It seems that the Trump Market Rally has stalled over the last two to three weeks, all of the controversy seems to be causing consternation among market professionals, how do you see this new development ? Just curious I'd like to hear thoughts from some of you experts, I'll share mine after I can fully form my opinions in the next day or so.
IMO, it's waiting to see if Trump can deliver on his election promises or if there will be too much internal republican resistance. Usually markets aren't news driven but I think they are until it becomes clear if he can deliver.
As far as sentiment goes, it's unclear. I saw one piece saying people are extremely bullish: the most since 2004 another showing an crazy-insane positioning of 8:1 shorts versus longs.
Might want to play it with a strangle since volatility is current very low, unless your better able to analyze the minds of Trump and the Republicans than I am.
Market should have a major peak either this year or next then have a major pullback dropping Trumps opinion polls likely with it. My opinion is that free markets move in Elliot waves or fractal patterns which is a natural pattern. I've heard elliotwave international has developed a program that can calculate correct wave patterns with a high degree of accuracy. When stock trading and investing gets taken over by AI and programs, it may not be the same, unless most market trading has already been taken over.
President's Trump's momentum seems to be hitting a log jam. I guess if financial markets are a con game, er, confidence game, then that could play into it.
I wonder if the most recent Executive Order 2/3/2017, to change Dodd-Frank has any effect. Are the markets worried President Trump will try to get Glass-Steagall reinstated???
source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off…
Plus aren't the tax cuts tabled until after Congress does repeal/replace of the Healthcare Act? Log-jam / clam-jam. So the tax cuts might not play until 2018 at this rate with the healthcare log jam.
What a bunch of bird brains. They need to think long term, like Dougster suggests.
If you want numbers, maybe a rise up close to 2500 by next year, then a drop of 38% to 50% of the entire sp500 rise since 2009. If you subtract 2500-667 then you get roughly 1800 some points. Take 38% or 50% of that and you get a drop of possibly 900 Sp500 points starting in The Trump term possibly lasting into someone else's term as president. The Dow would likely lose thousands of points after the upcoming rally. News usually aligns to the waves that stocks are in. What news will come out to coincide with the upcoming big drop? I have no idea. It might not start to drop for a couple years.
I read that market sentiment by some measures was the most bullish since early 1987. Of course October 1987, I think the market dropped over 20%.
Usually when magazines start talking numbers like DOW 30,000 etc that seem sky high, it's a sign of upcoming pullbacks. When all Bulls have bought stocks at the peak of investor optimism and you have no bears to convert to Bulls, you run out of buyers.
As the fed raises interest rates, bonds will lose value.
When people start getting statements reflecting losses in (previously thought to be "safe") bond funds, bond funds will sell off, generating further losses due to untimely liquidation. This is called a bubble.
Sold off bond proceeds will be divided between stocks and gold. Watch gold spike. Watch stocks temporarily spike.
Currently my speculation of possible news events to coincide with a big market drop of 500 to 900 sp500 points range from trade wars, real war worries, breakup of the eu, or something else totally off the radar. Maybe a 20% tax increase of goods coming into the country that hits Americans in the pocket book so bad that they cut out all unnecessary spending and we have another recession. After we get the big drop out of the way, I'm expecting a very long rally maybe exceeding DOW 30000 after several years.
A while back jestie214 was asking me for a stock pick saying he would short anything I recommended. So I suggested SVXY which is up 50% since then. It could still go up more from here, but I won't press ones luck on that one (short term). Bit of a coin now, IMO. Strangle better now IMO.
"As the fed raises interest rates.."
==================================
Not saying it will necessarily unfold this way, but maybe...
(1) Yellen will raise interests rates in good intention in order to prevent a bubble and stabilize the markets.
(2) The markets will go down slightly in response.
(3) In a paranoid furry, Trump will go on a Twitter war against the Fed taking Yellen's rate rise as a personal insult.
(4) Trump will replace Yellen with an Ayn Rand, free-market type in 2018. Could be, say, Greenspan, who will be 92 (or might be dead by that time -- doesn't matter). We don't need no stinkin' financial regulation.
