new keeper from Milt
Steve
the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH! You buy a share
of stock in the hope that each share will develop a positive equity,
right? Well, a loss is negative equity."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
milt....@gmail.com
You know, for someone who's been arguing for a week that a 40% loss is
the same as a 90% loss, I'll give you one point for balls, but about
-99 for brains.
Steve
Depends on what it's a percentage of, dimwit..
90% of 889 = 800
40% of 2000 = 800
That's really a lousy spin, Milt.
What matters is that both guys invested the same amount
and both guys suffered the same loss as a result and
that's a fact no matter how many strawmen you build and
no matter how you spin it....
So when are going to back your claim that:"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"
milt....@gmail.com
> On 6 May 2007 03:49:55 -0700, milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On May 5, 10:27 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> "Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
> >> the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH! You buy a share
> >> of stock in the hope that each share will develop a positive equity,
> >> right? Well, a loss is negative equity."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bed...
>
> >You know, for someone who's been arguing for a week that a 40% loss is
> >the same as a 90% loss, I'll give you one point for balls, but about
> >-99 for brains.
>
> Depends on what it's a percentage of, dimwit..
>
> 90% of 889 = 800
> 40% of 2000 = 800
>
> That's really a lousy spin, Milt.
Not a spin at all.
Margin trading, when you trade with 50% cash, 50% borrowed money,
DOUBLES the effects of either a gain OR a loss. Suppose the same two
people have better luck;
Guy #1 invests $20K.
Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
They both buy the same stock, and the stock increases in value by 50%,
so that the value of both accounts is $30,000.
Guy #1 has a 50% ROI, Guy #2 has a 100% ROI.
You're not getting this, are you?
> What matters is that both guys invested the same amount
> and both guys suffered the same loss as a result and
> that's a fact no matter how many strawmen you build and
> no matter how you spin it....
No, both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>
> So when are going to back your claim that:"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"
Why? You tired of getting your ass kicked on this, and would like to
get your ass kicked on something else again?
steven...@yahoo.com
<LOL> Milt wants to pretend that the invester doesn't invest the
amount he borrowed... yet, that money got invested...
...so who invested it, Milt?
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
You don't even understand what "buying on margin" means, do you?
Kurt Lochner
>
> "semen...@yahoo.com" blathered needlessly again:____>
> > > No, both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
> > > $20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
> >
> ><LOL> Milt wants to pretend that the invester doesn't invest the
> >amount he borrowed... yet, that money got invested...
> >
> >...so who invested it, Milt?
>
> You don't even understand what "buying on margin" means, do you?
Milt, in case you hadn't noticed, right-wingers like Semen Canyon
just don't understand numbers very well. The idea of having to
pay back a loan such this doesn't bother him at all, from the
looks of it.. And, subtracting the interest isn't important
to him at this tangent in the discussion, if you can call it that..
--Of course, he's never proven his claims about anything..
milt....@gmail.com
wrote:
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > "semencan...@yahoo.com" blathered needlessly again:
>
> > > On May 6, 2:06 pm,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> ____>
> > > > No, both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
> > > > $20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>
> > >amount he borrowed... yet, that money got invested...
>
> > >...so who invested it,Milt?
>
> > You don't even understand what "buying on margin" means, do you?
>
> Milt, in case you hadn't noticed, right-wingers like Semen Canyon
> just don't understand numbers very well. The idea of having to
> pay back a loan such this doesn't bother him at all, from the
> looks of it.. And, subtracting the interest isn't important
> to him at this tangent in the discussion, if you can call it that..
>
> --Of course, he's never proven his claims about anything..
How do you prove the absurd?
Buying on margin essentially means you invest money that isn't yours.
The idea is to buy stocks you're sure will go up. That way, you double
your return. Unfortunately for some,you also double your losses, if
you should have some. He's trying to have it both ways; he started off
claiming there is no greater risk, because you're investing less of
your own money, that the liability and cash borrowed equal ZERO. Now,
he's claiming you're investing the full amount. Funny thing is, he
will apparently say the opposite of whatever I say, no matter how
stupid he sounds.
I'm glad I have a life and won't continue this much longer... trying
to assess this guy's insanity is a full time job.
Steve
why do you duck and dodge and refuse to answer, Milt?
It's because Milt can't answer without either lying or pissing all
over his claim that one guy only invested $10,000.
Milt says:
Guy #1 invests $20K.
Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
Then Milt says:
"both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
Milt wants to pretend that the investor doesn't invest the
Steve
>On May 6, 8:27 pm, " Kurt Lochner" <kurt_loch...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> > "semencan...@yahoo.com" blathered needlessly again:
>>
>> > > On May 6, 2:06 pm,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>> ____>
>> > > > No, both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
>> > > > $20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>>
>> > ><LOL>Miltwants to pretend that the invester doesn't invest the
>> > >amount he borrowed... yet, that money got invested...
>>
>> > >...so who invested it,Milt?
>>
>> > You don't even understand what "buying on margin" means, do you?
>>
>> Milt, in case you hadn't noticed, right-wingers like Semen Canyon
>> just don't understand numbers very well. The idea of having to
>> pay back a loan such this doesn't bother him at all, from the
>> looks of it.. And, subtracting the interest isn't important
>> to him at this tangent in the discussion, if you can call it that..
