Hey Milt, How come you abandoned that original claim of yours"
Steve
What happened to "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"
Are you going to prove it?
Kurt Lochner
>
>What happened to [...]
Got any of those "magnetic capacitors" yet, Stevie?
*>chuckling<*
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT
news:<0t87lu46blkiotfga...@4ax.com>
"The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
"[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
magnetism, either"
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Mon, 12 Aug 2002 03:30:14 GMT
news:<og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
"any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"Electromagnetic Force = a force by which objects
with electric charge attract OR repel one another"
--
Steven Canyon <Ga...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
news:<jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
"the references to capacitors in that cite had nothing
to do with my claims about capacitors,[..]"
____________________________________________________________________
Do you know what a Coulomb is, Crayon?
Tell us what units of measure it takes on..
Tell you what, Crayon. Tell us how much 'magnetic flux'
is generated by charging a 1.0F cap to 5.0 Volts, then tell
us about how much electrostatic force would be present..
What's the repulsive force between two charged masses of 100 Coulombs
each at a distance of 1.0 centimeter, Porkie. Now, tell us how many
Gauss it would take for a pair of magnets to repel each other with
as much force..
Put your answers right here---> _______________
milt....@gmail.com
I did. Many times.
Are you going to prove that losing 40% of your money is the same as
losing 90% of your money?
Steve
>On May 5, 10:02 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>> What happened to "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"
>>
>> Are you going to prove it?
>
>I did. Many times.
That's the argument Milt uses when he's failed to prove his claim and
wants to run away..
>Are you going to prove that losing 40% of your money is the same as
>losing 90% of your money?
OK...
It's pretty easy as long as keep shifting the value of this "your
money" figure....
90% of 889 = 800
40% of 2000 = 800
Milt wants "your money" to exclude 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.
Milt does this "switcheroo"because he knows that he can't support his
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 must enjoy getting his arguments slapped down...
milt....@gmail.com
> On 6 May 2007 04:18:38 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >On May 5, 10:02 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> What happened to "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"
>
> >> Are you going to prove it?
>
> >I did. Many times.
>
> wants to run away..
No, it's the one I use when I repeat myself over and over, due to you
constantly creating new threads and pretending I haven't answered it.
>
> >Are you going to prove that losing 40% of your money is the same as
> >losing 90% of your money?
>
> OK...
>
> It's pretty easy as long as keep shifting the value of this "your
> money" figure....
>
> 90% of 889 = 800
> 40% of 2000 = 800
I see. So, which one of the above would you rather be? The guy who
loses $800 out of every $889, or the guy who loses $800 out of every
$2000? I mean, Jesus, Canyon, How stupid do you get?
>
> Miltwants "your money" to exclude 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.
Oh, really? Look at what YOU posted above.
Margin accounts double potential gains, and also double potential
losses, provided you invest 50% and borrow 50%. There is no other way
to look at it. Period.
>
> Miltdoes this "switcheroo"because he knows that he can't support his
> 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"
Well, if you think pissing more money down a rathole is a good idea,
then by all means, have at it.
>
> Miltmust enjoy getting his arguments slapped down...
I wouldn't know...
Steve
>On May 6, 9:01 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>> On 6 May 2007 04:18:38 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >On May 5, 10:02 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>> >> What happened to "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"
>>
>> >> Are you going to prove it?
>>
>> >I did. Many times.
>>
>> That's the argumentMiltuses when he's failed to prove his claim and
>> wants to run away..
>
>No, it's the one I use when I repeat myself over and over, due to you
>constantly creating new threads and pretending I haven't answered it.
the one where I showed how you can lose exactly the
same amount even if there isn't any margin call?
....so did you explain how you can lose exactly the
same amount even if there isn't any margin
call?
>> >Are you going to prove that losing 40% of your money is the same as
>> >losing 90% of your money?
>>
>> OK...
>>
>> It's pretty easy as long as keep shifting the value of this "your
>> money" figure....
>>
>> 90% of 889 = 800
>> 40% of 2000 = 800
>
>I see. So, which one of the above would you rather be? The guy who
>loses $800 out of every $889, or the guy who loses $800 out of every
>$2000? I mean, Jesus, Canyon, How stupid do you get?
That's a faulty premise... both guys invested the
same amount.. It makes no difference whether
that investment capital came out his own pocket,
a loan from his margin account, or even a loan
from his brother in law.
On one side of Milt's argument, he'll say that
you can't lose the borrowed money which says
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.
>> Miltwants "your money" to exclude 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.
>
>Oh, really?
Yeah, really....
> Look at what YOU posted above.
You mean the stuff you can't refute?
so are you explain how you can lose exactly the
same amount even if there isn't any margin
call?
>Margin accounts double potential gains, and also double potential
>losses, provided you invest 50% and borrow 50%. There is no other way
>to look at it. Period.
Yes, ...and the gains and losses are the same as if you bought
the entire lot without making any loan. Making a loan only means
that you can also invest the amount of the loan...
In order for Milt to make his argument, he has to pretend that you're
only investing an amount that excludes the amount of any
outstanding loans..
If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
wanted to invest, would Milt then claim that
"your money" was zero? <LOL> That would
make it difficult for Milt to present the
total loss as a percentage of zero "your
money,"
>> Miltdoes this "switcheroo"because he knows that he can't support his
>> 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"
>
>Well, if you think pissing more money down a rathole is a good idea,
>then by all means, have at it.
>>
>> Miltmust enjoy getting his arguments slapped down...
>
>I wouldn't know...
Milt's been slapped so many times it just makes him feel
normal
Billary/2008
"Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!)" <kurt_l...@hotmail.com> wrote in
message
Lookie it's Kurtie baby Soils His Pants! Hey Kurtie baby, I'm from Tampa
Bay too. And the last I remember you were going to squeal and whine to my
ISP and get me kicked off of USENET. What happened? Did you soil your
pants when you found out that they didn't give a shit about what you thought
or had to say? You're a fucking SNIP coward just like Hanson and Biffy.
Why don't you stick your hand down in your diaper and see what you come up
with?
Love
Billary
Tampa Bay, Go BUCS!
milt....@gmail.com
<kurt_loch...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 6, 9:01 am, Sleaze <semencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> > > On 6 May 2007 04:18:38 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > >>What happened to "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"
>
> > > >>Are you going to prove it?
>
> > > > I did. Many times.
>
> > >That's the argumentMiltuses when he's failed to prove his claim and
> > >wants to run away..
>
> > No, it's the one I use when I repeat myself over and over, due to you
> > constantly creating new threads and pretending I haven't answered it.
>
> ran away from me when I pointed out Maxwell's Equations to him
> when he made the claims about "points of magnetic charge" and
> "magnetic capacitors" after I eviscerated him about power lines
> having inherent losses, whether they're polyphase or DC..
