Canyon Offers the best trading advice...
milt....@gmail.com
Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
"<ROTFLMAO> The loan has zero effect on your net worth, ya moron.
It's only what you do with the money that might have an effect... "
Or actual experts, who say the following:
"The important thing to understand about margin is that it has
consequences. Margin is leverage, which means that both your gains and
losses are ***amplified.*** Margin is great when your investments are
going up in value, but the double-edged sword of leverage really hurts
when your portfolio heads south. Because margin exposes you to
***extra risks,*** it's not advisable for beginners to use it. Margin
can be a useful tool for experienced investors, but until you get to
that point, play it safe."
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/200.asp
And this is from the SEC. I would assume they know a little about
trading...
"Let's say you buy a stock for $50 and the price of the stock rises to
$75. If you bought the stock in a cash account and paid for it in
full, you'll earn a 50 percent return on your investment. But if you
bought the stock on margin - paying $25 in cash and borrowing $25 from
your broker - you'll earn a 100 percent return on the money you
invested. Of course, you'll still owe your firm $25 plus interest.
"The downside to using margin is that if the stock price decreases,
substantial losses can mount quickly. For example, let's say the stock
you bought for $50 falls to $25. If you fully paid for the stock,
you'll lose 50 percent of your money. But if you bought on margin,
you'll lose 100 percent, and you still must come up with the interest
you owe on the loan."
(...)
"Margin accounts can be very risky and they are not suitable for
everyone. Before opening a margin account, you should fully understand
that:
* You can lose more money than you have invested;
* You may have to deposit additional cash or securities in your
account on short notice to cover market losses;
* You may be forced to sell some or all of your securities when
falling stock prices reduce the value of your securities; and
* Your brokerage firm may sell some or all of your securities
without consulting you to pay off the loan it made to you."
http://www.sec.gov/investor/pubs/margin.htm
And the NASD, whom I assume knows a little bit about trading:
"***Additional Risks*** Involved With Trading On Margin
There are a number of additional risks that all investors need to
consider in deciding to trade securities on margin. These risks
include the following:
* You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin account.
A decline in the value of securities that are purchased on margin may
require you to provide additional funds to the firm that has made the
loan to avoid the forced sale of those securities or other securities
in your account.
* The firm can force the sale of securities in your account. If
the equity in your account falls below the maintenance margin
requirements under the law-or the firm's higher "house" requirements-
the firm can sell the securities in your account to cover the margin
deficiency. You will also be responsible for any short fall in the
account after such a sale.
* The firm can sell your securities without contacting you. Some
investors mistakenly believe that a firm must contact them for a
margin call to be valid, and that the firm cannot liquidate securities
in their accounts to meet the call unless the firm has contacted them
first. This is not the case. As a matter of good customer relations,
most firms will attempt to notify their customers of margin calls, but
they are not required to do so.
* You are not entitled to an extension of time on a margin call.
While an extension of time to meet initial margin requirements may be
available to customers under certain conditions, a customer does not
have a right to the extension. In addition, a customer does not have a
right to an extension of time to meet a maintenance margin call.
http://www.nasd.com/InvestorInformation/MarketsTrading/MarginInformat...
Boy, Canyon... all I have to do from now on is just borrow every
dollar I want to trade, because when I lose their money, at least I'm
not losing my own, right?
You're too stupid to even realize how stupid you are...
Steve
>So, who are we going to believe?
>
>Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
>on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>
>"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
>assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
Yeah! funny thing about taking out a loan is that you walk out the
door with a check for X dollars called an asset and an agreement to
payback X dollars called a liability. And last I heard, assets and
liabilities offset each other....
>"<ROTFLMAO> The loan has zero effect on your net worth, ya moron.
>It's only what you do with the money that might have an effect... "
..and if, after you take out a loan, you turn around, go back into the
bank and give them back the check, they'll cancel out the liability...
>Or actual experts, who say the following:
This is getting real funny,Milt. How about explaining how what I said
above has anything to do with any of the following stuff... let alone
disagrees with it....
milt....@gmail.com
> On 5 May 2007 06:36:28 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >So, who are we going to believe?
>
> >Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
> >on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>
> >"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
> >assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
>
> Yeah! funny thing about taking out a loan is that you walk out the
> door with a check for X dollars called an asset and an agreement to
> payback X dollars called a liability. And last I heard, assets and
> liabilities offset each other....
Uh huh. They do.
Tell you what; take out a loan for $10K. Then, a week later, write
them a check for $10K and see if THEY consider your loan "paid in
full." They might, if you're lucky. Chances are, however, they won't.
And even if they do, it's because they're will to make an adjustment
on your account.
>
> >"<ROTFLMAO> The loan has zero effect on your net worth, ya moron.
> >It's only what you do with the money that might have an effect... "
>
> ..and if, after you take out a loan, you turn around, go back into the
> bank and give them back the check, they'll cancel out the liability...
Uh huh, but at their discretion. They don't have to. And often, they
won't. Depends on what sort of customer you are.
>
> >Or actual experts, who say the following:
>
> This is getting real funny,Milt. How about explaining how what I said
> above has anything to do with any of the following stuff... let alone
> disagrees with it....
Because your argument completely disregards interest, fees, etc.
Basically, according to you, a loan costs nothing, because at the time
you sign the note, the amount of the loan and the amount of your
assets as a result of getting that loan are the same. Unfortunately,
the day after, they are no longer the same.
Like I said... based on your "logic," all I have to do is borrow all
of the money I want to trade with. I can't lose!
3369 Dead
>So, who are we going to believe?
>
>Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
>on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>
>"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
>assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
He really said that?
I guess he's never heard of "interest". They charge that on loans.
--
"I am fully committed, as the administration's fully committed, to ensure that, with respect to every United States
attorney position in this country, we will have a presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed United States attorney."
--Alberto Gonzales, committing perjury before Congress
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Steve
>On May 5, 10:41 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>> On 5 May 2007 06:36:28 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >So, who are we going to believe?
>>
>> >Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
>> >on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>>
>> >"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
>> >assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
>>
>> Yeah! funny thing about taking out a loan is that you walk out the
>> door with a check for X dollars called an asset and an agreement to
>> payback X dollars called a liability. And last I heard, assets and
>> liabilities offset each other....
>
>Uh huh. They do.
>
>Tell you what; take out a loan for $10K. Then, a week later, write
>them a check for $10K and see if THEY consider your loan "paid in
>full." They might, if you're lucky. Chances are, however, they won't.
>And even if they do, it's because they're will to make an adjustment
>on your account.
everything but interest.. Milt's fallback positon...that's because I
totally destroyed his initial position.... and I;ve never disputed
that having a loan subject you to interest, a business expense.
Nobody claimed that you have to pay interest, only that having a loan
doesn't make you lose more, as you stupidly claim.
>> >"<ROTFLMAO> The loan has zero effect on your net worth, ya moron.
>> >It's only what you do with the money that might have an effect... "
>>
>> ..and if, after you take out a loan, you turn around, go back into the
>> bank and give them back the check, they'll cancel out the liability...
>
>Uh huh, but at their discretion. They don't have to. And often, they
>won't. Depends on what sort of customer you are.
Most loans do *NOT* have a penalty for early payback, Milt.... if
you get one that does, go somewhere else.
>> >Or actual experts, who say the following:
>>
>> This is getting real funny,Milt. How about explaining how what I said
>> above has anything to do with any of the following stuff... let alone
>> disagrees with it....
>
>Because your argument completely disregards interest, fees, etc.
