ANOTHER stock tip for the libtards (which will be ignored)

[TomS]

Saudi attacks mean oil prices are going up, buy CVX at the open tomorrow. I placed a limit order at 124 (protection if it really spikes - you should do the same, but you won't)

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> Saudi attacks mean oil prices are going up,

Genius!

--
President Trump made 12,019 false or misleading claims over 928 days
Pretending that doesn't bother you is a mental disorder.

[Alan Baker]

On 2019-09-15 2:28 p.m., TomS wrote:
> Saudi attacks mean oil prices are going up, buy CVX at the open tomorrow. I placed a limit order at 124 (protection if it really spikes - you should do the same, but you won't)
>

CVX is off 0.75% from the open to right now (0910 PDT).

Great tip, Snowflake!

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

I said to place a LIMIT order of 124 - do you EVEN KNOW what a limit order is? Obviously NOT!!!!

BTW, this is a longer term play, not a day trade.

[Alan Baker]

How does a limit order protect you if the price falls below what you
bought it at? CVX opened the day at $124.86. A limit order to sell would
mean immediately selling it and you lose the cost of the trades.

>
> BTW, this is a longer term play, not a day trade.

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Convenient that you didn't mention that when you made your initial post.

[-hh]

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 3:44:42 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 9:10:39 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> > On 2019-09-15 2:28 p.m., TomS wrote:
> > > Saudi attacks mean oil prices are going up, buy CVX at
> > > the open tomorrow. I placed a limit order at 124 (protection
> > > if it really spikes - you should do the same, but you won't)
> > >
> >
> > CVX is off 0.75% from the open to right now (0910 PDT).
> > Great tip, Snowflake!

Well, it did recover and settle in to be higher than last Friday.

get as high as 125.27 today.

> I said to place a LIMIT order of 124 - do you EVEN KNOW what
> a limit order is? Obviously NOT!!!!

Tom is lucky that the price dropped after the market was open
for ~15 minutes for his claimed order to then allegedly execute.

And with the day's high being 125.27, his max theoretical day trade
profit would have been ~1% ($1.27 per share).

> BTW, this is a longer term play, not a day trade.

Oh, so then how does this go again?
Oh, right:

"So then what’s your plan? Sell tomorrow? Hold and hope...?
Or was there no real research and thus, you have no real plan?"


FYI, a repeat of the +10% would be to sell at/above 136.40


-hh

[-hh]

On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 5:01:43 PM UTC-4, Alan Baker wrote:
> On 2019-09-16 12:44 p.m., TomS wrote:
> > On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 9:10:39 AM UTC-7, Alan Baker wrote:
> >> On 2019-09-15 2:28 p.m., TomS wrote:
> >>> Saudi attacks mean oil prices are going up, buy CVX at the open tomorrow. I placed a limit order at 124 (protection if it really spikes - you should do the same, but you won't)
> >>>
> >>
> >> CVX is off 0.75% from the open to right now (0910 PDT).
> >>
> >> Great tip, Snowflake!
> >
> > Hey Dolt,
> >
> > I said to place a LIMIT order of 124 - do you EVEN KNOW
> > what a limit order is? Obviously NOT!!!!
>
> How does a limit order protect you if the price falls below what you
> bought it at? CVX opened the day at $124.86. A limit order to sell would
> mean immediately selling it and you lose the cost of the trades.

I think it depends on just which kind of order.

I assumed that Tom was claiming a simple buy with a $124 limit,
which would have executed same day when the price dropped after
the initial open spike.

But your point is also well taken: if he was placing a buy
"at the opening" and with a limit on it (I didn't think that
this combination is allowed, but ...), then his claimed $124
limit set point wouldn't be high enough to get the at opening
price, so his buy order would not have been executed.


-hh

[TomS]

You just CONFIRMED that you KNOW NOTHING about limit orders!

[Alan Baker]

So explain what you actually did.

You CLAIMED you'd by CVX at the open, so how does the limit order you
claim you placed work in this case?

[TomS]

Hey Hidin' Hughie,

"Luck" has nothing to do with stock trading. If you think it does, go through your money away in Vegas. One day's price fluctuation is pretty meaningless, except to day traders (which I am not). The CVX trade is really pretty simple: the principal asset, oil, has suddenly gone up in value (some 10% in one day) - their stock price will likewise go up to in response in an efficient market. But, I predict that NONE of you libtards will listen to such simple logic BECAUSE you are locked into the Dim propaganda that the economy is going to tank.

[TomS]

ROTFLMAO!!!!

Go read up on "limit orders" - you are OBVIOUSLY TOTALLY IGNORANT!!!!!

[Alan Baker]

Nope. YOU made a claim now YOU get to explain what you did.

Or just admit you were full of shit.

:-)

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

You are FAR TOO IGNORANT for me to WASTE MY TIME trying to educate you. The Internet is FULL of explanations if you REALLY want to know. My recommendation was VERY CLEAR: a limit order at 124. PERIOD. That is EXACTLY what I did, and it executed. Will CVX actually increase as expected? Who knows, sometimes the market acts irrationally - kind of like libtards.

[Alan Baker]

And what was the limit order going to DO after you'd purchased at the
open at $124.86, as you advised others to do?



>

[-hh]

On Tuesday, September 17, 2019 at 12:45:56 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Monday, September 16, 2019 at 2:04:16 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:

> > ...

> >
> > Oh, so then how does this go again?
> > Oh, right:
> >
> > "So then what’s your plan? Sell tomorrow? Hold and hope...?
> > Or was there no real research and thus, you have no real plan?"
> >
> >
> > FYI, a repeat of the +10% would be to sell at/above 136.40
>
>

> "Luck" has nothing to do with stock trading.

"Will CVX actually increase as expected? Who knows, sometimes the market acts irrationally..."

> One day's price fluctuation is pretty meaningless, ...

"So then what’s your plan? Sell tomorrow? Hold and hope...?"

> ...except to day traders (which I am not).

Nah, you pretty much are because you're speculatively trading based on market news in
a short term view - - just not literally one trading day. You're clearly not in the domain
of conventional investing strategies of buy and hold or value investing strategies, which
is why your transactions are subject to Short Term Capital Gains instead of Long.

> The CVX trade is really pretty simple: the principal asset, oil, has suddenly
> gone up in value (some 10% in one day) -

Math fail: 121.x to 125.x is much closer to 3% than it is to 10%

And for you to get at least a +10% gain from your alleged buy at 124 requires
the price to exceed 136.40 for you to be able to then sell at that price.

"So then what’s your plan? Sell tomorrow? Hold and hope...?"

> ... their stock price will likewise go up to in response in an efficient market.

> But, I predict that NONE of you libtards will listen to such simple logic BECAUSE
> you are locked into the Dim propaganda that the economy is going to tank.

Well, if you yourself really believed that the economy is going to continue to grow, then
you would be buying and staying in, instead of being outside in a cash position and
trying these (small?) quick pounces based on drops from bad news.

So if the bad news on the economy is so fake, then why aren't you "all in", Tom?


-hh

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

You are SO IGNORANT of stock trading that should have "DUMB ASS" tattooed on your forehead!!!! I guess this is all you can expect of Canuck education...

[TomS]

Math fail? You're as DUMB as the Dolt!!! I said OIL, not CVX!!!!! Since then oil prices have dropped after SA announced that they would resume full production in a month. I closed out my CVX position today at a small gain.

BTW, HOW MUCH ARNA did you buy? My educated guess: NOTHING!!!!!!!

[Alan Baker]

Really? How?

At what point today was CVX selling for more than it opened on Monday?

[Alan Baker]

And yet you cannot explain how this was supposed to have worked...

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

Explaining stock trading to you is like explaining astrophysics to a 1st grader!!! You are just TOO STUPID to get it!!!!!

[Alan Baker]

You just can't explain it, can you?

:-)

[-hh]

TomS wrote:
(Moved to be in line)
> -hh wrote:

>> TomS wrote:
>> > The CVX trade is really pretty simple: the principal asset, oil, has suddenly
>> > gone up in value (some 10% in one day) -
>>
>> Math fail: 121.x to 125.x is much closer to 3% than it is to 10%

> Math fail? You're as DUMB as the Dolt!!! I said OIL, not CVX!!!!!

Except you bought CVX, not oil or oil futures.

> Since then oil prices have dropped after SA announced that they would resume
> full production in a month. I closed out my CVX position today at a small gain.

Very small if at all: yesterday’s high was only 124.18 and that happened in
the last 20 minutes of the Market’s hours. That makes your theoretical max
only 124.18/124 = a +0.145% gain ... before trading costs.

>> And for you to get at least a +10% gain from your alleged buy at 124 requires
>> the price to exceed 136.40 for you to be able to then sell at that price.

A +0.145% gain at best ... far, far short of a satisfying 10% gain. And you’ve
avoided stating what your actual sell price and actual net gain was, not
particularly likely to be the case at all. Plus this also means that Tom has
answered the next question:

> "So then what’s your plan? Sell tomorrow? Hold and hope...?"

Through his days of silence until now, the answer has become obvious: no plan,
but just YA knee jerk speculative bet where if Tom’s Monday 124 buy transacted,
he was hoping for it to have continued to rise that that same day to then sell.
After that didn’t pan out, he’s been on pins & needles, praying for a recovery that
was good enough to dump to cut his losses.

>> > ... their stock price will likewise go up to in response in an efficient market.
>> > But, I predict that NONE of you libtards will listen to such simple logic BECAUSE
>> > you are locked into the Dim propaganda that the economy is going to tank.
>>
>> Well, if you yourself really believed that the economy is going to continue to grow, then

!> you would be buying and staying in, instead of being outside in a cash position and

>> trying these (small?) quick pounces based on drops from bad news.
>> So if the bad news on the economy is so fake, then why aren't you "all in", Tom?

Still waiting for Tom to answer this point too. Oh well.

> BTW, HOW MUCH ARNA did you buy? My educated guess: NOTHING!!!!!!!

Too bad you won’t upgrade your guess to a bet. And thats despite that you’ve
claimed to be so great at reading human behavior that you allegedly put money
down based on it in the “no welching” stock market on it... <g>

-hh

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> I closed out my CVX position today
> at a small gain.
>

Not very believable given the market and your form.

...but easy enough to prove... if it were true.

[-hh]

On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:24:22 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>
> > I closed out my CVX position today at a small gain.
> >
>
> Not very believable given the market and your form.
>
> ...but easy enough to prove... if it were true.

Based on his claims, his gains were _very_ small:

If it was 200 shares (~$25K), the gain was less than $27.

Similarly, to have made a $1,000+ gain would have required
5611+ shares, requiring no less than ~$673,325 in capital.


-hh

[Bigbird]

-hh wrote:

> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:24:22 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> >
> > > I closed out my CVX position today at a small gain.
> > >
> >
> > Not very believable given the market and your form.
> >
> > ...but easy enough to prove... if it were true.
>

> Based on his claims, his gains were very small:

>
> If it was 200 shares (~$25K), the gain was less than $27.
>
> Similarly, to have made a $1,000+ gain would have required
> 5611+ shares, requiring no less than ~$673,325 in capital.
>

You are being very kind in assuming he just happened to get out during
the last 30 mins of trading the only time during the day he would have
had his nose above water... before associated costs. I doubt he covered
his fees on both ends; given his readiness to be dishonest I doubt he
made any gain at all.

A lot of gamblers are very unwilling to admit their losses while
crowing about their occasional wins.

