesus Christ, you're dense!!
>
>Imagine you have a bank account. You have $5000 in the account. You
>take out a loan for $5000 and put that in the account, too. Got it so
>far? If you take $3000 out of the account to pay for a vacation, you
>don't have $7000 in net assets left. You have $7000 in assets, and
>$5000 in liabilities, which means you have $2000 net. Got it?
>
>In your margin account, you are putting money into the account to
>increase the equity, but you STILL have that $10,000 liability.
>
>Please promise me you won't sell your trailer and invest in the stock
>market. You'll lose your leg.
>
>> > I'm trying
>> >to figure out how writing a check out of your liquid assets to cover
>> >the "reduced value" of a liability, can be seen as anything but a
>> >loss.
>>
>> Your premise makes no sense... transferring assets from one account to
>> another isn't a loss... and the stock you bought which is the only
>> thing that has "reduced value" isn't a liability.. it's an asset..
>> you own it and presumably, it's still worth something...
>
>Good god.... you have no clue that you STILL have a $10,000 LOAN
>looming out there...
Still there...so what?
>> But do keep trying to figure it out.... here's some help..
>>
>> Sorry, I didn't realize how really ignorant you are about this..... I
>> thought maybe the Constitution was the only thing you were this
>> ignorant about...
>>
>> You've already agreed that you haven't actually lost any money on a
>> stock until you sell that stock for less than you bought it for....
>> and it still holds true.
>>
>> So here's how amargincall works...
>>
>> Since the market value of the stock you bought with that borrowed
>> money has been reduced, but you haven't sold it, so you haven't lost
>> anything there yet..... which you already agreed was the case.
>
>WHOA!
>
>You haven't lost money on the STOCK! But you still owe the money for
>the loan, and you're plowing personal cash into it.
Whoa...<LOL> No plowing going on... Im only offering up more
collateral.
>And that's IF they
>don't just sell off your securities. And here's one for you... if the
>stock falls below a value that is marginable (which most brokers view
>as $5 per share), then they could declare ALL of the margin due. And
>you STILL owe $10,000.
>
>I'm at a loss as to why you think increasing the necessary collateral,
>while not decreasing the value of the loan, is not a net loss.
You're at a loss,alright...and that's another keeper... a really good
one... Do you even know what collateral is, dummy??
>> But the guy that loaned you the money says, "the market value of your
>> loan collateral, the stock you bought, has been reduced, so kindly
>> provide some more collateral by putting more assets in yourmargin
>> account, which also serves as collateral."
>
>"Oh, and by the way, you still owe us the same amount..." (You left
>out that part....)
So????
>> You see, in the original agreement, you agreed to keep assets in that
>> account that add up to a given percentage of value of the stock you
>> bought with the borrowed funds. that's called the maintenance level,
>> which is actually less than the amount you needed in there to be able
>> to make the initialmarginpurchase....
>
>Jesus... you really don't understand this concept at all.
<LOL>
>> So you transfer assets from somewhere else into thatmarginaccount,
>> which is still your account, and he is happy.... cause if you default
>> on the loan, he can snag yourmarginaccount... but your "asset
>> level" hasn't changed one iota considering the reduced market value of
>> the stock doesn't constituent a loss until you sell it, which you
>> already agreed was the case. ..and themarginaccount and everything
>> in it is still 100% yours as long as you don't default on the loan.
>
>You are truly insane. First of all, he doesn't "snag your account;" he
>sells off your stock to cover his loan.
No... he snags your collateral...
>Now, call me crazy, but that
>would seem to be a reduction in assets. And if you circumvent that
>process and put money into the account, your other account will be
>smaller. And while the money in your margin account will be marginally
>higher by that amount, your liability for the $10,000 has not reduced;
>you still owe that much.
...and, as you said, the money in your margin account will be
marginally higher....
>Again, basic math.
>
>In your margin account, you invest $10,000 and borrow $10,000. That
>means you have $20,000 in assets and $10,000 in liabilities.
>
>In another account, you have $10,000 cash.
>
>Net assets: $20,000
>
>The value of the stocks in your margin account goes to $12,000, and
>your broker demands $3,000, to get your account back up to $15,000.
>
>You now have $15,000 in assets in the margin account, and $7,000 in
>the other account, and you STILL ave a $10,000 liability.
>
>Net assets: $12,000
>
>Now, last I checked, $12,000 was less than $20,000.
BINGO! virtually all of that is a result of the loss of market
value of the stock...
Not a single penny of loss was incurred as a result of the margin
call.
Indeed, you would have experienced the exact same loss of market value
had you simply used your own $20,000 to buy the stock in the first
place....
..and as you agreed, the stock doesn't incur a loss until you sell it.
<tada>
You've proven my point... thanks...
>And yeah, you COULD experience a rebound. But your stock value would
>have to double just to see a net increase, and what are the odds of
>that happening?
Actually, the stock would only have to return the price that you
bought it for...
><merciful snipping of this loon's moronity>