Hillary was hounded during the the election for being a pawn of wall-street -- yet Trump's team includes people like Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn and Steve Bannon, all of whom used to work for Goldman Sachs. Such hypocrisy and nonsense. You can bet the banking system will again have all sorts of hidden risks and that we're laying the groundwork for another financial crisis. And you never really know when it will occur -- just that it will at some point.
Back on topic, if I were @LarryFishstix age, I would put 100% into stocks and ride out all the fluctuations over time. At my age, my wife and I max out our 401Ks and put all new money into stocks, which is a sort of dollar-cost-averaging. We do have bonds -- but it's in the form of bond ladders (not bond funds) that we hold to maturity, mostly high-quality corporate debt. And we have real estate. Don't have the skill or time to study the markets in detail, but I do pay attention to the CAPE index which attempts to measure the overall valuation of the S&P. It's not perfect, but it does show a market at very high valuations and I wouldn't be surprised if the market tanks at some point. I've been saying that for years, and it hasn't happened yet.
I get all of my financial advice from an anonymous discussion board of horny perverts who fuck strippers. I don't see how anything could possibly go wrong with that strategy.
Add to that the simple fact that we don't know how many posters are actually anonymous horny virgins that just make up stories about fucking strippers!
@JS69 Hers the thing John none of us here are getting market advice, we basically are educating ourselves by listening to other folks in different parts of this large country. Differing opinions give food for thought leading to a better understanding of our own opinions and offer a way to test theories unlike the way we bounce ideas off of a brick wall leading to rigid political ideologies and bad outcomes. In other words information is empowering no matter how you use it.
@JS69: You mean you didn't follow txtittyfan's advice to go short treasuries the day before they bottomed back in 2009? Or RickyBoy's call that stock ticker RICK was "a dogshit stock" again the day before it bottomed last year? (Since then has more than doubled.)
I don't think interest rates will have much of an effect on the markets this year other than the fact that the Fed won't raise them fast enough.
What will have an effect, however, is Europe. The right there is going to get alot of fuel off Trump's success here. Gonna have people shitting their pants that it's 1848 all over again. Will be a great buying opportunity.
Also wanted to throw out a stock ticker for discussion this morning: GILD. vincemichaels should be familiar with them because of the work they do on HIV medications. Now it's definitely a super long term hold and not for little girlies who will get scared if it does dip another 10-15% from here but I think it's very good from a value and future potential perspective. What do the rest of you think of GILD?
@Smith wrote: "I get all of my financial advice from an anonymous discussion board of horny perverts who fuck strippers. I don't see how anything could possibly go wrong with that strategy."
===================================
TUSCL isn't such a bad place to trade investment stories. There's a correlation b/w guys who have enough money to piss away on strippers and those who have some investment experience. We also have a few guys here in finance, at least one actuary, and (I think) some guys who do financial planning. TUSCL probably beats talking to your broker. And their's plenty of bandwidth available for those interested in another excruciating chapter of @Smith's midlife crisis.
As an outsider to finance, two books by Robert Shiller had the biggest influence on me. He's a hard-core MIT educated economist who was influenced by his wife (a psychologist). He writes about the psychology of bubbles and they gave him a Nobel Prize. No matter how analytical you are, there are times when market psychology takes over everything. We've got an insane-clown president in office and a bunch of Goldmanites in the cabinet. Watch for history to repeat itself.
I'm In agreement with Dougster about interest rates, I just don't see the fed raising them enough in the short term to make much of a difference in the overall capital markets, as far as GILD goes they just tanked might be a good long term hold and they might even become attractive as a merger or possibly a takeover target but its going to be rough in the short term. For the long term I am still riding the bull, but keeping a close eye on short term moves, because I have some worries about inflation with the policies of this latest this edition, of the new regulators of our nations capital markets.
I'm with random. We have some members here who are very knowledgeable about the markets. farmerart was, for instance, we used to discuss them quite off in PMs. It's too bad he is no longer with us.
Then we have some so bad (e.g. RickyBoy and SJG) that they actually great negative correlations (nearly -1.0) between what they say and what actually happens.
