How's that pool coming, Iggy?
SteveB
How many want in? Post here, and Iggy will record your prediction.
Steve
Ignoramus10139
> My $5 bet on the stock market going down to 5,000 by July 4th? How many in?
> How many want in? Post here, and Iggy will record your prediction.
>
Steve, you seems to be getting closer to being correct and I am
getting farther. The predictions are:
SteveB: 5,000
Ignoramus: 8,000
Jon Anderson: 5,500
steamer: (no valid entry)
Wes: 9,000
ben91932: 10,300
Win...@bigbrother.net: 5,750
Steve WalkerF...@verizonwallet.com: 7,450
But I believe that we closed the pool. Otherwise it would be unfair.
--
Due to extreme spam originating from Google Groups, and their inattention
to spammers, I and many others block all articles originating
from Google Groups. If you want your postings to be seen by
more readers you will need to find a different means of
posting on Usenet.
http://improve-usenet.org/
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh
in news:ta-dnTrhkIL2ojDU...@giganews.com:
> SteveB: 5,000
> Ignoramus: 8,000
>
Yeah, I just lost one with a buddy, thinking the Dow would never lose
support at 7500. The rats are running down the hawsers, sons.
LLoyd
Ignoramus10139
Let's not forget, the stockmarket right now is approximately 60% less
risky than it was 1.5 years ago.
We surely live in interesting times, however.
steamer
--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Politics is a sinkhole for
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : people without hobbies...
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---
Ignoramus10139
to change mine.
I
On 2009-03-03, steamer <ste...@sonic.net> wrote:
> --Oh alright I'll weigh in: 6,500.
>
--
Wes
>I think that it is too late to submit entries. Otherwise I would want
>to change mine.
I wish I had not followed my rule to ride it up and down and pulled out a long time ago. I
sure hope a month from now I don't wish I had pulled out today. This is getting a bit
worrysome.
You retired guys out there, I hope you had enough funds in safe stuff to weather this w/o
having to sell the equities.
Wes
Ignoramus10139
This is, indeed, a scary ride on the way down, esp. to people who do
not have new money coming in. The best outcome for me, assuming I have
a job or other income, would be for stocks to stay low priced for a
decade.
Ignoramus10139
is far fetched but not impossible, the losses would be quite
comparable to the Great Depression. As of now, we lost 57% off the
market peak.
Personally for myself, I do not think that holding or buying now is a
mistake, but I do have three sources of income and some money outside
of stocks, as well. I would surely think differently if that was not
the case.
i
SteveB
"Ignoramus10139" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.10139.invalid> wrote in message
news:ta-dnTrhkIL2ojDU...@giganews.com...
> On 2009-03-03, SteveB <old...@deepends.com> wrote:
>> My $5 bet on the stock market going down to 5,000 by July 4th? How many
>> in?
>> How many want in? Post here, and Iggy will record your prediction.
>>
>
> Steve, you seems to be getting closer to being correct and I am
> getting farther. The predictions are:
>
> SteveB: 5,000
> Ignoramus: 8,000
> Jon Anderson: 5,500
> steamer: (no valid entry)
> Wes: 9,000
> ben91932: 10,300
> Win...@bigbrother.net: 5,750
> Steve WalkerF...@verizonwallet.com: 7,450
>
> But I believe that we closed the pool. Otherwise it would be unfair.
Okay. I'm glad someone didn't predict 5,001!
This is getting interesting.
Sad.
Sick.
Twisted.
But interesting.
Steve
Wes
>This is, indeed, a scary ride on the way down, esp. to people who do
>not have new money coming in. The best outcome for me, assuming I have
>a job or other income, would be for stocks to stay low priced for a
>decade.
The only good side to this is I'm still buying and I have a job.
Wes
Wes
Hard to believe, given my political views, that other than ben91932, I'm the most bullish
on this bet.
Wes
F. George McDuffee
----------------
If the Market can ding Warren Buffet it can ding anybody.
A major problem of many of us is the fact that there is a
mandated withdrawal from your IRA, and if you are still invested
in stocks, this is a forced sale into a down market, whether you
need/want the money or not.