>Basically, according to you, a loan costs nothing, because at the time
>you sign the note, the amount of the loan and the amount of your
>assets as a result of getting that loan are the same. Unfortunately,
>the day after, they are no longer the same.
>
>Like I said... based on your "logic," all I have to do is borrow all
>of the money I want to trade with. I can't lose!
Shaking my head and smiling Another strawman.... already shot
down... many times.
Again and again and again......
Nobody claimed that you can't lose, only that having a loan doesn't
make you lose more, as you stupidly claim.
Matt
> On 5 May 2007 06:36:28 -0700, milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >So, who are we going to believe?
>
> >Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
> >on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>
> >"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
> >assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
>
> Yeah! funny thing about taking out a loan is that you walk out the
> door with a check for X dollars called an asset and an agreement to
> payback X dollars called a liability. And last I heard, assets and
> liabilities offset each other....
Last you heard was wrong. Try it, Canyonloon. Go into 100 banks, and
take out a loan for $10,000 at each one. You'll have a net worth of 0,
right? Try it.
>
> >"<ROTFLMAO> The loan has zero effect on your net worth, ya moron.
> >It's only what you do with the money that might have an effect... "
>
> ..and if, after you take out a loan, you turn around, go back into the
> bank and give them back the check, they'll cancel out the liability...
Really. Ignoring the 3 day right of recision, try that too.
Matt
Steve
<zepp22...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On 5 May 2007 06:36:28 -0700, milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>So, who are we going to believe?
>>
>>Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
>>on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>>
>>"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
>>assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
>
>He really said that?
You bet I did, Dummy. Want to come out of the shadows and disagree?
>I guess he's never heard of "interest". They charge that on loans.
<LOL> I guess Zepp has never heard about the time value of
Money.... Go look it up... get back to me, Jamieson. I'll explain
it to you cause you won't understand it....
Morons like Shook and Zepp don't understand finances.. that's why
they'll both always be poor, whining losers
steven...@yahoo.com
> On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:10:38 GMT, 3369 Dead
>
> >>on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>
> >>"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
> >>assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
>
> >He really said that?
>
> You bet I did, Dummy. Want to come out of the shadows and disagree?
>
> >I guess he's never heard of "interest". They charge that on loans.
>
> <LOL> I guess Zepp has never heard about the time value of
> Money.... Go look it up... get back to me, Jamieson. I'll explain
> it to you cause you won't understand it....
>
> Morons like Shook and Zepp don't understand finances.. that's why
> they'll both always be poor, whining losers
Will Zepp grow some balls?
Naw... Zepp has enough trouble respnding to me
indirectly.. If he has to deal with me directly, he's
whipped before he begins.
<chicken.wav>
milt....@gmail.com
>
> >On 5 May 2007 06:36:28 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>So, who are we going to believe?
>
> >>Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
> >>on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>
> >>"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
> >>assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
>
> >He really said that?
>
> You bet I did, Dummy. Want to come out of the shadows and disagree?
>
> >I guess he's never heard of "interest". They charge that on loans.
>
> <LOL> I guess Zepp has never heard about the time value of
> Money.... Go look it up... get back to me, Jamieson. I'll explain
> it to you cause you won't understand it....
>
> they'll both always be poor, whining losers
And yet, you're the one whining here...
Yet another post for the irony deficient.
milt....@gmail.com
>
> >On 5 May 2007 06:36:28 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >>So, who are we going to believe?
>
> >>Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
> >>on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>
> >>"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
> >>assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
>
> >He really said that?
>
> You bet I did, Dummy. Want to come out of the shadows and disagree?
>
> >I guess he's never heard of "interest". They charge that on loans.
>
> <LOL> I guess Zepp has never heard about the time value of
> Money.... Go look it up... get back to me, Jamieson. I'll explain
> it to you cause you won't understand it....
>
Um, jackass...
You're BORROWING the money. Can you show us a scenario in which the
time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN for the lender, short
of default?
> Morons likeShookand Zepp don't understand finances.. that's why
> they'll both always be poor, whining losers
More irony with every bite...
milt....@gmail.com
> On 5 May 2007 08:03:27 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 5, 10:41 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> On 5 May 2007 06:36:28 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >So, who are we going to believe?
>
> >> >Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
> >> >on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>
> >> >"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
> >> >assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
>
> >> Yeah! funny thing about taking out a loan is that you walk out the
> >> door with a check for X dollars called an asset and an agreement to
> >> payback X dollars called a liability. And last I heard, assets and
> >> liabilities offset each other....
>
> >Uh huh. They do.
>
> >Tell you what; take out a loan for $10K. Then, a week later, write
> >them a check for $10K and see if THEY consider your loan "paid in
> >full." They might, if you're lucky. Chances are, however, they won't.
> >And even if they do, it's because they're will to make an adjustment
> >on your account.
>
> totally destroyed his initial position.... and I;ve never disputed
> that having a loan subject you to interest, a business expense.
>
> Nobody claimed that you have to pay interest, only that having a loan
> doesn't make you lose more, as you stupidly claim.
>
> >> >"<ROTFLMAO> The loan has zero effect on your net worth, ya moron.
> >> >It's only what you do with the money that might have an effect... "
>
> >> ..and if, after you take out a loan, you turn around, go back into the
> >> bank and give them back the check, they'll cancel out the liability...
>
> >Uh huh, but at their discretion. They don't have to. And often, they
> >won't. Depends on what sort of customer you are.
>
> you get one that does, go somewhere else.
Who said penalty? They WILL, however, charge you interest.
>
> >> >Or actual experts, who say the following:
>
> >> This is getting real funny,Milt. How about explaining how what I said
> >> above has anything to do with any of the following stuff... let alone
> >> disagrees with it....
>
> >Because your argument completely disregards interest, fees, etc.
> >Basically, according to you, a loan costs nothing, because at the time
> >you sign the note, the amount of the loan and the amount of your
> >assets as a result of getting that loan are the same. Unfortunately,
> >the day after, they are no longer the same.
>
> >Like I said... based on your "logic," all I have to do is borrow all
> >of the money I want to trade with. I can't lose!
>
> Shaking my head and smiling Another strawman.... already shot
> down... many times.
>
> Again and again and again......
A strawman that you keep repeating.
Steve
Go Google "engineering economics" Milt. Find out what interest really
is....
Steve
It's called "engineering economics," Milt.... Go see what interest
is all about... BTW, you got a really crummy education if you, now,
have to be educated about interest. But maybe I can fill in the
holes.
Steve
>On May 5, 11:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:10:38 GMT, 3369 Dead
>>
>> <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> >On 5 May 2007 06:36:28 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >>So, who are we going to believe?
>>
>> >>Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
>> >>on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>>
>> >>"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
>> >>assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
>>
>> >He really said that?
>>
>> You bet I did, Dummy. Want to come out of the shadows and disagree?
>>
>> >I guess he's never heard of "interest". They charge that on loans.
>>
>> <LOL> I guess Zepp has never heard about the time value of
>> Money.... Go look it up... get back to me, Jamieson. I'll explain
>> it to you cause you won't understand it....
>>
>
>Um, jackass...
>
>You're BORROWING the money. Can you show us a scenario in which the
>time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN for the lender, short
>of default?
<shaking my head and smiling>
Milt, Milt, Milt.... you poor ignoramus... The lender loans you X
amount of buying power at today's prices.... At tomorrow's price that
same amount of dollar has LESS buying power so the buyer has to
INCREASE the number of dollars he pays back to the lender as time
progresses..