>
> He kept trying to change the subject to junior high school
> simplifications that aren't used in the 'real world', and
> then babbled about how he didn't have to 'prove' anything
> or back up any of his opinions.. He ran and hid behind a
> kill-file when I pointed out how his postings more nearly
> resembled those of Matt Giwer, also of Tampa Bay..
>
> --Examples follow..
> ________________________________________________________________________
>
> Canyon <stevencan...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:11:30 GMT
> <news:i4tp5v4c5ulhakvei...@4ax.com>
>
> "I never made any claims I couldn't back up...."
>
> --
> Canyon <parkie_u_w...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 19:59:42 GMT
> <news:rg6q5vgq29cerpocl...@4ax.com>
>
> "I don't need to back anything up, you moron, cause unlike
> yourself, my self image is not dependent on what others
> think about me."
>
> --
> Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 13 Aug 2002 13:57:10 GMT
> <news:jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
>
> "I have no need to demonstrate what I know,[..]"
>
> "MY self image is very secure...."
>
> --
> Canyon <stevencan...@nospam.yahoo.com> Wed, 26 Feb 2003 17:08:28 GMT
> <news:u3sp5vc0nhsdj4fbo...@4ax.com>
>
> "[..] my ego isn't even slightly effected by what others
> might think of me."
>
> --
> Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Tue, 06 Aug 2002 13:40:33 GMT
> news:<b9avkuouvrkd3o6ghd1kppjhg6kespmdc9%404ax.com>
>
> "A capacitor *is* an open circuit....like a transformer....
> both depend on a changing magnetic field to work.."
>
> --
> Steven Canyon <G...@dog.soldiers> Fri, 09 Aug 2002 12:57:55 GMT
> <news:0t87lu46blkiotfga...@4ax.com>
>
> "The only time capacitors are doing anything they have
> significant magnetic fields, Lochner."
>
> "[..]and now you can't find a capacitor without
> magnetism, either"
>
> --
> <news:og8elu4eaudlftq93...@4ax.com>
>
> "any and all capacitors work on the principal of magnetism...."
>
> --
> <news:jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
>
> "Electromagnetic Force = a force by which objects
> with electric charge attract OR repel one another"
>
> --
> <news:jc1iluog2emtkjqso...@4ax.com>
>
> "the references to capacitors in that cite had nothing
> to do with my claims about capacitors,[..]"
>
> --
Well, he is right about one thing; his ego and arrogance seems
unaffected by the fact that he gets his ass kicked constantly.
milt....@gmail.com
I'll ask again... do you get dumber, or is this about it...
This is the sum total of your stupidity. According to you...
1. The guy with the $20,000 cash account is investing the same amount
of money as a guy who puts $10,000 into a margin account and buys
twice as much stock.
2. Losing 40% of your money is the same as losing 90% of your money,
because the dollar amount is roughly equal.
3. Because the loan proceeds and the liability they entail balance out
on day one, it doesn't matter that the loan incurs cost after that.
4. Meeting a margin call by plowing more cash into a margin account
doesn't connote a loss.
5. The gains from a 50% margin account and a cash account are exactly
the same, despite the fact that the margin account holder invested
exactly half as much money.
Face it, Canyon; you don't know what buying securities on margin
means, you're not willing to learn anything about it, and you have
managed to sound profoundly stoo-pid for more than a week, no matter
what has been thrown at you, including actual margin account
agreements, opinions by securities regulators and experts, etc.
You are a capitalist's wet dream, Canyon; someone who's profoundly
stupid about investing, but arrogant about what he thinks he knows.
It also makes you an obvious liar all of those times you told us how
rich you've become from investments. I would venture to say you've
never been to a brokerage or talked to a broker.
Kurt Lochner
Yeah, go figure..
--It's about time someone changed his ego-diaper again, isn't it?
Steve
Obviously...if they both are buying $20,000 worth of the stock, they
both are investing $20,000..
>2. Losing 40% of your money is the same as losing 90% of your money,
>because the dollar amount is roughly equal.
That's a faulty premise... both guys invested the
same amount.. It makes no difference whether
that investment capital came out his own pocket,
a loan from his margin account, or even a loan
from his brother in law.
>3. Because the loan proceeds and the liability they entail balance out
>on day one, it doesn't matter that the loan incurs cost after that.
matter to what/who? To the unrealized loss on the stock? No.
>4. Meeting a margin call by plowing more cash into a margin account
>doesn't connote a loss.
Obviously not, because you'll lose the exact same amount if there
isn't any margin call..
>5. The gains from a 50% margin account and a cash account are exactly
>the same, despite the fact that the margin account holder invested
>exactly half as much money.
Faulty premise.. you haven't identified who it was that invested the
other $10,000 that was used to buy stock..
>Face it, Canyon; you don't know what buying securities on margin
>means, you're not willing to learn anything about it, and you have
>managed to sound profoundly stoo-pid for more than a week, no matter
>what has been thrown at you, including actual margin account
>agreements, opinions by securities regulators and experts, etc.
Face it shook, no matter how you lie, build strawmen, duck, dodge, and
bluster, I stay several steps ahead of you... But hey, as dumb as
people like Matt, Lockner, and Hanson are, they probably think you're
scoring points... But then again, your lack of knowledge IS pretty
obvious
>You are a capitalist's wet dream, Canyon; someone who's profoundly
>stupid about investing, but arrogant about what he thinks he knows.
I whipped poor Milt at every stage... and now he's whining cause he
has nowhere left to go. All he can do at this point is bluster and
fume.... because he can't refute me...
>It also makes you an obvious liar all of those times you told us how
>rich you've become from investments. I would venture to say you've
>never been to a brokerage or talked to a broker.
I don't know where Milt got the idea that his silly fantasies are of
any concern to anyone on usenet. Perhaps he's thinking that he's
talking to his pathetic, freaky chat room cronies who have pretty much
accepted Milt as one of the girls..
BTW, Milt, how's the civic running?
Steve
Oh look, Lochner has hooked up with Milt... Dumb and dumber
Kurt Lochner
>
> milt....@gmail.com quoted:
> >
> > Kurt Lochner (Weasel Remember!) replied:
__>>
Poor Crayon, still afraid to have his opinions critiqued and
exposing himself as an utter fraud of little consequence..
--*>LOL!<*
milt....@gmail.com
> On 6 May 2007 14:13:05 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 6, 2:04 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> you can't lose the borrowed money which says
> >> that borrower will treat it and reap the
> >> benefits of it, exactly as if it was his
> >> own money..
>
> >> ...and on the other side ofMilt'sarguments
> >> he uses the term "your money" which has any
> >> loans subtracted out of it.
>
> >> 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.
>
> >> >> Miltwants "your money" to exclude 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.
>
> >> >Oh, really?
>
> >> Yeah, really....
>
> >> > Look at what YOU posted above.
>
> >> You mean the stuff you can't refute?
>
> >> so are you explain how you can lose exactly the
> >> same amount even if there isn't any margin
> >> call?