>>
>> --Of course, he's never proven his claims about anything..
>
>How do you prove the absurd?
>
Hey Milt... Little Lochner is on your side....
<ROTFMAO>
<mercy snip>
>I'm glad I have a life and won't continue this much longer... trying
>to assess this guy's insanity is a full time job.
better get back to the chatroom, Milt, and get some "hugz." You need
'em....
BTW, how's that little civic running?
3369 Dead
You've seen Putsch's budgets, gleefully passed by a GOP congress.
Since when do Republicans pay debts?
--
"I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States
attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney."
--Alberto Gonzales, committing perjury before Congress
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Matt
Sigh. Enough. Idiots out there MIGHT believe you.
A margin account, Idiot, is not some sort of mortgage, nor a personal
loan.
In fact, it is much more closely related to a pawn shop. You don't
OWN
anything you borrow in there. You OWE money. The investments made in
a margin account BELONG to the investment company, which can call it
in anytime your equity falls below a certain point.
Thus, IDIOT, your "net worth" is 0. Much like your IQ.
Matt
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner replied to:
> >
> > milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >>"semen...@yahoo.com" blathered needlessly again:
> >> >
> >> > On May 6, 2:06 pm, milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > No, both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
> >> > > $20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
> >> >
> >> ><LOL> Milt wants to pretend that the invester doesn't invest the
> >> >amount he borrowed... yet, that money got invested...
> >> >
> >> >...so who invested it, Milt?
> >>
> >> You don't even understand what "buying on margin" means, do you?
> >
> > Milt, in case you hadn't noticed, right-wingers like Semen Canyon
> > just don't understand numbers very well. The idea of having to
> > pay back a loan such this doesn't bother him at all, from the
> > looks of it.. And, subtracting the interest isn't important
> > to him at this tangent in the discussion, if you can call it that..
> >
> > --Of course, he's never proven his claims about anything..
>
> You've seen Putsch's budgets, gleefully passed by a GOP congress.
What laughably passes for such, yes. Proves my conjecture
that right-wingers can't do the math, even simple arithmetic,
which makes them a tolerable sub-species that can be expected
to bath, wear shoes and believe in things that make them feel
better about the pitiable plight of being exploited by others
of their kind..
> Since when do Republicans pay debts?
Only to each other.. It's sort of a fraternity of <l>users..
--Or, so it seems..
Gandalf Grey
" Kurt Lochner" <kurt_l...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:463E85EA...@hotmail.com...
and only when the guy they owe the money to has "art" on them. It's called
the Jeff Gannon clause.
>
> --Or, so it seems..
>
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner was sharing a laugh with:
> >
> > 3369 Dead wrote:
> >>
> >> Kurt Lochner replied to:
> >> >
> >> > milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>"semen...@yahoo.com" blathered needlessly again:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On May 6, 2:06 pm, milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> > > No, both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
> >> >> > > $20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
> >> >> >
> >> >> ><LOL> Milt wants to pretend that the invester doesn't invest the
> >> >> >amount he borrowed... yet, that money got invested...
> >> >> >
> >> >> >...so who invested it, Milt?
> >> >>
> >> >> You don't even understand what "buying on margin" means, do you?
> >> >
> >> > Milt, in case you hadn't noticed, right-wingers like Semen Canyon
> >> > just don't understand numbers very well. The idea of having to
> >> > pay back a loan such this doesn't bother him at all, from the
> >> > looks of it.. And, subtracting the interest isn't important
> >> > to him at this tangent in the discussion, if you can call it that..
> >> >
> >> > --Of course, he's never proven his claims about anything..
> >>
> >> You've seen Putsch's budgets, gleefully passed by a GOP congress.
> >
> > What laughably passes for such, yes. Proves my conjecture
> > that right-wingers can't do the math, even simple arithmetic,
> > which makes them a tolerable sub-species that can be expected
> > to bath, wear shoes and believe in things that make them feel
> > better about the pitiable plight of being exploited by others
> > of their kind..
> >
> >> Since when do Republicans pay debts?
> >
> > Only to each other.. It's sort of a fraternity of <l>users..
>
> and only when the guy they owe the money to has "art" on them.
> It's called the Jeff Gannon clause.
I'm never going to forget Robin Williams' take on that, a whole
new meaning to the phrase 'throwing soft balls'..
--"Karl, are you in there? Karl?.."
Kurt Lochner
> >>
> >> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"semen...@tampabay.rr.com" blathered needlessly again:
_____>
> >> > You don't even understand what "buying on margin" means, do you?
> >>
> >> Milt, in case you hadn't noticed, right-wingers like Semen Canyon
> >> just don't understand numbers very well. The idea of having to
> >> pay back a loan such this doesn't bother him at all, from the
> >> looks of it.. And, subtracting the interest isn't important
> >> to him at this tangent in the discussion, if you can call it that..
> >>
> >> --Of course, he's never proven his claims about anything..
> >
> > How do you prove the absurd?
>
>Hey Milt... Little Lochner is on your side....
Hey, Porkie.. How's that little sailboat of yours? Are you
still hiding behind that 'kill-file' from the humiliations
you got in public from me? *>LOL!<*
--Got any of those points of "magnetic charge" yet?
