Am I ever glad I am not in the stock market now
Fri, 2008-10-10 06:06
#1
Am I ever glad I am not in the stock market now
Fri, 2008-10-10 06:06
#2
Of couse I am, in the sense of my pension plan, and things like that, but by fluke most of the rest of what limited assets I have are in cash.
It is unbelievable how much money people have lost in the past few year, and we can thank these stupid right-wing greed-based policies of the Liberal and Conservatives for this mess. Absolute jerks is what they are.
So when all these genius MBA financial wizards tell you to divesify tell them to take a hike, because the only diversification you need is to perhaps put your cash into different institutions. And speaking of financial institutions, maybe you had better keep an eye on what they are up to because believe me their customers will be the last to know. About 15 years ago I took any money I have and put it into community based credit unions and it will stay there.
Fri, 2008-10-10 08:57
#3
quote:
stupid right-wing greed-based policies of the Liberal and Conservatives for this mess
Let's give credit where it is due.
It was stupid socialist greed-based policies of the American Democrats and Republicans that forced banks to lend trillions of dollars to people who could not afford to pay it back, under the Community Reinvestment Act, first enacted by Jimmy Carter, and amplified by Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43.
Giving money to people who cannot pay it back is a basic form of socialism.
The fact is Jack Layton, who calls for balanced budgets, is more fiscally conservative than ANY American politician.
Which is why I wish the NDP the best of luck during this campaign.
Fri, 2008-10-10 09:23
#4
ElizaQ
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle John:
[QB]Let's give credit where it is due.
It was stupid socialist greed-based policies of the American Democrats and Republicans that forced banks to lend trillions of dollars to people who could not afford to pay it back, under the Community Reinvestment Act, first enacted by Jimmy Carter, and amplified by Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43.
Giving money to people who cannot pay it back is a basic form of socialism.
Straight outta hard right BS world. It was deregulation of the banking system that allowed the lenders to flick and fart around creating bubbles of virtual money, through such thing the issues fancy derivative chess and the repacking of mortgages which were allowed to be resold all through the system to do with the CRA. Issues with the CRA are mitigating factors not causal ones. It's also important to note that the bank people LOBBIED for all of this stuff. They weren't forced to do any of it. They were perfectly happy to go along because they figured they could make money and lots of it. They helped write the durn regs in the first place.
In order for the CRA to even happen deregulation had to happen, so don't give us crap that it's all about 'socialist' regulation. Much of the supposed 'socialist' regulations put into place after the last big economic mess by people like FDR were actually repealed bit by bit in the name of free market capitalism and getting rid of anything remotely 'socialist and those changes are just as much a part of this mess.
[url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/10/01/conservatives-seek-to-shi_n_131... Seek to Shift Blame[/url]
[url=http://civicboston.blogspot.com/2008/10/subprime-virus-blame-cra-or-loos... or Loose Market[/url]
quote:
So was the subprime lending pattern also caused by CRA or another push for affirmative lending? The author of the mortgage studies for the Community & Banking Council, James Campen, says no. Since most of the subprime mortgages were written by lenders beyond the reach of the CRA, Campen blames the resulting epidemic of defaults on a lack of regulation.“Basically,” said Campen, “the banks weren’t the worst abusers in this by a long shot.”
The subprime mortgage disaster was not the first case of lending gone bad on a large scale. In the 1980’s, the lending crisis that resulted in a taxpayer bailout was caused by savings and loans, which were also exempt from CRA regulation.
So, if the mortgage companies were a second batch of lenders outside the reach of CRA making imprudent loans, then how account for the growth in subprime lending during the early years of the decade by banks such as Washington Mutual, JP Morgan Chase, and Wells Fargo? According to BusinessWeek in April of 2005, the chief economist with the Mortgage Bankers Association, Doug Duncan, said one reason was that profit margins on subprime loans were “slightly better” than for prime loans. He also mentioned the mutually reinforced incentives for mortgage brokers to arrange loans with higher interest rates—and higher commissions for themselves.
Around the same time, Fannie Mae was significantly increasing support of subprime lending as a secondary source of capital—a practice it began in 1994. The deeper plunge into the subprime market followed regulatory and political pressure to meet more credit demand in low and moderate-income areas, along with the backlash around Fannie Mae’s overstated earnings in 2004.