>
> >> >Margin accounts double potential gains, and also double potential
> >> >losses, provided you invest 50% and borrow 50%. There is no other way
> >> >to look at it. Period.
>
> >> Yes, ...and the gains and losses are the same as if you bought
> >> the entire lot without making any loan. Making a loan only means
> >> that you can also invest the amount of the loan...
>
> >> only investing an amount that excludes the amount of any
> >> outstanding loans..
>
> >> If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
> >> "your money" was zero? <LOL> That would
> >> total loss as a percentage of zero "your
> >> money,"
>
> >> >> Miltdoes this "switcheroo"because he knows that he can't support his
> >> >> 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"
>
> >> >Well, if you think pissing more money down a rathole is a good idea,
> >> >then by all means, have at it.
>
> >> >> Miltmust enjoy getting his arguments slapped down...
>
> >> >I wouldn't know...
>
> >> normal
>
> >I'll ask again... do you get dumber, or is this about it...
>
> >This is the sum total of your stupidity. According to you...
>
> >1. The guy with the $20,000 cash account is investing the same amount
> >of money as a guy who puts $10,000 into a margin account and buys
> >twice as much stock.
>
> Obviously...if they both are buying $20,000 worth of the stock, they
> both are investing $20,000..
Not if one is buying on margin. That's the definition of buying on
margin. You get to buy $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000. The
potential risk and reward is twice that of cash trading.
>
> >2. Losing 40% of your money is the same as losing 90% of your money,
> >because the dollar amount is roughly equal.
>
> That's a faulty premise... both guys invested the
> same amount..
Really? So, if the margin trader sees his stock rise 40%, why is his
bank account only reduced by $10,000,and not $20,000.
> It makes no difference whether
> that investment capital came out his own pocket,
> a loan from his margin account, or even a loan
> from his brother in law.
Well, according to the terms of the margin agreement, that's not true.
In fact, wasn't it you who was saying just yesterday that the
liability of the loan and the cash received cancel each other out?
Interesting that you keep changing your mind. Note that I haven't
changed my mind at all. Buying on margin means that you get more stock
for your initial investment.
>
> >3. Because the loan proceeds and the liability they entail balance out
> >on day one, it doesn't matter that the loan incurs cost after that.
>
> matter to what/who? To the unrealized loss on the stock? No.
Hmmm... but you just said...
> >4. Meeting a margin call by plowing more cash into a margin account
> >doesn't connote a loss.
>
> Obviously not, because you'll lose the exact same amount if there
> isn't any margin call..
Obviously not? The experts disagree.
>
> >5. The gains from a 50% margin account and a cash account are exactly
> >the same, despite the fact that the margin account holder invested
> >exactly half as much money.
>
> Faulty premise.. you haven't identified who it was that invested the
> other $10,000 that was used to buy stock..
$10,000 bought $20,000 worth of stock on margin.
>
> >Face it, Canyon; you don't know what buying securities on margin
> >means, you're not willing to learn anything about it, and you have
> >managed to sound profoundly stoo-pid for more than a week, no matter
> >what has been thrown at you, including actual margin account
> >agreements, opinions by securities regulators and experts, etc.
>
> Face itshook, no matter how you lie, build strawmen, duck, dodge, and
> bluster, I stay several steps ahead of you... But hey, as dumb as
> people like Matt, Lockner, and Hanson are, they probably think you're
> scoring points... But then again, your lack of knowledge IS pretty
> obvious
Yeah, MY lack of knowledge. You started this out not even knowing that
a margin account involved borrowing money. Then you tell us that
margin trading incurs the same amount of risk as cash trading, despite
the experts I posted that said otherwise. Then, you try to tell us
that the loan liability wasn't a factor, although now you're telling
us it IS a factor, because you're investing that money...
You have no clue what you're talking about, except that it's the
opposite of whatever you think I said, most of which you don't
understand.
>
> >You are a capitalist's wet dream, Canyon; someone who's profoundly
> >stupid about investing, but arrogant about what he thinks he knows.
>
> I whipped poorMiltat every stage... and now he's whining cause he
> has nowhere left to go. All he can do at this point is bluster and
> fume.... because he can't refute me...
Refute you? That's all I have done. You don't have any clue what
you're talking about.
>
> >It also makes you an obvious liar all of those times you told us how
> >rich you've become from investments. I would venture to say you've
> >never been to a brokerage or talked to a broker.
>
> I don't know whereMiltgot the idea that his silly fantasies are of
> any concern to anyone on usenet. Perhaps he's thinking that he's
> talking to his pathetic, freaky chat room cronies who have pretty much
> acceptedMiltas one of the girls..
Canyon, I'm not the one claiming to be a rich dude with tons of cash
flow due to his incredible investing prowess; that would be you.
>
> BTW,Milt, how's the civic running?
Hmmm... last one I bought was a 1985 that I brought brand new. But the
guy I sold it to in 1992 drove it until it died 4 years ago, when it
went over 280,000 miles. I don't own one now, but I would... it's a
damned good car. Better than that tricked out AMC Pacer you drive.
(oblique reference to a radio talk show)
Steve
Sorry, if they both are buying $20,000 worth of the stock, they
both are investing $20,000..
> That's the definition of buying on
>margin. You get to buy $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000. The
>potential risk and reward is twice that of cash trading.
Only because you're actually investing $20,000
Whatever made Milt think that if you borrow money to invest, it's not
really invested....<LOL> because you borrowed it?
If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
wanted to use to buy stock, would Milt then
claim that you didn't invest anything?
He might...but he'll run away from that question...
>> >2. Losing 40% of your money is the same as losing 90% of your money,
>> >because the dollar amount is roughly equal.
>>
>> That's a faulty premise... both guys invested the
>> same amount..
>
>Really? So, if the margin trader sees his stock rise 40%, why is his
>bank account only reduced by $10,000,and not $20,000.
Yeah, really... <LOL> and if you believe that an investor's bank
account will be reduced as a result of his stock's price going up,
you have a real problem.
>> It makes no difference whether
>> that investment capital came out his own pocket,
>> a loan from his margin account, or even a loan
>> from his brother in law.
>
>Well, according to the terms of the margin agreement, that's not true.
Bullshit! No margin agreement specifies that the money you borrow
isn't invested..
>In fact, wasn't it you who was saying just yesterday that the
>liability of the loan and the cash received cancel each other out?
Yes I did, do you believe otherwise?
When you take out a loan, the assets you receive offset the liability
you also receive having zero effect on your net worth.. Then you go
about your business, buying and selling stock, buying honda civics,
buying homes if you can afford to, paying rent, and then, down the
road. when you pay off the loan, you throw some assets at that
liability, and voila, they cancel each other out again.
The loan has no effect on your net worth, and it has no effect on your
stock purchase other than giving you more assets to invest...