Comprende, my little dummy?
BTW, the time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN towards the
future no matter whose perspective you observe from..
Don't pretend that you know what this is, Milt... you obviously
don't, or you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
milt....@gmail.com
You're the one trying to claim that it doesn't matter. According to
Engineering economics, it matters very much. In fact, it forces you to
shoot for a much higher return than normal. In a cash account, you can
probably settle for a 10% annual return on investment and do quite
well, while a 5% interest rate forces you to have to make a 15% return
to do just as well.
Of course, you're the one trying to convince us that a guy who has
lost 90% of his investment hasn't lost any more money than the guy who
lost 40%, so perhaps percentages just aren't your thing...
milt....@gmail.com
Uh huh.
>
> Don't pretend that you know what this is, Milt... you obviously
> don't, or you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
Then it should be no problem explaining a scenario where the lender
loses money on a loan, short of default.
Go ahead. Should be easy.
See I understand what this means. And that's why your entire position
is patently absurd. The lender knows this, and builds it into the loan
structure. Got it yet?
Steve
<LOL> yes... it does... tell you what... Loan me X dollars
interest free and I'll pay you back the same number of dollars in ten
years...
>> Don't pretend that you know what this is, Milt... you obviously
>> don't, or you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
>
>Then it should be no problem explaining a scenario where the lender
>loses money on a loan, short of default.
Loses VALUE you dolt.... not loses money
read for comprehension, Milt.
>Go ahead. Should be easy.
>
>See I understand what this means. And that's why your entire position
>is patently absurd. The lender knows this, and builds it into the loan
>structure. Got it yet?
What I have is that Milt doesn't understand the difference between
money, and the value of money...
Look what I said, you half-wit...
the time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN towards the
future no matter whose perspective you observe from..
The money is worth less, MORON
Steve
How many strawmen can Milt produce and shoot down...
According to
>Engineering economics, it matters very much. In fact, it forces you to
>shoot for a much higher return than normal. In a cash account, you can
>probably settle for a 10% annual return on investment and do quite
>well, while a 5% interest rate forces you to have to make a 15% return
>to do just as well.
>
>Of course, you're the one trying to convince us that a guy who has
>lost 90% of his investment hasn't lost any more money than the guy who
>lost 40%, so perhaps percentages just aren't your thing...
90% of 889 = 800
40% of 2000 = 800
milt....@gmail.com
> On 5 May 2007 14:57:39 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 5, 3:11 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
>
> >> >On May 5, 11:32 am, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 05 May 2007 15:10:38 GMT, 3369 Dead
>
> >> >> <zepp22113...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >> >> >On 5 May 2007 06:36:28 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> >> >>So, who are we going to believe?
>
> >> >> >>Steven Canyon who, even after having been shown his ass several times
> >> >> >>on margin accounts, continues to say the following:
>
> >> >> >>"<ROTFLMAO> Loans increase your liability, but also increase your
> >> >> >>assets by the same amount producing a zero effect on your net worth."
>
> >> >> >He really said that?
>
> >> >> You bet I did, Dummy. Want to come out of the shadows and disagree?
>
> >> >> >I guess he's never heard of "interest". They charge that on loans.
>
> >> >> <LOL> I guess Zepp has never heard about the time value of
> >> >> Money.... Go look it up... get back to me, Jamieson. I'll explain
> >> >> it to you cause you won't understand it....
>
> >> >Um, jackass...
>
> >> >You're BORROWING the money. Can you show us a scenario in which the
> >> >time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN for the lender, short
> >> >of default?
>
> >> <shaking my head and smiling>
>
> >> amount of buying power at today's prices.... At tomorrow's price that
> >> same amount of dollar has LESS buying power so the buyer has to
> >> INCREASE the number of dollars he pays back to the lender as time
> >> progresses..
>
> >> Comprende, my little dummy?
>
> >> BTW, the time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN towards the
> >> future no matter whose perspective you observe from..
>
> >Uh huh.
>
> <LOL> yes... it does... tell you what... Loan me X dollars
> interest free and I'll pay you back the same number of dollars in ten
> years...
No. I would never do that. Nor would a bank -- especially one that is
out to make money, or a credit union, which is out to break even.
>
> >> Don't pretend that you know what this is,Milt... you obviously
> >> don't, or you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
>
> >Then it should be no problem explaining a scenario where the lender
> >loses money on a loan, short of default.
>
> Loses VALUE you dolt.... not loses money
EXACTLY, you fucking idiot! Your money loses value, while the lender
will try to make money AND try to make up any potential loss of
value.
>
> read for comprehension,Milt.
>
I'm having no problem understanding what I'm talking about. Somehow,
you've decided that VALUE has a place in this discussion, which is odd
since the only thing likely to stay static in a margin account is the
amount of principle on the loan.
> >Go ahead. Should be easy.
>
> >See I understand what this means. And that's why your entire position
> >is patently absurd. The lender knows this, and builds it into the loan
> >structure. Got it yet?
>
> What I have is thatMiltdoesn't understand the difference between
> money, and the value of money...
>
> Look what I said, you half-wit...
>
> the time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN towards the
> future no matter whose perspective you observe from..
And I said "uh huh."
>
> The money is worth less, MORON
ALL money is worth less, you fucking idiot! The money you borrow, the
money you put into the account, the relative value of the equity.
Yeah, the fucking value of the money goes down. What the fuck does
this have to do with anything?
Here's what you are trying to argue, you mud dumb fuck (and no, I'm
not pissed off... I'm laughing my ass off at your stupidity!):
One guy buys $20,000 worth of stock, cash.
Another guy buys $20,000 worth of stock with $10K of his own money and
$10K borrowed (5% interest).
In two years, the value of the stock in their accounts is $12K.
Now, let's stop there and stipulate that all of the money above have
dropped in value, due to inflation. Okay? Good.
Guy #1 has lost 40% of his money, and has $12000 left.
Guy #2 has lost 40% of his equity, and about $1000 in interest, which
leaves him with $11000. Unfortunately, he still has the loan
liability, which leaves him with $1000.
What does that mean? It means, you stupid git, that Guy #2 lost $1000
more, despite the fact that he invested half as much.
In other words, even leaving out the interest, Guy #2 lost $8000 out
of $10000 invested, or 80%, while Guy #1 lost just 40%. And every
authoritative item I have posted on this has said the same thing:
profits and losses are magnified with a margin account.
You know what would be equivalent, ya dumb fuck? If both men invested
$20,000. Okay? let's see what happens there.
Guy #1 invests $20,000 in cash.
Guy #2 also invests $20,000 in cash and borrows another $20,000. (See,
they're both investing the same amount of money!)
Guy #1 sees his account go from $20,000 to $12,000 -- he's out $8000,
and has $2000 left.
Guy #2, though... his account equity went from $40,000 to $24,000... a
loss of $16,000, plus about $2000 in interest... which means he's down
to $2000. Hmmm... how is that possible? He invested twice as much. Oh,
that's right! He also BORROWED twice as much! I forgot. At the end of
the day, he had a liability of $22,000 taken right off the top. Poor
bastard.
So, both guys invest $20,000, one ends up with $12,000 after losing
his shirt, the other $2000. Yet you will STILL sit there and claim
that margin isn't riskier.
Oh, and btw... in that second scenario, can you guess which of those
figures was not affected by the "value" of the money? If you said the
liability, you get a doggie biscuit, because the bank included that 5%
interest to offset any inflationary effects on its money.
I know you won't go away, but at least TRY to think, will you?