Gandalf Grey
" Kurt Lochner" <kurt_l...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
Canyon's demonstrating the one thing he's been successful at on the
net....running away.
Kurt Lochner
>
> Kurt Lochner was laughing at the pathology exhibited by:
> >
> >"semen...@tampabay.rr.com" whimpered like a right-wing 'tard:
> >>
> >> On 6 May 2007 17:49:24 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Kurt Lochner replied to:
> >> >>
> >> >> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"semen...@tampabay.rr.com" blathered needlessly again:
> >> >> > You don't even understand what "buying on margin" means, do you?
> >> >>
> >> >> Milt, in case you hadn't noticed, right-wingers like Semen Canyon
> >> >> just don't understand numbers very well. The idea of having to
> >> >> pay back a loan such this doesn't bother him at all, from the
> >> >> looks of it.. And, subtracting the interest isn't important
> >> >> to him at this tangent in the discussion, if you can call it that..
> >> >>
> >> >> --Of course, he's never proven his claims about anything..
> >> >
> >> > How do you prove the absurd?
> >>
> >>Hey Milt... Little Lochner is on your side....
> >
> > Hey, Porkie.. How's that little sailboat of yours? Are you
> > still hiding behind that 'kill-file' from the humiliations
> > you got in public from me? *>LOL!<*
>
> Canyon's demonstrating the one thing he's been successful at
> on the net....running away.
And he's really 'brave' and macho about it too..
--Which is why he hides behind his kill-file filters from me..
steven...@yahoo.com
A margin account is like a pawn shop, eh, Matt?
..that's from Matt who threatens to get me
kicked off the internet because spotlight
his ignorance for all to see..
I'll bet his kids laugh at him too,...
Matt
Yes, stupid, it is.
Glad you agree.
Matt
Steve
Do you use that new, special, Milt Shook no_dollar_money
at these pawn shops, too, Matt?
Matt
Translation for the Steve-impaired (in other words, the intelligent):
"I got nothing"
Matt
milt....@gmail.com
> On May 7, 8:15 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7 May 2007 05:37:12 -0700, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > >On May 7, 4:03 am, "stevencan...@yahoo.com" <stevencan...@yahoo.com>
> > >wrote:
> > >> On May 6, 9:26 pm, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > >> > On May 6, 6:56 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>
>
> > >> > > >On May 6, 2:10 pm, "stevencan...@yahoo.com" <stevencan...@yahoo.com>
> > >> > > >wrote:
>
> > >> > > >> > On May 6, 9:01 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>
> > >> > > >> amount he borrowed... yet, that money got invested...
>
> > >> > > >> ...so who invested it,Milt?
>
> > >> > > >You don't even understand what "buying on margin" means, do you?
>
> > >> > > why do you duck and dodge and refuse to answer,Milt?
>
> > >> > > over his claim that one guy only invested $10,000.
>
> > >> > >Miltsays:
>
> > >> > > Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
>
> > >> > > "both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
> > >> > > $20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>
> > >> > > amount he borrowed... yet, that money got invested...
>
> > >> > > ...so who invested it,Milt?
>
> > >> > Sigh. Enough. Idiots out there MIGHT believe you.
>
> > >> > A margin account, Idiot, is not some sort of mortgage, nor a personal
> > >> > loan.
> > >> > In fact, it is much more closely related to a pawn shop. You don't
> > >> > OWN
> > >> > anything you borrow in there. You OWE money. The investments made in
> > >> > a margin account BELONG to the investment company, which can call it
> > >> > in anytime your equity falls below a certain point.
>
> > >> > Thus, IDIOT, your "net worth" is 0. Much like your IQ.
>
> > >> > Matt
>
> > >> A margin account is like a pawn shop, eh, Matt?
>
> > >Yes, stupid, it is.
>
> > Do you use that new, special,MiltShookno_dollar_money
> > at these pawn shops, too, Matt
>
> Translation for the Steve-impaired (in other words, the intelligent):
>
> "I got nothing"
>
Well, he's made that apparent for quite a while. He obviously doesn't
know what margin trading is, and how you can buy $20,000 worth of
stock for just $10,000.
Steve
Now I want to know how to buy a $20,000 motorcycle for just $10,000.
"Which means, if you invest that money,
you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a54cd?hl=en&
Matt
Ah, Steve-o, you are just plain stupid. Get it at a half-off sale.
Geez. THIS is your Republican party, folks.
>
> "Which means, if you invest that money,
> you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."
> Milt Shookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
You must take after Limpballs. Bet if I edit out YOUR alleged remarks,
you'd
look rather stupid. Oh, wait, you already do.
Matt
milt....@gmail.com
Well, if you could figure out a way to invest in a bike that didn't
lose value simply by driving out of the showroom, perhaps a bike
broker will let you buy one on margin.
IOW, you twit, a motorcycle is (usually) not an investment designed to
make money.
milt....@gmail.com
>
> You must take after Limpballs. Bet if I edit out YOUR alleged remarks,
> you'd
> look rather stupid. Oh, wait, you already do.
>
> Matt
It really isn't much of a wonder why this country is so financially
screwed when you see wingnut republicans like this, who don't
understand finance 101. Bush is obviously no smarter than Canyon...