>Interesting that you keep changing your mind. Note that I haven't
>changed my mind at all. Buying on margin means that you get more stock
>for your initial investment.
Only because you're actually investing $20,000.
Whatever made Milt think that if you borrow money to invest, it's not
really invested....<LOL> because you borrowed it?
If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
wanted to use to buy stock, would Milt then
claim that you didn't invest anything?
He might...but he'll run away from that question...
>> >3. Because the loan proceeds and the liability they entail balance out
>> >on day one, it doesn't matter that the loan incurs cost after that.
>>
>> matter to what/who? To the unrealized loss on the stock? No.
>
>Hmmm... but you just said...
<shrug>
>> >4. Meeting a margin call by plowing more cash into a margin account
>> >doesn't connote a loss.
>>
>> Obviously not, because you'll lose the exact same amount if there
>> isn't any margin call..
>
>Obviously not? The experts disagree.
No they don't
>> >5. The gains from a 50% margin account and a cash account are exactly
>> >the same, despite the fact that the margin account holder invested
>> >exactly half as much money.
>>
>> Faulty premise.. you haven't identified who it was that invested the
>> other $10,000 that was used to buy stock..
>
>$10,000 bought $20,000 worth of stock on margin.
Who invested that additional $10,000 if the investor only invested
$10,000?
In order to make his point, Milt has to pretend
that all of the losses occurred as a result of
half the investment...
there was $20,000 invested on stocks and Milt claims the investor
only invested $10,000. WHO invested the other $10,000, Milt?
>> >Face it, Canyon; you don't know what buying securities on margin
>> >means, you're not willing to learn anything about it, and you have
>> >managed to sound profoundly stoo-pid for more than a week, no matter
>> >what has been thrown at you, including actual margin account
>> >agreements, opinions by securities regulators and experts, etc.
>>
>> Face itshook, no matter how you lie, build strawmen, duck, dodge, and
>> bluster, I stay several steps ahead of you... But hey, as dumb as
>> people like Matt, Lockner, and Hanson are, they probably think you're
>> scoring points... But then again, your lack of knowledge IS pretty
>> obvious
>
>Yeah, MY lack of knowledge.
BTW, whatever made you think that if you borrow money to invest, it's
not really invested....<LOL> because you borrowed it?
If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
wanted to use to buy stock, would Milt then
claim that you didn't invest anything?
You started this out not even knowing that
>a margin account involved borrowing money. Then you tell us that
>margin trading incurs the same amount of risk as cash trading, despite
>the experts I posted that said otherwise. Then, you try to tell us
>that the loan liability wasn't a factor, although now you're telling
>us it IS a factor, because you're investing that money...
<LOL> Blah,blah,blah...
>You have no clue what you're talking about, except that it's the
>opposite of whatever you think I said, most of which you don't
>understand.
<LOL> Blah,blah,blah...
If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
wanted to use to buy stock, would Milt then
claim that you didn't invest anything?
>> >You are a capitalist's wet dream, Canyon; someone who's profoundly
>> >stupid about investing, but arrogant about what he thinks he knows.
>>
>> I whipped poorMiltat every stage... and now he's whining cause he
>> has nowhere left to go. All he can do at this point is bluster and
>> fume.... because he can't refute me...
>
>Refute you? That's all I have done. You don't have any clue what
>you're talking about.
<LOL> Blah,blah,blah...
>> >It also makes you an obvious liar all of those times you told us how
>> >rich you've become from investments. I would venture to say you've
>> >never been to a brokerage or talked to a broker.
>>
>> I don't know whereMiltgot the idea that his silly fantasies are of
>> any concern to anyone on usenet. Perhaps he's thinking that he's
>> talking to his pathetic, freaky chat room cronies who have pretty much
>> acceptedMiltas one of the girls..
>
>Canyon, I'm not the one claiming to be a rich dude with tons of cash
>flow due to his incredible investing prowess; that would be you.
>>
>> BTW,Milt, how's the civic running?
>
Econobox.. chatrooms.. soap operas can you say "girlyboy" <LOL>
milt....@gmail.com
Not if one is buying on margin. Go ahead and twist it any way you'd
like; it's the only way you can be "right." But the fact of the matter
is, if my bank account is only down $10,000, that's the amount of MY
investment. That's what buying on margin means, you moron. You're
taking a gamble that a stock will increase in value.
>
> > That's the definition of buying on
> >margin. You get to buy $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000. The
> >potential risk and reward is twice that of cash trading.
>
> Only because you're actually investing $20,000
No, I'm not. My bank account is only down $10K.
>
> Whatever madeMiltthink that if you borrow money to invest, it's not
> really invested....<LOL> because you borrowed it?
I didn't say IT wasn't invested. I'M not investing $20,000. I'M
investing $10,000.
>
> If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
> wanted to use to buy stock, wouldMiltthen
> claim that you didn't invest anything?
Yup. Maybe you're getting this after all??
>
> He might...but he'll run away from that question...
I never run away. I walk away laughing at your stupidity.
>
> >> >2. Losing 40% of your money is the same as losing 90% of your money,
> >> >because the dollar amount is roughly equal.
>
> >> That's a faulty premise... both guys invested the
> >> same amount..
>
> >Really? So, if the margin trader sees his stock rise 40%, why is his
> >bank account only reduced by $10,000,and not $20,000.
>
> Yeah, really... <LOL> and if you believe that an investor's bank
> account will be reduced as a result of his stock's price going up,
> you have a real problem.
No, you fuckwit. His bank account is reduced by the amount he
originally invests. Do keep up.
>
> >> It makes no difference whether
> >> that investment capital came out his own pocket,
> >> a loan from his margin account, or even a loan
> >> from his brother in law.
>
> >Well, according to the terms of the margin agreement, that's not true.
>
> Bullshit! No margin agreement specifies that the money you borrow
> isn't invested..
>
I never said it wasn't. IT is invested, YOU aren't investing it.
> >In fact, wasn't it you who was saying just yesterday that the
> >liability of the loan and the cash received cancel each other out?
>
> Yes I did, do you believe otherwise?
>
> When you take out a loan, the assets you receive offset the liability
> you also receive having zero effect on your net worth..
At the time of the loan, you're correct. At the time of the loan.
Which means, if you invest that money, you have invested ZERO DOLLARS.
Get it now?
> Then you go
> about your business, buying and selling stock, buying honda civics,
> buying homes if you can afford to, paying rent, and then, down the
> road. when you pay off the loan, you throw some assets at that
> liability, and voila, they cancel each other out again.
Yeah, minus that pesky interest...
>
> The loan has no effect on your net worth, and it has no effect on your
> stock purchase other than giving you more assets to invest...
Uh huh. And throughout it all, because you received $10,000 in assets,
and have a $10,000 liability, you have invested $0. Get it yet? That's
what margin trading is, and why it's so risky. You get to invest
$10,000 and double your return. Of course, if the stock loses, you
also double your losses.