Steve
<LOL> which is exactly what I said, you moron....
while the lender
>will try to make money AND try to make up any potential loss of
>value.
read for comprehension,Milt.
>> read for comprehension,Milt.
>>
>I'm having no problem understanding what I'm talking about. Somehow,
>you've decided that VALUE has a place in this discussion, which is odd
>since the only thing likely to stay static in a margin account is the
>amount of principle on the loan.
>
>> >Go ahead. Should be easy.
>>
>> >See I understand what this means. And that's why your entire position
>> >is patently absurd. The lender knows this, and builds it into the loan
>> >structure. Got it yet?
>>
>> What I have is thatMiltdoesn't understand the difference between
>> money, and the value of money...
>>
>> Look what I said, you half-wit...
>>
>> the time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN towards the
>> future no matter whose perspective you observe from..
>
>And I said "uh huh."
WTF does "uh huh," mean? Are you grunting
because you can't spell "yes"or "no?"
Speak up... don't mumble.. I dont know your stupid chat room
talk...
>> The money is worth less, MORON
>
>ALL money is worth less, you fucking idiot! The money you borrow, the
>money you put into the account, the relative value of the equity.
>Yeah, the fucking value of the money goes down. What the fuck does
>this have to do with anything?
You asked me to "show a scenario in which the time value of a static
amount of money goes DOWN for the lender, Dummy..
Did you want me to present it to you if the chatroom?
>Here's what you are trying to argue, you mud dumb fuck (and no, I'm
>not pissed off... I'm laughing my ass off at your stupidity!):
>
>One guy buys $20,000 worth of stock, cash.
>
>Another guy buys $20,000 worth of stock with $10K of his own money and
>$10K borrowed (5% interest).
Interest again...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"
did you throw in th towel on that.. I must have missed it....
>In two years, the value of the stock in their accounts is $12K.
>
>Now, let's stop there and stipulate that all of the money above have
>dropped in value, due to inflation. Okay? Good.
>
>Guy #1 has lost 40% of his money, and has $12000 left.
>
>Guy #2 has lost 40% of his equity, and about $1000 in interest, which
>leaves him with $11000. Unfortunately, he still has the loan
>liability, which leaves him with $1000.
>
>What does that mean? It means, you stupid git, that Guy #2 lost $1000
>more, despite the fact that he invested half as much.
Interest again...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"
>In other words, even leaving out the interest, Guy #2 lost $8000 out
>of $10000 invested, or 80%, while Guy #1 lost just 40%.
<LOL> But yet th same amount of money.... equal to the amount of
money that they pu at risk... and after I crammed that down your
throat about a dozen times,you shifted the argument to "he lost a
larger percentage...
Likei said, you're continually changing claim means that your'e
learning.. slow.. but you're learning..
And every
>authoritative item I have posted on this has said the same thing:
>profits and losses are magnified with a margin account.
Maximum profits and loses are identical to the amount of assets you
put at risk and that is equal too how much stock you buy...
regardless of how you got the money. and if you have a loan, it
doesn't effect the profit or loss one dime...
BTW, 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"
>You know what would be equivalent, ya dumb fuck? If both men invested
>$20,000. Okay? let's see what happens there.
>
>Guy #1 invests $20,000 in cash.
>
>Guy #2 also invests $20,000 in cash and borrows another $20,000. (See,
>they're both investing the same amount of money!)
Nice try.... but it won't work any better
>Guy #1 sees his account go from $20,000 to $12,000 -- he's out $8000,
>and has $2000 left.
>
>Guy #2, though... his account equity went from $40,000 to $24,000... a
>loss of $16,000,
<LOL> he put twice as much at risk, s o of course he lost twice as
much... which, of course, supports what I said
Thanks again for making point...
BTW, 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"
Milt must enjoy getting his arguments slapped down...
milt....@gmail.com
I haven't shifted anything. You're the one who keeps on saying there
is no additional risk in a margin account.
>
> Likei said, you're continually changing claim means that your'e
> learning.. slow.. but you're learning..
>
While you learn nothing.
> And every
>
> >authoritative item I have posted on this has said the same thing:
> >profits and losses are magnified with a margin account.
>
> Maximum profits and loses are identical to the amount of assets you
> put at risk and that is equal too how much stock you buy...
> regardless of how you got the money. and if you have a loan, it
> doesn't effect the profit or loss one dime...
That's just stupid. If both men have $100,000 to their names, and they
spread it out; one guy maxes out margin accounts with all of his
$100,000, and the other guy sticks with cash accounts, if they buy the
same stocks and it tanks to the tune of 40%, one guy loses 40% of his
money, while the other guy loses 80%. It's that simple, because the
FACT of the matter is, you can't LOSE the money you borrowed; YOU pay
those losses. If you lose on margin and you borrowed 50% of the money
in that account, you suffer twice the losses of someone who bought all
cash, as a percentage of your money. Of course, if you see gains, you
gain twice as much, too...
You know, dense doesn't even begin to describe you.
>
> BTW, 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"
>
> >You know what would be equivalent, ya dumb fuck? If both men invested
> >$20,000. Okay? let's see what happens there.
>
> >Guy #1 invests $20,000 in cash.
>
> >Guy #2 also invests $20,000 in cash and borrows another $20,000. (See,
> >they're both investing the same amount of money!)
>
> Nice try.... but it won't work any better
>
> >Guy #1 sees his account go from $20,000 to $12,000 -- he's out $8000,
> >and has $2000 left.
>
> >Guy #2, though... his account equity went from $40,000 to $24,000... a
> >loss of $16,000,
>
> <LOL> he put twice as much at risk, s o of course he lost twice as
> much... which, of course, supports what I said
Um, no it doesn't. Both men only put up $20,000, you git!
This is what you don't get. In the original scenario, you keep saying
they both lost the same amount, even though the second guy put in half
as much money. That's the advantage/risk of margin trading, you sap.
Both gains and losses are exacerbated, because you buy on margin.
>
> Thanks again for making point...
Idiot. You've been arguing exactly the opposite for a week. What a
tool.
>
> BTW, 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"
What happened to it? It still stands.
>
> Miltmust enjoy getting his arguments slapped down...
Steve
That's true... as long as you're comparing it to buying the same
amount of stock without the margin account...
>> Likei said, you're continually changing claim means that your'e
>> learning.. slow.. but you're learning..
>>
>While you learn nothing.
<LOL> Blah, Blah, Blah,
>> And every
>>
>> >authoritative item I have posted on this has said the same thing:
>> >profits and losses are magnified with a margin account.
>>
>> Maximum profits and loses are identical to the amount of assets you
>> put at risk and that is equal too how much stock you buy...
>> regardless of how you got the money. and if you have a loan, it
>> doesn't effect the profit or loss one dime...
>
>That's just stupid. If both men have $100,000 to their names, and they
>spread it out; one guy maxes out margin accounts with all of his
>$100,000, and the other guy sticks with cash accounts, if they buy the
>same stocks and it tanks to the tune of 40%, one guy loses 40% of his
>money, while the other guy loses 80%. It's that simple, because the
<LOL> both lost the same percentage of the stock value that they
invested in by purchasing, Milt... So it doesn't matter if they had
a loan at the same time the stock "tanks."
That's my claim and you can't refute that no matter how you spin
>FACT of the matter is, you can't LOSE the money you borrowed;
That's right... you can only lose your money... which means
that insofar as the stock losses are concerned, the fact that you
borrowed some money is insignificant.
Thanks for agreeing with me...
>YOU pay
>those losses.
