Shook blusters and lies to hide his ignorance
Steve
From: milt.sh...@gmail.com
Date: 30 Apr 2007 07:22:07 -0700
Local: Mon, Apr 30 2007 10:22 am
Subject: Re: Canyon's new book titled "Milt gets educated" (in four
chapters)
On Apr 30, 8:14 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> CHAPTER I
> **************************************************
> Canyon's claim...
> "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."
> --Steve Canyonhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/9fc91f5eeb286e03?...
> CHAPTER II
> **************************************************Milt'scounter claim...
> "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"
> --MiltShook
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?...
> CHAPTER III
> **************************************************Miltpresents his case which trashes his own argument.
> "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."http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/eca4b4662ef2cc82?...
> CHAPTER IV
> **************************************************
> Canyon sums upMilt'sconfusion
> In chapter three,Miltbought $20,000 worth of stock which experienced
> a reduction in the stock price to where it's market value became
> $12,000, $8000 less than he paid for it. But as he said, "a stock
> price going down isn't a loss until you sell," and indeed, the
> price of the stock can change again, increasing or decreasing further
> before it gets sold.
> Now in chapter II,Miltsays "you're out the amount of that margin
> call, any way you look at it," and inMilt'sexample, the margin
> call amounted to $3000. Therefore, inMilt'sexample, he is
> claiming he'd be out $3000, "any way you look at it," however, meeting
> the margin call merely involves transferring money into an account
> that belongs to himself. That $3000 is in his own account. He hasn't
> lost money if it's in his own account, so there's no $3000 loss
> associated with the margin call, "any way you look at it."
> In fact, there's no loss at all until he sells the stock at the
> lowered price. That loss would occur in exactly the same way, at
> exactly the same time, and in exactly the same amount as if he'd
> bought the stock with his own money, which proves my statement in
> Chapter I, where I said that "you don't lose money unless you sell
> it for less than you bought it for, and that includes the dreaded
> margin call," for indeed the margin call did not alter the amount of,
> the time of, nor the reason for the loss.
> Milt is welcome to refute any of this, and/or simply explain how he
> would lose the $3000.
:Has anyone else noticed that canyon continues to conveniently overlook
:the $10,000 debt hanging over him?
Nothing was overlooked, Shook. I used your scenario and your figures
which include the $10,000 loan...
Shook is blustering and, yes, lying here to try to cover up his
stupidity..
As you stated in your scenario above...
Assets before the stock price was reduced: $20,000
Your own words below:
You now have $15,000 in assets in the margin account, and $7,000 in
he other account, and you STILL have a $10,000 liability."
Net assets: $12,000
The loan is labeled "liability" in your scenario and the net assets
(including the loan amount) after the stock price was reduced and the
margin call answered is $12,000
...and the difference is $8000...all of which because of the stock's
price being reduced, therefore none of it can be a result of the
margin call
...and you already agreed that "a stock price going down isn't a loss
until you sell"
So how did the margin call itself result in a $3000 loss, Milt?
Explain your claim below,Milt
"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"
--MiltShook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?...
<LOL> Milt can't explain it...
:Has anyone noticed that Canyon seems to think that stocks that tank to
:the tune of a 50% reduction in value are bound to come back, to the
:point that you shouldn't worry a bit.
Does anyone notice that Shook hasn't responded to he question of how
his claimed $3000 loss occurred....
:Seriously; can anyone else imagine someone jumping through this many
:hoops to make his implausible premise seem plausible?
Seriously; can anyone else imagine someone jumping through this many
hoops to keep from responding to the question of how his claimed
$3000 loss occurred....
--
"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
> From:milt.sh...@gmail.com
> Date: 30 Apr 2007 07:22:07 -0700
> Local: Mon, Apr 30 2007 10:22 am
> > would lose the $3000.
>
> :Has anyone else noticed that canyon continues to conveniently overlook
> :the $10,000 debt hanging over him?
>
> which include the $10,000 loan...
>
> stupidity..
>
> As you stated in your scenario above...
>
> Assets before the stock price was reduced: $20,000
>
> Your own words below:
>
> You now have $15,000 in assets in the margin account, and $7,000 in
> he other account, and you STILL have a $10,000 liability."
>
> Net assets: $12,000
>
> The loan is labeled "liability" in your scenario and the net assets
> (including the loan amount) after the stock price was reduced and the
> margin call answered is $12,000
>
> ...and the difference is $8000...all of which because of the stock's
> price being reduced, therefore none of it can be a result of the
> margin call
>
> ...and you already agreed that "a stock price going down isn't a loss
> until you sell"
>
> So how did the margin call itself result in a $3000 loss,Milt?
>
> Explain your claim below,Milt
>
> "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"
> --MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?...
>
> <LOL> Miltcan't explain it...
Um, I have explained it. You're not playing with your money; you're
playing with someone else's. The $3000 isn't covering YOUR losses;
it's covering the broker's. You've put $13,000 into an account that
was once worth $20,000, but is now worth $15,000, and your liability
of $10,000 has INCREASED by the rate of interest on the account. Now,
in the reality-based community, we call that a loss.