#Global stock slump gathers pace
3700 Dead
http://business.guardian.co.uk/markets/story/0,,2149086,00.html
Dow falls through 13,000 barrier
Fiona Walsh, business editor, and Katie Allen
Wednesday August 15, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
A trader on New York Stock Exchange. Photograph: Richard Drew/AP
A trader on the New York Stock Exchange last night. Photograph:
Richard Drew/AP
US stock markets remained under pressure on Wednesday with the Dow
falling through the 13,000 barrier just minutes after the opening bell
as fallout from the turmoil in global credit markets continued to
bite.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 34.46 points, or 0.3%, at
12,994.5 by 2.35pm adding to steep losses of more than 200 points
yesterday.
The FTSE 100 index was also down sharply, with banking stocks
particularly hard hit by the continuing credit market worries. The
index of leading London shares was down 89.4 points, or 1.5%, at
6,054.1.
There was modest support from more economic news suggesting interest
rates have now peaked but not enough to lift London markets out of
their deep gloom.
Sterling was also under a shadow. The growing belief that interest
rates may not need to be raised from their current 5.75% pushed the
pound to a two-month low against the dollar, at 1.9868, although it
later came back to 1.9883, still well below the $2 level.
On the stock market, today's share falls were largely on the back of
big losses for financial stocks, and follow Tuesday's 75-point slide.
Mortgage bank Northern Rock was the day's biggest loser on the FTSE
100, down more than 7%. Standard Chartered Bank also shed more than 4%
as did asset manager Invesco.
There were widespread losses in Asia overnight, with Japan's Nikkei
index tumbling 369 points, or 2%, to 16,475.61, its lowest point since
last December. Other Asian markets also suffered heavy losses.
Financials were particularly hard hit in overnight trading, as the
sub-prime contagion continued to spread throughout the financial
world.
Shares in Mitsubishi UFJ slumped more than 5%, as it said it had
booked a loss of ¥5bn (£21.5m) on US sub-prime-related investments.
The news slashed ¥650bn from the market value of the group, which is
the world's biggest bank by assets.
The smaller Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group also said it had recorded
"several billion yen" of sub-prime losses in the three months to June
30, after selling ¥350bn in US mortgage-backed securities.
Shares in Matsushita Electric Industrial were also sharply lower,
tumbling 5% to ¥2,015 after news that Nokia is recalling 46m phones
which use its batteries.
--
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government
talking
about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order.
Nothing has
changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists,
we're
talking about getting a court order before we do so"
-George W. Bush, April 20, 2004
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed, http://yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (please contribute!)
http:yahoogroups/subscribe/zepps_essays
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
--from interview broadcast on NPR
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
Blackwater
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>http://business.guardian.co.uk/markets/story/0,,2149086,00.html
>
>Dow falls through 13,000 barrier
Now, now Zeppie ... I almost get the feeling you WANT the
market to crash, just to make "W" and the Republicans look
bad. A very naughty thought !
Besides, it won't hurt the richest 10% worth a damn, they've
already diversified globally. It WILL cause lots of poorer
folks to starve to death however and run-down the country
to the point where it won't MATTER whether the DNC or GOP
is officially in charge. Oh yea, no money for 'welfare'
programs either ....
3700 Dead
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:04:40 GMT, 3700 Dead
><zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>>http://business.guardian.co.uk/markets/story/0,,2149086,00.html
>>
>>Dow falls through 13,000 barrier
>
>
> Now, now Zeppie ... I almost get the feeling you WANT the
> market to crash, just to make "W" and the Republicans look
> bad. A very naughty thought !
There's a difference between wanting something and expecting it. I
can't think of many ways I stand to benefit from a market crash, but I
recall that, at considerable cost, it saved America from a permanent
aristocracy in 1929.
>
> Besides, it won't hurt the richest 10% worth a damn, they've
> already diversified globally. It WILL cause lots of poorer
> folks to starve to death however and run-down the country
> to the point where it won't MATTER whether the DNC or GOP
> is officially in charge. Oh yea, no money for 'welfare'
> programs either ....
Eventually, perhaps, but right now the people being hit the hardest
are the rich.
Steve
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:21:43 GMT, b...@barrk.net (Blackwater) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 14:04:40 GMT, 3700 Dead
>><zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>http://business.guardian.co.uk/markets/story/0,,2149086,00.html
>>>
>>>Dow falls through 13,000 barrier
>>
>>
>> Now, now Zeppie ... I almost get the feeling you WANT the
>> market to crash, just to make "W" and the Republicans look
>> bad. A very naughty thought !
>
>There's a difference between wanting something and expecting it. I
>can't think of many ways I stand to benefit from a market crash, but I
>recall that, at considerable cost, it saved America from a permanent
>aristocracy in 1929.
<LOL> there's no crash.....
>> Besides, it won't hurt the richest 10% worth a damn, they've
>> already diversified globally. It WILL cause lots of poorer
>> folks to starve to death however and run-down the country
>> to the point where it won't MATTER whether the DNC or GOP
>> is officially in charge. Oh yea, no money for 'welfare'
>> programs either ....
>
>Eventually, perhaps, but right now the people being hit the hardest
>are the rich.
Nobody loses a dime unless they sell...
Matt
Really. You have an interesting view of the world. Care to explain,
library boy?
Matt
Steve
wrote:
Actually, no, Dimbulb, I'd rather let you believe that money goes in
and out of my bank account every time the market value of my stock
changes.
3700 Dead
wrote:
>On Aug 15, 6:37 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
I would be fascinated to learn how the market could drop 1,100 points
without people selling.
>
>Matt
Steve
I would be fascinated to learn where Zepp came up with that moronic
statement.
Matt
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:01:46 -0700, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Yep, that's what I thought. Haven't a clue, have you?
Matt
Steve
wrote:
<LOL> If Matt could think he's realize that nobody loses a dime
unless they sell...
Matt
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:29:31 -0700, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
Yep, there's library boy, making his statements but refusing to stand
behind them.
Ya know, library boy, if you'd just walk around and read the BOOKS in
there instead
of just surfing your porn, you might learn a few things.
Matt
milt....@gmail.com
Get him to explain to you how margin trading entails no greater risk
than cash trading. That's even funnier.
milt....@gmail.com
Apparently, to this moron, the richest people in the world aren't
actually wealthy, because their wealth isn't cash in a bank
account...
milt....@gmail.com
But then he'd have to READ.