Yes you do... even if you have a loan or two out outstanding..
which means that insofar as the stock losses are concerned, the fact
that you borrowed some money is insignificant.
Thanks for agreeing with me...
>If you lose on margin and you borrowed 50% of the money
>in that account, you suffer twice the losses of someone who bought all
>cash, as a percentage of your money. Of course, if you see gains, you
>gain twice as much, too...
<LOL> Milt just pointed out that you can't LOSE the money you
borrowed.. which means that the lender doesn't have any his money
at risk... which means that the investor has put the total amount of
the stock purchase at risk...
....but now for this argument, he wants to subtract any borrowed money
from the total investment so he can present the total loss as a
percentage of what he calls "your money," instead of a percentage
of the amount the investor put at risk.
Milt wants to claim that because you borrowed some money in the margin
account, you can subtract that amount from the amount at risk and
create this phony "your money" figure.
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 what he calls "your money,"
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...
Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )
milt....@gmail.com wrote:
>
> On May 5, 3:11 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> > Comprende, my little dummy?
> >
> > BTW, the time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN towards the
> > future no matter whose perspective you observe from..
>
> Uh huh.
> >
> > Don't pretend that you know what this is, Milt... you obviously
> > don't, or you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
>
> Then it should be no problem explaining a scenario where the lender
> loses money on a loan, short of default.
>
> Go ahead. Should be easy.
>
If the rate of inflation is higher than the rate of interest on the
loan, the lender will lose even if the person with the loan pays back
exactly as required by the loan contract. Gee, that was easy.
--
"There are some gals who don't like to be pushed and grabbed and lassoed
and drug into buses in the middle of the night."
"How else was I gonna get her on the bus? Well, I'm askin' ya.",
George Axelrod, "Bus Stop"
Matt
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 3:11 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> > > Comprende, my little dummy?
>
> > > BTW, the time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN towards the
> > > future no matter whose perspective you observe from..
>
> > Uh huh.
>
> > > Don't pretend that you know what this is, Milt... you obviously
> > > don't, or you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
>
> > Then it should be no problem explaining a scenario where the lender
> > loses money on a loan, short of default.
>
> > Go ahead. Should be easy.
>
> If the rate of inflation is higher than the rate of interest on the
> loan, the lender will lose even if the person with the loan pays back
> exactly as required by the loan contract. Gee, that was easy.
The lender doesn't really "lose" in this situation, the buying power
of the
money is lower, yes, but the amount garnered is still more than the
amount
laid out. Obviously, over time, you can't keep that up, but then you
will be
loaning out money along the way, which will be at present values.
What Milt was looking for was a scenario where, in absolute dollars,
the
lender ends up with less than they started with. In your situation, if
inflation
increases, the absolute dollars don't change, only the buying power of
the
dollars.
Matt
milt....@gmail.com
<tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On May 5, 3:11 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> > > Comprende, my little dummy?
>
> > > BTW, the time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN towards the
> > > future no matter whose perspective you observe from..
>
> > Uh huh.
>
> > > don't, or you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
>
> > Then it should be no problem explaining a scenario where the lender
> > loses money on a loan, short of default.
>
> > Go ahead. Should be easy.
>
> If the rate of inflation is higher than the rate of interest on the
> loan, the lender will lose even if the person with the loan pays back
> exactly as required by the loan contract. Gee, that was easy.
>
better than yours.
You're right. Unfortunately, Canyon's been spending so much time
trying to gain-say whatever I say, he hasn't had time to implement
basic logic...
That would be the one time, in a circumstance in which a bank found
itself in a long-term loan situation, and the inflation rate spiked.
milt....@gmail.com
> On May 8, 12:37 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
>
>
>
>
>
> <tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On May 5, 3:11 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> > > > Comprende, my little dummy?
>
> > > > BTW, the time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN towards the
> > > > future no matter whose perspective you observe from..
>
> > > Uh huh.
>
> > > > don't, or you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
>
> > > Then it should be no problem explaining a scenario where the lender
> > > loses money on a loan, short of default.
>
> > > Go ahead. Should be easy.
>
> > If the rate of inflation is higher than the rate of interest on the
> > loan, the lender will lose even if the person with the loan pays back
> > exactly as required by the loan contract. Gee, that was easy.
>
> The lender doesn't really "lose" in this situation, the buying power
> of the
> money is lower, yes, but the amount garnered is still more than the
> amount
> laid out. Obviously, over time, you can't keep that up, but then you
> will be
> loaning out money along the way, which will be at present values.
>
> the
> lender ends up with less than they started with. In your situation, if
> inflation
> increases, the absolute dollars don't change, only the buying power of
> the
> dollars.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Actually, Matt, he's right. This happened to a lot of banks and other
institutions in the 1970s and 1980's, and was one factor that led to
the collapse of the S&Ls back then...
His answer sure is a refreshing change from the drivel Canyon's
offering up...
Matt
Hm. The S&L's had some other problems, but you (and Bill) do make
a good point. I hadn't really thought about inflation as the
underlying problem
so much as bad loans.
While it works mathematically, I'm still not sure it would happen in a
real
situation. The S&L debacle was more a function of corrupt lending
practices.
Still, I admit, Bill had a valid case.
Matt
Steve
that's pretty funny since it was Milt that first jumped on me when I
said that you don't actually lose any money until you sell... Milt
tried for several days to prove that you lost money on a margin call,
but unfortunately for him, he couldn't produce any example where the
investor didn't lose the same amount WITHOUT a margin call....
That led into a long unproductive attempt for him to claim that
interest on the loan was a margin call loss....and finally, to his
attempt to proclaim that the equal losses were a different PERCENTAGE
of the investment since, as he argued, the money spent on stock that
was borrowed, wasn't really money that the borrower invested...
<LOL> which led Milt to proclaim: "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&
Bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
milt....@gmail.com
> On 8 May 2007 12:43:55 -0700,milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >On May 8, 2:37 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> ><tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > On May 5, 3:11 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> > > Comprende, my little dummy?
>
> >> > > BTW, the time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN towards the
> >> > > future no matter whose perspective you observe from..
>
> >> > Uh huh.
>
> >> > > Don't pretend that you know what this is,Milt... you obviously
> >> > > don't, or you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
>
> >> > Then it should be no problem explaining a scenario where the lender
> >> > loses money on a loan, short of default.
>
> >> > Go ahead. Should be easy.
>
> >> If the rate of inflation is higher than the rate of interest on the
> >> loan, the lender will lose even if the person with the loan pays back
> >> exactly as required by the loan contract. Gee, that was easy.
>
> >Are you taking notes, Canyon? That is a very good answer. Certainly
> >better than yours.
>
> >You're right. Unfortunately, Canyon's been spending so much time
> >trying to gain-say whatever I say, he hasn't had time to implement
> >basic logic...
>
> >That would be the one time, in a circumstance in which a bank found
> >itself in a long-term loan situation, and the inflation rate spiked.
>
> said that you don't actually lose any money until you sell... Milt
> tried for several days to prove that you lost money on a margin call,
> but unfortunately for him, he couldn't produce any example where the
> investor didn't lose the same amount WITHOUT a margin call...
and yet... every expert says the following....
It is important that you fully understand the risks involved in
trading securities on margin. These risks include the following:
You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin account. A
decline in the value of securities that are purchased on margin may
require you to provide additional funds to the firm that has made the
loan to avoid the forced sale of those securities or other securities
in your account.
Hmmm... if you say you don't lose anything, why are the actual experts
saying the opposite?
Puzzling, isn't it?