So if you can distinguish the two, these discussions actually pay off.
I read something very interesting a few days ago, this article said most American adults don't have enough in their savings accounts to cover an unexpected $2000 expense even those that earn over $75,000 annually. Let me say in response to @JS69s assertion above, that Random opined on, that is sad and it wouldn't hurt for some of you to read some of these financial threads, and even if you don't take them verbatim at the very least explore some of the wisdom imparted with an advisor that you trust. If this applies to you, I ask what the fuck are you doing blowing your next auto repair bill, money you need to fix your roof ,etc. in a strip club.
While I don't offer, or consider, financial advice on this or any other discussion board, I do read some of the comments and occasionally throw out a little round shiny something for the swine. In this case, I would offer that the "Trump Market Rally" may not be "stalled." A quick check of the DOW30 shows it up about 130 points as I write this. With the DOW30, and most of the rest of the markets, up over 10% since the election, and still showing signs of bullish behaviors, the bounce may keep going a while.
Trump's promises, like lowering corporate income tax. As I know, most corps don't pay any tax. And those that do would I believe be just the ones that pay shareholder dividends. And they do this because their growth potential has run out.
So what does Trump offer except right wing doctrines of scapegoating?
Hillary Clinton offered affordable college and restoration of Bill's 2% extra tax on high income. Both of these create economic growth.
But besides, why would anyone want to put their hard earned money into something that they and their own pool of associated do not control?
I know Dougster is trying to promote a Ponzi scheme, with the ultimate goal of splitting the human race into two tiers. Why would anyone else be going along with this.
It seems like saving, lowering living expenses, and investing is one common way to build wealth, since many wages aren't increasing or at stuck at late '90s levels (~50K/yr). I do like SJG's idea of starting ones own business venture. That seems more like the American dream vs slaving away for someone else. Sky is the limit!
twentyfive --> "none of us here are getting market advice, we basically are educating ourselves by listening to other folks in different parts of this large country. Differing opinions give food for thought leading to a better understanding of our own opinions and offer a way to test theories unlike the way we bounce ideas off of a brick wall leading to rigid political ideologies and bad outcomes. In other words information is empowering no matter how you use it. "
twentyfive --> "Let me say in response to @JS69s assertion above, that Random opined on, that is sad and it wouldn't hurt for some of you to read some of these financial threads, and even if you don't take them verbatim at the very least explore some of the wisdom imparted with an advisor that you trust.
^^^ Well said. This is the #1 reason I'm still here / around Tuscl. It's not really for the SC advice. This is a great collection / concentration of successful people (some are 1%ers). So I am trying to learn and absorb what good advice I can find. So, thank you. :)
twentyfive, do you think so little of your own abilities and what would be of a circle of associates you could build, that you would rate a Ponzi scheme higher?
FWIW I have run my own business for over 40 years but I know plenty who have tried and failed it just ain't as easy as you think. For every person who has started a business and done well there are hundreds that have put up money and lost it all. I am not going to get into a debate with you over this because I have stated a fact and any version you post is alternative facts. If you want to own your own business anyway be prepared with this truth. In order to succeed you will need to work harder than you ever would at a job doing similar work and even working hard is no guarantee of success.End of conversation, case closed.
RandomMember's idea of laddering bonds makes good sense in a potentially rising interest rate environment as you can simple ride the bonds out until maturity.
Bond funds (especially those with longer average durations) are more susceptible to interest rate hikes. If one must hold bond funds, as in many 401(k) plans, choose options with shorter duration to reduce interest rate risk. Also, consider mixing with high yield options aka below-investment grade bond funds aka junk bond funds.
Importantly, as the equity markets achieve new all-time highs week after week, keep something in cash and/or in low duration bonds so that you have some "dry powder" to make equity purchases when those dreaded 20% market downturns/buying opportunities arise.
You're going to have to cite a reference. And does it take into account that corporations are often structured to pass the income through to the owners so they don't have to pay that ridiculous 35% tax?
dallas is right today's market action was impressive.