>
> >Interesting that you keep changing your mind. Note that I haven't
> >changed my mind at all. Buying on margin means that you get more stock
> >for your initial investment.
>
> Only because you're actually investing $20,000.
>
> Whatever madeMiltthink that if you borrow money to invest, it's not
> really invested....<LOL> because you borrowed it?
>
> If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
> wanted to use to buy stock, wouldMiltthen
> claim that you didn't invest anything?
>
> He might...but he'll run away from that question...
Dumbass....
>
> >> >3. Because the loan proceeds and the liability they entail balance out
> >> >on day one, it doesn't matter that the loan incurs cost after that.
>
> >> matter to what/who? To the unrealized loss on the stock? No.
>
> >Hmmm... but you just said...
>
> <shrug>
>
> >> >4. Meeting a margin call by plowing more cash into a margin account
> >> >doesn't connote a loss.
>
> >> Obviously not, because you'll lose the exact same amount if there
> >> isn't any margin call..
>
> >Obviously not? The experts disagree.
>
> No they don't
>
> >> >5. The gains from a 50% margin account and a cash account are exactly
> >> >the same, despite the fact that the margin account holder invested
> >> >exactly half as much money.
>
> >> Faulty premise.. you haven't identified who it was that invested the
> >> other $10,000 that was used to buy stock..
>
> >$10,000 bought $20,000 worth of stock on margin.
>
> Who invested that additional $10,000 if the investor only invested
> $10,000?
>
> In order to make his point,Milthas to pretend
> that all of the losses occurred as a result of
> half the investment...
>
> there was $20,000 invested on stocks andMiltclaims the investor
> only invested $10,000. WHO invested the other $10,000,Milt?
>
> >> >Face it, Canyon; you don't know what buying securities on margin
> >> >means, you're not willing to learn anything about it, and you have
> >> >managed to sound profoundly stoo-pid for more than a week, no matter
> >> >what has been thrown at you, including actual margin account
> >> >agreements, opinions by securities regulators and experts, etc.
>
> >> Face itshook, no matter how you lie, build strawmen, duck, dodge, and
> >> bluster, I stay several steps ahead of you... But hey, as dumb as
> >> people like Matt, Lockner, and Hanson are, they probably think you're
> >> scoring points... But then again, your lack of knowledge IS pretty
> >> obvious
>
> >Yeah, MY lack of knowledge.
>
> BTW, whatever made you think that if you borrow money to invest, it's
> not really invested....<LOL> because you borrowed it?
>
> If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
> wanted to use to buy stock, wouldMiltthen
> claim that you didn't invest anything?
>
> You started this out not even knowing that
>
> >a margin account involved borrowing money. Then you tell us that
> >margin trading incurs the same amount of risk as cash trading, despite
> >the experts I posted that said otherwise. Then, you try to tell us
> >that the loan liability wasn't a factor, although now
>
> ...
>
> read more »
Steve
Who's investing the other $10,000???
still won't answer that, huh?
>> If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
>> wanted to use to buy stock, wouldMiltthen
>> claim that you didn't invest anything?
>
>Yup. Maybe you're getting this after all??
Wow... buying stock without investing anything...
>> He might...but he'll run away from that question...
>
>I never run away. I walk away laughing at your stupidity.
laughing at the idea of buying stock without investing anything...
soooo, if you borrow more than you spend on the stock is your
investment negative?
>> >> >2. Losing 40% of your money is the same as losing 90% of your money,
>> >> >because the dollar amount is roughly equal.
>>
>> >> That's a faulty premise... both guys invested the
>> >> same amount..
>>
>> >Really? So, if the margin trader sees his stock rise 40%, why is his
>> >bank account only reduced by $10,000,and not $20,000.
>>
>> Yeah, really... <LOL> and if you believe that an investor's bank
>> account will be reduced as a result of his stock's price going up,
>> you have a real problem.
>
>No, you fuckwit. His bank account is reduced by the amount he
>originally invests. Do keep up.
what has that to do with the stock rising 40%?
>> >> It makes no difference whether
>> >> that investment capital came out his own pocket,
>> >> a loan from his margin account, or even a loan
>> >> from his brother in law.
>>
>> >Well, according to the terms of the margin agreement, that's not true.
>>
>> Bullshit! No margin agreement specifies that the money you borrow
>> isn't invested..
>>
>I never said it wasn't. IT is invested, YOU aren't investing it.
who is investing it?
>> >In fact, wasn't it you who was saying just yesterday that the
>> >liability of the loan and the cash received cancel each other out?
>>
>> Yes I did, do you believe otherwise?
Well, do ya, punk?
>> When you take out a loan, the assets you receive offset the liability
>> you also receive having zero effect on your net worth..
>
>At the time of the loan, you're correct. At the time of the loan.
So what changes?
>Which means, if you invest that money, you have invested ZERO DOLLARS.
>Get it now?
soooo, I invest "that money, but that money is zero dollars? Well,
there you go.....
>> Then you go
>> about your business, buying and selling stock, buying honda civics,
>> buying homes if you can afford to, paying rent, and then, down the
>> road. when you pay off the loan, you throw some assets at that
>> liability, and voila, they cancel each other out again.
>
>Yeah, minus that pesky interest...
I'll just use some zero dollar money to pay that..
>> The loan has no effect on your net worth, and it has no effect on your
>> stock purchase other than giving you more assets to invest...
>
>Uh huh. And throughout it all, because you received $10,000 in assets,
>and have a $10,000 liability, you have invested $0.
Wow... buying stock without investing anything...
>Get it yet?
but who *is* doing the investing?
>That's
>what margin trading is, and why it's so risky. You get to invest
>$10,000 and double your return. Of course, if the stock loses, you
>also double your losses.
zero dollar money losses and gains?
>> >Interesting that you keep changing your mind. Note that I haven't
>> >changed my mind at all. Buying on margin means that you get more stock
>> >for your initial investment.
>>
>> Only because you're actually investing $20,000.
>>
>> Whatever madeMiltthink that if you borrow money to invest, it's not
>> really invested....<LOL> because you borrowed it?
soooo, by that logic, if you borrow $50,000 and only buy $20,000
worth of stock, your investment is a negative $30,000... right?
Tell us more about this negative investing Milt.
Tell us more about this zero dollar money
milt....@gmail.com
The borrowed money is being invested. Who would you say is investing
it? Him, or the brokerage? I would say neither. He's using the money
to increase his stock market "bet".
>
> still won't answer that, huh?
>
> >> If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
> >> wanted to use to buy stock, wouldMiltthen
> >> claim that you didn't invest anything?
>
> >Yup. Maybe you're getting this after all??
>
> Wow... buying stock without investing anything...
No, you can't buy on margin without using your own money - at least
50% of the total value of the stock purchased.
>
> >> He might...but he'll run away from that question...
>
> >I never run away. I walk away laughing at your stupidity.