>
> That led into a long unproductive attempt for him to claim that
> interest on the loan was a margin call loss....
That wasn't what I claimed.
> and finally, to his
> attempt to proclaim that the equal losses were a different PERCENTAGE
> of the investment since, as he argued, the money spent on stock that
> was borrowed, wasn't really money that the borrower invested...
Hmmm...
It is important that you fully understand the risks involved in
trading securities on margin. These risks include the following:
You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin account.
Odd, huh?
>
> <LOL> which ledMiltto proclaim: "Which means, if you invest that
> money, you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
>
> Bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
And yet, the experts say otherwise.
I'll go with the experts, thanks...
Steve
<LOL> Notice that they say, "You can lose more funds than you deposit
in the margin account"
Notice that they say, " may require you to provide additional funds"
>Puzzling, isn't it?
Not a bit, since Milt can't produce an example where you lose more
money because of a margin call....
...as I have demonstrated times
>
>> That led into a long unproductive attempt for him to claim that
>> interest on the loan was a margin call loss....
>
>That wasn't what I claimed.
Then why did you brig it up?
>> and finally, to his
>> attempt to proclaim that the equal losses were a different PERCENTAGE
>> of the investment since, as he argued, the money spent on stock that
>> was borrowed, wasn't really money that the borrower invested...
>
>Hmmm...
>
>It is important that you fully understand the risks involved in
>trading securities on margin. These risks include the following:
>
>You can lose more funds than you deposit in the margin account.
>
>Odd, huh?
Not a bit....Obviously you can lose more funds than you deposit in the
margin account. Nothing there about how much you invest or put at
risk.
Try again... Keep trying
>> <LOL> which ledMiltto proclaim: "Which means, if you invest that
>> money, you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
>>
>> Bottom line is that margin calls do not increase losses....
>
>And yet, the experts say otherwise.
No they don't.. not anywhere....
milt....@gmail.com
>
>
>
>
>
> >On May 8, 2:37 pm, "Bill Bonde ( 'Hi ho' )"
> ><tributyltinpa...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>milt.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >> > On May 5, 3:11 pm, Steve <stevencan...@lefties.suk.net> wrote:
> >> > > Comprende, my little dummy?
>
> >> > > BTW, the time value of a static amount of money goes DOWN towards the
> >> > > future no matter whose perspective you observe from..
>
> >> > Uh huh.
>
> >> > > Don't pretend that you know what this is,Milt... you obviously
> >> > > don't, or you wouldn't have asked such a stupid question.
>
> >> > Then it should be no problem explaining a scenario where the lender
> >> > loses money on a loan, short of default.
>
> >> > Go ahead. Should be easy.
>
> >> If the rate of inflation is higher than the rate of interest on the
> >> loan, the lender will lose even if the person with the loan pays back
> >> exactly as required by the loan contract. Gee, that was easy.
>
> >Are you taking notes, Canyon? That is a very good answer. Certainly
> >better than yours.
>
> >You're right. Unfortunately, Canyon's been spending so much time
> >trying to gain-say whatever I say, he hasn't had time to implement
> >basic logic...
>
> >That would be the one time, in a circumstance in which a bank found
> >itself in a long-term loan situation, and the inflation rate spiked.
>
> said that you don't actually lose any money until you sell...
Um, I didn't jump on you. I said that you had obviously never heard of
a margin call.
I was obviously correct...
> Milt
> tried for several days to prove that you lost money on a margin call,
> but unfortunately for him, he couldn't produce any example where the
> investor didn't lose the same amount WITHOUT a margin call....
You still don't even understand what a margin call IS.
>
> That led into a long unproductive attempt for him to claim that
> interest on the loan was a margin call loss....
No. I said the loan was a liability and the interest was an expense/
loss.
> and finally, to his
> attempt to proclaim that the equal losses were a different PERCENTAGE
> of the investment since, as he argued, the money spent on stock that
> was borrowed, wasn't really money that the borrower invested...
No, that is not what I said. It's called "margin trading," you sap.
learn what it is. You should be embarrassed by now...
Steve
More of Milt's spin.... That was an obvious challenge to my
statement that you don't lose money unless you sell it for less than
you bought it for....
Milt, like Zepp and a few others are desperate to find something they
can hold over me, to get back at me for all the spankings I've given
them... but in this case, as always, it's Milt that ends up wearing
the dunce hat.
"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&
>> >> >> >>>> for.
>I was obviously correct...
Blah,blah,blah....
>> Milt
>> tried for several days to prove that you lost money on a margin call,
>> but unfortunately for him, he couldn't produce any example where the
>> investor didn't lose the same amount WITHOUT a margin call....
>
>You still don't even understand what a margin call IS.
Blah,blah,blah....
>> That led into a long unproductive attempt for him to claim that
>> interest on the loan was a margin call loss....
>
>No. I said the loan was a liability and the interest was an expense/
>loss.
<LOL> Actually, what you said was that it was a loss
>> and finally, to his
>> attempt to proclaim that the equal losses were a different PERCENTAGE
>> of the investment since, as he argued, the money spent on stock that
>> was borrowed, wasn't really money that the borrower invested...
>
>No, that is not what I said. It's called "margin trading," you sap.
>learn what it is. You should be embarrassed by now...
<LOL> In the beginning of this discussion, Milt actually tried to
claim that when you used a margin account and the stock price goes
down, it's the broker that suffers the loss... Hopefully, I've
educated Milt past that ignorance.
milt....@gmail.com
> statement that you don't lose money unless you sell it for less than
> you bought it for....
Unless the margin is called.
>
> Milt, like Zepp and a few others are desperate to find something they
> can hold over me, to get back at me for all the spankings I've given
> them... but in this case, as always, it'sMiltthat ends up wearing
> the dunce hat.
Desperate for something? Are you high? I couldn't give a shit less
about you, canyon. And frankly, you're posts are all that is necessary
to "hold over you."
>
> "Which means, if you invest that money,
> you have invested ZERO DOLLARS."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/39f24edeaf3a...
>
> >> >> >> >>>> for.
> >I was obviously correct...
>
> Blah,blah,blah....
>
> >>Milt
> >> tried for several days to prove that you lost money on a margin call,
> >> but unfortunately for him, he couldn't produce any example where the
> >> investor didn't lose the same amount WITHOUT a margin call....
>
> >You still don't even understand what a margin call IS.
>
> Blah,blah,blah....
>
> >> That led into a long unproductive attempt for him to claim that
> >> interest on the loan was a margin call loss....
>
> >No. I said the loan was a liability and the interest was an expense/
> >loss.
>
> <LOL> Actually, what you said was that it was a loss
Not a margin call loss, you simp. It's a liability; it goes against
your equity.
>
> >> and finally, to his
> >> attempt to proclaim that the equal losses were a different PERCENTAGE
> >> of the investment since, as he argued, the money spent on stock that
> >> was borrowed, wasn't really money that the borrower invested...
>
> >No, that is not what I said. It's called "margin trading," you sap.
> >learn what it is. You should be embarrassed by now...
>
> <LOL> In the beginning of this discussion,Miltactually tried to
> claim that when you used a margin account and the stock price goes
> down, it's the broker that suffers the loss...
Um, please produce that quote, because i know for a fact I never would
have said that. In fact, the whole point of a margin call is so that
the broker prevents ANY loss on his part.
> Hopefully, I've
> educatedMiltpast that ignorance.
More irony in every post...
Kurt Lochner
>Milt, like Zepp and a few others are desperate to find something
>they can hold over me, to get back at me for all the spankings[..]