Funny how Bill Gates' net worth dropped almost $40 billion during the
tech bubble, despite the fact that he still owned the same MS stock,
ain't it?
Matt... why don't you get him to tell you how rich he is... he claims
he has more money than any of us 'losers." This, despite the fact that
his "theories" on money are so stupid, if he DID have any money, he'd
lose it for sure...
milt....@gmail.com
> On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 18:01:46 -0700, Matt <matttel...@sprynet.com>
You see, the market goes down when people sell. Now, the sellers
presumably didn't lose any money, unless they're really stupid. Yet
the market has lost tens of billions of dollars in value. But
according to Canyon, no one's lost any money, because all of those
whose stock values have plummeted haven't sold yet.
I swear to Gawd, are he and Linder having a race for who's the dumbest
person on Usenet? Both of them are getting to be dumber than Thomas
Odell... remember him? But Canyon... between his ignorance on the
First Amendment, stock trading, and his attempts at psychoanalyzing
me... he's fast becoming netloon of the year... maybe we should buy
him a boat, just to get him some air...
Steve
Apparently, Shook doesn't have any idea what he's talking about..
That's normal for Milt.
Steve
Get Shook to explain how investing borrowed money entails greater risk
than investing your own money.
Steve
Its the difference between realized gains and losses, and unrealized
gains and losses, of course, which Milt and Matt would now about if
either of them had enough sense to make any investments... Stock
values go up and down. That's unrealized gains or losses... Realized
gains and losses are made when one sells his stock
>Matt... why don't you get him to tell you how rich he is... he claims
>he has more money than any of us 'losers." This, despite the fact that
>his "theories" on money are so stupid, if he DID have any money, he'd
>lose it for sure...
"You think by dumping some of your liquid cash into an account
containing borrowed money, you're not experiencing a loss of anything.
The mind reels."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/92ef5d248b3d3828?hl=en&
<LOL> Indeed, my mind reels when I read Shook's nonsense. Of
course, Milt has a problem with "borrowed money." It has mostly to do
with all his credit card debt. You see, Milt has no self control.
Steve
errrr, I certainly never said no-one lost money, you moron, it's quite
clear that people who sold did lose money but for those of us that
didn't sell, its merely an unrealized loss, and even that is only true
if you figure in the unrealized gains of the past several months.
The fact is that the folks who hung in are still up from a year ago..
and again, that's all unrealized gains.... until you sell.
>But
>according to Canyon, no one's lost any money, because all of those
>whose stock values have plummeted haven't sold yet.
<LOL> Indeed, the only thing they lost were some of their unrealized
gains. Shook and Zepp are just too stupid to understand it, I guess.
>I swear to Gawd, are he and Linder having a race for who's the dumbest
>person on Usenet? Both of them are getting to be dumber than Thomas
>Odell... remember him? But Canyon... between his ignorance on the
>First Amendment, stock trading, and his attempts at psychoanalyzing
>me...
I think Shook realizes that I've hit the nail on the head....
>he's fast becoming netloon of the year... maybe we should buy
>him a boat, just to get him some air...
Irony anyone? See below
"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."
--Milt.shook, talking about a broker margin account
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/550cfe44ca160728?hl=en&
"[...] Which means, if you invest that money,
you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."
-- Milt Shook talking about ... <LOL> zero dollar money
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a54cd?hl=en&
3700 Dead
Dingdong O'Dell? Who could forget? I suspect he's still around,
under one of the accounts that changes its Nym every day.
I see Billary is tring to leverage himself into the major league of
kookiness with the sudden claims to be a multimillionaire day trader.
In fact, he might be Dingdong.
milt....@gmail.com
Gawd, the above is the most incredible piece of worthless tripe that i
have ever seen. You have no idea what you're talking about, and it's
fascinating the "authority" with which you spout worthless tripe.
Have some more kool-aid...
milt....@gmail.com
Kinda like this twerp, who's claiming that you don't lose any money
until you sell. Talk about brain-dead... Wonder if he would feel the
same if he had a drawer full of Enron stock right now...
Seriously, some of these clowns hear a term like "unrealized gains"
and "unrealized losses" and they buy into it hook, line and sinker,
and then tell us how dumb WE are.
Teaching the gullible... it's a thankless task...
milt....@gmail.com
Um, because you have to pay back the losses AND the loan!
There... that was easy...
Steve
That was stupid... <LOL> you have to pay back loans regardless of
whether or not you lost the money in an investment you hapless
moron... and what's that ridiculous nonsense about having to pay
back losses...
Shook is still in the dark about what margin trading is all about.
<LOL> Pay back losses?????
Steve
That's what I thought.. Shook has never received a brokerage
statement. He has no idea what "unrealized" means...
>Have some more kool-aid...
<LOL> Shook ignorance highlighted again....
unrealized Definition
Having occurred but not yet reflected in a transaction. This refers to
unrealized gains and losses, which have not happened but would happen
if the investor sold the security or asset that he/she currently
holds. Unrealized gains are usually not taxable. opposite of realized.
Steve
Shook has no idea how dumb he is.....
Zepp can't help but know, given his current situation.
3700 Dead
Well, look on the bright side, Milt. Reality is a great teacher. They
may not learn from that, either, but at least they will discover that
stupid can be painful.
Steve
wrote:
<LOL> Siskiyou county court says that Zepp has learned that...
milt....@gmail.com
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:01:58 -0000,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Aug 16, 4:58 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> than investing your own money.
>
> >Um, because you have to pay back the losses AND the loan!
>
> >There... that was easy...
>
> That was stupid... <LOL> you have to pay back loans regardless of
> whether or not you lost the money in an investment you hapless
> moron... and what's that ridiculous nonsense about having to pay
> back losses...
>
>
> <LOL> Pay back losses?????
You know what I meant, fucktard...
milt....@gmail.com
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 21:56:04 -0000,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Aug 16, 5:21 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> statement. He has no idea what "unrealized" means...
>
> >Have some more kool-aid...
>
> <LOL>Shookignorance highlighted again....
>
> unrealized Definition
>
> unrealized gains and losses, which have not happened but would happen
> if the investor sold the security or asset that he/she currently
>
> http://www.investorwords.com/5176/unrealized.html
Like I said... keep drinking that kool-aid.