An aside on the market. Some of the talking heads are looking at
the P/E (stock price to per share earnings) ratio and saying
there appears to be good values as this is now approaching the
traditional 10:1 ratio indicationg "good value."
Be advised that there is no rigid definition of "earnings," and
this has gradually shifted over the years, from net earnings
after taxes, to gross taxable earnings, to EBIDTA earnings
[earnings before interest, depreciations, taxes and amortization]
to EBBS and EBE "earnings" ["earnings before bad stuff" and
"earnings before expenses".] When apples to apples comparisons
[i.e. using the current stock price to net earnings after taxes
per share ratio] are made, many of the stocks remain *VERY*
expensive/overpriced, and many of these have an infinite P/"net
earnings after taxes" ratio because there are no earnings, and
indeed large losses. If the traditional 10:1 P/E is to be
reached using "net income after taxes" for earnings, which was
the case when this rule of thumb was established, the market has
*MUCH* further to fall.
Unka' George [George McDuffee]
-------------------------------------------
He that will not apply new remedies,
must expect new evils:
for Time is the greatest innovator: and
if Time, of course, alter things to the worse,
and wisdom and counsel shall not alter them to the better,
what shall be the end?
Francis Bacon (1561-1626), English philosopher, essayist, statesman.
Essays, "Of Innovations" (1597-1625).
Ignoramus10139
> If the Market can ding Warren Buffet it can ding anybody.
Warren Buffett outperformed the market by 27% last year.
He likes to measure his performance by comparing Berkshire Hathaway
shareholders equity per share, with the return of S&P 500 with
dividends included. Note that S&P 500 return is measured free of
taxes, and his company is being taxed just like all other
corporations.
So, in any case, his equity was down by 10%, and S&P 500 with
dividends, was down by 37%.
That is a major trouncing of the market benchmark and I think that
Buffett deserves a raise from his $100,000/year salary.
> A major problem of many of us is the fact that there is a
> mandated withdrawal from your IRA, and if you are still invested
> in stocks, this is a forced sale into a down market, whether you
> need/want the money or not.
You could use the proceeds to buy what you want, in taxable accounts.
> An aside on the market. Some of the talking heads are looking at
> the P/E (stock price to per share earnings) ratio and saying
> there appears to be good values as this is now approaching the
> traditional 10:1 ratio indicationg "good value."
>
> Be advised that there is no rigid definition of "earnings," and
> this has gradually shifted over the years, from net earnings
> after taxes, to gross taxable earnings, to EBIDTA earnings
> [earnings before interest, depreciations, taxes and amortization]
> to EBBS and EBE "earnings" ["earnings before bad stuff" and
> "earnings before expenses".] When apples to apples comparisons
> [i.e. using the current stock price to net earnings after taxes
> per share ratio] are made, many of the stocks remain *VERY*
> expensive/overpriced, and many of these have an infinite P/"net
> earnings after taxes" ratio because there are no earnings, and
> indeed large losses. If the traditional 10:1 P/E is to be
> reached using "net income after taxes" for earnings, which was
> the case when this rule of thumb was established, the market has
> *MUCH* further to fall.
The calculations that I have seen, include giant losses at companies
like AIG or Citibank, whose stocks are almost zero and that are for
all intents and purposes bankrupt or nationalized like AIG.
If you are to buy S&P 500, the proportion of those companies would be
very small.
i
GeoLane at PTD dot NET
<ignoram...@NOSPAM.10139.invalid> wrote:
>Personally for myself, I do not think that holding or buying now is a
>mistake, but I do have three sources of income and some money outside
>of stocks, as well. I would surely think differently if that was not
>the case.
Iggy, sorry to hijack the thread and my question has no metalworking
content, but does anybody know what did well during the years of
inflation - approximately '66 to '83. I lived through it, and paid
back my student debt with cheap dollars, but I had no savings in
mutual funds back then. I keep reading about small whispers of
concern about inflation coming back. I don't particularly want to buy
real estate as an investment because it's not very liquid, but I do
recall that that did well during the 70s.
RWL
SteveB
<GeoLane at PTD dot NET> wrote in message
news:vmtrq41fmqma4eopt...@4ax.com...