But the New York Times says the change of direction at Fannie Mae was also due to market forces. As the Times explains, the growth of subprime lending and the growing volume of those loans purchased by investment banks (such as Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Goldman Sachs) during the housing boom threatened Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac with a loss of market share. The result was more pressure on Fannie Mae—but from the likes of hedge fund managers and subprime lenders such as Countrywide Financial.
[url=http://open.salon.com/content.php?cid=23173]Some basic facts and history on the CRA and it's involvement[/url]
quote:
The evidence is overwhelming that CRA requirements did not cause the predatory lending. Predatory lending, which fueled the crisis, was not from lenders under the CRA provisiosn. Predatory lending was driven by greed and actually was the most unethical redistribution of wealth and income. Wall Street participated in the loss of equity, savings and income in low income communities.
[ 10 October 2008: Message edited by: ElizaQ ]
Fri, 2008-10-10 09:27
#5
I'm also very glad I'm not in the market and have always been skeptical of the Paper Economy. Jim Stanford's book is worth republishing and updating in light of this. It's a very sober reminder that it's easy to fall for the con game of hoping the stock market will do the heavy lifting for you instead of trusting in the government to meet its obligation to support you when you can't support yourself.
Fri, 2008-10-10 09:33
#6
I'm buying carefully. Some good companies are down significantly right now and they're good long term buys.
Fri, 2008-10-10 10:33
#7
I cashed all my RRSPs last year because I needed it to pay my lawyer. All I can say is, this crash helps me feel a lot better about it!
Fri, 2008-10-10 10:44
#8
I have some money in stocks, but not planning to sell it for a long time anyway, they're down like 30-40% from what I paid for them in 2006.
I think the market will level off soon, it can't drop by 10% a day forever.
I agree with Heywood that there are and will be some great buys out there. Dell Computers for example has a P/E ratio of 9.5. Microsoft has a PE ratio of 11.26; et cetera (just looked them up on finance.google.com ).
[ 10 October 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]
Fri, 2008-10-10 12:32
#9
My employer changed the pension plan last year to one that involves individual investment accounts. I'm not amused now.
Fri, 2008-10-10 13:25
#10
I have money in RRSPs (Mutual Funds) and a few stocks and I am down 3000.00 on a 9000.00 investment. I started putting money into an RRSP about 5 years ago and I am severely upset by this loss. 3000.00 is a lot of money to someone like me.
I feel so totally helpless. I don't even want to check my online account anymore. I know it may eventually go up but I'll need it way before then and when it comes out, it will be at a huge loss.
Greedy dicks on wall street. [img]mad.gif" border="0[/img]
Sat, 2008-10-11 08:23
#11
I guess its worth pointing out that most of the time (like, from 1937 to 2006) if you invest in the stock market, and diversify, you will make money.
One of my friends has a ridiculous knack for investing in the market. He has MADE over a thousand dollars these last two weeks.
Wed, 2008-10-29 12:03
#12
quote:
Originally posted by NorthReport:
[b]
So when all these genius MBA financial wizards tell you to divesify tell them to take a hike, because the only diversification you need is to perhaps put your cash into different institutions. And speaking of financial institutions, maybe you had better keep an eye on what they are up to because believe me their customers will be the last to know. About 15 years ago I took any money I have and put it into community based credit unions and it will stay there.[/b]
lol.
And your "cash" will have less buying power when you need it. Look at the long term, my socialist friend.... the market will appreciate much greater than your nice "safe" credit union over the long haul.
Wed, 2008-10-29 12:09
#13
quote:
Originally posted by DrConway:
[b]I'm also very glad I'm not in the market and have always been skeptical of the Paper Economy. Jim Stanford's book is worth republishing and updating in light of this. It's a very sober reminder that it's easy to fall for the con game of hoping the stock market will do the heavy lifting for you instead of trusting in the government to meet its obligation to support you when you can't support yourself.[/b]
Are you saying it is the governments responsibility to support you, when you could have taken steps to help yourself?
Give me a break.
Sun, 2021-11-28 21:45
#14
.
Wed, 2008-10-29 16:28
#15
quote:
Originally posted by laughingatu:
[b]lol.
And your "cash" will have less buying power when you need it. Look at the long term, my socialist friend.... the market will appreciate much greater than your nice "safe" credit union over the long haul.[/b]
Not necessarily.
The US stock market has indeed had ~7% growth in the 20th century (I imagine comparable numbers for the Canadian market). But that good number represents, among other things, that the USA had a very successful century, winning all of its major conflicts except for Vietnam. Should the USA experience a more difficult century, then this will no longer be so.