And you might want to read that again... I put stars around the
pertinent portion...
1. The loss HAS OCCURRED.
2. Unrealized gains CAN BE taxable.
Those two are kinda strange for something that hasn't actually
happened...
milt....@gmail.com
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 22:00:52 -0000,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Aug 16, 5:28 pm, 3700 Dead <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> may not learn from that, either, but at least they will discover that
> stupid can be painful.
>From what I'm seeing, they're not really dealing with reality, either.
I mean, no one who has been inside a grocery store in the last year,
even in cattle country, can get ground round for $2.63/lb, unless it's
on sale. And if you want bread that actually doesn't taste like
sawdust, you're gonna pay upwards of $2 for it, unless it's on a rare
sale.
As for this tool... Imagine he goes to borrow money for his business,
and the bank points out that he's lost money for five years in a row.
Think they'll lend it anyway, when he tells them they're "unrealized
losses"? In the case of the houses we're rehabbing, we paid between
$20,000 and $35,000 for each one, but after we finish the work, we
should be able to sell them for $200,000 each. Funny thing is, we can
borrow against them even before we sell them. According to Canyon,
that should be impossible, because we haven't sold them yet...
I swear... have you ever seen a rich guy who was so stupid about
money?
Economists make up stupid terms with no real meaning, in order to
alter reality and get people to invest more and more money in riskier
and riskier schemes, and assholes like this fall for it, and the rest
of US are stupid because we know better...
Steve
The more pertinent portion is: "[..]which have not happened but would
happen if the investor sold the security "
<LOL> Now Shook plays word games... but earlier, Shook actually
supports my statement.....
"I agree that a stock price going down isn't a loss until you sell,
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
Shook is so desperate to "score points" against me that he denies his
own words. Too bad for Shook that my cite proves him wrong....
>2. Unrealized gains CAN BE taxable.
Not likely...
>Those two are kinda strange for something that hasn't actually
>happened...
<LOL> ...and yet the definition says "have not happened."
Steve
Dumbshit Shook says that if you borrow money to invest, and your
investment takes a loss, "you have to pay back the losses AND the
loan," and now, true to form he ducks and dodges rather than explain
that stupid illogical statement.
The simple undeniable fact is that you suffer the exact same loss or
gain if you invest borrowed money or your own money.
Shook hasn't a clue as to how to invest... and now he displays his
ignorance about unrealized gains and losses..
3700 Dead
I like the "day trader" who spent the wildest day on Wall Street since
9/11 fucking around here on Usenet.
Of course Steve kept his cool; no matter how bad things get on the
'Street, nobody's going to repo his shopping cart.
milt....@gmail.com
Yeah, but he may still be paying on that trailer.
Semi-seriously, can you imagine anyone with half a brain watching
their stock portfolio lose 50% of its value, and telling people,
"Well, I haven't lost anything yet, because I haven't sold it!" I
can't think of a broker I know NOT laughing their ass off at such
stupidity. How do you determine a "sell" price, since the stock is
obviously worth nothing until you sell it?
What a loon...
3700 Dead
I can't imagine anyone with half a brain staying in the markets at all
after 2000. Unless, of course, you happen to be highly placed in one
of the big brokerage houses, and you know who is rigging the game and
why.
>
>What a loon...
--
One of the [Gold Star mothers], Elaine Johnson, recounted a meeting that she had with
President Bush in which he gave her a presidential coin and told her
and five other families: "Don't go sell it on eBay."
--from interview broadcast on NPR
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
Steve
As if Shook knows any brokers..... This afternoon the market regained
all it's mornings losses.. The only people who lost money on today's
were the ones that sold when it was down. The people who ride out
this correction will continue to make money. Losers like Milt Shook
and Zepp Jamieson will continue to rant and rave about it.
>stupidity. How do you determine a "sell" price, since the stock is
>obviously worth nothing until you sell it?
Worth nothing?
>What a loon...
Irony anyone?
Steve
<LOL> Shook isn't rehabbing any houses.... He can't even pay off
his credit cards. He probably knows someone that's doing it and
thought it would be a good idea to pretend that it was him. He's not
even bright enough to think of it.
>Funny thing is, we can
>borrow against them even before we sell them. According to Canyon,
>that should be impossible, because we haven't sold them yet...
Total bullshit... Typical Shook strawman. nothing I've said
precludes using assets as collateral.
>I swear... have you ever seen a rich guy who was so stupid about
>money?
Shook is fifty years old and still in debt. <LOL> nuff said
there...
>Economists make up stupid terms with no real meaning, in order to
>alter reality and get people to invest more and more money in riskier
>and riskier schemes, and assholes like this fall for it, and the rest
>of US are stupid because we know better...
"I agree that a stock price going down isn't a loss until you sell,
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?hl=en&
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
>I can't imagine anyone with half a brain staying in the markets at all
>after 2000. Unless, of course, you happen to be highly placed in one
>of the big brokerage houses, and you know who is rigging the game and
>why.
<ROTFLMAO> This from Zepp Jamieson, the biggest loser in Siskiyou
County...
Steve
wrote:
Day trader?? Me??? Naw... that'd be work. The closest I come to
work these days is to calculate how to juggle my cash flow
requirements with my long term goals.
I don't have to work like losers, Jamieson and Shook, who are too
stupid to even understand the terms like realized and unrealized,
which are investment terms, not economist's terms, as dumbass Shook
says. They have a highly significant meaning for people who actually
have investments. That would exclude Zepp, who can't even cover his
home expenses, and Shook, who can't get free of his credit cards.
milt....@gmail.com
I was wrong when I said that. Your stock is only worth as much as
someone would pay for it if you sold it at that moment. The term
"unrealized" doesn't negate the word "loss;" your net worth is reduced
by the same amount.
>
> Shookis so desperate to "score points" against me that he denies his
> own words. Too bad forShook that my cite proves him wrong....
Only if you pick and choose which words you wish to accept and which
you wish to reject...
>
> >2. Unrealized gains CAN BE taxable.
>
> Not likely...
>
> >Those two are kinda strange for something that hasn't actually
> >happened...
>
> <LOL> ...and yet the definition says "have not happened."
So, if I'm running a business, and I'm in a slump, I don't lose money
until I finalize my tax return and declare it?
Steve
Actually, it was a rare occasion of you being correct.