Steve
Soooo you say that this zero_dollar_money you mentioned only works
with an investment designed to make money. so can I use it to start
a business?
milt....@gmail.com
You know, one would think that someone who obviously knows nothing
about this stuff would eventually shut up and go read up on it. But
canyon's that rare breed of blowhard...
Baldin Lee Pramer
> On 6 May 2007 03:49:55 -0700, milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On May 5, 10:27 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> "Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
> >> the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH! You buy a share
> >> of stock in the hope that each share will develop a positive equity,
> >> right? Well, a loss is negative equity."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bed...
>
> >You know, for someone who's been arguing for a week that a 40% loss is
> >the same as a 90% loss, I'll give you one point for balls, but about
> >-99 for brains.
>
> Depends on what it's a percentage of, dimwit..
>
> 90% of 889 = 800
> 40% of 2000 = 800
>
> That's really a lousy spin, Milt.
>
> and both guys suffered the same loss
That doesn't make sense. Are you talking about some other situation?
The example above has them investing *different* amounts.
BL33P
Steve
On one side of Milt's argument, he'll say that
you can't lose borrowed money which implies
that borrower will treat it and reap the
benefits of it, exactly as if it was his
own money..
...and on the other side of Milt's arguments
he uses the term "your money" which has any
loans subtracted out of it.
Milt wants to exclude from this "your money"
figure, the amount of any outstanding loans,
even though those loans have no effect on
the amount of gains and loses a person makes
on his investments.
If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
wanted to invest, Milt then claims that the
money you have invested, "your money"
is zero? <LOL>
"Which means, if you invest that money,
you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a54cd?hl=en&
Poor Milt.. in his attempts to make his loony claims look viable, he
just keeps looking more and more stupid.
Steve
wrote:
They both spent the same amount of money to buy stock.. Milt wants to
pretend that if you have an outstanding loan and buy stock, the amount
of the loan can be subtracted from the amount yo have invested so he
can then compare the gains or losses to this reduced investment
amount.
See his claim below:
>Guy #1 invests $20K.
>Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
>They both buy the same stock
>both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
>$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
-Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/310231972f2c19ae?hl=en&
milt....@gmail.com
> On 8 May 2007 07:56:33 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer <BaldinPra...@msn.com>
>
> >> >On May 5, 10:27 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> >> "Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
> >> >> the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH! You buy a share
> >> >> of stock in the hope that each share will develop a positive equity,
> >> >> right? Well, a loss is negative equity."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bed...
>
> >> >You know, for someone who's been arguing for a week that a 40% loss is
> >> >the same as a 90% loss, I'll give you one point for balls, but about
> >> >-99 for brains.
>
> >> Depends on what it's a percentage of, dimwit..
>
> >> 90% of 889 = 800
> >> 40% of 2000 = 800
>
> >> That's really a lousy spin,Milt.
>
> >> What matters is that both guys invested the same amount
> >> and both guys suffered the same loss
>
> >That doesn't make sense. Are you talking about some other situation?
> >The example above has them investing *different* amounts.
>
> >BL33P
>
> pretend that if you have an outstanding loan and buy stock, the amount
> of the loan can be subtracted from the amount yo have invested so he
> can then compare the gains or losses to this reduced investment
> amount.
Yes. It's called "margin investing," moron.
>
> See his claim below:
>
> >Guy #1 invests $20K.
> >Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
> >They both buy the same stock
> >both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
> >$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>
> -MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/310231972f2...- Hide quoted text -
>
You just get dumber.
milt....@gmail.com
> On 8 May 2007 07:24:31 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 7, 9:38 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
A blowhard who likes to build houses made of straw because they're
easier to blow down...
>
> On one side ofMilt'sargument, he'll say that
> you can't lose borrowed money which implies
> that borrower will treat it and reap the
> benefits of it, exactly as if it was his
> own money..
I never said you can't lose borrowed money. In fact, you idiot, that's
where margin trading entails greater risk. In fact, for the longest
time, you were trying to make us believe that it didn't count,
remember?
>
> ...and on the other side ofMilt'sarguments
> he uses the term "your money" which has any
> loans subtracted out of it.
It's not "your money" until it's lost.
>
> Miltwants to exclude from this "your money"
> figure, the amount of any outstanding loans,
> even though those loans have no effect on
> the amount of gains and loses a person makes
> on his investments.
Ah... watch Canyon speak out of the OTHER side of his mouth now...
They count as "your money," but they have no effect on the gains and
losses of my investments, according to him.
OTOH< those of us in the reality-basd community understand that margin
trading allows you to buy more shares than you can otherwise buy with
the money you designate. The risk is, if the value goes down, you lose
more than you invest. The upside is, if the stock value rises, you get
up to twice as much return, minus a modest amount of interest on the
margin.
>
> If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
> wanted to invest,Miltthen claims that the
> money you have invested, "your money"
> is zero? <LOL>
That would be illegal now, but that's partially what exacerbated the
effects of the stock market crash in 1929.
>
> "Which means, if you invest that money,
> you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
>
> PoorMilt.. in his attempts to make his loony claims look viable, he
> just keeps looking more and more stupid.
Of course, in context, it actually makes sense. and makes you look
stupid.