[-hh]

Bigbird wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 19, 2019 at 11:24:22 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
>>> > TomS wrote:
>> >
>> > > I closed out my CVX position today at a small gain.
>> >
>> > Not very believable given the market and your form.
>> >
>> > ...but easy enough to prove... if it were true.
>>
>> Based on his claims, his gains were very small:
>>
>> If it was 200 shares (~$25K), the gain was less than $27.
>>
>> Similarly, to have made a $1,000+ gain would have required
>> 5611+ shares, requiring no less than ~$673,325 in capital.
>>
>
> You are being very kind in assuming he just happened to get out during
> the last 30 mins of trading the only time during the day he would have
> had his nose above water... before associated costs.

I was merely noting that his claim wasn’t literally impossible.
And from even the literary best case, his maximum gain potential
of ~$27 ($26.10, actually) from $25K wasn’t anything to crow about.

> I doubt he covered his fees on both ends; given his readiness to be dishonest
> I doubt he made any gain at all.

Fidelity’s published fee is US$4.95 per fee. Times two trades is $9.90. This
means that Tom’s theoretical max gain on his claim was actually $26.10, which
is less than the $27 that I said “less than” on. I didn’t round the trade fees off
to $10 this time, but I will do so in the future.

> A lot of gamblers are very unwilling to admit their losses while
> crowing about their occasional wins.

Tom is trying to deny that he was indeed gambling. And he also got lucky
with his alleged ALXN gamble too: except for the ~hour where it bumped
up where he allegedly sold, it’s been lower than 110 every day since.


-hh

[-hh]

On Saturday, September 21, 2019 at 8:11:57 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> Bigbird wrote:

> > -hh wrote:
> >> Bigbird wrote:
> >>> > TomS wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > I closed out my CVX position today at a small gain.
> >> >
> >> > Not very believable given the market and your form.
> >> >
> >> > ...but easy enough to prove... if it were true.
> >>
> >> Based on his claims, his gains were very small:
> >>
> >> If it was 200 shares (~$25K), the gain was less than $27.
> >>
> >> Similarly, to have made a $1,000+ gain would have required
> >> 5611+ shares, requiring no less than ~$673,325 in capital.
> >
> > You are being very kind in assuming he just happened to get
> > out during the last 30 mins of trading the only time during
> > the day he would have had his nose above water... before
> > associated costs.
>
> I was merely noting that his claim wasn’t literally impossible.
> And from even the literary best case, his maximum gain potential
> of ~$27 ($26.10, actually) from $25K wasn’t anything to crow about.

'Nitpicky' clarification: this is as per the 200 shares baseline.

> > I doubt he covered his fees on both ends; given his readiness
> > to be dishonest I doubt he made any gain at all.
>
> Fidelity’s published fee is US$4.95 per fee. Times two trades
> is $9.90. This means that Tom’s theoretical max gain on his
> claim was actually $26.10, which is less than the $27 that I
> said “less than” on. I didn’t round the trade fees off to $10
> this time, but I will do so in the future.
>
> > A lot of gamblers are very unwilling to admit their losses
> > while crowing about their occasional wins.
>
> Tom is trying to deny that he was indeed gambling. And he
> also got lucky with his alleged ALXN gamble too: except for
> the ~hour where it bumped up where he allegedly sold, it’s
> been lower than 110 every day since.

In quasi-related news on the economy, a report on savings rates:

<https://www.wsj.com/articles/americans-are-saving-more-and-that-isnt-necessarily-good-11569153600>

(Full Quote}

"From the 1980s through 2007, household saving followed a
predictable pattern. It typically rose after a recession as
people paid down debt and rebuilt balance sheets, then declined
as they grew more optimistic—and spendthrift.

That hasn’t happened during the current expansion. The personal-
saving rate, the portion of after-tax income that consumers don’t
spend, rose from 3.7% in 2007, at the height of the housing bubble,
to 6.5% in 2010, the year after the recession ended. But since
then, rather than falling, it has drifted up, to an average 8.2%
in the first seven months of 2019. That is higher than the average
for any full year since 2012, when incomes spiked as companies
pulled forward dividend and bonus payments to beat a tax increase."

TL;DR: savings rate has doubled, contrary to historical trends.


"“That is evidence to suggest that something structural has
changed, and it’s made the saving rate kind of sticky at higher
levels,” saidTiffany Wilding ,a U.S. economist at Pacific
Investment Management Co.

Saving, which is the slice of paychecks, dividends and other
earnings that Americans sock away, was up 17% in 2018 from
the previous year, according to recently revised figures
from the Commerce Department, beating consumer spending’s
5.2% and business investment’s 7.8%.

“The timing is no coincidence,” saysPaul Ashworth, chief
North American economist at Capital Economics. “The tax
cuts seem to have been saved.” He notes the saving rate
jumped by a full percentage point in January 2018, the
month after President Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act
into law."

TL;DR: correlation to the 2017 tax cut?

"Economists point to other factors as well, including
greater caution among consumers scarred by the 2007-09
recession, aging baby boomers preparing for retirement
and a widening gap between the rich (who save a lot) and
the poor (who save little).

Higher saving can be positive when it represents prudent
behavior, for example preparation for retirement. It can
also act as a cushion against recession. Rainy-day funds
enable consumers—who account for two-thirds of economic
output—to continue spending despite a job loss, reduced
hours or slashed bonuses.

But whether savings serve as a recession cushion depends
in part on how they are distributed. Wealthier Americans
are less likely than middle- and lower-income families to
change their spending patterns after a windfall such as a
tax cut or a setback such as a recession.

“If you’re a billionaire, and you find $100 on the street,
you’re probably not going to rush off to Walmartto spend it,”
says Ian Shepherdson, founder of Pantheon Macroeconomics.
“But if you’ve got no money, and you find $100 on the street,
you are going to rush off to spend it.”

While the latest saving data aren’t broken down by income,
some economists say the recent rise is likely being driven
by the wealthy. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody’s Analytics,
estimates that the wealthiest 10% of Americans accounted for
more than three-fourths of the increase in the saving rate
since the tax cut."

TL;DR: top 10% is party responsible for ~75% of the increase.

"That cut increased after-tax incomes of the upper one-fifth
of households—those making at least $149,400 a year—by 2.9%,
versus 1.6% for the middle fifth and 0.4% for the bottom fifth,
according to the Tax Policy Center, a research group.

Joe Norflus, a retired investment banker in Essex Co., New
Jersey, whose income consists mostly of dividends and interest,
said he benefited from the law’s lower tax rates and saw his
net worth rise. But the earnings boost was “fairly insignificant”
relative to his overall net worth, so he used it to increase
his savings.

“The tax cut didn’t impact in any way, shape, or form my
spending habits,” Mr. Norflus said."

TL;DR: anecdotal affirmation that the tax cut failed to spur
increased spending at the top.

"On the other hand, economists say lower taxes did appear to
boost spending by lower- and middle-class families last year.
One sign: Sales were up 11% at discount retailers tracked by
Redbook Research, compared with 3.4% at department stores."

TL;DR: sales data indicating that the non-top 10% didn't save;
they are the ones who spent.

"Regardless of the cause, if saving outstrips investment
opportunities for a long time, some economists say, it can
hold down interest rates, inflation and economic growth. Such
“secular stagnation” may leave less room to cut interest rates,
making it harder for the Federal Reserve to boost growth during
downturns.

“Rather than being a virtue, saving becomes a vice,” said Gauti
Eggertsson, an economist at Brown University.

Mr. Ashworth said the data for a long time didn’t back the
argument that rising inequality would boost saving and weigh
on growth. That case looks stronger now that revisions have
raised the saving rate, he said."

TL;DR: with the increased savings concentrated in the top,
the mid/lower class lacks the savings to then spend if the
Feds try to spur the economy by an interest rate cut.

TL;DR2: next recession: the wealthy will just hunker down.

-hh

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

You just CAN'T FIX STUPID!!!!!

[TomS]

Your ARNA tip was REALLY GREAT - so far it has lost FIVE PERCENT!!!

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> Hey Dolt,
>
> You just CAN'T FIX STUPID!!!!!

Nobody asked you what your therapist said.

[Alan Baker]

What would really cement your claim?

An explanation of exactly what you did.

But you can't give one...

...because your whole story is bullshit.

Poor Snowflake...

[-hh]

LOL, what a lame dodge avoidance attempt.

And on ARNA, there's still "unanswered questions":

Tom claimed that the company has no products for sale, which
is incorrect (they at least have FDA-approved Lorcaserin), so
how is it that Tom got such a simple verifiable fact so wrong?

Tom claimed "analysts mostly have SELL ratings on it" which
was challenged because of multiple sources showing zero sells
(and more buys than holds), so where's the proof of his claim?

Tom claimed "...their stock is tanking," while it was up +25% for the
year and +300% over the past three years, so even if its now flat
for the year, just how was that a credible description of "tanking"?

And of course, Tom claimed that I was trying to trick him into making
a bad investment, but how is that possible when there were no buy
suggestions/recommendations made?


-hh

[TomS]

THE unanswered question is HOW MUCH ARNA did you buy?

[TomS]

...and down another 0.65% TODAY!

[-hh]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 9:54:05 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 6:45:45 AM UTC-7, TomS wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:38:36 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:

> > > ...

> > >
> > > LOL, what a lame dodge avoidance attempt.
> > >
> > > And on ARNA, there's still "unanswered questions":
> > >
> > > Tom claimed that the company has no products for sale, which
> > > is incorrect (they at least have FDA-approved Lorcaserin), so
> > > how is it that Tom got such a simple verifiable fact so wrong?
> > >
> > > Tom claimed "analysts mostly have SELL ratings on it" which
> > > was challenged because of multiple sources showing zero sells
> > > (and more buys than holds), so where's the proof of his claim?
> > >
> > > Tom claimed "...their stock is tanking," while it was up +25% for the
> > > year and +300% over the past three years, so even if its now flat
> > > for the year, just how was that a credible description of "tanking"?
> > >
> > > And of course, Tom claimed that I was trying to trick him into making
> > > a bad investment, but how is that possible when there were no buy
> > > suggestions/recommendations made?
> >
> >

> > THE unanswered question is HOW MUCH ARNA did you buy?

Where did who claim that I bought what?

> ...and down another 0.65% TODAY!

While its still up more than +20% for the year. Horrors! /s


-hh

[TomS]

How much it is up or down since some point in the past is IRRELEVENT - it's now DOWN TEN PERCENT since YOU recommended it, FIVE PERCENT today alone. You obviously didn't buy ANY, which reveals an ulterior motive. I was RIGHT and you were WRONG!!

[-hh]

On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:42:24 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 7:50:02 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 9:54:05 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 6:45:45 AM UTC-7, TomS wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:38:36 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > > > ...
> > > > >
> > > > > LOL, what a lame dodge avoidance attempt.
> > > > >
> > > > > And on ARNA, there's still "unanswered questions":
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom claimed that the company has no products for sale, which
> > > > > is incorrect (they at least have FDA-approved Lorcaserin), so
> > > > > how is it that Tom got such a simple verifiable fact so wrong?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom claimed "analysts mostly have SELL ratings on it" which
> > > > > was challenged because of multiple sources showing zero sells
> > > > > (and more buys than holds), so where's the proof of his claim?
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom claimed "...their stock is tanking," while it was up +25% for the
> > > > > year and +300% over the past three years, so even if its now flat
> > > > > for the year, just how was that a credible description of "tanking"?
> > > > >
> > > > > And of course, Tom claimed that I was trying to trick him into making
> > > > > a bad investment, but how is that possible when there were no buy
> > > > > suggestions/recommendations made?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > THE unanswered question is HOW MUCH ARNA did you buy?
> >
> > Where did who claim that I bought what?
> >
> > > ...and down another 0.65% TODAY!
> >
> > While its still up more than +20% for the year. Horrors! /s
>
>

> How much it is up or down since some point in the past is

> IRRELEVENT ...