Is that why you're hiding behind that kill-file filter, Porky?
--Got any of your 'magnetic capacitors' yet?
Steve
...yet in the exchange below, you see Milt explaining his " you're out
the amount of that margin call," claim, by referencing the interest
rate and calling it a loss.
*********************************************************************************************
Canyon:
> Explain your claim below,Milt
> "I agree that a stock price going down isn't a loss until you sell,
> but when you borrow money to buy stocks, and you're hit with a
> margin call, you're out the amount of that margin call, any way
> you look at it, Mr. Spin"
> --MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?...
> <LOL> Milt can't explain it...
Shook:
Um, I have explained it. You're not playing with your money; you're
playing with someone else's. The $3000 isn't covering YOUR losses;
it's covering the broker's. You've put $13,000 into an account that
was once worth $20,000, but is now worth $15,000, and your liability
of $10,000 has INCREASED by the rate of interest on the account. Now,
in the reality-based community, we call that a loss.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/602f906cde1908ca?hl=en&
**********************************************************************************************
>> >> and finally, to his
>> >> attempt to proclaim that the equal losses were a different PERCENTAGE
>> >> of the investment since, as he argued, the money spent on stock that
>> >> was borrowed, wasn't really money that the borrower invested...
>>
>> >No, that is not what I said. It's called "margin trading," you sap.
>> >learn what it is. You should be embarrassed by now...
>>
>> <LOL> In the beginning of this discussion,Miltactually tried to
>> claim that when you used a margin account and the stock price goes
>> down, it's the broker that suffers the loss...
>
>Um, please produce that quote, because i know for a fact I never would
>have said that. In fact, the whole point of a margin call is so that
>the broker prevents ANY loss on his part.
<LOL> It was a pretty stupid thing to say, but yeah, Milt said
it... 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.
--MiltShook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/602f906cde1908ca?hl=en&
>> Hopefully, I've
>> educatedMiltpast that ignorance.
Looks like my schooling of poor Milt has done some good...
Now he apparently agrees that his earlier statement above was pretty
stupid.
milt....@gmail.com
> the amount of that margin call," claim, by referencing the interest
> rate and calling it a loss.
You're lack of reading comprehension is AGAIN duly noted.
>
> *********************************************************************************************
> Canyon:
>
> > Explain your claim below,Milt
> > "I agree that a stock price going down isn't a loss until you sell,
> > but when you borrow money to buy stocks, and you're hit with a
> > margin call, you're out the amount of that margin call, any way
> > you look at it, Mr. Spin"
> > --MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/a39f580c3012e718?...
> > <LOL> Miltcan't explain it...
>
> Shook:
> Um, I have explained it. You're not playing with your money; you're
> playing with someone else's. The $3000 isn't covering YOUR losses;
> it's covering the broker's. You've put $13,000 into an account that
> was once worth $20,000, but is now worth $15,000, and your liability
> of $10,000 has INCREASED by the rate of interest on the account. Now,
> in the reality-based community, we call that a loss.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/602f906cde1...
>
> **********************************************************************************************
>
Seriously, if my reading comprehension was as bad as yours at half
your age, I'd be embarrassed to be seen trying to interpret what
someone else wrote. What you SAY I said, and what I ACTUALLY said
aren't even close.
> >> >> and finally, to his
> >> >> attempt to proclaim that the equal losses were a different PERCENTAGE
> >> >> of the investment since, as he argued, the money spent on stock that
> >> >> was borrowed, wasn't really money that the borrower invested...
>
> >> >No, that is not what I said. It's called "margin trading," you sap.
> >> >learn what it is. You should be embarrassed by now...
>
> >> <LOL> In the beginning of this discussion,Miltactually tried to
> >> claim that when you used a margin account and the stock price goes
> >> down, it's the broker that suffers the loss...
>
> >Um, please produce that quote, because i know for a fact I never would
> >have said that. In fact, the whole point of a margin call is so that
> >the broker prevents ANY loss on his part.
>
> <LOL> It was a pretty stupid thing to say, but yeah,Miltsaid
> it... 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.
> --MiltShook http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/602f906cde1...
Um... the reason you're paying the $3000 is so that the broker DOESN'T
lose... It's why he retains the option of selling your securities
without even telling you. The $3000 is to recover part of the money
you owe him. Got it now?
BTW, the whole paragraph is here:
Um, I have explained it. You're not playing with your money; you're
playing with someone else's. The $3000 isn't covering YOUR losses;
it's covering the broker's. You've put $13,000 into an account that
was once worth $20,000, but is now worth $15,000, and your liability
of $10,000 has INCREASED by the rate of interest on the account. Now,
in the reality-based community, we call that a loss.
Pretty interesting when presented in context, huh?
Seriously, Canyon... take the remedial reading course; it can only
help.
>
> >> Hopefully, I've
> >> educatedMiltpast that ignorance.
>
> Looks like my schooling of poorMilthas done some good...
>
> Now he apparently agrees that his earlier statement above was pretty
> stupid.
It would have been if that was what I said.
Steve
Milt needs some lessons in spinning....
In that paragraph, Milt is trying to defend his claim that margin
calls themselves create a loss..and in that paragraph he says, "and
your liability of $10,000 has INCREASED by the rate of interest on the
account. Now, in the reality-based community, we call that a loss."
>> >> >> and finally, to his
>> >> >> attempt to proclaim that the equal losses were a different PERCENTAGE
>> >> >> of the investment since, as he argued, the money spent on stock that
>> >> >> was borrowed, wasn't really money that the borrower invested...
>>
>> >> >No, that is not what I said. It's called "margin trading," you sap.
>> >> >learn what it is. You should be embarrassed by now...
>>
>> >> <LOL> In the beginning of this discussion,Miltactually tried to
>> >> claim that when you used a margin account and the stock price goes
>> >> down, it's the broker that suffers the loss...
>>
>> >Um, please produce that quote, because i know for a fact I never would
>> >have said that. In fact, the whole point of a margin call is so that
>> >the broker prevents ANY loss on his part.
>>
>> <LOL> It was a pretty stupid thing to say, but yeah,Miltsaid
>> it... 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.
>> --MiltShook http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/602f906cde1...
>
>Um... the reason you're paying the $3000 is so that the broker DOESN'T
>lose... It's why he retains the option of selling your securities
>without even telling you. The $3000 is to recover part of the money
>you owe him. Got it now?
Yeah.. You're saying that when you used a margin account and the
stock price goes down, it's the broker that suffers the loss...
>BTW, the whole paragraph is here:
>
>Um, I have explained it. You're not playing with your money; you're
>playing with someone else's. The $3000 isn't covering YOUR losses;
>it's covering the broker's. You've put $13,000 into an account that
>was once worth $20,000, but is now worth $15,000, and your liability
>of $10,000 has INCREASED by the rate of interest on the account. Now,
>in the reality-based community, we call that a loss.
>
>Pretty interesting when presented in context, huh?
Yes it is. Milt clearly implies that the money invested belongs to
the broker, who would be the only person who could be the "someone
else" refers to, and then he goes on to say that through the margin
call, the investor is covering the broker's losses...
let me repeat:
Milt used the term "**** BROKER'S LOSSES ****"
So how exactly would the broker have losses, Milt?
>Seriously, Canyon... take the remedial reading course; it can only
>help.
>>
>> >> Hopefully, I've
>> >> educatedMiltpast that ignorance.
>>
>> Looks like my schooling of poorMilthas done some good...