Shrikeback
> On 8 May 2007 07:56:33 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer <BaldinPra...@msn.com>
He has a point. Guy #2 has only invested 10K of
capital. This is why debt is good. Supposing the
stock doubles. Guy #1 made a 100% return on
his initial investment:20K. Guy #2 pays off the
10K that was borrowed (say with 1K interest). That
means that Guy #2, after investing 10K of
capital, actually had a 29K return on investment,
or 290%.
Shrikeback
> On Sun, 06 May 2007 19:27:01 -0500, " Kurt Lochner"
>
>
>
>
>
> >milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> "semencan...@yahoo.com" blathered needlessly again:
>
> >> > On May 6, 2:06 pm, milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >____>
> >> > > No, both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
> >> > > $20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>
> >> ><LOL> Milt wants to pretend that the invester doesn't invest the
> >> >amount he borrowed... yet, that money got invested...
>
> >> >...so who invested it, Milt?
>
> >> You don't even understand what "buying on margin" means, do you?
>
> >Milt, in case you hadn't noticed, right-wingers like Semen Canyon
> >just don't understand numbers very well. The idea of having to
> >pay back a loan such this doesn't bother him at all, from the
> >looks of it.. And, subtracting the interest isn't important
> >to him at this tangent in the discussion, if you can call it that..
>
> >--Of course, he's never proven his claims about anything..
>
> You've seen Putsch's budgets, gleefully passed by a GOP congress.
>
> Since when do Republicans pay debts?
The feds don't really "pay off" the debt since the
New Deal anyway. It's the Keynesian way.
It's funny how psuedoliberals pretend to be
deficit hawks when they are out of power,
as though they don't even know what
Keynesianism is about.
Steve
Try to keep of your earlier spins, Milt
"the FACT of the matter is, you can't LOSE
the money you borrowed"
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/7ece1f7841dbc78a?hl=en&
> In fact, you idiot, that's
>where margin trading entails greater risk. In fact, for the longest
>time, you were trying to make us believe that it didn't count,
>remember?
....that what didn't matter where? That having a loan doesn't impact
the amount you invest? Yeah, that's an obvious fact.
>> ...and on the other side ofMilt'sarguments
>> he uses the term "your money" which has any
>> loans subtracted out of it.
>
>It's not "your money" until it's lost.
Really... soooo, when you borrow money, it's not yours... but then if
yo lose it, it is? So if the money isn't mine, does that mean the
debt liability isn't mine either?
>> Miltwants to exclude from this "your money"
>> figure, the amount of any outstanding loans,
>> even though those loans have no effect on
>> the amount of gains and loses a person makes
>> on his investments.
>
>Ah... watch Canyon speak out of the OTHER side of his mouth now...
>
>They count as "your money," but they have no effect on the gains and
>losses of my investments, according to him.
<LOL> Strawman alert
>OTOH< those of us in the reality-basd community understand that margin
>trading allows you to buy more shares than you can otherwise buy with
>the money you designate. The risk is, if the value goes down, you lose
>more than you invest. The upside is, if the stock value rises, you get
>up to twice as much return, minus a modest amount of interest on the
>margin.
>>
>> If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
>> wanted to invest,Miltthen claims that the
>> money you have invested, "your money"
>> is zero? <LOL>
>
>That would be illegal now, but that's partially what exacerbated the
>effects of the stock market crash in 1929.
Borrowing an amount equal to what you invest is illegal? I assure
that is not the case..
>> "Which means, if you invest that money,
>> you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."
MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
>>
>> PoorMilt.. in his attempts to make his loony claims look viable, he
>> just keeps looking more and more stupid.
>
>Of course, in context, it actually makes sense. and makes you look
>stupid.
Blah,blah,blah... with these loony leftists, it's always "out of
context," but, of course nothing I've quoted Milt as saying was out of
context...
Bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
Steve
wrote:
I repeat: Claiming that you didn't invest the money you bought stock
with is just loony..
Milt has admitted that the $10,000 has been invested... that's pretty
hard to deny... Put when asked "who invested it?" all he can do is
duck and dodge....
The fact is that the reason margin investments can be dangerous to
people who don't understand it,is because people think they're only
investing half of what they're really investing.... the term used is
"put at risk."
Steve
Claiming that you didn't invest the money you bought stock with is
just loony, Milt.
Claiming that you invest that money, but that it's zero dollars is
just stupid....
"Which means, if you invest that money,
you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a54cd?hl=en&
>> See his claim below:
>>
>> >Guy #1 invests $20K.
>> >Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
>> >They both buy the same stock
>> >both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
>> >$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>>
>> -MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/310231972f2...- Hide quoted text -
>>
>You just get dumber.
Bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
milt....@gmail.com
Claiming that I claimed that demonstrates your cluelessness...
>
> Claiming that you invest that money, but that it's zero dollars is
> just stupid....
Claiming that I claimed that demonstrates your cluelessness.
>
> "Which means, if you invest that money,
> you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
>
> >> See his claim below:
>
> >> >Guy #1 invests $20K.
> >> >Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
> >> >They both buy the same stock
> >> >both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
> >> >$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>
> >> -MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/310231972f2...Hide quoted text -
>
> >You just get dumber.
>
> Bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
Well, all of the experts disagree with you...