You just gotta follow what is current. In the 70s, I bought silver, then
dumped it when the Hunt brothers cornered the market, and it soared. For
the past decade, we did very well with first deeds, but now have $300k
frozen, but secured by real estate. No one is buying. Nearly $4 million is
in the pipeline, but that doesn't convert to real assets at this time.
Talk to a CFP that you trust.
Steve
Ignoramus10139
As far as I know, everything did relatively poorly, except gold. Which
in no way suggests that it is a good idea to buy gold now. Your
question is great. Not that I know that much, I was born in 1971 and
in a different country.
Too_Many_Tools
You might find this interesting...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.survivalism/browse_thread/thread/59d2a1de79110528#
TMT
Too_Many_Tools
They better have lots of safe stuff...this downturn is the worst any
of us have seen in our lifetimes.
And it has no bottom to it yet.
That is the scary part.
TMT
SteveB
"Ignoramus10139" <ignoram...@NOSPAM.10139.invalid> wrote
> As far as I know, everything did relatively poorly, except gold. Which
> in no way suggests that it is a good idea to buy gold now. Your
> question is great. Not that I know that much, I was born in 1971 and
> in a different country.
A good friend of my wife is a CFP. They went to high school together. He
has done a good job for us financially. We visit with he and his wife
frequently. He is so smart and educated in his talk about finances, most of
the time, I just nod and agree. He hosts an AM radio show from his home on
Sunday for the Western United States.
One night, he spoke about gold. The circumstances of if it were a medium of
exchange as during gold rush times. First, there is not a very accurate way
of measuring gold, either of its weight, or purity. Bartenders were hired
for the size of their thumb, bringing life to the phrase, "How much can you
raise in a pinch?" If you had a big chunk, and wanted to go to the grocery
store, how would they accurately cut off a chunk for your purposes? Then
again, people being what they are, the purity angle would come into play.
Testing gold purity is tricky.
Next would be the security of it all. Carrying around a plug of gold, or a
bunch of pieces of gold. Easy to lose or have taken from you. Someone
watches you pay in gold, and leave with some in your pockets, and hit you in
the parking lot.
And they there's the exchange rate. The volatility of keeping track hour to
hour as to just what it is worth, so that enough could be cut off your bar
to pay for groceries.
As in early gold rush times, there would be very little standardization, and
lots of room for deception and fraud.
Lastly, you can't eat gold. What do you do if you have gold, but can't
safely and fairly take it out to pay for goods or services?
Right now, there are scams all around. People collecting scrap gold, and
not paying the spot price. Who is going to be the gold police? And like
the mob, they take their vig.
I was involved in gold mining on a small hobby level. The most we ever
recovered in one day with two men was 3.26 ounces. Some days we got enough
for a pack of smokes, and that was when a pack was a buck. I always said
that gold would be the easiest con game in the world because all you had to
do was buy a thousand dollars of flash nuggets, or small nuggets to "salt"
some ground you wanted to sell as prospective ore bearing terrain. People
see gold, and 99% of them lose all caution and reason. Greed takes over and
all caution goes to the four winds. Vulnerability is in full bloom.
It is said that there were only about 2% of miners in gold rush times that
made more than a livable wage. The prostitutes, saloon keepers, boarding
houses, equipment suppliers, gamblers, and others were the ones who made the
real money and who were there after the gold petered out.
Of course, people will post and say what I say is hooey, just like they say
you don't have to pay your taxes.
Well, we'll just have to wait to see who's right, won't we?
steve
Too_Many_Tools
> "Ignoramus10139" <ignoramus10...@NOSPAM.10139.invalid> wrote
You are correct Steve.
I have yet to see anyone buy a gallon of milk at Walmart with gold.
TMT
Leon Fisk
<GeoLane at PTD dot NET> wrote:
<snip>
>...sorry to hijack the thread and my question has no metalworking
>content, but does anybody know what did well during the years of
>inflation - approximately '66 to '83. I lived through it, and paid
>back my student debt with cheap dollars, but I had no savings in
>mutual funds back then.