>Your stock is only worth as much as
>someone would pay for it if you sold it at that moment. The term
>"unrealized" doesn't negate the word "loss;" your net worth is reduced
>by the same amount.
So if someone bought some stock for $20,000 in 2000, and it increased
in value to $45,000 by July of this year, then fell off to $39,000 by
yesterday, how much did they gain or lose?
>> Shookis so desperate to "score points" against me that he denies his
>> own words. Too bad forShook that my cite proves him wrong....
>
>Only if you pick and choose which words you wish to accept and which
>you wish to reject...
Shook is so stupid he can't even remember what he's previously
blustered about...
>> >2. Unrealized gains CAN BE taxable.
>>
>> Not likely...
>>
>> >Those two are kinda strange for something that hasn't actually
>> >happened...
>>
>> <LOL> ...and yet the definition says "have not happened."
>
>So, if I'm running a business, and I'm in a slump, I don't lose money
>until I finalize my tax return and declare it?
<LOL> Strawman alert....
milt....@gmail.com
If you want to see absolute proof that this nimrod is not only not
rich, but it's likely he's never owned a share of stock in his life,
read the above paragraph.
I agree that no one should panic, under most circumstances, even now.
And the MARKET will correct itself, overall. At least, it should. I
doubt that this is a crash. But to say "the only people who lost
money... were the ones who sold when it was down..." shows a
fundamental misunderstanding of how the stock market works. Except in
very rare circumstances, such as when a dufus like you invests, no one
loses anything when they sell. The people who drive the market down
aren't driving it down by selling stock they're losing money on.
They're selling stock BEFORE it loses money for them. You don't sell a
stock after it's lost money; you sell it when you think its value has
peaked.
What's driving the market down right now is a correction (two during
Bush's administration alone; when has that ever happened before?)
because lenders have been lending money to people who can't afford to
pay it back, in order to artificially inflate housing prices. This
makes it a trifecta of phony right wing economic bullshit schemes.
Reagan's "boom" was fueled by junk bonds and debt; Clinton's "boom"
was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of the tech bubble, some of
which was legit, much of which was a scam, and the pre-Sarbanes-Oxley
corporate bullshitting era. Now, the current Bush non-recession (this
ain't no boom!) has largely been fueled by real estate, which was all
smoke and mirrors. Actually, smoke and mirrors doesn't even cut it.
It's like the biggest, steamingest turd you've ever seen. I'm no
genius, but even I've been writing about the subprime lending market
for years, as a disaster waiting to happen. Well, the disaster's
happening. We'll get through it, but it's gonna be bloody for a while,
as someone figures out a way to fix the suddenly-glutted housing
market.
>
> >stupidity. How do you determine a "sell" price, since the stock is
> >obviously worth nothing until you sell it?
>
> Worth nothing?
Well, according to you, since "unrealized losses" are magically not
losses, because you haven't sold the stock yet.
>
> >What a loon...
>
> Irony anyone?
You don't even recognize it when you see it. Imagine someone claiming
that "unrealized losses" aren't losses at all, because they have the
word "unrealized" in front of them. Go try and use that money you
haven't actually lost yet as collateral for a loan, and see how fast
they laugh at you and kick you out of the bank.
Well, they're supposed to laugh at you and kick you out, anyway...
nowadays, who knows?
milt....@gmail.com
I wouldn't go that far. Keep in mind, the Dow is only a selection of
30 stocks that is used as an indicator. It's not the entire market;
even when it's dropping like it has, most stocks are doing quite well,
and most people still make plenty of money in the stock market. There
are certain sectors I won't buy, and the mortgage industry is one of
them, at least until they reform it. I was writing on this bubble
years ago, and my friends and I even toyed with the idea of getting
into flipping homes (in a less legitimate sense); buying homes for
$15,000, holding them for 6 months, doing nothing to them, and
reselling them for $25-30,000 in blighted neighborhoods. But then we
looked at the terms the mortgage companies would be giving the new
homeowners, and we decided our integrity was too important. So now,
we're rehabbing homes in slightly better areas, and assisting in the
gentrification of some areas, rather than simply taking profits. We're
making less money, but there's a lot less guilt...
But the entire market isn't bad, just the cheats.
milt....@gmail.com
> his credit cards. He probably knows someone that's doing it and
> thought it would be a good idea to pretend that it was him. He's not
> even bright enough to think of it.
>
> >Funny thing is, we can
> >borrow against them even before we sell them. According to Canyon,
> >that should be impossible, because we haven't sold them yet...
>
> precludes using assets as collateral.
That's the problem. They're no longer assets. You can't buy 100 shares
of stock for $1000, watch the stock value drop by 75%, and claim the
full $1000 as assets, because you haven't sold the stock yet, can you?
>
> >I swear... have you ever seen a rich guy who was so stupid about
> >money?
>
> Shookis fifty years old and still in debt. <LOL> nuff said
> there...
The only debt I currently have right now is student loans. Whoever
you're talking to sure doesn't know much...
>
> >Economists make up stupid terms with no real meaning, in order to
> >alter reality and get people to invest more and more money in riskier
> >and riskier schemes, and assholes like this fall for it, and the rest
> >of US are stupid because we know better...
>
> "I agree that a stock price going down isn't a loss until you sell,MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?...
Steve
Actually, this *is* the correction, you moron.
>doubt that this is a crash. But to say "the only people who lost
>money... were the ones who sold when it was down..." shows a
>fundamental misunderstanding of how the stock market works.
<LOL> It shows fundamental *understanding* of how it works.
>Except in
>very rare circumstances, such as when a dufus like you invests, no one
>loses anything when they sell. The people who drive the market down
>aren't driving it down by selling stock they're losing money on.
>They're selling stock BEFORE it loses money for them. You don't sell a
>stock after it's lost money; you sell it when you think its value has
>peaked.
<LOL> Actually, Dummy, the market can only reflect what the stock is
trading for... if the price of stock goes down, people are trading
it for less than it was trading for before it went down.
>What's driving the market down right now is a correction (two during
>Bush's administration alone; when has that ever happened before?)
>because lenders have been lending money to people who can't afford to
>pay it back, in order to artificially inflate housing prices.
Actually, lenders have been doing these mortgages because they thought
they could make money on them. There was no conspiracy to drive
prices up.
Sub-prime mortgages given to people who can only qualify for sub-prime
because they are losers. No surprise that these losers don't pay...