"Margin is a high-risk strategy that can yield a huge profit if
executed correctly. The dark side of margin is that you can lose your
shirt and any other assets you're wearing. One of the only things
riskier than investing on margin is investing on margin without
understanding what you're doing."
http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/
Margin accounts can be very risky and they are not suitable for
everyone. Before opening a margin account, you should fully understand
that: ***You can lose more money than you have invested...*** (Hmmm...
Canyon's head's gotta be spinning by now... the SEC agrees with me...)
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/margin.htm
You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin account
A decline in the value of securities that are purchased on margin may
require you to provide additional funds to the firm that has made the
loan to avoid the forced sale of those securities or other securities
in your account.
It is important that you fully understand the risks involved in
trading securities on margin. These risks include the following:
You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin account. A
decline in the value of securities that are purchased on margin may
require you to provide additional funds to the firm that has made the
loan to avoid the forced sale of those securities or other securities
in your account.
https://us.etrade.com/e/t/estation/help?id=1302000000#View
You know, watching someone who can't think outside of black and white
try to understand something like margin trading is actually quite
funny.
Steve
here it is:
Guy #1 invests $20K.
Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
They both buy the same stock
both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/310231972f2c19ae?hl=en&
>> Claiming that you invest that money, but that it's zero dollars is
>> just stupid....
>
>Claiming that I claimed that demonstrates your cluelessness.
here it is:
"Which means, if you invest that money,
you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a54cd?hl=en&
>> "Which means, if you invest that money,
>> you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
>>
>> >> See his claim below:
>>
>> >> >Guy #1 invests $20K.
>> >> >Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
>> >> >They both buy the same stock
>> >> >both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
>> >> >$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>>
>> >> -MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/310231972f2...Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >You just get dumber.
>>
>> Bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
>
>Well, all of the experts disagree with you...
No they don't...
>"Margin is a high-risk strategy that can yield a huge profit if
>executed correctly. The dark side of margin is that you can lose your
>shirt and any other assets you're wearing. One of the only things
>riskier than investing on margin is investing on margin without
>understanding what you're doing."
>
>http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/
Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
>Margin accounts can be very risky and they are not suitable for
>everyone. Before opening a margin account, you should fully understand
>that: ***You can lose more money than you have invested...*** (Hmmm...
>Canyon's head's gotta be spinning by now... the SEC agrees with me...)
>
>http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/margin.htm
Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
>You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin account
>A decline in the value of securities that are purchased on margin may
>require you to provide additional funds to the firm that has made the
>loan to avoid the forced sale of those securities or other securities
>in your account.
Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
>It is important that you fully understand the risks involved in
>trading securities on margin. These risks include the following:
>
>You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin account. A
>decline in the value of securities that are purchased on margin may
>require you to provide additional funds to the firm that has made the
>loan to avoid the forced sale of those securities or other securities
>in your account.
Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
>https://us.etrade.com/e/t/estation/help?id=1302000000#View
>
>You know, watching someone who can't think outside of black and white
>try to understand something like margin trading is actually quite
>funny.
>
>
<LOL> You can lose more margin trading than with a regular trading...
I've certainly never disputed that
But the bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
because I can show that in every case, the investor will lose the
exact same amount if the stock price drops the same but there is no
margin call..
Milt cannot produce an example where that is not true
<LOL> ....and that's why Milt has to throw out all these strawmen...
trying to spin the fact margin trading allows you to put more money at
risk, and thus, lose or gain more.
milt....@gmail.com
Yep. That's called "margin trading"
>
> >> Claiming that you invest that money, but that it's zero dollars is
> >> just stupid....
>
> >Claiming that I claimed that demonstrates your cluelessness.
>
> here it is:
> "Which means, if you invest that money,
> you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
>
of course, once again, anyone who actually looks at the context of
what I said, knows that I didn't say what you're implying...
And there was no need to repeat it... it's right there >>>>>
>
>
> >> "Which means, if you invest that money,
> >> you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
>
> >> >> See his claim below:
>
> >> >> >Guy #1 invests $20K.
> >> >> >Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
> >> >> >They both buy the same stock
> >> >> >both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
> >> >> >$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>
> >> >> -MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/310231972f2...quoted text -
>
> >> >You just get dumber.
>
> >> Bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
>
> >Well, all of the experts disagree with you...
>
> No they don't...
Um, yeah, they do. And repeating it doesn't make you "righter".
Yeah, I'm afraid there is...
>
> >https://us.etrade.com/e/t/estation/help?id=1302000000#View
>
> >You know, watching someone who can't think outside of black and white
> >try to understand something like margin trading is actually quite
> >funny.
>
> <LOL> You can lose more margin trading than with a regular trading...
> I've certainly never disputed that
Well, yeah... you have... in this entire post.
>
> But the bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
> because I can show that in every case, the investor will lose the
> exact same amount if the stock price drops the same but there is no
> margin call..
>
> Miltcannot produce an example where that is not true
>
> <LOL> ....and that's whyMilthas to throw out all these strawmen...
> trying to spin the fact margin trading allows you to put more money at
> risk, and thus, lose or gain more.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
milt....@gmail.com
> On May 8, 8:55 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 8 May 2007 07:56:33 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer <BaldinPra...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >On May 6, 7:01 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>
> > >> >On May 5, 10:27 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> > >> >> "Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
> > >> >> the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH! You buy a share
> > >> >> of stock in the hope that each share will develop a positive equity,
> > >> >> right? Well, a loss is negative equity."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bed...