<snip>
During the late 70's and early 80's (when I can remember the
rates) FDIC insured bank CD's were paying quite well. If you
shopped around a little 13% wasn't unheard of.
Nowadays bank CD's are in the crapper, unlike back then. You
are doing really well if you can get around 3%. For all
intents and purposes the banks can get free money from the
Feds, don't need to offer decent CD rates to anyone.
Banks aren't banks anymore. They need to get back to their
basics. LOCAL people deposit money and expect a bit of
interest in return. LOCAL people want to borrow money and it
is the BANKS' responsibility to research and determine if
they are worthy of the loan. The so called CREDIT rating
bureaus have been gamed and should be tossed in the crapper.
They're ratings mean nothing anymore, if they ever did...
--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email
Ed Huntress
"Leon Fisk" <lf...@no.spam.iserv.net> wrote in message
news:49jtq4lpnfls9skoa...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:44:15 -0500, GeoLane at PTD dot NET
> <GeoLane at PTD dot NET> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>...sorry to hijack the thread and my question has no metalworking
>>content, but does anybody know what did well during the years of
>>inflation - approximately '66 to '83. I lived through it, and paid
>>back my student debt with cheap dollars, but I had no savings in
>>mutual funds back then.
> <snip>
>
> During the late 70's and early 80's (when I can remember the
> rates) FDIC insured bank CD's were paying quite well. If you
> shopped around a little 13% wasn't unheard of.
That's because inflation was 13.58% in 1980. You were losing money at 13%
interest, but it felt good if you didn't look too closely at what was going
on. d8-)
>
> Nowadays bank CD's are in the crapper, unlike back then. You
> are doing really well if you can get around 3%. For all
> intents and purposes the banks can get free money from the
> Feds, don't need to offer decent CD rates to anyone.
There rarely has been such a thing as a "decent" CD rate. Banks sell CDs to
avoid paying the current interbank rate, which tends to be around the level
of inflation.
There is no free lunch, Leon, and there wasn't then, either.
>
> Banks aren't banks anymore. They need to get back to their
> basics. LOCAL people deposit money and expect a bit of
> interest in return. LOCAL people want to borrow money and it
> is the BANKS' responsibility to research and determine if
> they are worthy of the loan. The so called CREDIT rating
> bureaus have been gamed and should be tossed in the crapper.
> They're ratings mean nothing anymore, if they ever did...
>
> --
> Leon Fisk
> Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
> Remove no.spam for email
--
Ed Huntress
Leon Fisk
<hunt...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>"Leon Fisk" <lf...@no.spam.iserv.net> wrote in message
>news:49jtq4lpnfls9skoa...@4ax.com...
<snip>
>>
>> During the late 70's and early 80's (when I can remember the
>> rates) FDIC insured bank CD's were paying quite well. If you
>> shopped around a little 13% wasn't unheard of.
>
>That's because inflation was 13.58% in 1980. You were losing money at 13%
>interest, but it felt good if you didn't look too closely at what was going
>on. d8-)
>
>>
>> Nowadays bank CD's are in the crapper, unlike back then. You
>> are doing really well if you can get around 3%. For all
>> intents and purposes the banks can get free money from the
>> Feds, don't need to offer decent CD rates to anyone.
>
>There rarely has been such a thing as a "decent" CD rate. Banks sell CDs to
>avoid paying the current interbank rate, which tends to be around the level
>of inflation.
>
>There is no free lunch, Leon, and there wasn't then, either.
<snip>
So you're saying that having your money parked in the
sagging stock market during those years was much better than
getting a 13% guaranteed interest on a CD?
I was young and fully employed during those mid 80 years. I
wasn't making oodles of dough, but I got by and stuck money
into savings. I really don't remember there being any sort
of downturn. Bank saving rates were good, jobs were
plentiful (in my fields of employ at least) and same for
most people I was friends with (shrug). Nothing even
remotely like things are today.
John R. Carroll
Inflation was in double digits at the time Leon.Bank interest on revolving
lines of credit in the early 80's was 20 percent if you were getting prime
plus one. Were that the case today, you'd see double digit returns on CD's.