Unless it was purchased "in the past", of course.


> ... - it's now DOWN TEN PERCENT since YOU recommended it,

Oh, I _recommended_ it? Cite please.


> ...FIVE PERCENT today alone.

So? Does that mean that it is now a buying opportunity?

> You obviously didn't buy ANY, which reveals an ulterior motive.

Wouldn't I have a stronger ulterior motive if I did?

In any event, the question I'd posed to you is what you thought
of it as a potential investment, in light of both its positive
Analyst reviews as well as its level of institutional ownership:

"I find it interesting that the stock has such consistent buy
recommendations despite what looks like nothing much, and has
a lot of institutionals holding it. The question seems to be
if they go on a tear of product approvals to sell and it pops
to $500. Even so, a +300% (paper) gain over the past three
years isn’t too shabby..."

> I was RIGHT and you were WRONG!!

Nope, because no one claimed that it was suitable for your
speculation driven style of Market gambling.


-hh

[TomS]

You have consistently implied that ARNA is a good investment - which it isn't - a virtual recommendation.

You asked me for my opinion - I gave it to you.

You argued with me about that opinion - even as I have been proven right.

You continue to cite past performance - which is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT (unless you have a time machine!).

You didn't even follow your OWN recommendation and buy this DOG!

Now you want to weasel out of your recommendation by saying it wasn't REALLY a recommendation!

This is a CLASSIC LIBTARD MOVE!!!!

Next time you make a stock recommendation, SAY it is a recommendation and BACK IT UP by BUYING IT, that's what I DID, or just say you're BLOWING SMOKE!!!!!!!!!!!

[-hh]

Nope:

"I find it interesting that the stock has such consistent buy
recommendations despite what looks like nothing much, and has

a lot of institutionals holding it. The question seems to be..."

> You asked me for my opinion - I gave it to you.

Which made factually incorrect claims.

> You argued with me about that opinion - even as I have been proven right.

Where "proven right" actually means:
a. You claimed they had no products, which was proven false.
b. You claimed that they were "taking" while they were up +25% for the year.
c. You claimed that analysts had it as a "sell" which you never substantiated,
while I found buys/holds only and substantiated same.

> You continue to cite past performance - which is TOTALLY IRRELEVANT (unless
> you have a time machine!).

Or ... as has also been previously noted, had previously purchased.

> You didn't even follow your OWN recommendation and buy this DOG!

Merely your unsubstantiated claim ... now are you willing to back up your claim
with an IRL non-welcherable wager? How about making the wager equal to the
value of ARNA at today's close?

> Now you want to weasel out of your recommendation by saying it wasn't REALLY
> a recommendation!

Oh, so its my fault that your behavior was manipulated, when I said:

"I find it interesting that the stock has such consistent buy
recommendations despite what looks like nothing much, and has

a lot of institutionals holding it. The question seems to be..."

FWIW, I'm still unclear on just what moves this stock and why ... and why the
institutions continue to hold onto it. Of course, being up +300% over the past
three years would explain some of it ... but that's historical and not forward-looking.
You were invited to consider this question as well...but you bailed.

> This is a CLASSIC LIBTARD MOVE!!!!
>
> Next time you make a stock recommendation, SAY it is a recommendation and
> BACK IT UP by BUYING IT, that's what I DID, or just say you're BLOWING SMOKE!!!!!!!!!!!

Once again, your mouth is making a claim that your body isn't able to back up:
just how much will you actually back up your 'never bought any' claim?
Or am I just manipulating you again with a bluff? "Spin that roulette wheel" Thomas!


-hh

[TomS]

Hughie,

What a PATHETIC list of DENIALS!!!! Admit it, you're just another LIBTARD that can't get anything RIGHT!!! You FUCKED UP on ARNA!!!!

"FWIW, I'm still unclear on just what moves this stock and why" That's because you're a LOSER that trips over her own feet!!!! This stock qualifies for the "falling knife" award!!!!! The market lets you know BEFORE you know it (forget about fucking "past performance") - this turd is DIVING for a reason, you are just TOO IGNORANT to understand it (even tho I TOLD YOU!!!!).

I gave you idiots a simple list of trades that yielded THIRTY FOUR PERCENT GAIN, and you give me a trade that has LOST TEN PERCENT!!! You are a LOSER!!!!!

Of course, you LIBTARDS don't REALLY believe the crap you're dishing out, so you had the lame sense not to actually buy it.

I am beginning to understand why you LIBTARDS have a hard-on about wealthy people: you're JEALOUS!!!!!!!

[-hh]

On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:30:32 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 5:57:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 7:16:21 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 1:11:15 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 3:42:24 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:

> > > > [...]

> > > > > I was RIGHT and you were WRONG!!
> > > >
> > > > Nope, because no one claimed that it was suitable for your
> > > > speculation driven style of Market gambling.
> > >
> > >

Where "fucked up" is a +300% gain over the past three years.

> "FWIW, I'm still unclear on just what moves this stock and why" That's because you're
> a LOSER that trips over her own feet!!!! This stock qualifies for the "falling knife"
> award!!!!! The market lets you know BEFORE you know it (forget about fucking "past
> performance") - this turd is DIVING for a reason, you are just TOO IGNORANT to
> understand it (even tho I TOLD YOU!!!!).

On the contrary: I've explicitly said that I don't know *why* the analysts still have "buy"
ratings and why have basically none of the Institutions bailed. And despite your word
salad, it is clear that you don't know why either.

> I gave you idiots a simple list of trades that yielded THIRTY FOUR PERCENT GAIN, and
> you give me a trade that has LOST TEN PERCENT!!! You are a LOSER!!!!!

No, you claimed some roulette wheel spins and never provided any actual proof that
you yourself acted on any of them.

And a 10% drop after a +300% run-up is merely a minor wobble. Particularly when
one finds that target prices from analysts .. for what they're worth .. are +20% higher.

> Of course, you LIBTARDS don't REALLY believe the crap you're dishing out, so you
> had the lame sense not to actually buy it.

Oh, I'm glad you mentioned this claim again, because I offered you a non-welcherable
wager on that, which you've seemed to have forgotten to accept.

FYI, I did make a minor error on my offer to acknowledge:
when I said "How about making the wager equal to the value of ARNA at today's close?",
my intent was for the bet to be equal to the value of my holdings, not just a single share's price.

Since it was my error, I'll honor what I said as well as to expand the offer to include
the second as listed above. So two wager offers on the table for Tom to accept are:

a) As written, at the price of a single share, which would be just $48.42
b) As intended, which is equal to $48.42 * (my number of shares owned)


Alan, if Tom doesn't immediately bail, would you be willing to agree again to be the
independent third party arbiter to hold Tom's money?

Usual welch-proof requirements of course: that Tom as the claimant makes first deposits
of suitable amount of cash with you to hold within 30 days of today, upon which I then
have an equal amount of time to provide cash/documentation which you are who decides
if it is adequate substantiation for who won, etc, etc.


FYI, I'll make this arbiter position also open to Bobby as well, if he may be interested.
If so, I'll amend my offer to ask if Tom would agree to provide a commission of 25%
or $50, whichever happens to be greater, for his time & consideration.


-hh

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 24, 2019 at 5:57:26 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> >
> > Once again, your mouth is making a claim that your body isn't able
> > to back up: just how much will you actually back up your 'never
> > bought any' claim? Or am I just manipulating you again with a
> > bluff? "Spin that roulette wheel" Thomas!
> >
>

[snip shouty shit]

Know when you are beaten Flaccid.

[Alan Baker]

It would be my pleasure, sir!

[TomS]

Hey Hidiin' Hughie,

Who the fuck cares about PAST gains - that's history, as they say. Do you have a time machine? I doubt it.

I already told you what it will take to view my stock confirmations, and it sure as hell doesn't include access to my accounts!

Again, I DON'T bet cheaters and/or liars, and you are BOTH! So just get this out of your pea brain mind. Go bet Alan, he's more your style. And, I don't have to bet - I have already made a BUNDLE off these recommendations. Hmmm, I could use a brand new truck...

You are more than welcome to buy this falling knife, in fact I ENCOURAGE you to do so, but don't count me in on this turd, which, BTW, DROPPED today in a STRONG UP MARKET!!!!

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:


> I already told you what it will take to view my stock confirmations,
> and it sure as hell doesn't include access to my accounts!
>

Nobody needs to see anything to confirm you are a liar. You had the
opportunity to prove otherwise but your inability to do so confirms
your guilt.

A proven liar continues to lie; nothing new.

There's nothing more to be said on that matter.

[-hh]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 12:52:22 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 3:54:25 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 25, 2019 at 1:30:32 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:

> > > ...

> > >
> > > Of course, you LIBTARDS don't REALLY believe the crap you're dishing out, so you
> > > had the lame sense not to actually buy it.
> >
> > Oh, I'm glad you mentioned this claim again, because I offered you a non-welcherable
> > wager on that, which you've seemed to have forgotten to accept.
> >
> > FYI, I did make a minor error on my offer to acknowledge:
> > when I said "How about making the wager equal to the value of ARNA at today's close?",
> > my intent was for the bet to be equal to the value of my holdings, not just a single share's price.
> >
> > Since it was my error, I'll honor what I said as well as to expand the offer to include
> > the second as listed above. So two wager offers on the table for Tom to accept are:
> >
> > a) As written, at the price of a single share, which would be just $48.42
> > b) As intended, which is equal to $48.42 * (my number of shares owned)
> >
> >
> > Alan, if Tom doesn't immediately bail, would you be willing to agree again to be the
> > independent third party arbiter to hold Tom's money?
> >
> > Usual welch-proof requirements of course: that Tom as the claimant makes first deposits
> > of suitable amount of cash with you to hold within 30 days of today, upon which I then
> > have an equal amount of time to provide cash/documentation which you are who decides
> > if it is adequate substantiation for who won, etc, etc.
> >
> >
> > FYI, I'll make this arbiter position also open to Bobby as well, if he may be interested.
> > If so, I'll amend my offer to ask if Tom would agree to provide a commission of 25%
> > or $50, whichever happens to be greater, for his time & consideration.

> ...

>
> Again, I DON'T bet cheaters and/or liars, and you are BOTH!

Funny thing that, because if your claim actually was true, you could definitively prove it
by risking (not even losing) mere $48.42.


> I don't have to bet ...

Oh, its not about the money, at least for me.


> ... I have already made a BUNDLE off these recommendations.

You could have made a "BIGGER BUNDLE" by winning $48.42 <g>

> Hmmm, I could use a brand new truck...

After only three years? Well, you can only blame yourself for buying a Ford.



-hh

[TomS]

LOL!!!

Where the HELL did you get that idea??? My truck is SEVEN YEARS OLD!!! Probably where you get all of your ideas: in the junk pile.

Your ARNA pick is continuing to TANK, down another SIX PERCENT today, for a total LOSS of over FIFTEEN PERCENT since you recommended.

BTW, ARNA isn't up 300%, it is DOWN from an all-time high of $135 - a decline of SIXTY SIX PERCENT!!!

And you claimed that they have products for sale - NOT!!! This from their last earnings:

Second Quarter 2019 Financial Results

-- Revenues totaled $1.0 million, primarily consisting of $0.9 million of
royalty revenue

-- Research and development expenses totaled $51.2 million, including $7.0
million related to non-cash share-based compensation

-- General and administrative expenses totaled $18.4 million, including $6.4
million related to non-cash share-based compensation

-- Net loss was $61.4 million or $1.24 per share

In other words, NO PRODUCT SALES WHATSOEVER!! Another one of your MANY LIES!!! Arena was over-bought and is now selling off as all your favorite Dims BASH drug companies!!!! No wonder you NEVER BOUGHT IT!!!!!