Also, the stock market does not grow linearly but has bearish and bullish periods. During the bearish periods a credit union performs a lot better.
Thu, 2008-10-30 12:40
#16
Lesson learned in the year 2000 and in ensuing years - you can not trust American companies to accurately report financial results & expectations.
There was an article in Business Week about a new (and not widely publicized) SEC law, in 2006, that allowed companies who do business with the government, to be exempt from the requirement that they adhere to GAAP (generally accepted Accounting principles), if necessary, for "national security reasons".
Actually, what I learned in 2000 was to try & find out if key technical talent has left the building when in investing in a company.
Thu, 2008-10-30 13:00
#17
quote:
Straight outta hard right BS world. It was deregulation of the banking system that allowed the lenders to flick and fart around creating bubbles of virtual money, through such thing the issues fancy derivative chess and the repacking of mortgages which were allowed to be resold all through the system to do with the CRA. Issues with the CRA are mitigating factors not causal ones. It's also important to note that the bank people LOBBIED for all of this stuff. They weren't forced to do any of it. They were perfectly happy to go along because they figured they could make money and lots of it. They helped write the durn regs in the first place.
In order for the CRA to even happen deregulation had to happen, so don't give us crap that it's all about 'socialist' regulation. Much of the supposed 'socialist' regulations put into place after the last big economic mess by people like FDR were actually repealed bit by bit in the name of free market capitalism and getting rid of anything remotely 'socialist and those changes are just as much a part of this mess.
Conservatives Seek to Shift Blame
Well put, EQ. [img]cool.gif" border="0[/img]
Thu, 2008-10-30 14:23
#18
quote:
Lesson learned in the year 2000 and in ensuing years - you can not trust American companies to accurately report financial results & expectations.
Painful lesson too. When your entire companies financial records are held in excel spreadsheets... Y'know there's a problem [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
Business Intell is a relatively new field... The heads of most companies have no clue what the hands are doing, and the most we can tell the head is the percent of time the hands actually did what we thought they were supposed to.
quote:
There was an article in Business Week about a new (and not widely publicized) SEC law, in 2006, that allowed companies who do business with the government, to be exempt from the requirement that they adhere to GAAP (generally accepted Accounting principles), if necessary, for "national security reasons".
Has GAAP been replaced with SOX compliancy... Or is that something else?
[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]
Thu, 2008-10-30 20:44
#19
This comment reminds me about the folks who go to Los Vegas - you always hear about their meagre winnings but never about their huge losses. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
[QB]I guess its worth pointing out that most of the time (like, from 1937 to 2006) if you invest in the stock market, and diversify, you will make money.
One of my friends has a ridiculous knack for investing in the market. He has MADE over a thousand dollars these last two weeks.[/Q][/QUOTE]
[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: NorthReport ]
Thu, 2008-10-30 22:03
#20
The silly season is upon us again. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]
The US government bails out the capitalists on Wall Street because they can't manage their own way out of a paper bag, without a government handout, talk about corporate welfare. And you attack others as socialistic.
It's obvious capitalism has failed, China will be dictating US economic policy from here on in, and socialism is the only alternative to the bankrupct USA and its allies who have foolishly sucked the governments dry around the planet.
They are nationalizing the banks in the USA and elsewhere, which is something social democrats in the NDP believe in.
But in your mind if Bush does it he is a hero, and if the NDP does it is crazy talk.
And we should listen to you. Right. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
quote:
Originally posted by laughingatu:
[QB]And your "cash" will have less buying power when you need it. Look at the long term, my socialist friend.... the market will appreciate much greater than your nice "safe" credit union over the long haul.[/Q]
Fri, 2008-10-31 05:51
#21
You think the government bails out a bank because it doesn’t want the bank to fail?
No… it bails it out to help the ordinary citizen.
Farmers Feed Cities…a bumper sticker I see all the time. Guess what…. Farmers won’t be feeding anyone if they can’t get financing to buy the seeds to plant and grow and sell.
Banks have debt instruments coming due all the time… they frequently borrow from other banks for their short term cash flow needs.. Guess what happens if the other banks don’t answer the phone because they aren’t lending money anymore? The bank collapses, and the ordinary citizens lose their money. The American banking system is a lot different than ours. This is a very possible scenario.
This bailout wasn’t about lining the pockets of the rich…. It is about solving the liquidity issues so that banks will start lending to people again so that the entire economy doesn’t come crashing down. The bank execs that did walk away with a profit didn’t do so with the help of the bailout package, they did so in spite of the package.