OTOH, regular mortgages are doing just fine.
>This
>makes it a trifecta of phony right wing economic bullshit schemes.
Just because you're too stupid and lazy to make any money doesn't make
it a "bullshit scheme."
>Reagan's "boom" was fueled by junk bonds and debt; Clinton's "boom"
>was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of the tech bubble, some of
>which was legit, much of which was a scam, and the pre-Sarbanes-Oxley
>corporate bullshitting era. Now, the current Bush non-recession (this
>ain't no boom!) has largely been fueled by real estate, which was all
>smoke and mirrors. Actually, smoke and mirrors doesn't even cut it.
>It's like the biggest, steamingest turd you've ever seen. I'm no
>genius,
understatement... you're a loser moron.
>but even I've been writing about the subprime lending market
>for years, as a disaster waiting to happen. Well, the disaster's
>happening. We'll get through it, but it's gonna be bloody for a while,
>as someone figures out a way to fix the suddenly-glutted housing
>market.
It's in the process of being fixed.... the market corrects itself..
>> >stupidity. How do you determine a "sell" price, since the stock is
>> >obviously worth nothing until you sell it?
>>
>> Worth nothing?
>
>Well, according to you, since "unrealized losses" are magically not
>losses, because you haven't sold the stock yet.
It's all relative, Dummy.... all related to the span of time you are
measuring... If you don't sell out low, which ignorant people do
out of fear, you haven't lost anything because there is little doubt
that it will recover.
>> >What a loon...
>>
>> Irony anyone?
>
>You don't even recognize it when you see it. Imagine someone claiming
>that "unrealized losses" aren't losses at all, because they have the
>word "unrealized" in front of them. Go try and use that money you
>haven't actually lost yet as collateral for a loan, and see how fast
>they laugh at you and kick you out of the bank.
To claim that I've lost the unrealized gains of a stock's high point
is ridiculous. That would mean that if the stock hadn't have peaked
as high, I would've lost less...
And in so far as collateral is concerned, a loaning institution will
apply their own value judgements to any kind of collateral you
present.
>Well, they're supposed to laugh at you and kick you out, anyway...
>nowadays, who knows?
Irony anyone?
Shook's credit card debt says all you need to know about his
economics...
You'd think Shook would have learned by now that pretending to know
things that he has no clue about isn't a very good strategy.
Steve
A person's net worth, insofar as total liquid assets are concerned, is
only part of the story. An investment's value is much more than it's
current trading price. If it was any other way, there would be no
sense in buy it in the first place.
>> >I swear... have you ever seen a rich guy who was so stupid about
>> >money?
>>
>> Shookis fifty years old and still in debt. <LOL> nuff said
>> there...
>
>The only debt I currently have right now is student loans. Whoever
>you're talking to sure doesn't know much...
Nice try Shook.. But we both know better, don't we?
BTW, I'm still not talking to anyone.. but I have gotten e-mails..
and now I know who one of them is. <LOL> You'd never guess....
>> >Economists make up stupid terms with no real meaning, in order to
>> >alter reality and get people to invest more and more money in riskier
>> >and riskier schemes, and assholes like this fall for it, and the rest
>> >of US are stupid because we know better...
>>
>> "I agree that a stock price going down isn't a loss until you sell,MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?...
>
<LOL> So there's Shook munging the cites again....
here's another Shook gem... figure this one out...
"You think by dumping some of your liquid cash into an account
containing borrowed money, you're not experiencing a loss of anything.
The mind reels."
--.Milt.Shook....
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/92ef5d248b3d3828?hl=en&
indeed, the mind reels....
Steve
You can see th error in Milt's economic strategy. He's too busy
pretending to be successful to ever actually become successful.
But then, for Milt, pretending is apparently good enough...
milt....@gmail.com
Excuse me, idiot, but I'm not the one who made the declarative
statement that "it's not a loss until you sell the stock." Funny how
you make such a moronic statement (and yes, it was moronic when I
agreed with you, too), and then come back and tell us how complex it
all is. It is complex, and you don't just lose when you sell; you lose
even before you sell. When I was a kid, my grandfather gave me a
couple of stock certificates for a railroad company that went under in
1931. He never sold that stock, so I guess he never lost anything,
huh? Those people whose entire pensions were in Enron stock a few
years back didn't actually lose anything until their pension plan, um,
sold their Enron stock, did they? When the tech bubble burst, I guess
the few thousand my 401(k) lost wasn't really a loss, because I hadn't
cashed out my 401(k)?
>
> >> >I swear... have you ever seen a rich guy who was so stupid about
> >> >money?
>
> >> Shookis fifty years old and still in debt. <LOL> nuff said
> >> there...
>
> >The only debt I currently have right now is student loans. Whoever
> >you're talking to sure doesn't know much...
>
> Nice tryShook.. But we both know better, don't we?
I dunno what you think you know, but whatever it is, isn't true. I HAD
some credit card debt a few years back, but it doesn't exist anymore,
and it was never as high as the $7000 national average, in any case...
>
> BTW, I'm still not talking to anyone.. but I have gotten e-mails..
> and now I know who one of them is. <LOL> You'd never guess....
I don't have to guess. I know... it's a figment of your imagination.
Steve
Hell no, I didn't sell when the dow were down yesterday and I didn't
lose a dime..
>When I was a kid, my grandfather gave me a
>couple of stock certificates for a railroad company that went under in
>1931. He never sold that stock, so I guess he never lost anything,
>huh?
Go away with your personal experiences, Milt.
> Those people whose entire pensions were in Enron stock a few
>years back didn't actually lose anything until their pension plan, um,
>sold their Enron stock, did they? When the tech bubble burst, I guess
>the few thousand my 401(k) lost wasn't really a loss, because I hadn't
>cashed out my 401(k)?
Actually, unless a person has been way to heavy into dotcoms, they are
probably well into the black, even after the last two weeks.
>> >> >I swear... have you ever seen a rich guy who was so stupid about
>> >> >money?
>>
>> >> Shookis fifty years old and still in debt. <LOL> nuff said
>> >> there...
>>
>> >The only debt I currently have right now is student loans. Whoever
>> >you're talking to sure doesn't know much...
>>
>> Nice tryShook.. But we both know better, don't we?