[-hh]

Ok, so then the red Explorer that's in some of your pics isn't yours. So noted.

> Your ARNA pick is continuing to TANK, down another SIX PERCENT today, for a
> total LOSS of over FIFTEEN PERCENT since you recommended.

*yawn*

> BTW, ARNA isn't up 300%, it is DOWN from an all-time high of $135 - a decline of SIXTY SIX PERCENT!!!

Except the "up 300%" statement specified versus three years ago. So then, go back
and look at 2016 and you'll see that its price ranged between roughly 14 to 20.

And even today's close of 45 vs 14 is 3:1

> And you claimed that they have products for sale - NOT!!! This from their last earnings:
>
> Second Quarter 2019 Financial Results
>
> -- Revenues totaled $1.0 million, primarily consisting of $0.9 million of
> royalty revenue

Of course, royalties only get paid when someone bought rights to produce one of
their products. Thus, their product is in production ... merely by a third party.

> -- Research and development expenses totaled $51.2 million, including $7.0
> million related to non-cash share-based compensation
>
> -- General and administrative expenses totaled $18.4 million, including $6.4
> million related to non-cash share-based compensation
>
> -- Net loss was $61.4 million or $1.24 per share
>
> In other words, NO PRODUCT SALES WHATSOEVER!! Another one of your MANY LIES!!!
> Arena was over-bought and is now selling off as all your favorite Dims BASH drug companies!!!!

Hmmm...wasn't I just asking you about buying on the dip?

"Recent Dip Presents Buying Opportunity In Arena Pharmaceuticals"

<https://seekingalpha.com/article/4293615-recent-dip-presents-buying-opportunity-arena-pharmaceuticals>

And their comments include:

"Arena Pharmaceuticals (ARNA) has taken a bit of a slide in recent weeks, and while there
may be no immediate news on the horizon, the fundamentals that brought this stock as high
as the mid $60s remain the same, if not improved....

Summary

I am bullish on Arena at these levels and place a 1-year $75 price target on the equity
of the company. That presents a substantial upside from the current price of the stock.
In my opinion, the downside risk is limited to a low of about $42 if the overall market tanks.
Even if the equity were to test these lows, I would carry extreme confidence in both
Ralinepag and Etrasimod. Arena's partner United Therapeutics has every reason to expedite
efforts on garnering Ralinepag approval, and even more reason to launch the drug with
uthority upon approval. United could also be compelled to explore an inhaled version of
Ralinepag which could add a cool $250 million to Arena's coffers. While the next 12 months
might seem a bit dull on the news front, the reward waiting could be substantial. Institutional
ownership levels are already high with this equity, so the street is waiting for reward as well.
In my opinion, the time to buy this equity is on dips like the current one. Stay tuned!

Disclosure: I am/we are long ARNA, UTHR. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my
own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have
no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article."

> No wonder you NEVER BOUGHT IT!!!!!

So you keep on claiming ... but are you willing to commit to an actual cash wager to
show that you're not just BS'ing? Nope.

Now you could put up the title to that broken old sailplane that you've still not been
able to sell after a year as collateral proof to show that you're positive you're right.
Just mail its title to Alan along with a Notarized letter of intent certifiying that if
he says you're wrong that you'll sign it over to me within 30 days of his post.


-hh

[TomS]

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Where the fuck do you come up with this bullshit, Hughie? I have NEVER owned a Ford Explorer, and don't even like them (I buy to tow)!!!!!

BTW, I DO own a 2012 F-250 Super Duty (metallic white), which I LOVE (I was joking - I really don't need a new truck)!

Free stock buying tip: there is a BIG difference between "buying the dip" and "catching a falling knife!" ARNA is the falling knife. Also, "buying the dip" means there is a discernible dip which includes a definite bottom - this has not happened with ARNA. You have just enough knowledge to be DANGEROUS!!!

Are you telling me that you actually bought this dog? I sure as hell hope it was LONG BEFORE your recommendation. If you did (even if you didn't), SELL this thing NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TomS]

BTW, they DON'T say what the royalties are for. There only product is BELVIQ, which isn't generating much in the way of sales ($100,000 at most).
https://www.arenapharm.com/pipeline/#

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> BTW, ARNA isn't up 300%, it is DOWN from an all-time high of $135 - a
> decline of SIXTY SIX PERCENT!!!
>

You say some really dumb things but this is right up there with the
most illuminating dumb comments. If you don't understand why it is such
an unintelligent and ignorant assertion then you really shouldn't be
gambling on the market. It suggests you understand *nothing* regarding
price history.

You really are just a demented old fart.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> Free stock buying tip: there is a BIG difference between "buying the
> dip" and "catching a falling knife!" ARNA is the falling knife. Also,
> "buying the dip" means there is a discernible dip which includes a
> definite bottom - this has not happened with ARNA.

What was the price June '17... August '18 to name but 2 of many
opportunities to buy in the dip.

[-hh]

On Friday, September 27, 2019 at 1:31:40 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>
> > Free stock buying tip: there is a BIG difference between "buying the
> > dip" and "catching a falling knife!" ARNA is the falling knife. Also,
> > "buying the dip" means there is a discernible dip which includes a
> > definite bottom - this has not happened with ARNA.
>
> What was the price June '17... August '18 to name but 2 of many
> opportunities to buy in the dip.

Its humorous to watch Tom struggle to save face. Here, he's trying to use
the "falling knife" bad timing principle, but he has forgotten that he himself
was guilty of violating this rule of thumb just a mere ~4 weeks ago with ALXN:

ALXN had a -10.2% loss on the day Tom supposedly bought it, and even
though the day after Tom's alleged purchase it had a further -5.5% decline,
this apparently wasn't a foolish "catch a falling knife" on Tom's part.

Instead, we're supposed to believe that ARNA's Thursday decline of -6.1%
that Tom is afraid to act on is because of good investment principles which
Tom has shown that he doesn't himself use.

And that's before we consider his self-nuking which can be paraphrased as:
"you're losing money on that which you must have never bought!"

Or that he just doesn't realize that there's ample open literature in the public
domain which is readily available. For example, the left side is the old pic,
showing a 2012 beater Ford F250 whereas the right side is the same exact
parking spot, now occupied by a much newer Expedition SUV:

http://huntzinger.com/usenet/609_Linda.jpg

Sure, it could be someone just temporarily visiting...but also backed in the
same way, and with a sun shield deployed? Why wouldn't the old vehicle
still be in that spot? Plus there's also in open lit a pic of Tom standing at
that driveway location next to a same-color red vehicle with its door open
which reveals access. Plus that also includes another vehicle present ...
hmm... looks like an old grey Chrysler Town & Country; circa MY 2000;
license plate reads "526-VFR."



-hh

[TomS]

Hey BirdTurd,

These are FACTS, you idiot! Go look them up for yourself!! What you just said is FALSE, exactly what you are (falsely) accusing Trump of!!!

[TomS]

Hey Hidin' Hughie,

I made a TEN PERCENT profit off of ALXN. True, I could have made FIFTEEN PERCENT by waiting a few trading hours, but, what the hell, TEN PERCENT is still PRETTY DAMN GOOD!!!

ARNA is a completely different story. If it is SO DAMN GOOD, I suppose you're BUYING MORE - if not, you're BLOWING SMOKE!!!!

LOL!!!!! You REALLY A DUMB SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't even tell an Expedition from an Explorer! And for the record, I still own BOTH vehicles AND the truck IS NOT a "beater" - it has less than 50k on it. If you look at the two pictures carefully you will note the change in my neighbor's landscaping - these photos were taken on DIFFERENT YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TomS]

BTW, ALXN is now DOWN to $98, $2 below where I bought it. It might even get down to $95 again, making it a potential buy. My buy and sell points I recommended here ($95 and $110) were virtually PERFECT for a short term (NOT a day) trade.

[-hh]

> I made a TEN PERCENT profit off of ALXN. True, I could have...

That all dodges the point being made, which is to question why
you claimed that ARNA was a dangerous "falling knife" from a -6%
fall, whereas you didn't consider ALXX's -11% fall to be the same
type of risk to avoid.

> ARNA is a completely different story. If it is SO DAMN GOOD,
> I suppose you're BUYING MORE - if not, you're BLOWING SMOKE!!!!

Oh, I am thinking about adding to my existing position that
you've claimed that I don't have. Question is what other
alternatives are available...one thing I'm debating is an
Annuity opportunity which pays a guaranteed 8%.

> LOL!!!!! You REALLY A DUMB SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't even
> tell an Expedition from an Explorer!

Because Ford SUVs don't have any similarity in appearance?
Besides, Expedition vs Explorer aren't really all that different
and for the latter you did claim that you "don't even like them".

> And for the record, I still own BOTH vehicles ...

So now the old beater sleeps in the garage and the new one's
stuck outside? Or is the old beater now rusting out at the
airstrip as part of a "package deal" to try to sell the old sailplane?

> AND the truck IS NOT a "beater" - it has less than 50k on it.

Sorry, mileage alone isn't the determinant for condition.
Paint condition when parked 24/7 outside, for example.

> If you look at the two pictures carefully you will note
> the change in my neighbor's landscaping - these photos were
> taken on DIFFERENT YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Except that that was why you were extended the benefit of
the doubt that you had probably replaced the old beater truck
with the newer SUV.

Even though both happened to be Fords <g>


-hh

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:25:50 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, ARNA isn't up 300%, it is DOWN from an all-time high of $135
> > > - a decline of SIXTY SIX PERCENT!!!
> > >
> >
> > You say some really dumb things but this is right up there with the
> > most illuminating dumb comments. If you don't understand why it is
> > such an unintelligent and ignorant assertion then you really
> > shouldn't be gambling on the market. It suggests you understand

> > nothing regarding price history.

> >
> > You really are just a demented old fart.
> >
>

> These are Go look them up for yourself!! What you
> just said is exactly what you are (falsely) accusing Trump
> of!!!

You are wrong on every count and you know it just as much as you know
Trump is a liar.

It's not about whether what you claim is factual but that it is so
incredibly ignorant of the facts you have ignored in order to make such
an unintelligent assertion.

The only relevant fact is you are attempting to misrepresent the
position. Now you are either doing that out of ignorance or deceit.

I am not sure your really know which.

Either way your assertion makes you look like a really dumb old fart.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> And for the record, I still own BOTH
> vehicles

So, in essence you were just lying.

Nothing new.

[TomS]

I will make one LAST attempt to educate you: the circumstances between ALXN and ARNA are TOTALLY DIFFERENT, and comparing them just reveals your ignorance of how the market works. The market over-reacted to a perceived risk to ALXN, details of which I already discussed. I took advantage of that over-reaction and profited. ARNA is a company with the PROMISE of a drug home run which has been hammered by libtard threats to ruin their (future) profitability. And Trump is with the libtards on this issue! In other words, it doesn't MATTER who wins in 2020, ARNA is SCREWED! And the market has repriced ARNA's stock accordingly.

And, if you had ANY common sense and had listened to me, I could have saved you a FIFTEEN PERCENT LOSS in ARNA - AND bought it back CHEAPER! But, noooooooo, you think you know best and ARNA will recover. Talk about playing roulette!

One thing I have noticed about you libtards, you NEVER admit that you were wrong, EVEN in the face of OVERWHELMING evidence!!! That's why you're still WORKING for a living!!!!!!