>
> > >> >You know, for someone who's been arguing for a week that a 40% loss is
> > >> >the same as a 90% loss, I'll give you one point for balls, but about
> > >> >-99 for brains.
>
> > >> Depends on what it's a percentage of, dimwit..
>
> > >> 90% of 889 = 800
> > >> 40% of 2000 = 800
>
> > >> That's really a lousy spin,Milt.
>
> > >> What matters is that both guys invested the same amount
> > >> and both guys suffered the same loss
>
> > >That doesn't make sense. Are you talking about some other situation?
> > >The example above has them investing *different* amounts.
>
> > >BL33P
>
> > pretend that if you have an outstanding loan and buy stock, the amount
> > of the loan can be subtracted from the amount yo have invested so he
> > can then compare the gains or losses to this reduced investment
> > amount.
>
> > See his claim below:
>
> > >Guy #1 invests $20K.
> > >Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
> > >They both buy the same stock
> > >both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
> > >$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>
> He has a point. Guy #2 has only invested 10K of
> capital. This is why debt is good. Supposing the
> stock doubles. Guy #1 made a 100% return on
> his initial investment:20K. Guy #2 pays off the
> 10K that was borrowed (say with 1K interest). That
> means that Guy #2, after investing 10K of
> capital, actually had a 29K return on investment,
> or 290%
Exactly.
Wow... some people here do think. I'm encouraged.
milt....@gmail.com
> On 8 May 2007 13:33:47 -0700, Shrikeback <hewpied...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 8, 8:55 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> On 8 May 2007 07:56:33 -0700, Baldin Lee Pramer <BaldinPra...@msn.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 6, 7:01 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>
> >> >> >On May 5, 10:27 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> >> >> "Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
> >> >> >> the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH! You buy a share
> >> >> >> of stock in the hope that each share will develop a positive equity,
> >> >> >> right? Well, a loss is negative equity."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bed...
>
> >> >> >You know, for someone who's been arguing for a week that a 40% loss is
> >> >> >the same as a 90% loss, I'll give you one point for balls, but about
> >> >> >-99 for brains.
>
> >> >> Depends on what it's a percentage of, dimwit..
>
> >> >> 90% of 889 = 800
> >> >> 40% of 2000 = 800
>
> >> >> That's really a lousy spin,Milt.
>
> >> >> What matters is that both guys invested the same amount
> >> >> and both guys suffered the same loss
>
> >> >That doesn't make sense. Are you talking about some other situation?
> >> >The example above has them investing *different* amounts.
>
> >> >BL33P
>
> >> pretend that if you have an outstanding loan and buy stock, the amount
> >> of the loan can be subtracted from the amount yo have invested so he
> >> can then compare the gains or losses to this reduced investment
> >> amount.
>
> >> See his claim below:
>
> >> >Guy #1 invests $20K.
> >> >Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
> >> >They both buy the same stock
> >> >both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
> >> >$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>
> >He has a point. Guy #2 has only invested 10K of
> >capital. This is why debt is good. Supposing the
> >stock doubles. Guy #1 made a 100% return on
> >his initial investment:20K. Guy #2 pays off the
> >10K that was borrowed (say with 1K interest). That
> >means that Guy #2, after investing 10K of
> >capital, actually had a 29K return on investment,
> >or 290%.
>
> I repeat: Claiming that you didn't invest the money you bought stock
> with is just loony..
Unless it's not your money, dumbass...
>
> Milthas admitted that the $10,000 has been invested... that's pretty
> hard to deny... Put when asked "who invested it?" all he can do is
> duck and dodge....
No, I don't "duck and dodge." I say, "it's been invested." It's not my
money, and the brokerage has hard and fast rules on what stocks I can
and cannot invest in, how long I have to hold them, etc. It's not MY
money; at best it's OUR money, if you really have to put an identity
on it, Mr. Black-and-White. it's a partnership between me and the
brokerage.
>
> The fact is that the reason margin investments can be dangerous to
> people who don't understand it,is because people think they're only
> investing half of what they're really investing.... the term used is
> "put at risk."
No, idiot. The risk is that, while you can see twice the reward, you
can also see twice the losses. If the stock never loses, the loan
isn't an issue. It only becomes an issue if the stock loses.
>
> Bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses...
Yeah, they do. And the fact that you don't think so, means that you
don't know what a margin call is.
Have a nice day... jagoff
Steve
<LOL> At one point, Milt actually tried to claim that when you used
a margin account and the stock price goes down, the broker suffers the
loss...
>> >> Claiming that you invest that money, but that it's zero dollars is
>> >> just stupid....
>>
>> >Claiming that I claimed that demonstrates your cluelessness.
>>
>> here it is:
>> "Which means, if you invest that money,
>> you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
>>
>of course, once again, anyone who actually looks at the context of
>what I said, knows that I didn't say what you're implying...
<ROTFLMAO> Sooo go ahead and explain what you were saying, then...
<LOL> as if there's any context where that makes sense.
>And there was no need to repeat it... it's right there >>>>>
I like the version where the url hasn't been chopped off
"Which means, if you invest that money,
you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a54cd?hl=en&
>> >> "Which means, if you invest that money,
>> >> you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
>>
>> >> >> See his claim below:
>>
>> >> >> >Guy #1 invests $20K.