>
>I dunno what you think you know, but whatever it is, isn't true. I HAD
>some credit card debt a few years back, but it doesn't exist anymore,
Make that a few months ago.... try to be a little more honest. You
might feel better and just maybe you'll have a better self image, too.
>and it was never as high as the $7000 national average, in any case...
Naw, I'd be surprised if you were in the clear..... I have no idea
how high it was, and perhaps you've made some arrangements to beg your
way out, but you're still looking at a bad credit rating.
>> BTW, I'm still not talking to anyone.. but I have gotten e-mails..
>> and now I know who one of them is. <LOL> You'd never guess....
>
>I don't have to guess. I know... it's a figment of your imagination.
That intuition isn't working for you, Shook... time to start relying
on facts. Oh wait, you don't have any facts. ..at least any facts
that you can understand. BTW, how's it been going with your
relationships with guys pretending to be women?
3700 Dead
Yeah. Sorta the way if you are driving 90 miles an hour through a
school zone, you aren't really speeding until a cop sees you.
I just heard the Fed cut the rate a little while ago. I'll have the
details in a couple of minutes.
milt....@gmail.com
> >> all it's mornings losses.. The only people who lost money on today's
> >> were the ones that sold when it was down. The people who ride out
> >> this correction will continue to make money. Losers likeMiltShook
> >> and Zepp Jamieson will continue to rant and rave about it.
>
> >If you want to see absolute proof that this nimrod is not only not
> >rich, but it's likely he's never owned a share of stock in his life,
> >read the above paragraph.
>
> >I agree that no one should panic, under most circumstances, even now.
> >And the MARKET will correct itself, overall. At least, it should. I
>
> Actually, this *is* the correction, you moron.
>
> >doubt that this is a crash. But to say "the only people who lost
> >money... were the ones who sold when it was down..." shows a
> >fundamental misunderstanding of how the stock market works.
>
> <LOL> It shows fundamental *understanding* of how it works.
>
> >Except in
> >very rare circumstances, such as when a dufus like you invests, no one
> >loses anything when they sell. The people who drive the market down
> >aren't driving it down by selling stock they're losing money on.
> >They're selling stock BEFORE it loses money for them. You don't sell a
> >stock after it's lost money; you sell it when you think its value has
> >peaked.
>
> <LOL> Actually, Dummy, the market can only reflect what the stock is
> trading for... if the price of stock goes down, people are trading
> it for less than it was trading for before it went down.
>
impress people with your investment acumen, when you spout crap like
this?
People selling drive a stock price down, and people buying drive it
up. They're not "trading," they're selling. They're betting that the
price will go down further, and they're getting out of the stock
before it does. Either that, or they're selling that stock because
it's not going up enough, to buy another that might go up faster.
> >What's driving the market down right now is a correction (two during
> >Bush's administration alone; when has that ever happened before?)
> >because lenders have been lending money to people who can't afford to
> >pay it back, in order to artificially inflate housing prices.
>
> Actually, lenders have been doing these mortgages because they thought
> they could make money on them. There was no conspiracy to drive
> prices up.
Oh, BULLSHIT! This was a scam. it created a housing market where there
was one, and it created phony demand. An awful lot of people made an
awful lot of money flipping houses, and their profits were enhanced by
the market.
>
> Sub-prime mortgages given to people who can only qualify for sub-prime
> because they are losers. No surprise that these losers don't pay...
> OTOH, regular mortgages are doing just fine.
Um, no.
They gave mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, because they
were greedy. And "regular mortgages" are where the problem is right
now, you twit. There is only so much money to go around; when a
boatload of mortgage money is tied up in $300,000 mortgages that no
one will ever pay down, and those $300,000 mortgages are on homes that
are actually worth $150,000 or less, but have been inflated by the
fake market, that leaves far less money for legitimate mortgages. Ask
Countrywide; they had to borrow money so that they could write
legitimate mortgages, because so much of their money is tied up in
these phony loans.
>
> >This
> >makes it a trifecta of phony right wing economic bullshit schemes.
>
> Just because you're too stupid and lazy to make any money doesn't make
> it a "bullshit scheme."
Writing a bunch of mortgages for people who can't afford to have
mortgages, just to drive up prices in the area is a "bullshit scheme."
About a year and a half ago, the house I grew up in sold for $235,000.
It was built in 1951, has not been kept up, and could have been had
for about $135,000 a year earlier. Why did it go up so fast? because
if you're writing a mortgage that no one will ever pay on, and that
will likely go into foreclosure, why write it for $160,000, when you
can write it for $235,000?
>
> >Reagan's "boom" was fueled by junk bonds and debt; Clinton's "boom"
> >was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of the tech bubble, some of
> >which was legit, much of which was a scam, and the pre-Sarbanes-Oxley
> >corporate bullshitting era. Now, the current Bush non-recession (this
> >ain't no boom!) has largely been fueled by real estate, which was all
> >smoke and mirrors. Actually, smoke and mirrors doesn't even cut it.
> >It's like the biggest, steamingest turd you've ever seen. I'm no
> >genius,
>
> understatement... you're a loser moron.
>
> >but even I've been writing about the subprime lending market
> >for years, as a disaster waiting to happen. Well, the disaster's
> >happening. We'll get through it, but it's gonna be bloody for a while,
> >as someone figures out a way to fix the suddenly-glutted housing
> >market.
>
> It's in the process of being fixed.... the market corrects itself..
>
I hope it does. I think it will. But we have to stop building the
economy based on scams and get rich quick schemes.
Steve
<LOL> unlike yourself, I never give any thought about impressing
people, Milt. Indeed, as I said, the current price of any stock is
established by what buyers and sellers agree upon.
>People selling drive a stock price down, and people buying drive it
>up. They're not "trading," they're selling. They're betting that the
>price will go down further, and they're getting out of the stock
>before it does. Either that, or they're selling that stock because
>it's not going up enough, to buy another that might go up faster.
You're playing word games again Milt. The fact is that whenever a
person sells, another person buys.. <LOL> Apparently you don't
realize that..
Indeed, people are gambling on the future performance, but within that
are factors like risk and cash flow, long vs. short term potential....
>> >What's driving the market down right now is a correction (two during
>> >Bush's administration alone; when has that ever happened before?)
>> >because lenders have been lending money to people who can't afford to
>> >pay it back, in order to artificially inflate housing prices.