>
>
> > ARNA is a completely different story. If it is SO DAMN GOOD,
> > I suppose you're BUYING MORE - if not, you're BLOWING SMOKE!!!!
>
> Oh, I am thinking about adding to my existing position that
> you've claimed that I don't have. Question is what other
> alternatives are available...one thing I'm debating is an
> Annuity opportunity which pays a guaranteed 8%.

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!

ANNUITY?!?!?!?!?!?!? Why don't you just SEND ALL YOUR MONEY to these cheats? JUST SAY NO to annuities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't have time to waste on this dog, but check this out:
https://www.fisherinvestments.com/en-us/offers/annuities-in-retirement

BTW, as much as I HATE your politics, I am actually trying to save you from yourself!

>
>
> > LOL!!!!! You REALLY A DUMB SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't even
> > tell an Expedition from an Explorer!
>
> Because Ford SUVs don't have any similarity in appearance?
> Besides, Expedition vs Explorer aren't really all that different
> and for the latter you did claim that you "don't even like them".

"Aren't really all that different?" You're SHITTING me, aren't you? That is like saying your Porche and a Mustang aren't all that different!

>
> > And for the record, I still own BOTH vehicles ...
>
> So now the old beater sleeps in the garage and the new one's
> stuck outside? Or is the old beater now rusting out at the
> airstrip as part of a "package deal" to try to sell the old sailplane?

I don't own ANY beaters...

>
> > AND the truck IS NOT a "beater" - it has less than 50k on it.
>
> Sorry, mileage alone isn't the determinant for condition.
> Paint condition when parked 24/7 outside, for example.

Ditto.

>
> > If you look at the two pictures carefully you will note
> > the change in my neighbor's landscaping - these photos were
> > taken on DIFFERENT YEARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Except that that was why you were extended the benefit of
> the doubt that you had probably replaced the old beater truck
> with the newer SUV.

Ditto squared.

BTW, how OLD is your Porche?

[-hh]

TomS wrote:
> I will make one LAST attempt to educate you: the circumstances between ALXN and ARNA are
> TOTALLY DIFFERENT, and comparing them just reveals your ignorance of how the market works.

Indeed, because ALXN fall was faster.

> The market over-reacted to a perceived risk to ALXN, details of which I
> already discussed. I took advantage of that over-reaction and profited.

Actually, you took advantage of the behavioral rebound after the knife drop,
as since illustrated with how it’s been decline steadily and has dropped
below your buy point plus some.

> ARNA is a company with the PROMISE …

Yup, and it’s based on them having delivered the goods before, plus the
current drug trial reports. YMMV as to just how much risk is involved, but
as I noted, the Institutions are still heavily invested, making it interesting.

> Talk about playing roulette!

All Stocks have risks. If you don’t want risk, go buy an Annuity <g>

>> > ARNA is a completely different story. If it is SO DAMN GOOD,
>> > I suppose you're BUYING MORE - if not, you're BLOWING SMOKE!!!!
>>
>> Oh, I am thinking about adding to my existing position that
>> you've claimed that I don't have. Question is what other
>> alternatives are available...one thing I'm debating is an
>> Annuity opportunity which pays a guaranteed 8%.
>
> ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!
>
> ANNUITY?!?!?!?!?!?!?

An Annuity is merely another tool in the retirement investment toolbox,
and of course there’s trade-offs. But the same is true too for a Stock,
Bond, Fund, Cash, etc.

> Why don't you just SEND ALL YOUR MONEY
> to these cheats? JUST SAY NO to annuities!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cheats? Nah. They’re merely a business providing a service, which
is a trade-off between the rate of return and the investment risk.
If you want lower risk, you have to pay for security. And they’re
basically an open market commodity product, so you can shop for
best value and avoid any actual “rip offs”.

Plus you’re overlooking where I said that my interest is because of an
opportunity of an 8% rate of return ... yes, 8% on an Annuity.

Care to show anyplace today that’s selling an 8% guaranteed rate of
return (yes, after expenses) product with low risk? I’ll wait.

>> > LOL!!!!! You REALLY A DUMB SHIT!!!!!!!!!!!! You can't even
>> > tell an Expedition from an Explorer!
>>
>> Because Ford SUVs don't have any similarity in appearance?
>> Besides, Expedition vs Explorer aren't really all that different
>> and for the latter you did claim that you "don't even like them".
>
> "Aren't really all that different?" You're SHITTING me, aren't you?

Ford has design language which both SUVs follow.
Plus there’s literal sharing from Ford’s parts bin.

> That is like saying your Porche and a Mustang aren't all that different!

I have a “Porche”?

>> > And for the record, I still own BOTH vehicles ...
>>
>> So now the old beater sleeps in the garage and the new one's
>> stuck outside? Or is the old beater now rusting out at the
>> airstrip as part of a "package deal" to try to sell the old sailplane?
>
> I don't own ANY beaters...

LOL...yeah, sure. Dodge noted.

> BTW, how OLD is your Porche?

And a distraction attempt too.


-hh

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> BTW, how is your Porche?
>

How is your veranda?

[TomS]

The bottom line is that if you followed my advice on ARNA you would have SAVED 15%. Add that to my other recommendations and you're up to FOURTY NINE PERCENT! What ALXN has done since I sold it is irrelevant, and you KNOW IT! ARNA is now down to a critical support level; if it drops thru it, it will be in free-fall.

I take it you DIDN'T read Fisher's assessment of annuities; TOO BAD for you. Read this:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-annuities-are-a-bad-idea-for-almost-everyone-2018-03-05
If you want income w/o the problems of annuities, buy PONAX, that is what I own.

[TomS]

Hey BigTurd,

How is your NEST?

[-hh]

TomS wrote:

> -hh wrote:
> > Plus you’re overlooking where I said that my interest is because of an
> > opportunity of an 8% rate of return ... yes, 8% on an Annuity.
> >
> > Care to show anyplace today that’s selling an 8% guaranteed rate of
> > return (yes, after expenses) product with low risk? I’ll wait.

Silence from Thomas.

> The bottom line is that if you followed my advice on ARNA you
> would have SAVED 15%.

Or I would have made less than +300%, a bit more than the +49%
that you’ve tried to brag about.

> What ALXN has done since I sold it is irrelevant, and you KNOW IT!

Not at all, since those comments were noting how you were gambling.

> ARNA is now down to a critical support level; if it drops thru it, it will be in free-fall.

Oh, is this like how you claimed it was on “sell” lists that you’ve not ever produced?

> I take it you DIDN'T read Fisher's assessment of annuities; TOO BAD for you.
> Read this:
> <https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-annuities-are-a-bad-idea-for-almost-everyone-2018-03-05>

Oh, I read it and the above - it’s the usual script that one sees from investment firms
that want you to spend your money with them instead.

Note how they sidestep around the reality that the Market goes in irregular jerks
which has included periods of flat returns which can last half a retirement lifetime.
If one of these flat spots (which don’t have to be negative) hit just as you retire,
the ramifications are that you’re screwed, as retirement withdrawals then erode
your capital and thus, also all future income. See:

<http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-graphic.html>

TL;DR: the median twenty year Market return = 4.1%.

> If you want income w/o the problems of annuities, buy PONAX, that is what I own.

Except that its load-adjusted return is less than half (& higher risk) than the
opportunity I’m considering

FYI, as your eldercare medical care bills mount, you’ll be forced to cash out
your PONAX position to pay them (as well as to become eligible for Medicaid)
which cuts your income stream, which can’t happen with a non-refundable Annuity.

As I said, they’re all just merely tools in the tool box with varying trade-offs....

-hh

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Sunday, September 29, 2019 at 1:59:42 AM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, how is your Porche?
> > >
> >
> > How is your veranda?
> >
> > You really are just a demented old fart.
> >
>

> How is your ?

ZZZZZZZZZ

[TomS]

Hidin' Hughie,

You DIDN'T read the link about annuities, did you? They TAKE YOUR MONEY and DOLE IT BACK OUT. You are obviously to full of yourself to listen to reason, so I give up.

And you seem SMUG about LOSING FIFTEEN PERCENT, otherwise called SELF-FLAGELLATION! Whatever...

Hughie, if you buy PONAX you STILL OWN THE PRINCIPAL!!!!!

You're just TOO DUMB TO HELP...

[-hh]

TomS wrote:

> -hh wrote:
>> Oh, I read it and the above - it’s the usual script that one sees from investment firms
>> that want you to spend your money with them instead.
>>
>> Note how they sidestep around the reality that the Market goes in irregular jerks
>> which has included periods of flat returns which can last half a retirement lifetime.
>> If one of these flat spots (which don’t have to be negative) hit just as you retire,
>> the ramifications are that you’re screwed, as retirement withdrawals then erode
>> your capital and thus, also all future income. See:
>>
>> <http://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/01/02/business/20110102-metrics-graphic.html>
>> TL;DR: the median twenty year Market return = 4.1%.

Lack of acknowledgement by Tom of Market realities.

>> > If you want income w/o the problems of annuities, buy PONAX, that is what I own.
>>
>> Except that its load-adjusted return is less than half (& higher risk) than the
>> opportunity I’m considering

Still waiting for Tom to show a product that has a guaranteed 8% return.

>> FYI, as your eldercare medical care bills mount, you’ll be forced to cash out
>> your PONAX position to pay them (as well as to become eligible for Medicaid)
>> which cuts your income stream, which can’t happen with a non-refundable Annuity.
>>
>> As I said, they’re all just merely tools in the tool box with varying trade-offs....
>

>You DIDN'T read the link about annuities, did you? They TAKE YOUR MONEY and
> DOLE IT BACK OUT.

Just like the bond fund you’re promoting.

The difference is that one typically surrenders your principle with an annuity, which
is why they can offer higher rates of return, as well as the “never runs out” feature.
That’s part of the trade-off. Plus as I pointed out above, while one (typically) don’t
get an Annuity’s principle returned, neither can anyone else take it away either.
You can’t make that claim on your PONAX bond fund.

FYI, a defined-benefit pension basically is an annuity. So why are pensions invariably
considered to be desirable, while the product they’re modeled after ... isn’t?

> You are obviously to full of yourself to listen to reason, so I give up.

Go ahead and try to do that, particularly since your own cited website also says
that annuities *should* be part of your retirement planning investments mix:

<https://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-annuities-should-be-part-of-your-retirement-pension-2019-08-12>

Golly, is Tom cherry-picking for just what he want to hear, because of his confirmation bias?

> And you seem SMUG about LOSING FIFTEEN PERCENT, otherwise called
> SELF-FLAGELLATION! Whatever...

No, I’m recognizing and accepting that Market investments have risks and variance.
That’s also why one diversifies.

> ... if you buy PONAX you STILL OWN THE PRINCIPAL!!!!!

Speaking of which, your principle lost 5% this year (so far).

> You're just TOO DUMB TO HELP...

What you claim as “help” just isn’t.


-hh

[-hh]

Correction: I was looking at the five year values and
misattributed the period, although it did just give back
an equivalent amount in the past quarter too, resulting in
it being just slightly better than flat YTD. But the point
remains unchanged: even though bond funds are arguably
safer than stocks against the risk of loss of capital, they
still have a finite risk.

[TomS]

Hey Hidin' Hughie,

You flippingly use "guaranteed" - who guarantees the company underwriting the annuity if they go bankrupt? Part of the 8% return is YOUR OWN MONEY! So you can't compare that to a bond fund like PONAX.

Your comments reek of a neophyte investor BADLY in need of good advice. You should review all of this with a fee-based fiduciary that can review your complete financial situation because you are not qualified to do so.