>
> laughing at the idea of buying stock without investing anything...
I didn't say that. He's buying $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000 of
his own money, by buying on margin.
>
> soooo, if you borrow more than you spend on the stock is your
> investment negative?
That's impossible on a margin account. If you borrow money from
another source to purchase stocks on margin, you're an idiot.
>
> >> >> >2. Losing 40% of your money is the same as losing 90% of your money,
> >> >> >because the dollar amount is roughly equal.
>
> >> >> That's a faulty premise... both guys invested the
> >> >> same amount..
>
> >> >Really? So, if the margin trader sees his stock rise 40%, why is his
> >> >bank account only reduced by $10,000,and not $20,000.
>
> >> Yeah, really... <LOL> and if you believe that an investor's bank
> >> account will be reduced as a result of his stock's price going up,
> >> you have a real problem.
>
> >No, you fuckwit. His bank account is reduced by the amount he
> >originally invests. Do keep up.
>
> what has that to do with the stock rising 40%?
Jesus. You have a serious reading problem.
Perhaps the problem is your penchant for answering every sentence,
instead of answering the entire statement, in context.
>
> >> >> It makes no difference whether
> >> >> that investment capital came out his own pocket,
> >> >> a loan from his margin account, or even a loan
> >> >> from his brother in law.
>
> >> >Well, according to the terms of the margin agreement, that's not true.
>
> >> Bullshit! No margin agreement specifies that the money you borrow
> >> isn't invested..
>
> >I never said it wasn't. IT is invested, YOU aren't investing it.
>
> who is investing it?
It's being invested. He's buying $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000
on margin. His bank account is being reduced by $10,000. This isn't
difficult for people with something other than a black/white mindset
to comprehend...
>
> >> >In fact, wasn't it you who was saying just yesterday that the
> >> >liability of the loan and the cash received cancel each other out?
>
> >> Yes I did, do you believe otherwise?
>
> Well, do ya, punk?
The question is, do YOU? You're trying to claim that HE invested
$10,000, even though you yourself said that he had ZERO dollars as a
result of the loan. Hmmm... suddenly, black and white world is a
problem, huh?
>
> >> When you take out a loan, the assets you receive offset the liability
> >> you also receive having zero effect on your net worth..
>
> >At the time of the loan, you're correct. At the time of the loan.
>
> So what changes?
The cost of carrying the liability on the books.
>
> >Which means, if you invest that money, you have invested ZERO DOLLARS.
> >Get it now?
>
> soooo, I invest "that money, but that money is zero dollars? Well,
> there you go.....
But you still don't understand buying on margin... how sad...
>
> >> Then you go
> >> about your business, buying and selling stock, buying honda civics,
> >> buying homes if you can afford to, paying rent, and then, down the
> >> road. when you pay off the loan, you throw some assets at that
> >> liability, and voila, they cancel each other out again.
>
> >Yeah, minus that pesky interest...
>
> I'll just use some zero dollar money to pay that..
yep. you don't get it at all... this is hilarious...
>
> >> The loan has no effect on your net worth, and it has no effect on your
> >> stock purchase other than giving you more assets to invest...
>
> >Uh huh. And throughout it all, because you received $10,000 in assets,
> >and have a $10,000 liability, you have invested $0.
>
> Wow... buying stock without investing anything...
No. Buying $20,000 on margin with $10,000.
>
> >Get it yet?
>
> but who *is* doing the investing?
Sigh...
>
> >That's
> >what margin trading is, and why it's so risky. You get to invest
> >$10,000 and double your return. Of course, if the stock loses, you
> >also double your losses.
>
> zero dollar money losses and gains?
Um, no.
>
> >> >Interesting that you keep changing your mind. Note that I haven't
> >> >changed my mind at all. Buying on margin means that you get more stock
> >> >for your initial investment.
>
> >> Only because you're actually investing $20,000.
>
> >> Whatever madeMiltthink that if you borrow money to invest, it's not
> >> really invested....<LOL> because you borrowed it?
>
> soooo, by that logic, if you borrow $50,000 and only buy $20,000
> worth of stock, your investment is a negative $30,000... right?
Um, no.
>
> Tell us more about this negative ...
>
Why? You don't understand simple margin trading...
Steve
Ahhh..so now he's not investing it, he's betting it...
>> still won't answer that, huh?
>>
>> >> If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
>> >> wanted to use to buy stock, wouldMiltthen
>> >> claim that you didn't invest anything?
>>
>> >Yup. Maybe you're getting this after all??
>>
>> Wow... buying stock without investing anything...
>
>No, you can't buy on margin without using your own money - at least
>50% of the total value of the stock purchased.
Oh hell no, Milt. He borrowed that $10,000 from his brother in law..
>> >> He might...but he'll run away from that question...
>>
>> >I never run away. I walk away laughing at your stupidity.
>>
>> laughing at the idea of buying stock without investing anything...
>
>I didn't say that. He's buying $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000 of
>his own money, by buying on margin.
none of it is his own money by your definition if he also borrowed
$10,000 from his brother in law..
>> soooo, if you borrow more than you spend on the stock is your
>> investment negative?
>
>That's impossible on a margin account. If you borrow money from
>another source to purchase stocks on margin, you're an idiot.
Oh, so borrowing half is OK, but borrowing all makes you an idiot?
>> >> >> >2. Losing 40% of your money is the same as losing 90% of your money,
>> >> >> >because the dollar amount is roughly equal.
>>
>> >> >> That's a faulty premise... both guys invested the
>> >> >> same amount..
>>
>> >> >Really? So, if the margin trader sees his stock rise 40%, why is his
>> >> >bank account only reduced by $10,000,and not $20,000.
>>
>> >> Yeah, really... <LOL> and if you believe that an investor's bank
>> >> account will be reduced as a result of his stock's price going up,
>> >> you have a real problem.
>>
>> >No, you fuckwit. His bank account is reduced by the amount he
>> >originally invests. Do keep up.
>>
>> what has that to do with the stock rising 40%?
>
>Jesus. You have a serious reading problem.
You didn't explain why you mentioned the stock rising 40% if your
question had only to do with the original investing.
>Perhaps the problem is your penchant for answering every sentence,
>instead of answering the entire statement, in context.
So what's the context of seeing the stock rise 40% while he originally
invests?
>> >> >> It makes no difference whether
>> >> >> that investment capital came out his own pocket,
>> >> >> a loan from his margin account, or even a loan
>> >> >> from his brother in law.
>>
>> >> >Well, according to the terms of the margin agreement, that's not true.
>>
>> >> Bullshit! No margin agreement specifies that the money you borrow
>> >> isn't invested..
>>
>> >I never said it wasn't. IT is invested, YOU aren't investing it.
>>
>> who is investing it?
>
>It's being invested.
By who?
He's buying $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000
>on margin. His bank account is being reduced by $10,000. This isn't
>difficult for people with something other than a black/white mindset
>to comprehend...
so who is investing it?