>>
>> Actually, lenders have been doing these mortgages because they thought
>> they could make money on them. There was no conspiracy to drive
>> prices up.
>
>Oh, BULLSHIT! This was a scam. it created a housing market where there
>was one, and it created phony demand. An awful lot of people made an
>awful lot of money flipping houses, and their profits were enhanced by
>the market.
Oh how I love the conspiracy theorists....
>> Sub-prime mortgages given to people who can only qualify for sub-prime
>> because they are losers. No surprise that these losers don't pay...
>> OTOH, regular mortgages are doing just fine.
>
>Um, no.
>
>They gave mortgages to people who couldn't afford them, because they
>were greedy. And "regular mortgages" are where the problem is right
>now, you twit. There is only so much money to go around; when a
>boatload of mortgage money is tied up in $300,000 mortgages that no
>one will ever pay down, and those $300,000 mortgages are on homes that
>are actually worth $150,000 or less, but have been inflated by the
>fake market, that leaves far less money for legitimate mortgages. Ask
>Countrywide; they had to borrow money so that they could write
>legitimate mortgages, because so much of their money is tied up in
>these phony loans.
Countrywide is big company and they will do just fine. ...and as I
said, the regular mortgage market is doing quite well..., A lot of
people who invested in the high risk mortgages will suffer, probably
some of them fatally. The day traders are out there making money off
the less knowledgable day traders and the chicken littles, but the
rest of us will ride it out with relatively little long term pain..
...just as we rode through 9/11..
>> >This
>> >makes it a trifecta of phony right wing economic bullshit schemes.
>>
>> Just because you're too stupid and lazy to make any money doesn't make
>> it a "bullshit scheme."
>
>Writing a bunch of mortgages for people who can't afford to have
>mortgages, just to drive up prices in the area is a "bullshit scheme."
But, of course, that's not why it was done.
>About a year and a half ago, the house I grew up in sold for $235,000.
>It was built in 1951, has not been kept up, and could have been had
>for about $135,000 a year earlier. Why did it go up so fast? because
>if you're writing a mortgage that no one will ever pay on, and that
>will likely go into foreclosure, why write it for $160,000, when you
>can write it for $235,000?
Milt, housing, like any other property that's bought and sold is
market driven. That prices change in response to market forces does
not make it phoney. That a lot of mortgages shuldn't have been made
is obvious, but it wasn't any conspiracy.
>> >Reagan's "boom" was fueled by junk bonds and debt; Clinton's "boom"
>> >was fueled by the "irrational exuberance" of the tech bubble, some of
>> >which was legit, much of which was a scam, and the pre-Sarbanes-Oxley
>> >corporate bullshitting era. Now, the current Bush non-recession (this
>> >ain't no boom!) has largely been fueled by real estate, which was all
>> >smoke and mirrors. Actually, smoke and mirrors doesn't even cut it.
>> >It's like the biggest, steamingest turd you've ever seen. I'm no
>> >genius,
>>
>> understatement... you're a loser moron.
>>
>> >but even I've been writing about the subprime lending market
>> >for years, as a disaster waiting to happen. Well, the disaster's
>> >happening. We'll get through it, but it's gonna be bloody for a while,
>> >as someone figures out a way to fix the suddenly-glutted housing
>> >market.
>>
>> It's in the process of being fixed.... the market corrects itself..
>>
>
>I hope it does. I think it will. But we have to stop building the
>economy based on scams and get rich quick schemes.
>
The world runs on get rich schemes... That's not ever going to
change. The stock market is vastly different today than it was 50
years ago, and that's more because of computers and day traders than
anything else, even the influx of 401s and IRAs It's change, but
it's a healthy change...
milt....@gmail.com
This is the problem with your black and white thinking.
It would depend on many different factors. For instance, if the money
is just sitting there doing nothing, he's gained $19,000. if he used
the $45,000 as collateral for a loan last month, he's down $6,000.
Here's an analogy for you. If you put $10,000 in a coffee can in the
basement last year, and Dumb and Dumber were constantly taking $100
bills and replacing them with IOUs, to the point that there was only
$1,000 left in the can, have you lost $9,000, despite the fact that
you haven't checked the can recently?
back in the days when people believed that the earth was flat, was it,
in fact, flat?
If your portfolio was worth $100,000 last year, and this year, it's
worth $80,000, you lost $20,000. Period. Whether you cash in the
stocks or not...
Steve
<LOL>, so, IOW, Milt is saying that the last two weeks did not
constitute a loss. Too bad the little moron can't make up his mind.
>if he used
>the $45,000 as collateral for a loan last month, he's down $6,000.
Actually, it has absolutely nothing to do with using it for
collateral. An unrealized loss is an unrealized loss regardless of
what was used for collateral or where the money to buy the stock came
from. Same thing is true for a realized loss. The loss comes from
the stock, not from what method you used to buy the stock. And a loan
is a loan and must be paid back regardless of what you spent the money
on.
>Here's an analogy for you. If you put $10,000 in a coffee can in the
>basement last year, and Dumb and Dumber were constantly taking $100
>bills and replacing them with IOUs, to the point that there was only
>$1,000 left in the can, have you lost $9,000, despite the fact that
>you haven't checked the can recently?
Strawman alert.....
>back in the days when people believed that the earth was flat, was it,
>in fact, flat?
>
>If your portfolio was worth $100,000 last year, and this year, it's
>worth $80,000, you lost $20,000. Period. Whether you cash in the
>stocks or not...
Strictly an unrealized loss....
milt....@gmail.com
Except that I didn't say that. If you had asked the same question two
weeks ago, he would have gained $25,000.
Anyone who sees $6000 disappear from his portfolio will see a loss, if
he has half a brain. It is a loss. Hence the term "unrealized LOSS."
Based on your stupidity, "deferred compensation" isn't actually
compensation, because it's deferred. Which is, of course, absurd.
>
> >if he used
> >the $45,000 as collateral for a loan last month, he's down $6,000.
>
> Actually, it has absolutely nothing to do with using it for
> collateral. An unrealized loss is an unrealized loss regardless of
> what was used for collateral or where the money to buy the stock came
> from.
The collateral example was just one of many. Are you telling me that,
if you had $45,000 in an account, and you saw $6,000, um, kinda sorta
"come up missing" in the account, you won't see that as a loss?
> Same thing is true for a realized loss.