BTW, I have a 5.9% gain of PONAX NOT counting distributions, and the total YTD gain is 5%. PONAX is the best of the best for income funds.

[-hh]

TomS wrote:
> You flippingly use "guaranteed" - who guarantees the company underwriting
> the annuity if they go bankrupt?

Typically, the answer is that after the underwriting fails (despite laws on
minimum reserve levels), the State-level guaranty association pays. The
association has the authority and obligation to levy assessments on the
other member insurers to raise the funds to compensate the affected customers.

See, you learned something today, despite your bravado attempts.

> Part of the 8% return is YOUR OWN MONEY! So you can't compare that
> to a bond fund like PONAX.

Oh, there’s a lot that can’t be directly compared. Different tools in the toolbox, etc.
For example, for asset security, you’d have to step up to a Treasury Bond Fund,
which means you’d take another hit on yield.

> Your comments reek of a neophyte investor BADLY in need of good advice.

Because I’m *not* screaming in CAPS and using excessive punctuation!!!!!???? /s

> You should review all of this with a fee-based fiduciary that can review
> your complete financial situation because you are not qualified to do so.

Since an Annuity is an insurance product, the go-to is a FLMI.

> BTW, I have a 5.9% gain of PONAX NOT counting distributions, and the
> total YTD gain is 5%.

Except that a 5% yield is still short of 8%.

Plus the point of the bond fund is regular income, not capital appreciation,
and the “gain” you’re trying to claim only can occur if you cash out, which
then means then no dividend income...choose your poison.

> PONAX is the best of the best for income funds.

Still not 8% though.


-hh

[TomS]

> then means then no dividend incomhttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/joe-bidens-son-hunter-kicked-out-navy-cocaine-n227811e...choose your poison.

>
> > PONAX is the best of the best for income funds.
>
> Still not 8% though.
>
>
> -hh

... and you are NOT seeking PROFESSIONAL investment advice because????

Hughie, you are OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE! It's no skin off of my nose, so I don't care one way or the other.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> ... and you are seeking investment advice because????
>
> Hughie, you are It's no skin off of my nose, so I

> don't care one way or the other.

Says he who thinks an annuity pays you back your money...

...can you take your own advice, Flaccid?

[-hh]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 12:33:25 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> > > You flippingly use "guaranteed" - who guarantees the company underwriting
> > > the annuity if they go bankrupt?
> >
> > Typically, the answer is that after the underwriting fails (despite laws on
> > minimum reserve levels), the State-level guaranty association pays. The
> > association has the authority and obligation to levy assessments on the
> > other member insurers to raise the funds to compensate the affected customers.
> >
> > See, you learned something today, despite your bravado attempts.

Silence from Tom. Shocking.

> > > Part of the 8% return is YOUR OWN MONEY! So you can't compare that
> > > to a bond fund like PONAX.
> >
> > Oh, there’s a lot that can’t be directly compared. Different tools in the toolbox, etc.
> > For example, for asset security, you’d have to step up to a Treasury Bond Fund,
> > which means you’d take another hit on yield.
> >
> > > Your comments reek of a neophyte investor BADLY in need of good advice.
> >
> > Because I’m *not* screaming in CAPS and using excessive punctuation!!!!!???? /s
> >
> > > You should review all of this with a fee-based fiduciary that can review
> > > your complete financial situation because you are not qualified to do so.
> >
> > Since an Annuity is an insurance product, the go-to is a FLMI.
> >
> > > BTW, I have a 5.9% gain of PONAX NOT counting distributions, and the
> > > total YTD gain is 5%.
> >
> > Except that a 5% yield is still short of 8%.

Naturally, we don't expect Tom to ever product a product which at least matches
this 8% rate opportunity I have. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that he hasn't tried
the denial gambit, but if he does, I'll offer him a "Yes it does" wager and take him
to the bank.

> > Plus the point of the bond fund is regular income, not capital appreciation,
> > and the “gain” you’re trying to claim only can occur if you cash out, which

> > then means then no dividend...choose your poison.

(bad troll URL paste deleted to restore original text)
Noting Tom's self-nuke of a "have your cake and eat it too" contradiction.

> > > PONAX is the best of the best for income funds.
> >
> > Still not 8% though.
>

> ... and you are NOT seeking PROFESSIONAL investment advice because????

False, for I've already noted that the relevant professional here is a FLMI.
Have you found in Google yet what a "FLMI" is, Tom? /s

> Hughie, you are OUT OF YOUR LEAGUE! It's no skin off of my nose, so I don't
> care one way or the other.

Incorrect. Tom's merely demonstrating classical narcissism ... which is why any
pushback is "skin off his nose" ... along with an inferiority complex, because he
knows that he's getting spanked, which bruises his narcissistically fragile ego.


-hh

[-hh]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> ...
> Says [Tom] who thinks an annuity pays you back your money...

Well, in a pedantic sense, *every* investment pays you back your own money.

For example, interest on a bank account is basically the bank paying you
"rent" for them to have held your money for some set period, where they
used it for their own financial benefit (i.e., earned more than they paid you).

Similarly, products such as Mortgages and Annuities are basically priced by
assaying the money's "present value" vs some future repayment date(s).

For these, a primary contributing variable is time and the interest paid on
the likes of a home Mortgage is typically non-trivial: for a 30 year loan,
the interest rate at where the interest paid is 100% of the principle is ~5%.

Similarly, for a simple Annuity, the simplified "Time until return of Principle"
is merely (100/Interest Rate). For example, an 8% is (1/0.08) = 12.5 years.


-hh

[Bigbird]

-hh wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> > ...
> > Says [Tom] who thinks an annuity pays you back your money...
>

> Well, in a pedantic sense, every investment pays you back your own
> money.
>

An annuity is not so much an investment as insurance; so in as much as
insurance pays you back your premiums.

With an annuity you give up your rights to the lump sum in exchange
for a guaranteed income.

> For example, interest on a bank account is basically the bank paying
> you "rent" for them to have held your money for some set period,
> where they used it for their own financial benefit (i.e., earned more
> than they paid you).
>
> Similarly, products such as Mortgages and Annuities are basically
> priced by assaying the money's "present value" vs some future
> repayment date(s).
>
> For these, a primary contributing variable is time and the interest
> paid on the likes of a home Mortgage is typically non-trivial: for a
> 30 year loan, the interest rate at where the interest paid is 100% of
> the principle is ~5%.
>
> Similarly, for a simple Annuity, the simplified "Time until return of
> Principle" is merely (100/Interest Rate). For example, an 8% is
> (1/0.08) = 12.5 years.
>
>
> -hh

[-hh]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 11:07:50 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> > > ...
> > > Says [Tom] who thinks an annuity pays you back your money...
> >
> > Well, in a pedantic sense, every investment pays you back
> > your own money.
>
> An annuity is not so much an investment as insurance; so in
> as much as insurance pays you back your premiums.
>
> With an annuity you give up your rights to the lump sum in
> exchange for a guaranteed income.

Sure, but my point is merely that Annuities, investments
and insurances all are fundamentally just a value exchange
with a temporal element component: each one can be summarized
down to a "money now" being exchanged for a "money later"
with varying restrictions, risks, cash flow direction, etc.


-hh

[Bigbird]

Yet the point is that you get *none* of your money back from an annuity
as Flaccid claimed.

[-hh]

On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 11:07:50 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> > > -hh wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > ...
> > > > > Says [Tom] who thinks an annuity pays you back your money...
> > > >
> > > > Well, in a pedantic sense, every investment pays you back
> > > > your own money.
> > >
> > > An annuity is not so much an investment as insurance; so in
> > > as much as insurance pays you back your premiums.
> > >
> > > With an annuity you give up your rights to the lump sum in
> > > exchange for a guaranteed income.
> >
> > Sure, but my point is merely that Annuities, investments
> > and insurances all are fundamentally just a value exchange
> > with a temporal element component: each one can be summarized
> > down to a "money now" being exchanged for a "money later"
> > with varying restrictions, risks, cash flow direction, etc.
> >
>
> Yet the point is that you get *none* of your money back from an annuity
> as Flaccid claimed.

Well, that depends on two things.

First, there are Annuity products today that have a guaranteed
return of premium under certain conditions.

Second, it assumes that you die before ever receiving the first
monthly repayment (or similar), along with there not being any
other provisions, such as premium refund, survivorship, or
having a specified "certain" period (e.g. 10, 15, 20 years).

FYI, a "certain" is a contract provision where the Annuity is
guaranteed to pay out for the identified period regardless of
if the owner (/beneficiary) is still alive or not.


-hh

[TomS]

Hey Hidin' Hughie,

Put EVERYTHING you own into this turd, it will serve you right. I only showed you how to get a FOURTY NINE PERCENT return in less than 2 months. Of course you were too stupid and full of yourself to take advantage of it.

[TomS]

On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:

> TomS wrote:
> > You flippingly use "guaranteed" - who guarantees the company underwriting
> > the annuity if they go bankrupt?
>
> Typically, the answer is that after the underwriting fails (despite laws on
> minimum reserve levels), the State-level guaranty association pays. The
> association has the authority and obligation to levy assessments on the
> other member insurers to raise the funds to compensate the affected customers.
>
> See, you learned something today, despite your bravado attempts.

Annuity guarantees ARE NOT open-ended, their ARE limits. But you, unlike me, probably don't have enough assets to hit the $500,000 present value guarantee in NJ.

>
> > Part of the 8% return is YOUR OWN MONEY! So you can't compare that
> > to a bond fund like PONAX.
>
> Oh, there’s a lot that can’t be directly compared. Different tools in the toolbox, etc.
> For example, for asset security, you’d have to step up to a Treasury Bond Fund,
> which means you’d take another hit on yield.
>
> > Your comments reek of a neophyte investor BADLY in need of good advice.
>
> Because I’m *not* screaming in CAPS and using excessive punctuation!!!!!???? /s

LOL! TOTALLY non-responsive. What are you afraid of, the truth?

>
> > You should review all of this with a fee-based fiduciary that can review
> > your complete financial situation because you are not qualified to do so.
>
> Since an Annuity is an insurance product, the go-to is a FLMI.
>
> > BTW, I have a 5.9% gain of PONAX NOT counting distributions, and the
> > total YTD gain is 5%.
>
> Except that a 5% yield is still short of 8%.

This is apples and oranges - if you buy an income fund you STILL own the principle. Getting the principle back with an annuity entails a high surrender charge.

>
> Plus the point of the bond fund is regular income, not capital appreciation,
> and the “gain” you’re trying to claim only can occur if you cash out, which
> then means then no dividend income...choose your poison.
>
> > PONAX is the best of the best for income funds.
>
> Still not 8% though.

And STILL not an annuity.

[Bigbird]

-hh wrote:

> On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 2:27:58 PM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> > -hh wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 11:07:50 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> > > > -hh wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tuesday, October 1, 2019 at 6:55:53 AM UTC-4, Bigbird
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > Says [Tom] who thinks an annuity pays you back your money...
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, in a pedantic sense, every investment pays you back
> > > > > your own money.
> > > >
> > > > An annuity is not so much an investment as insurance; so in
> > > > as much as insurance pays you back your premiums.
> > > >
> > > > With an annuity you give up your rights to the lump sum in
> > > > exchange for a guaranteed income.
> > >
> > > Sure, but my point is merely that Annuities, investments
> > > and insurances all are fundamentally just a value exchange
> > > with a temporal element component: each one can be summarized
> > > down to a "money now" being exchanged for a "money later"
> > > with varying restrictions, risks, cash flow direction, etc.
> > >
> >

> > Yet the point is that you get none of your money back from an

> > annuity as Flaccid claimed.
>
>
> Well, that depends on two things.
>

Not really; that is the foundation of the "annuity" though there may be
products with other incentives. I am not aware of those that would
ordinarily pay the fund back to the beneficiary.