[ 31 October 2008: Message edited by: laughingatu ]
Fri, 2008-10-31 07:12
#22
quote:
No… it bails it out to help the ordinary citizen.
Banks never help the ordinary citizen; if the government wants to help the ordinary citizen they can do so directly without greasing the palms of their banker friends in the process. The banks are a wholly unnecessary middle-man.
Fri, 2008-10-31 10:11
#23
quote:
Originally posted by It's Me D:
[b]Banks never help the ordinary citizen; if the government wants to help the ordinary citizen they can do so directly without greasing the palms of their banker friends in the process. The banks are a wholly unnecessary middle-man.[/b]
And that is why you fail.
Fri, 2008-10-31 11:11
#24
OK can we finally get rid of this red baiting troll. I know the mods let this asshat slide through during the election because we are so polite but lets stop the shit NOW.
Fri, 2008-10-31 11:31
#25
why.. cause I don't buy into your politics?
very nice.
Hey It's Me D... how would you suggest the goverment go about helping ordinary citizens???? How much should the government pay to the people, rather than guaranteeing some mortgages, allowing the banks to feel confident enough to start lending money to people again... so that the economy won't come crashing down?
You think this bailout package was "greasing the palms" of the banks??? that shows how much you know. Anything good for business must be bad for people right?!?!?!??!! Typical attitude. Why can't it be good for both?
And thorin.... way to go! Isn't inclusiveness something you NDPers stand for? (or is it only inclusive if you think along the same lines?).
Fri, 2008-10-31 11:34
#26
N.Beltov
Gandalf: Just keep him busy until the sun comes up, thorin.
Fri, 2008-10-31 11:54
#27
quote:
laughingatu
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15594
Anyone who would give themselves this handle has to have sociopathic tendencies.
Sat, 2008-11-01 11:27
#28
quote:
Anyone who would give themselves this handle has to have sociopathic tendencies.
How much sense can come out of psychoanalysing people's usernames?
Mon, 2008-11-03 01:29
#29
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. (That and check his profile. Nobody progressive usual says "A few lefty friends told me about it" In how they heard about rabble.)
NB hope it doesn't live in Iqaluit because it will be a longtime till the sun is up [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]
[ 03 November 2008: Message edited by: thorin_bane ]
Mon, 2008-11-03 15:33
#30
Well, I'm sure he's not a lefty, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be here.
quote:
Anything good for business must be bad for people right?!?!?!??!! Typical attitude. Why can't it be good for both?
Um, have you been paying attention at all? The reason the global economy is crashing is because the divide between what's good for "business" (which doesn't mean business at all, but just speculators who produce nothing) and what's good for people has become so enormous over the last thirty years.
To keep getting richer, the capital class been manufacturing bad debts and selling them as investments, creating money out of thin air and leaving someone else to shuffle it around before it all falls apart. The financial world ceased to be tied to anything resembling real economic activity and became a huge pyramid scheme. The banks, and hence shareholders, receiving these bailouts are [i]these same people![/i] Not people of business, but plain old thieves with fancy methods that circumvent the law.
Yes, the welfare of the financial elite and the welfare of ordinary people are not at odds in every single case, but even a cursory glance at the present situation shows that they are very much mutually exclusive in our present situation. Giving them money is just letting them pick our pocket all over again.
Hey, do you have any money in the stock market? If so, we'll all be laughingatu very soon.
Mon, 2008-11-03 16:11
#31
quote:
Originally posted by Noise:
[b]Has GAAP been replaced with SOX compliancy... Or is that something else?
[ 30 October 2008: Message edited by: Noise ][/b]
That's something else, or more accurately, on top of. GAAP are the details of accounting, SOX mostly says that company officers must sign statements, which means jail time if the books are cooked. There are also more specific kinds of fraud charges, some more regulation, and a few other things.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarbanes-Oxley_Act]Wiki[/url]
Sat, 2008-11-08 21:37
#32
quote:
Originally posted by laughingatu:
[b]Are you saying it is the governments responsibility to support you, when you could have taken steps to help yourself?
Give me a break.[/b]
There's a reason why the CPP was never invested in the stock market until Paulie Pockets decided to grease the palms of a few of his buddies with the guaranteed management expense ratios the government's always good for.