JC
F. George McDuffee
<lf...@no.spam.iserv.net> wrote:
<snip>
>>There rarely has been such a thing as a "decent" CD rate. Banks sell CDs to
>>avoid paying the current interbank rate, which tends to be around the level
>>of inflation.
>>
>>There is no free lunch, Leon, and there wasn't then, either.
><snip>
>
>So you're saying that having your money parked in the
>sagging stock market during those years was much better than
>getting a 13% guaranteed interest on a CD?
========
as a general rule:
interest paid = inflation rate + taxes
when this is not the case it is inevitably
interest paid < inflation rate + taxes
You are attempting to play in a rigged game.
Ed Huntress
Depending on the term of your CDs, putting the money under your *mattress*
was better than getting a 13% guaranteed interest on a CD. Under your
mattress, for the year of 1980, it was "earning" 13.58%. <g>
In most cases, the CD's term would overlap the growth and decline of
inflation rates, so you were marginally better off with the CD in all
likelihood. But only slightly.
>
> I was young and fully employed during those mid 80 years. I
> wasn't making oodles of dough, but I got by and stuck money
> into savings. I really don't remember there being any sort
> of downturn. Bank saving rates were good, jobs were
> plentiful (in my fields of employ at least) and same for
> most people I was friends with (shrug). Nothing even
> remotely like things are today.
Rates were good because inflation and *their* interest rates were through
the roof. FHA mortgages were running around 12%. Employment rates sucked.
Unemployment was rampant. You just didn't notice.
>
> --
> Leon Fisk
> Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
> Remove no.spam for email
--
Ed Huntress
Leon Fisk
<jcarroll@ubu,machiningsolution.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Inflation was in double digits at the time Leon.Bank interest on revolving
>lines of credit in the early 80's was 20 percent if you were getting prime
>plus one. Were that the case today, you'd see double digit returns on CD's.
>
>JC
I'm not arguing that point (inflation). The OP question was
what had good returns in those years. I'll take FDIC
guaranteed deposits over stock market gambling any day.
How many people here now wish they would have stuck some of
their savings into bank CD's when they were offering 6.5%
interest several years ago?
A small but steady climb upward sure beats the current stock
market roller coaster downward...
And ya, I have mutual funds that are down ~60% right now
too. Sure glad I can get along without tapping them.
Ed Huntress
I'm sorry, Leon. I'm trying to do too many things at once here. I'm getting
inflation and deflation mixed up. d8-)
No, it's not correct for me to say that you would have been better off with
the money under your mattress. It's more correct to say that those CD rates
were screwing you, but under the mattress, your money would have been losing
like crazy.
The correct thing to do with your money in times of wild inflation is to buy
everything you were planning to buy for the next two years or so, all at
once. d8-)
--
Ed Huntress
Wes
>Inflation was in double digits at the time Leon.Bank interest on revolving
>lines of credit in the early 80's was 20 percent if you were getting prime
>plus one. Were that the case today, you'd see double digit returns on CD's.
I remember getting out of the Marines, buying a single wide on property with a mortgage at
18.5% with the down payment a cash advance from a credit card (unsecured) at 18.0 percent.
Those were not good times, just different numbers to crunch.
These could be good times if you have a job you can keep w/o pay cuts and invest a bit.
All a mater of perspective.
Wes
GeoLane at PTD dot NET
>I was young and fully employed during those mid 80 years.
> I really don't remember there being any sort
>of downturn. Bank saving rates were good, jobs were
>plentiful (in my fields of employ at least) and same for
>most people I was friends with (shrug). Nothing even
>remotely like things are today.
Boy, I wouldn't agree with that at all. Inflation was ripping along
at double digits - somewhere around 10%+, so you had to get more than
10+ on a CD to break even (remember you lose at least 25% of your
earned interest to taxes). Jobs in central PA were not plentiful then
and unemployment was pretty high around here - again 10% sticks in my
head. I had a decent job, and the main good thing that occurred for
us is that I paid back my student loans with inflated dollars. The
people on the losing end were the banks and those who put their money
in low interest savings or bonds with the old lower rates of interest.
We did pretty well on the starter house we bought, but real estate
investing is a long term comittment, and there are real estate taxes
to be paid.
RWL