[-hh]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 12:39:26 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> > > You flippingly use "guaranteed" - who guarantees the company underwriting
> > > the annuity if they go bankrupt?
> >
> > Typically, the answer is that after the underwriting fails (despite laws on
> > minimum reserve levels), the State-level guaranty association pays. The
> > association has the authority and obligation to levy assessments on the
> > other member insurers to raise the funds to compensate the affected customers.
> >
> > See, you learned something today, despite your bravado attempts.
>
> Annuity guarantees ARE NOT open-ended, their ARE limits.

That's a goalpost move, because you first tried to suggest no safety net:

"who guarantees the company underwriting the annuity if they go bankrupt?"

> But you, unlike me, probably don't have enough assets to hit the $500,000
> present value guarantee in NJ.

Another goalpost move: you were still proven wrong on your insinuation on risk.

Hint: if one was interested in putting more than the relevant guarantee limit
into Annuities, the obvious approach is to split them up to keep each individual
policy below the limit. There are provisions though where they shouldn't be
obviously identical clones, but that's easily-enough addressed to circumvent.

> > > Part of the 8% return is YOUR OWN MONEY! So you can't compare that
> > > to a bond fund like PONAX.
> >
> > Oh, there’s a lot that can’t be directly compared. Different tools in the toolbox, etc.
> > For example, for asset security, you’d have to step up to a Treasury Bond Fund,
> > which means you’d take another hit on yield.
> >
> > > Your comments reek of a neophyte investor BADLY in need of good advice.
> >
> > Because I’m *not* screaming in CAPS and using excessive punctuation!!!!!???? /s
>
> LOL! TOTALLY non-responsive. What are you afraid of, the truth?

You tried to ask a smart-ass "gotcha!" question .... only to discover that the answer
didn't suit either of your agendas. Sucks to be you.

> > > You should review all of this with a fee-based fiduciary that can review
> > > your complete financial situation because you are not qualified to do so.
> >
> > Since an Annuity is an insurance product, the go-to is a FLMI.
> >
> > > BTW, I have a 5.9% gain of PONAX NOT counting distributions, and the
> > > total YTD gain is 5%.
> >
> > Except that a 5% yield is still short of 8%.
>
> This is apples and oranges - if you buy an income fund you STILL own the principle.

Not quite: you merely have rights to the market value of your shares.

That's not a guarantee that:
* the share market value will never go down;
* the company won't ever go bankrupt;
* the company won't ever reduce the fund's dividend.

> Getting the principle back with an annuity entails a high surrender charge.

Not always. The contract's terms determines *if* and how much. For example,
a guaranteed principal annuity commonly has a zero penalty exit after 5-10 years.

> > Plus the point of the bond fund is regular income, not capital appreciation,
> > and the “gain” you’re trying to claim only can occur if you cash out, which
> > then means then no dividend income...choose your poison.
> >
> > > PONAX is the best of the best for income funds.
> >
> > Still not 8% though.
>
> And STILL not an annuity.

No one claimed that it was.

And look, I get it that you prefer to keep your worth defined in cash/equivalents
which means that you don't trust spending your money on insurance products.

But that's your choice to take, including the risk you're incurring by not having
Long Term Care insurance to pay for Assisted Living / Nursing Home costs,
which can easily be a +$10K/pp-month expense to pay.


-hh

[-hh]

Yes, that's the foundation of a classical 'simple' annuity,
but the Annuity market has become a lot more complex with
various options, some of which address the 'surrendered
principle' point.

> I am not aware of those that would ordinarily pay the fund
> back to the beneficiary.

The 'guaranteed principal' annuity form that I mentioned is an example.

FWIW, I've also seen mention of another variation on the "certain"
feature; its configuration is a minimum guarantee, where the
minimum criteria is 100% repayment of the original principle.
Can't find a good online cite for it; I'll keep looking for it.

Overall, all this comes down to is what options exist which
have which features and trade-offs. For a "Bond vs Annuity"
case study, the Bond features principle retention (more or less)
but has a lower rate of return than the Annuity where the
principle is classically surrendered. For how good or bad of
a deal this may be, one can do the math where one takes an
equal income stream from both, but then takes the Annuity's
higher return rate as a notional reinvestment stream. Applied
to the 5% vs 8% example, the 3% delta, put into the same 5%
Bond fund and compounded, results in the Annuity's higher
returns resulting in a re-accumulation of the original principle
at ~20 years.

Granted, this is just the basic math; there's a lot of risks,
requirements, and assumptions being ignored, such as mortality
risks and time horizons. Tom, in his mid-70s, may decide that
its a bad deal because statistically, its very unlikely for
him to live to age 95 to reach 'break even', but someone who's
still in their 50s may very well conclude the exact opposite.


-hh

[-hh]

Found an example; here's an Annuity calculator page:

<https://www.schwab.com/public/schwab/investing/accounts_products/investment/annuities/income_annuity/fixed_income_annuity_calculator>

Plug in a (random) scenario and go to the results page, the last
(4th) option listed is:

"Joint Life with cash refund.

You will receive this income during the lifetimes of both
annuitants. If one annuitant passes away you will continue
to receive income until the death of the other annuitant.
If both annuitants pass away your beneficiaries will receive
a lump-sum payment of the original investment less income
payments made to date."

FYI, for a scenario I plugged in, the premium change to
include this optional feature was approximately +1%.

[TomS]

On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 4:11:07 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 12:39:26 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > TomS wrote:
> > > > You flippingly use "guaranteed" - who guarantees the company underwriting
> > > > the annuity if they go bankrupt?
> > >
> > > Typically, the answer is that after the underwriting fails (despite laws on
> > > minimum reserve levels), the State-level guaranty association pays. The
> > > association has the authority and obligation to levy assessments on the
> > > other member insurers to raise the funds to compensate the affected customers.
> > >
> > > See, you learned something today, despite your bravado attempts.
> >
> > Annuity guarantees ARE NOT open-ended, their ARE limits.
>
> That's a goalpost move, because you first tried to suggest no safety net:
>
> "who guarantees the company underwriting the annuity if they go bankrupt?"
>
> > But you, unlike me, probably don't have enough assets to hit the $500,000
> > present value guarantee in NJ.
>
> Another goalpost move: you were still proven wrong on your insinuation on risk.
>
> Hint: if one was interested in putting more than the relevant guarantee limit
> into Annuities, the obvious approach is to split them up to keep each individual
> policy below the limit. There are provisions though where they shouldn't be
> obviously identical clones, but that's easily-enough addressed to circumvent.

Hardly. You have represented yourself, and other libtards here, as being somewhat wealthy. Turns out you have a pedestrian portfolio (< 500k). I am thinking as a multimillionaire.

>
>
> > > > Part of the 8% return is YOUR OWN MONEY! So you can't compare that
> > > > to a bond fund like PONAX.
> > >
> > > Oh, there’s a lot that can’t be directly compared. Different tools in the toolbox, etc.
> > > For example, for asset security, you’d have to step up to a Treasury Bond Fund,
> > > which means you’d take another hit on yield.
> > >
> > > > Your comments reek of a neophyte investor BADLY in need of good advice.
> > >
> > > Because I’m *not* screaming in CAPS and using excessive punctuation!!!!!???? /s
> >
> > LOL! TOTALLY non-responsive. What are you afraid of, the truth?
>
>
> You tried to ask a smart-ass "gotcha!" question .... only to discover that the answer
> didn't suit either of your agendas. Sucks to be you.

Hardly, ANSWER THE QUESTION!

>
>
> > > > You should review all of this with a fee-based fiduciary that can review
> > > > your complete financial situation because you are not qualified to do so.
> > >
> > > Since an Annuity is an insurance product, the go-to is a FLMI.
> > >
> > > > BTW, I have a 5.9% gain of PONAX NOT counting distributions, and the
> > > > total YTD gain is 5%.
> > >
> > > Except that a 5% yield is still short of 8%.
> >
> > This is apples and oranges - if you buy an income fund you STILL own the principle.
>
> Not quite: you merely have rights to the market value of your shares.
>
> That's not a guarantee that:
> * the share market value will never go down;
> * the company won't ever go bankrupt;
> * the company won't ever reduce the fund's dividend.

Do you practice stupid, or does it come naturally? You surrender the PRINCIPLE when you buy an annuity.

>
>
> > Getting the principle back with an annuity entails a high surrender charge.
>
> Not always. The contract's terms determines *if* and how much. For example,
> a guaranteed principal annuity commonly has a zero penalty exit after 5-10 years.
>
>
> > > Plus the point of the bond fund is regular income, not capital appreciation,
> > > and the “gain” you’re trying to claim only can occur if you cash out, which
> > > then means then no dividend income...choose your poison.
> > >
> > > > PONAX is the best of the best for income funds.
> > >
> > > Still not 8% though.
> >
> > And STILL not an annuity.
>
> No one claimed that it was.
>
> And look, I get it that you prefer to keep your worth defined in cash/equivalents
> which means that you don't trust spending your money on insurance products.
>
> But that's your choice to take, including the risk you're incurring by not having
> Long Term Care insurance to pay for Assisted Living / Nursing Home costs,
> which can easily be a +$10K/pp-month expense to pay.
>
>
> -hh

Since you didn't read the reference, I will quote:

"Annuities are such terrible investments that the minute the government passed a law specifying that financial professionals had to act in their clients best interest, annuity sales fell off a cliff."

Does this mean NOTHING to you? Are you TOO STUPID to understand the words? So far the answer is a resounding YES!!!

[-hh]

TomS wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 4:11:07 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
>> On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 at 12:39:26 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
>> > On Monday, September 30, 2019 at 8:19:51 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
>> > > TomS wrote:
>> > > > You flippingly use "guaranteed" - who guarantees the company underwriting
>> > > > the annuity if they go bankrupt?
>> > >
>> > > Typically, the answer is that after the underwriting fails (despite laws on
>> > > minimum reserve levels), the State-level guaranty association pays. The
>> > > association has the authority and obligation to levy assessments on the
>> > > other member insurers to raise the funds to compensate the affected customers.
>> > >
>> > > See, you learned something today, despite your bravado attempts.
>> >
>> > Annuity guarantees ARE NOT open-ended, their ARE limits.
>>
>> That's a goalpost move, because you first tried to suggest no safety net:
>> "who guarantees the company underwriting the annuity if they go bankrupt?"

Dodge.

>> > But you, unlike me, probably don't have enough assets to hit the $500,000
>> > present value guarantee in NJ.
>>
>> Another goalpost move: you were still proven wrong on your insinuation on risk.
>>
>> Hint: if one was interested in putting more than the relevant guarantee limit
>> into Annuities, the obvious approach is to split them up to keep each individual
>> policy below the limit. There are provisions though where they shouldn't be
>> obviously identical clones, but that's easily-enough addressed to circumvent.
>
> Hardly. You have represented yourself, and other libtards here, as being somewhat wealthy.
> Turns out you have a pedestrian portfolio (< 500k).

Oh? Care to place a wager on your above claim?
Or are you going to find an excuse to bail yet again?
$100 says you’ll ultimately bail...yet again.

> I am thinking as a multimillionaire.

Who’s been shown as unable to risk even $30. Deeds, not words.