>> >> >> >Guy #2 invests $10K, borrows $10K.
>> >> >> >They both buy the same stock
>> >> >> >both guys did NOT invest the same amount. One guy invested
>> >> >> >$20,000, one guy invested $10,000.
>>
>> >> >> -MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/310231972f2...quoted text -
>>
>> >> >You just get dumber.
>>
>> >> Bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
>>
>> >Well, all of the experts disagree with you...
>>
>> No they don't...
>
>Um, yeah, they do. And repeating it doesn't make you "righter".
>>
>> >"Margin is a high-risk strategy that can yield a huge profit if
>> >executed correctly. The dark side of margin is that you can lose your
>> >shirt and any other assets you're wearing. One of the only things
>> >riskier than investing on margin is investing on margin without
>> >understanding what you're doing."
>>
>> >http://www.investopedia.com/university/margin/
>>
>> Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
I repeat: Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
>>
>> >Margin accounts can be very risky and they are not suitable for
>> >everyone. Before opening a margin account, you should fully understand
>> >that: ***You can lose more money than you have invested...*** (Hmmm...
>> >Canyon's head's gotta be spinning by now... the SEC agrees with me...)
>>
>> >http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/margin.htm
>>
>> Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
I repeat: Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
>>
>> >You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin account
>> >A decline in the value of securities that are purchased on margin may
>> >require you to provide additional funds to the firm that has made the
>> >loan to avoid the forced sale of those securities or other securities
>> >in your account.
>>
>> Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
I repeat: Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
>>
>> >It is important that you fully understand the risks involved in
>> >trading securities on margin. These risks include the following:
>>
>> >You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin account. A
>> >decline in the value of securities that are purchased on margin may
>> >require you to provide additional funds to the firm that has made the
>> >loan to avoid the forced sale of those securities or other securities
>> >in your account.
>>
>> Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
>
>Yeah, I'm afraid there is...
I repeat: Nothing there about margin calls increasing your losses...
the fact is that Shook couldn't, and still can't produce an example of
his "margin caused loss" where I could show a person losing the exact
same amount, under the same circumstances, but with no margin call.
Hard to claim that the margin call was responsible for something that
happens without the margin call anyway.
>> >https://us.etrade.com/e/t/estation/help?id=1302000000#View
>>
>> >You know, watching someone who can't think outside of black and white
>> >try to understand something like margin trading is actually quite
>> >funny.
>>
>> <LOL> You can lose more margin trading than with a regular trading...
>> I've certainly never disputed that
>
>Well, yeah... you have... in this entire post.
Another strawman from Shook... What I've said many times is that
margin trading allows you to invest more... IOW, put more at risk...
>> But the bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
>> because I can show that in every case, the investor will lose the
>> exact same amount if the stock price drops the same but there is no
>> margin call..
>>
>> Milt cannot produce an example where that is not true
>>
>> <LOL> ....and that's why Milt has to throw out all these strawmen...
Steve
Then the liability must not be mine either, dummy. I'm sure not going
to accept the liability of a loan unless I also get the capital.
>> Milthas admitted that the $10,000 has been invested... that's pretty
>> hard to deny... Put when asked "who invested it?" all he can do is
>> duck and dodge....
>
>No, I don't "duck and dodge." I say, "it's been invested." It's not my
>money, and the brokerage has hard and fast rules on what stocks I can
>and cannot invest in, how long I have to hold them, etc. It's not MY
>money; at best it's OUR money, if you really have to put an identity
>on it, Mr. Black-and-White. it's a partnership between me and the
>brokerage.
...and yet the broker get's none of the profit, nor suffers none of
the loss... All the broker has is your signature specifying that you
owe him money.
Simple accounting rules say that the loan itself shows as an asset on
the lender's balance sheet while it shows as a liability on the
borrowers... So the capital shows up positive on the borrower's
sheet and negative on the lender's sheet. In order for that to work
out, the actual capital has to change hands, (IOW) the capital
transfers from the lender to borrower..
>> The fact is that the reason margin investments can be dangerous to
>> people who don't understand it,is because people think they're only
>> investing half of what they're really investing.... the term used is
>> "put at risk."
>
>No, idiot. The risk is that, while you can see twice the reward, you
>can also see twice the losses. If the stock never loses, the loan
>isn't an issue. It only becomes an issue if the stock loses.
Anybody can see that at this point, Milt's only arguing point is to
claim that the capital that transfers from the broker to the investor
in the form of a loan, doesn't really make that transfer...
Initially, Milt was claiming that the broker was the one that suffered
the loss... Now he says "it's a partnership.." The fact is that
it's neither... the capital belongs entirely to the investor..
>> Bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses...
>
>Yeah, they do. And the fact that you don't think so, means that you
>don't know what a margin call is.
So produce an produce an example of this "margin caused loss" where I
can't show a person losing the exact same amount, under the same
circumstances, but with no margin call.
You haven't and you can't...
>Have a nice day... jagoff
Had a great day.. Worried a bit about the storm, but no real problem
after we got over there... We'd planned on going this weekend but
decided to push it up because of the weather. Looks like that was a
good idea.
Steve
Anybody that would accept the liability without getting ownership of
the capital would rightly be called a fool. The capital goes from the
lender to the borrower and becomes the property of the borrower.