It's because we (as a society) knew it was far too risky to place the well-being of our senior citizens at the altar of the stock market, and to instead finance, by taxes, the basic human right they have to a decent standard of living.
[ 08 November 2008: Message edited by: DrConway ]
Sat, 2008-11-08 22:23
#33
quote:
Originally posted by laughingatu:
[b]Are you saying it is the governments responsibility to support you, when you could have taken steps to help yourself?
Give me a break.[/b]
Yes, I want governments in any civilized society to support anyone who needs it [i]excluding[/i] socialism for the superrich who do not.
You see, your argument for support yourself societies made some sense in bygone days, in times when there was land available to squat on and feed ourselves and live independently. Those days are gone since Lockean era England. People don't have a choice to live independently by squatting on private property or even crown land, because it's against the law. And without the full force of the taxpayer-funded state backing up rich and their exclusive private property laws, free markets to benefit rich people can't exist. I'm afraid that until free market capitalism is able to deliver the goods with full employment in the truest sense, ordinary people, too, need insulating from "free market forces" just as much as any of the "free market" capitalist institutions being propped up with billions of taxpayer dollars in handouts for a long time running.
Tue, 2008-11-11 15:52
#34
Crude oil is selling at US$59.25 today, down US$3.16.
The DJIA is $8,775.76 down what percent in the last few months.
I wonder how many people are beginning to lose their jobs in the Tarsands.
Wed, 2008-11-12 22:22
#35
The TSX just dropped another 500 points today, and crude oil is selling below US$56. a barrel.
Another buying opportunity! 
Fri, 2008-11-14 19:52
#36
In hindsight we can probably all agree that the equity markets are risky.
Should municipalities and governments invest in equity markets?
I think by doing so,they fuel an "irrational exuberance"!
Thu, 2008-11-20 10:37
#37
No government entity should be buying shares in any company unless it's for the express purpose of nationalization or on very narrowly-defined grounds. To do otherwise is to put taxpayer money into a casino and I can think of no greater irresponsible use of taxpayer funds than this. Even pushing money to your favorite contractor would be better.
Fri, 2008-11-21 00:46
#38
I love the way people cherrypick in their attempts to sway you.
Why not do a comparison between 1937 and today and match investing in the stock market compared to almost any other form of investment.
The one thing that 99% of people miss out on is the short side of stocks. That's where very big money can be made. If you had shorted the TSX index a month ago, and cashed in today, just think about how much money you would have made.
Those were some bargains another poster here picked up a month ago, eh.
But by all means continue to listen to those MBAs and continue to read and watch the bullshit in the press.
I guess its worth pointing out that most of the time (like, from 1937 to 2006) if you invest in the stock market, and diversify, you will make money.One of my friends has a ridiculous knack for investing in the market. He has MADE over a thousand dollars these last two weeks.
Fri, 2008-11-21 00:52
#39
The TSX just dropped what was it today, another 760 points, and crude oil is now at $48. a barrel.
Now we have an extra special buying opportunity, eh.
Alberta is about ready to roll up the sidewalks and close up shop but don't let that deter you.
And the greed factor is alive and well and there are suckers born every minute.
The TSX just dropped another 500 points today, and crude oil is selling below US$56. a barrel.
Another buying opportunity!
Fri, 2008-11-21 14:24
#40
Yup and buying during the debate as suggested by economic guru PM would have cost about 20% of your capital on the TSX SO FAR. I wonder how many years it will take for the markets to get back to the level they were at when Harpo suggested his economic strategy for individuals during a debate in which he also said our markets were insulated from the worst of the global problems.
But you know another tax cut just might save the ship from sinking. After all when the ship of state gets holed and starts to bleed revenue the best thing is to deliberately punch a hole in the side just below the waterline. 
___________________________________________________________________________________________ From North of Manifest Destiny
Fri, 2008-11-21 15:37
#41
Woah woah woah, your not saying that harpy was lying during the elcetion, like when he said "We will not run a deficit this year." Then holds up July(the month of the spectrum sale) as proof that things were not that bad. Because I don't think I could vote for someone like that, and apparently 37% of the poulation agree. But yet they did. Seriously is anyone ever going to understand that cons are as big of liars as liberals, they only differenace is one pretends to be leftwing, the other pretend they know how to run a government(of any kind). The only thing they know about that, is how to run it into the ground.
______________________________________________________________________________________
"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky
Wed, 2008-11-26 20:23
#42
You'd think seeing these guys lose money too would help, but it really doesn't.