>> > > > Part of the 8% return is YOUR OWN MONEY! So you can't compare that
>> > > > to a bond fund like PONAX.
>> > >
>> > > Oh, there’s a lot that can’t be directly compared. Different tools in the toolbox, etc.
>> > > For example, for asset security, you’d have to step up to a Treasury Bond Fund,
>> > > which means you’d take another hit on yield.
>> > >
>> > > > Your comments reek of a neophyte investor BADLY in need of good advice.
>> > >
>> > > Because I’m *not* screaming in CAPS and using excessive punctuation!!!!!???? /s
>> >
>> > LOL! TOTALLY non-responsive. What are you afraid of, the truth?
>>
>> You tried to ask a smart-ass "gotcha!" question .... only to discover that the answer
>> didn't suit either of your agendas. Sucks to be you.
>
> Hardly, ANSWER THE QUESTION!

Which was what?

>> > > > You should review all of this with a fee-based fiduciary that can review
>> > > > your complete financial situation because you are not qualified to do so.
>> > >
>> > > Since an Annuity is an insurance product, the go-to is a FLMI.
>> > >
>> > > > BTW, I have a 5.9% gain of PONAX NOT counting distributions, and the
>> > > > total YTD gain is 5%.
>> > >
>> > > Except that a 5% yield is still short of 8%.
>> >
>> > This is apples and oranges - if you buy an income fund you STILL own the principle.
>>
>> Not quite: you merely have rights to the market value of your shares.
>>
>> That's not a guarantee that:
>> * the share market value will never go down;
>> * the company won't ever go bankrupt;
>> * the company won't ever reduce the fund's dividend.
>
> Do you practice stupid, or does it come naturally? You surrender the PRINCIPLE when you buy an annuity.

Not always. There are Annuity forms with principle return provisions, as already noted:

>> > Getting the principle back with an annuity entails a high surrender charge.
>>
>> Not always. The contract's terms determines *if* and how much. For example,
>> a guaranteed principal annuity commonly has a zero penalty exit after 5-10 years.

See?

>> > > Plus the point of the bond fund is regular income, not capital appreciation,
>> > > and the “gain” you’re trying to claim only can occur if you cash out, which
>> > > then means then no dividend income...choose your poison.
>> > >
>> > > > PONAX is the best of the best for income funds.
>> > >
>> > > Still not 8% though.
>> >
>> > And STILL not an annuity.
>>
>> No one claimed that it was.
>>
>> And look, I get it that you prefer to keep your worth defined in cash/equivalents
>> which means that you don't trust spending your money on insurance products.
>>
>> But that's your choice to take, including the risk you're incurring by not having
>> Long Term Care insurance to pay for Assisted Living / Nursing Home costs,
>> which can easily be a +$10K/pp-month expense to pay.
>

> Since you didn't read the reference, I will quote:
>
> "Annuities are such terrible investments that the minute the government passed a law
> specifying that financial professionals had to act in their clients best interest, annuity
> sales fell off a cliff."
>
> Does this mean NOTHING to you? Are you TOO STUPID to understand the words?
> So far the answer is a resounding YES!!!

You’d better go fact-check your supposedly authoritative source. Suggest you start
by finding out what the actual implementation date was of the fiduciary law they cited
and post it here.


-hh

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> Do you practice stupid, or does it come naturally? You surrender the

> when you buy an annuity.

Something you obviously just learned as previously you claimed "Part of

the 8% return is YOUR OWN MONEY! "

You really should take some professional advice (financial or
psychological) before dabbling in the markets if you know so little
about financial investments... especially as you also struggle with the
math.

You really are just a demented old fart.

[-hh]

On Thursday, October 3, 2019 at 1:19:36 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> TomS wrote:
> [...]

> You really should take some professional advice (financial or
> psychological) before dabbling in the markets if you know so little
> about financial investments... especially as you also struggle with the
> math.

And the facts.

Case in point, in my last post, I told Tom: "You’d better go fact-check

your supposedly authoritative source. Suggest you start by finding out
what the actual implementation date was of the fiduciary law they cited
and post it here."

Here's the facts:

"The fiduciary rule is officially dead. What its fate means to you
Published: June 25, 2018 1:55 p.m. ET"

<https://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-the-fiduciary-rule-dead-or-alive-what-its-fate-means-to-you-2018-03-16>

TL;DR summary: the fiduciary rule was drafted and proposed late in the Obama
administration, which made it vulnerable to the Trump administration, who first
delayed its implementation, while they found a way to permanently kill it, above.


> [Tom,] You really are just a demented old fart.

Plus knowing one more reason why Tom just bailed on this thread.


-hh

[TomS]

Hey Hidin' Hughie,

One thing that stands out like a nuclear explosion: you NEVER identified the annuity that supposedly yields 8%. This is typical of your lack of disclosure.

[-hh]

TomS wrote:

> -hh wrote:
>> Bigbird wrote:
>> > TomS wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > You really should take some professional advice (financial or
>> > psychological) before dabbling in the markets if you know so little
>> > about financial investments... especially as you also struggle with the
>> > math.
>>
>> And the facts.
>>
>> Case in point, in my last post, I told Tom: "You’d better go fact-check
>> your supposedly authoritative source. Suggest you start by finding out
>> what the actual implementation date was of the fiduciary law they cited
>> and post it here."
>>
>> Here's the facts:
>>
>> "The fiduciary rule is officially dead. What its fate means to you
>> Published: June 25, 2018 1:55 p.m. ET"
>>
>> <https://www.marketwatch.com/story/is-the-fiduciary-rule-dead-or-alive-what-its-fate-means-to-you-2018-03-16>
>>
>> TL;DR summary: the fiduciary rule was drafted and proposed late in the Obama
>> administration, which made it vulnerable to the Trump administration, who first
>> delayed its implementation, while they found a way to permanently kill it, above.
>>
>> > [Tom,] You really are just a demented old fart.
>>
>> Plus knowing one more reason why Tom just bailed on this thread.
>

> Hey Hidin' Hughie,

Oh, look: it’s yet another lame misdirection attempt from Tom, rather than a
mature, simple admission that he was, once again, wrong.

> One thing that stands out like a nuclear explosion: you NEVER identified the
> annuity that supposedly yields 8%. This is typical of your lack of disclosure.

Oh, are you trying to imply/claim that it doesn’t exist?

Gosh golly, if only Tom was able to find a way to reconcile this... oh, like maybe
offering a wager to backup his insinuation, one held by a third party arbiter to
prevent both parties from welching.

BTW, for the other regular readers, just ask in an offline email.
If you don’t already know the address, ask.


-hh

[TomS]

LOL! JUST AS I THOUGHT!! You can't or won't NAME said annuity!!!!!!!!

You such a LIAR and a CHEATER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Alan Baker]

He said neither of those things.

[TomS]

Hey Dolt,

Hughie, CLAIMED he could buy an annuity with an 8% return (higher than normal) - he should be able to back that up. Usually, a higher than normal return is a red flag for a shaky investment. But, of course, you don't know that. Either that or he is flat out lying.

[Alan Baker]

He should be able to back it up...

...but his not doing so yet doesn't signify that he can't.

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

>
> Hughie, he could buy an annuity with an 8% return (higher

> than normal) - he should be able to back that up. Usually, a higher
> than normal return is a red flag for a shaky investment. But, of
> course, you don't know that. Either that or he is flat out lying.

What is your record on backing up your financial claims Flaccid.

Have you ever insisted on a wager or a fee in order to support any of
your claims; have you gone on to fail to ever produce said support.

You are a dirty old mop Flaccid; everyone is wiping the floor with you
today.

[TomS]

On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:25:50 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>
> > BTW, ARNA isn't up 300%, it is DOWN from an all-time high of $135 - a
> > decline of SIXTY SIX PERCENT!!!
> >
>
> You say some really dumb things but this is right up there with the
> most illuminating dumb comments. If you don't understand why it is such
> an unintelligent and ignorant assertion then you really shouldn't be
> gambling on the market. It suggests you understand *nothing* regarding
> price history.

>
> You really are just a demented old fart.
>

> --
> President Trump made 12,019 false or misleading claims over 928 days
> Pretending that doesn't bother you is a mental disorder.

Hey BirdTurd,

You don't know the difference between a short and a call, so don't lecture me on the market. I gave you idiots a ROAD MAP on how to make a quick and easy THIRTY FOUR PERCENT, but you sat on you fucking hands!! No doubt because you HAD NO CASH to invest anyway!!!!!!!!

[Bigbird]

TomS wrote:

> On Thursday, September 26, 2019 at 10:25:50 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:
> > TomS wrote:
> >
> > > BTW, ARNA isn't up 300%, it is DOWN from an all-time high of $135
> > > - a decline of SIXTY SIX PERCENT!!!
> > >
> >
> > You say some really dumb things but this is right up there with the
> > most illuminating dumb comments. If you don't understand why it is
> > such an unintelligent and ignorant assertion then you really
> > shouldn't be gambling on the market. It suggests you understand

> > nothing regarding price history.

> >
> > You really are just a demented old fart.
> >
>

> You don't know the difference between a short and a call,

Oh, I really do. How could I possibly enjoy "Billions" if I didn't. :)

You really a dumb fucker if you think such a stupid question lets you
off the hook for your really really dumb fucking comment above.

> so don't
> lecture me on the market.

I wasn't lecturing you just pointing out what fucking dumb, ignorant,
know nothing, shit for brains comment you made.

> I gave you idiots a on how to make
> a quick and easy

That is a lie.

> but you sat on you fucking
> hands!! No doubt because you HAD NO CASH to invest anyway!!!!!!!!

I have more cash in my safes than you have ever seen IRL; if there is
anything I have too much of right now it is liquidity.

Whereas you appear to be living hand to mouth in order to fund your
gambling habit.

[TomS]

Hey BigTurd,

No you don't - you don't understand basic investing concepts. I gave you idiots SPECIFIC TRADES on which you could have made THIRTY FOUR PERCENT, but libtards like Alan only wanted to know, down to the second, when I made MY trades!!!

And if you REALLY have "cash in safes" you are EVEN DUMBER than I thought!!!!!!!!!!! BTW, safes are really not all that safe - you SHOULD use safe deposit boxes (as I do), but you'll probably say they're controlled by evil bankers...

[-hh]

TomS cherrypicks:

> No you don't - you don't understand basic investing concepts.

Incorrect. You have no proof of that.

> I gave you idiots SPECIFIC TRADES on which you could have made

> THIRTY FOUR PERCENT, ...

Also incorrect, because:
1. All said trades were vague on their entry/exit criteria;
2. One such trade effectively failed (you barely broke even);
3. Another trade failed to actually meet your own exit criteria;
4. None of the trades were low risk, as was illustrated by 2 & 3.

> … but libtards like Alan only wanted to know, down to the second, when
> I made MY trades!!!

Also incorrect. The transaction times was because your claims weren’t believable,
particularly when you then resisted providing substantiating proof that you had
indeed made any trades whatsoever, let alone actually as you had claimed.
Plus your excuses included a claim that from a regulatory standpoint is illegal.

> And if you REALLY have "cash in safes" you are EVEN DUMBER than
> I thought!!!!!!!!!!! BTW, safes are really not all that safe - you SHOULD
> use safe deposit boxes (as I do), but you'll probably say they're controlled
> by evil bankers...

Or it may not be a literal statement, but some form of colloquialism.

Thus, maybe you should ask for clarification before jumping to condemn based
on what you thought was being said.

For example, it could just be a colloquialism that means BB’s current investment
posture is cash-heavy, not that it’s physical cash literally stuffed under a mattress.

Considering how much the market’s flashing warning signals, having 10-20% more
cash/liquidity right now is not a bad hedge, even for folks still in their 40’s and 50’s.

-hh