>> >> >In fact, wasn't it you who was saying just yesterday that the
>> >> >liability of the loan and the cash received cancel each other out?
>>
>> >> Yes I did, do you believe otherwise?
>>
>> Well, do ya, punk?
>
>The question is, do YOU? You're trying to claim that HE invested
>$10,000, even though you yourself said that he had ZERO dollars as a
>result of the loan.
I said such thing. Have you been drinking?
> Hmmm... suddenly, black and white world is a
>problem, huh?
The perhaps you shouldn't be drinking..
>> >> When you take out a loan, the assets you receive offset the liability
>> >> you also receive having zero effect on your net worth..
>>
>> >At the time of the loan, you're correct. At the time of the loan.
>>
>> So what changes?
>
>The cost of carrying the liability on the books.
Ahhh, so you agree that it's only what you do with the money that can
effect your net worth, not the loan itself.
>> >Which means, if you invest that money, you have invested ZERO DOLLARS.
>> >Get it now?
>>
>> soooo, I invest "that money, but that money is zero dollars? Well,
>> there you go.....
>
>But you still don't understand buying on margin... how sad...
Heh,heh,heh... zero money dollars...
>> >> Then you go
>> >> about your business, buying and selling stock, buying honda civics,
>> >> buying homes if you can afford to, paying rent, and then, down the
>> >> road. when you pay off the loan, you throw some assets at that
>> >> liability, and voila, they cancel each other out again.
>>
>> >Yeah, minus that pesky interest...
>>
>> I'll just use some zero dollar money to pay that..
>
>yep. you don't get it at all... this is hilarious...
Milt says "if you invest that money, you have invested ZERO DOLLARS"
Heh,heh,heh... zero money dollars...
>> >> The loan has no effect on your net worth, and it has no effect on your
>> >> stock purchase other than giving you more assets to invest...
>>
>> >Uh huh. And throughout it all, because you received $10,000 in assets,
>> >and have a $10,000 liability, you have invested $0.
>>
>> Wow... buying stock without investing anything...
>
>No. Buying $20,000 on margin with $10,000.
You just said,"you have invested $0."
>> >Get it yet?
>>
>> but who *is* doing the investing?
>
>Sigh...
Sigh is doing the investing? Who is this Sigh? One of your
chatroom friends ?
>> >That's
>> >what margin trading is, and why it's so risky. You get to invest
>> >$10,000 and double your return. Of course, if the stock loses, you
>> >also double your losses.
>>
>> zero dollar money losses and gains?
>
>Um, no.
Oh.. it's only the zero money dollars that get invested? but the
gains and losses are regular dollar money?
>> >> >Interesting that you keep changing your mind. Note that I haven't
>> >> >changed my mind at all. Buying on margin means that you get more stock
>> >> >for your initial investment.
>>
>> >> Only because you're actually investing $20,000.
>>
>> >> Whatever madeMiltthink that if you borrow money to invest, it's not
>> >> really invested....<LOL> because you borrowed it?
>>
>> soooo, by that logic, if you borrow $50,000 and only buy $20,000
>> worth of stock, your investment is a negative $30,000... right?
>
>Um, no.
Sooooo, some of what you borrow shouldn't be subtracted from the
amount of money you spent on the stock to find how much you"invested?"
How do you know which loans to subtract. How about if I borrow from my
brother in law.. Does that qualify as "my money?" ..or is it zero
dollar money?
>> Tell us more about this negative ...
>>
>Why? You don't understand simple margin trading...
Oh,sure I do... but I'm not sure how you know what loans to subtract
from the money you bought stock with to know how
much you "invested?"
..and if this borrowed money is zero dollar money, do I have to repay
in zero dollar money, too? How do I convert regular dollar money to
zero dollar money?
"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&
milt....@gmail.com
Dumbass. Note the quotes.
>
> >> still won't answer that, huh?
>
> >> >> If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
> >> >> wanted to use to buy stock, wouldMiltthen
> >> >> claim that you didn't invest anything?
>
> >> >Yup. Maybe you're getting this after all??
>
> >> Wow... buying stock without investing anything...
>
> >No, you can't buy on margin without using your own money - at least
> >50% of the total value of the stock purchased.
>
> Oh hell no,Milt. He borrowed that $10,000 from his brother in law..
Unless his brother is a broker, it doesn't matter. If his name is on
the account, it's his money. HE is buying $20,000 worth of stock on
margin, not his brother in law.
>
> >> >> He might...but he'll run away from that question...
>
> >> >I never run away. I walk away laughing at your stupidity.
>
> >> laughing at the idea of buying stock without investing anything...
>
> >I didn't say that. He's buying $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000 of
> >his own money, by buying on margin.
>
> none of it is his own money by your definition if he also borrowed
> $10,000 from his brother in law..
Jesus. Do you EVER learn anything? It's fascinating that you've spent
the last several years trying to convince us you're independently
wealthy due to investments, yet you don't get Investment 101.
>
> >> soooo, if you borrow more than you spend on the stock is your
> >> investment negative?
>
> >That's impossible on a margin account. If you borrow money from
> >another source to purchase stocks on margin, you're an idiot.
>
> Oh, so borrowing half is OK, but borrowing all makes you an idiot?
>
Yes. If you can't see why, then you're an... um... idiot.
>
>
> >> >> >> >2. Losing 40% of your money is the same as losing 90% of your money,
> >> >> >> >because the dollar amount is roughly equal.
>
> >> >> >> That's a faulty premise... both guys invested the
> >> >> >> same amount..
>
> >> >> >Really? So, if the margin trader sees his stock rise 40%, why is his
> >> >> >bank account only reduced by $10,000,and not $20,000.
>
> >> >> Yeah, really... <LOL> and if you believe that an investor's bank
> >> >> account will be reduced as a result of his stock's price going up,
> >> >> you have a real problem.
>
> >> >No, you fuckwit. His bank account is reduced by the amount he
> >> >originally invests. Do keep up.
>
> >> what has that to do with the stock rising 40%?
>
> >Jesus. You have a serious reading problem.
>
> You didn't explain why you mentioned the stock rising 40% if your
> question had only to do with the original investing.
I shouldn't have to.
>
> >Perhaps the problem is your penchant for answering every sentence,
> >instead of answering the entire statement, in context.
>
> So what's the context of seeing the stock rise 40% while he originally
> invests?
Read it again. If you can't understand it, then have someone smart
read it to you.
>
> >> >> >> It makes no difference whether
> >> >> >> that investment capital came out his own pocket,
> >> >> >> a loan from his margin account, or even a loan
> >> >> >> from his brother in law.
>
> >> >> >Well, according to the terms of the margin agreement, that's not true.
>
> >> >> Bullshit! No margin agreement specifies that the money you borrow
> >> >> isn't invested..