Unrealized LOSS... key word there...
> The loss comes from
> the stock,
The WHAT? Did you say the LOSS?
> not from what method you used to buy the stock. And a loan
> is a loan and must be paid back regardless of what you spent the money
> on.
Uh huh. I know. So if you borrow money, and then lose all of that
money, you've lost twice as much, plus interest. Get it?
No, you won't get that... you'll say it wasn't your money in the first
place. Because you're such a "savvy" investor.
>
> >Here's an analogy for you. If you put $10,000 in a coffee can in the
> >basement last year, and Dumb and Dumber were constantly taking $100
> >bills and replacing them with IOUs, to the point that there was only
> >$1,000 left in the can, have you lost $9,000, despite the fact that
> >you haven't checked the can recently?
>
> Strawman alert.....
Not a strawman at all. It's the same thing you're arguing. According
to you, an unrealized loss isn't actually a loss, despite the fact
that they call it a loss. Odd chaps, those investment brokers, eh?
They modify words into non-existence.
>
> >back in the days when people believed that the earth was flat, was it,
> >in fact, flat?
>
> >If your portfolio was worth $100,000 last year, and this year, it's
> >worth $80,000, you lost $20,000. Period. Whether you cash in the
> >stocks or not...
>
> Strictly an unrealized loss....
Jesus. I there anything you DO know about?
Steve
Yeah, you did, you said I had gained and you said nothing about a
loss.
>If you had asked the same question two
>weeks ago, he would have gained $25,000.
...proving that the whole unrealized thing is related to the time
frame you are referencing as well as the other options you've had.
If I'd cashed out in July, I would've had a big gain, but didn't, so
I didn't have a big gain.. had I cashed out this week, I would've had
a far smaller gain, but I didn't cash out, so that didn't occur
either... unrealized gains and losses come and go.
>Anyone who sees $6000 disappear from his portfolio will see a loss, if
>he has half a brain. It is a loss. Hence the term "unrealized LOSS."
Hey, it's a downer, no doubt about that, but it's unrealized... A
very wise man, a professional money man I knew a long time ago
explained it by saying that its like a ball game... as in a football
game... Missing an opportunity to cash out on a high point is like
when you fumble or miss a field goal... but the game isn't over
yet... not until you sell the stock.
>Based on your stupidity, "deferred compensation" isn't actually
>compensation, because it's deferred. Which is, of course, absurd.
Another Shook strawman... Milt can't argue the issues.
>> >if he used
>> >the $45,000 as collateral for a loan last month, he's down $6,000.
>>
>> Actually, it has absolutely nothing to do with using it for
>> collateral. An unrealized loss is an unrealized loss regardless of
>> what was used for collateral or where the money to buy the stock came
>> from.
>
>The collateral example was just one of many. Are you telling me that,
>if you had $45,000 in an account, and you saw $6,000, um, kinda sorta
>"come up missing" in the account, you won't see that as a loss?
There never was $45,000 in that account, you moron, only some stock
that some people thought at the time to be worth $45,000. ...and no,
I don't see it as a loss, only as a missed opportunity. ....and when
you get right down to it, that's a very big part of the difference
between you and me.... My life consists of opportunities and yours
consists of occurrences that happen to you.
>> Same thing is true for a realized loss.
>
>Unrealized LOSS... key word there...
>
>> The loss comes from
>> the stock,
>
>The WHAT? Did you say the LOSS?
Errrr, we were discussing unrealized vs realized losses, you hapless
moron....
>> not from what method you used to buy the stock. And a loan
>> is a loan and must be paid back regardless of what you spent the money
>> on.
>
>Uh huh. I know. So if you borrow money, and then lose all of that
>money, you've lost twice as much, plus interest. Get it?
<LOL> You don't lose twice as much. In both cases, you only stand to
lose exactly the same amount you invested in the stock purchase...
You spend X amount to buy stock, you stand to lose X amount regardless
of where you got that money.
and once again, interest isn't a loss, it's an expense..
....and here again is another reference to the differences between you
and me.. If I were to borrow money, I'd actually have the option of
substituting my own money.. whereas, you can't even imagine that
being the case... hence to you, the concept of borrowing money to do
something only presents the option of doing that something vs not
doing it, whereas to me, I also have options of how best to do it and
a margin deal is simply another way of doing it.
To you, the concept of buying stock with a margin account only means
that you can put at risk more money than you have and can afford to
loose, whereas to many investors, it's simply one option as to how
they might buy the stock.
To you, buying on margin is indeed a very nasty risk, because you
don't have any other assets to cover a loss. The additional risk only
applies to morons lacking enough sense who gamble with more money than
they can afford to lose. I guess it's normal that a chronic loser
like yourself see's that, and the good thing is that you do see it.
Recently you ranted about sub-prime mortgages..... home loans given
to people in excess of what they can afford. Those loans being
improper does not condemn the concept of borrowing money to buy a
home. A margin account is somewhat similar in that it allows a
person to put more at risk than he should.
Again, by buying on margin you stand to lose the exact same amount as
if you'd substituted your own money for the money your borrowed when
buying the stock... the only additional risk is that a person who
isn't very bright can put more money at risk than he should.
>No, you won't get that... you'll say it wasn't your money in the first
>place. Because you're such a "savvy" investor.
>>
>> >Here's an analogy for you. If you put $10,000 in a coffee can in the
>> >basement last year, and Dumb and Dumber were constantly taking $100
>> >bills and replacing them with IOUs, to the point that there was only
>> >$1,000 left in the can, have you lost $9,000, despite the fact that
>> >you haven't checked the can recently?
>>
>> Strawman alert.....
>
>Not a strawman at all. It's the same thing you're arguing. According
>to you, an unrealized loss isn't actually a loss, despite the fact
>that they call it a loss. Odd chaps, those investment brokers, eh?
>They modify words into non-existence.
>>
>> >back in the days when people believed that the earth was flat, was it,
>> >in fact, flat?
>>
>> >If your portfolio was worth $100,000 last year, and this year, it's
>> >worth $80,000, you lost $20,000. Period. Whether you cash in the
>> >stocks or not...
>>
>> Strictly an unrealized loss....
>
>Jesus. I there anything you DO know about?
>
Irony anyone... See below:
"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."
--Milt.shook, talking about a broker margin account
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/550cfe44ca160728?hl=en&