>>
>> Now he apparently agrees that his earlier statement above was pretty
>> stupid.
>
>It would have been if that was what I said.
>
there's no question as to what Milt said... and there's no question
that now he's desperate to spin some other meaning to them.. because
they are pretty stupid...
Here's another...
"Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH! You buy a share
of stock in the hope that each share will develop a positive equity,
right? Well, a loss is negative equity."
Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bedc09d4?hl=en&
Milt is in run_away_from_his_own_words mode now.... as usual...
milt....@gmail.com
>
> In that paragraph,Miltis trying to defend his claim that margin
> calls themselves create a loss..and in that paragraph he says, "and
> your liability of $10,000 has INCREASED by the rate of interest on the
> account. Now, in the reality-based community, we call that a loss."
>
You said no one loses money until their stock sells for less than they
paid.
My response was that you have obviously never heard of a margin call.
Apparently, given your posts over the last two weeks, I was correct.
>
>
> >> >> >> and finally, to his
> >> >> >> attempt to proclaim that the equal losses were a different PERCENTAGE
> >> >> >> of the investment since, as he argued, the money spent on stock that
> >> >> >> was borrowed, wasn't really money that the borrower invested...
>
> >> >> >No, that is not what I said. It's called "margin trading," you sap.
> >> >> >learn what it is. You should be embarrassed by now...
>
> >> >> <LOL> In the beginning of this discussion,Miltactually tried to
> >> >> claim that when you used a margin account and the stock price goes
> >> >> down, it's the broker that suffers the loss...
>
> >> >Um, please produce that quote, because i know for a fact I never would
> >> >have said that. In fact, the whole point of a margin call is so that
> >> >the broker prevents ANY loss on his part.
>
> >> <LOL> It was a pretty stupid thing to say, but yeah,Miltsaid
> >> it... 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.
> >> --MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/602f906cde1...
>
> >Um... the reason you're paying the $3000 is so that the broker DOESN'T
> >lose... It's why he retains the option of selling your securities
> >without even telling you. The $3000 is to recover part of the money
> >you owe him. Got it now?
>
> Yeah.. You're saying that when you used a margin account and the
> stock price goes down, it's the broker that suffers the loss...
No, I'm not. I'm saying that the broker calls the margin to ensure
that he gets his money back from YOU.
>
> >BTW, the whole paragraph is here:
>
> >Um, I have explained it. You're not playing with your money; you're
> >playing with someone else's. The $3000 isn't covering YOUR losses;
> >it's covering the broker's. You've put $13,000 into an account that
> >was once worth $20,000, but is now worth $15,000, and your liability
> >of $10,000 has INCREASED by the rate of interest on the account. Now,
> >in the reality-based community, we call that a loss.
>
> >Pretty interesting when presented in context, huh?
>
> Yes it is. Miltclearly implies that the money invested belongs to
> the broker, who would be the only person who could be the "someone
> else" refers to, and then he goes on to say that through the margin
> call, the investor is covering the broker's losses...
>
> let me repeat:Miltused the term "**** BROKER'S LOSSES ****"
>
> So how exactly would the broker have losses,Milt?
He doesn't have losses. Hence the margin call.
>
> >Seriously, Canyon... take the remedial reading course; it can only
> >help.
>
> >> >> Hopefully, I've
> >> >> educatedMiltpast that ignorance.
>
> >> Looks like my schooling of poorMilthas done some good...
>
> >> Now he apparently agrees that his earlier statement above was pretty
> >> stupid.
>
> >It would have been if that was what I said.
>
> there's no question as to whatMiltsaid... and there's no question
> that now he's desperate to spin some other meaning to them.. because
> they are pretty stupid...
>
> Here's another...
>
> "Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
> the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH! You buy a share
> of stock in the hope that each share will develop a positive equity,
> right? Well, a loss is negative equity."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bed...
>
> Miltis in run_away_from_his_own_words mode now.... as usual...
That's funny, coming from someone who says IN THE SAME post that
margin trading entails no greater risk, but could result in greater
losses.
Steve
yeah, but in the reference above, you were explaining your claim about
when "you're hit with a margin call, you're out the amount of that
margin call, any way you look at it," because you'd already agreed
"that a stock price going down isn't a loss until you sell."
>My response was that you have obviously never heard of a margin call.
...and since you could not provide an example of anyone losing
anything due to a margin call, your implication was, and still is,
entirely unsubstantiated.
>Apparently, given your posts over the last two weeks, I was correct.
>
<LOL> Blah, blah, blah
Oh bulllshit! You wrote "The $3000 isn't covering YOUR losses;
it's covering the broker's [losses]. In the statement above that, you
clearly implied that the money that had been invested was the broker's
money...
There's no way to spin that other than you claiming that the broker
suffered the losses of the investment.
It's good to know that I've at least educated you enough to know that
you need to try to deny that stupid claim....
>> >BTW, the whole paragraph is here:
>>
>> >Um, I have explained it. You're not playing with your money; you're
>> >playing with someone else's. The $3000 isn't covering YOUR losses;
>> >it's covering the broker's. You've put $13,000 into an account that
>> >was once worth $20,000, but is now worth $15,000, and your liability
>> >of $10,000 has INCREASED by the rate of interest on the account. Now,
>> >in the reality-based community, we call that a loss.
>>
>> >Pretty interesting when presented in context, huh?
>>
>> Yes it is. Miltclearly implies that the money invested belongs to
>> the broker, who would be the only person who could be the "someone
>> else" refers to, and then he goes on to say that through the margin
>> call, the investor is covering the broker's losses...
>>
>> let me repeat:Miltused the term "**** BROKER'S LOSSES ****"
>>
>> So how exactly would the broker have losses,Milt?
>
>He doesn't have losses. Hence the margin call.
So why were you talking about the Broker's losses?
>> >Seriously, Canyon... take the remedial reading course; it can only
>> >help.
>>
>> >> >> Hopefully, I've
>> >> >> educatedMiltpast that ignorance.
>>
>> >> Looks like my schooling of poorMilthas done some good...
>>
>> >> Now he apparently agrees that his earlier statement above was pretty
>> >> stupid.
>>
>> >It would have been if that was what I said.
>>
>> there's no question as to whatMiltsaid... and there's no question
>> that now he's desperate to spin some other meaning to them.. because
>> they are pretty stupid...
>>
>> Here's another...
>>
>> "Yeah. If you bought the stock at $50 a share and it's now worth $25,
>> the shares have a negative equity of 50%. I mean, DUH! You buy a share
>> of stock in the hope that each share will develop a positive equity,
>> right? Well, a loss is negative equity."MiltShookhttp://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/cdf601a5bed...
>>
>> Miltis in run_away_from_his_own_words mode now.... as usual...
>
>That's funny, coming from someone who says IN THE SAME post that
>margin trading entails no greater risk, but could result in greater
>losses.
>
<ROTFLMAO> Ya see, Milt, when I post what you say, I post your very
own words.... ...and you know that if you post my very own words,
your silly spin won't work.
Here's another Shook stupidity...
"I'm trying to figure out how writing a check out of your liquid
assets to cover the "reduced value" of a liability, can be seen as
anything but a loss."
--Milt Shook
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.bush/msg/0b2e8e4604b22581?hl=en&
Hmmmmm, so how did this liability get reduced? In fact, what
liability are you talking about that got reduced? ...and why would
the reduced value of a liability be a problem, anyway? wouldn't it
be a good thing to reduce all your liabilities?
That was Milt Shook, talking about stuff he is totally ignorant about
and making a complete fool of himself...