>
> >> >I never said it wasn't. IT is invested, YOU aren't investing it.
>
> >> who is investing it?
>
> >It's being invested.
>
> By who?
It's being invested.
>
> He's buying $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000
Yep. That's right. It's called buying on margin. Ideally, you'll make
money, and the return on investment will be doubled.
>
> >on margin. His bank account is being reduced by $10,000. This isn't
> >difficult for people with something other than a black/white mindset
> >to comprehend...
>
> so who is investing it?
Just when I think you can't possibly get any dumber... I'm proven
wrong.
It gets invested.
Steve
Ahhhhh, that makes all the difference...
>> >> still won't answer that, huh?
>>
>> >> >> If you were to borrow *ALL* the money you
>> >> >> wanted to use to buy stock, wouldMiltthen
>> >> >> claim that you didn't invest anything?
>>
>> >> >Yup. Maybe you're getting this after all??
>>
>> >> Wow... buying stock without investing anything...
>>
>> >No, you can't buy on margin without using your own money - at least
>> >50% of the total value of the stock purchased.
>>
>> Oh hell no,Milt. He borrowed that $10,000 from his brother in law..
>
>Unless his brother is a broker, it doesn't matter. If his name is on
>the account, it's his money. HE is buying $20,000 worth of stock on
>margin, not his brother in law.
Ohhhh, soooo... you saying that if you don't borrow it from a
broker it's still your money that you're investing.. but if you do
borrow it from a broker, you're not investing it, you're betting it...
>> >> >> He might...but he'll run away from that question...
>>
>> >> >I never run away. I walk away laughing at your stupidity.
>>
>> >> laughing at the idea of buying stock without investing anything...
>>
>> >I didn't say that. He's buying $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000 of
>> >his own money, by buying on margin.
>>
>> none of it is his own money by your definition if he also borrowed
>> $10,000 from his brother in law..
>
>Jesus. Do you EVER learn anything? It's fascinating that you've spent
>the last several years trying to convince us you're independently
>wealthy due to investments, yet you don't get Investment 101.
You're the one that says that if you borrow money to buy stock, it's
not invested... and it's not your money...
>> >> soooo, if you borrow more than you spend on the stock is your
>> >> investment negative?
>>
>> >That's impossible on a margin account. If you borrow money from
>> >another source to purchase stocks on margin, you're an idiot.
>>
>> Oh, so borrowing half is OK, but borrowing all makes you an idiot?
>>
>Yes. If you can't see why, then you're an... um... idiot.
So does borrowing all the money to buy a house make you an idiot too?
>> >> >> >> >2. Losing 40% of your money is the same as losing 90% of your money,
>> >> >> >> >because the dollar amount is roughly equal.
>>
>> >> >> >> That's a faulty premise... both guys invested the
>> >> >> >> same amount..
>>
>> >> >> >Really? So, if the margin trader sees his stock rise 40%, why is his
>> >> >> >bank account only reduced by $10,000,and not $20,000.
>>
>> >> >> Yeah, really... <LOL> and if you believe that an investor's bank
>> >> >> account will be reduced as a result of his stock's price going up,
>> >> >> you have a real problem.
>>
>> >> >No, you fuckwit. His bank account is reduced by the amount he
>> >> >originally invests. Do keep up.
>>
>> >> what has that to do with the stock rising 40%?
>>
>> >Jesus. You have a serious reading problem.
>>
>> You didn't explain why you mentioned the stock rising 40% if your
>> question had only to do with the original investing.
>
>I shouldn't have to.
Oh... well... humor me.
>> >Perhaps the problem is your penchant for answering every sentence,
>> >instead of answering the entire statement, in context.
>>
>> So what's the context of seeing the stock rise 40% while he originally
>> invests?
>
>Read it again. If you can't understand it, then have someone smart
>read it to you.
Actually... I can see that you're backed into another corner
>> >> >> >> It makes no difference whether
>> >> >> >> that investment capital came out his own pocket,
>> >> >> >> a loan from his margin account, or even a loan
>> >> >> >> from his brother in law.
>>
>> >> >> >Well, according to the terms of the margin agreement, that's not true.
>>
>> >> >> Bullshit! No margin agreement specifies that the money you borrow
>> >> >> isn't invested..
>>
>> >> >I never said it wasn't. IT is invested, YOU aren't investing it.
>>
>> >> who is investing it?
>>
>> >It's being invested.
>>
>> By who?
>
>It's being invested.
By who?
>> He's buying $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000
>
>Yep. That's right. It's called buying on margin. Ideally, you'll make
>money, and the return on investment will be doubled.
>>
>> >on margin. His bank account is being reduced by $10,000. This isn't
>> >difficult for people with something other than a black/white mindset
>> >to comprehend...
>>
>> so who is investing it?
>
>Just when I think you can't possibly get any dumber... I'm proven
>wrong.
so who is investing it?
>It gets invested.
By who?
milt....@gmail.com
Yep. In your world, things are either black or white. Glad it's not my
world.
>
> >> >> >> He might...but he'll run away from that question...
>
> >> >> >I never run away. I walk away laughing at your stupidity.
>
> >> >> laughing at the idea of buying stock without investing anything...
>
> >> >I didn't say that. He's buying $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000 of
> >> >his own money, by buying on margin.
>
> >> none of it is his own money by your definition if he also borrowed
> >> $10,000 from his brother in law..
>
> >Jesus. Do you EVER learn anything? It's fascinating that you've spent
> >the last several years trying to convince us you're independently
> >wealthy due to investments, yet you don't get Investment 101.
>
> You're the one that says that if you borrow money to buy stock, it's
> not invested... and it's not your money...
No, I didn't say that.
You're so confused.
Steve
Milt has painted himself into the proverbial corner by claiming that
when you buy stock, he can subtract the amount of a loan you have
from what he says you have invested, a cute little phrase he calls
"your money." That means that,acording to Milt's logic, when you've
borrowed as much money as you've bought stock with, you have no
money invested..,, even though you've bought that stock.. and when
you've borrowed more... <LOL>. you must have a negative investment.
>> >> >> >> He might...but he'll run away from that question...
>>
>> >> >> >I never run away. I walk away laughing at your stupidity.
>>
>> >> >> laughing at the idea of buying stock without investing anything...
>>
>> >> >I didn't say that. He's buying $20,000 worth of stock with $10,000 of
>> >> >his own money, by buying on margin.
>>
>> >> none of it is his own money by your definition if he also borrowed
>> >> $10,000 from his brother in law..
>>
>> >Jesus. Do you EVER learn anything? It's fascinating that you've spent
>> >the last several years trying to convince us you're independently
>> >wealthy due to investments, yet you don't get Investment 101.
>>
>> You're the one that says that if you borrow money to buy stock, it's
>> not invested... and it's not your money...
>
>No, I didn't say that.
Yeah, you certainly did...
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&
>You're so confused.
Irony anyone? (see below)