I won't rule out a 20% correction this year if Europe gets bad enough, but that would just be a good buying opportunity and do nothing to slow down the rally long term.
Speculators (the good ones at least) need very high technical skills these. Good mathematical ability and computer science ability in particular. People with those skills could easily make the leap to a pure tech company (e.g. Google).
Lots of interesting stuff going on with the USD this week. Definitely pointing to (obvious) problems in Europe and the UK.
Could be 1848 all over again, and I think this is one time the markets don't know in advance how it all plays out, although every day brings a bit more clarity.
"And does it take into account that corporations are often structured to pass the income through to the owners so they don't have to pay that ridiculous 35% tax?"
I don't know what the above means. A corporation can pay salaries, and not have that be subject to the 35%. But if they pay shareholder dividends, I believe they have to pay the tax, and this is but only one of the reasons that only the largest pay dividends.
Now as far a Chapter S Corps, I do not know. They could well have some special channel to avoid taxes. Seems like they would need this.
Now about giving benefits to executives, company cars and all, there are rules. But it is in the pushing of those rules to the limit that many owners benefit.
Dougster, this is not 1848. But things on the ground are real bad. More and more Americans are living closer and closer to the margins, with less and less job security and housing costs taking up a greater and greater portion of their incomes. And the nonsense you are putting out only makes things worse. You are part of a contingent which is bringing us to dystopia.
And what you are promoting is a Ponzi scheme. And people have lots of skills which they should use, and also invest their money in their own doings, instead of speculating.
Is there to be any kind of a revolution? Well Trump is forcing it. And here local government is too. This is where I am currently involved.
Dividends are effectively double taxation. The point is the if a corporation has income the owners are paying tax on it if not the corporation itself. There many reason some corporation don't pay tax one of which is that many businesses lose money, even though you recklessly advocate everyone quit their job and start one.
Sub chap "S" corps and "LLC" corps allow income to pass through to the owners without the double taxation that occurs by paying a dividend but it is limited by size of the business as my understanding it is only allowed to businesses classified as small Buisness and it is not allowed for publicly traded entities.
Yes, that was my point, dividends are effectively subject to double taxation.
Now if a corporation has revenue and we subtract from that its expenses, aren't there ways the corporation can shield the money from taxation:
1. Building Reserve Fund
2. Giving People Raises and Paying Bonuses
3. Investing In More Plant And Equipment
4. Buying Other Businesses, sometimes suppliers and customers
5. Expanding by starting new product lines
6. Paying for services of outside contractors ( R and D, Advertising, etc )
7. Buying contractual rights, timber, mining, public airwaves, airport use, etc.
8. Exploration costs ( like drilling more oil wells )
Now I know that their are legal limits on all of these things. But sometimes these limits are a bit plastic. And many times those of the above can rightly be considered mandatory costs if they want to stay in business. So as I know, this is how most corps pay no tax. I don't see this as illegitimate, so long as they are following the same rules as other corporations.
And then also related, start-up companies usually don't pay taxes or dividends. What they offer their shareholders is growth. It is assumed that it is better to keep the money in the start-up than to bleed it out. And then when the shares are closely held, the owners are often getting other benefits as well.
Now when you talk about a very large public corp, with widely held shares, then growth potential is no longer there. And the shareholders are very distant, then the only way to reward them is dividends. And so the corp then also has to pay taxes.
Are there situations when a corp is not paying dividends, but still has to pay income tax? Probably, but I don't know enough about this to know what those would be.
And Dougster, I have never suggested that anyone should quit any job!
What I have said is that they should invest their money in themselves, and in what they can do with a circle of close associates. This way they stand to get a double win, monetary and social.
And as a corollary, one can deduct the costs of a non-profitable business for some time, and even subject to some limits, the costs of a zero revenue business. I have done this myself.
Here is a question for you Dougster:
Suppose I run three organizations:
1. For profit, local services firm, I own vast majority of shares.
2. For profit, world wide high tech manufacturing firm, I own vast majority of shares.
3. Non-profit, likely religious. I am its director and for all intensive purposes have total control.
Now I know there are limits on one person controlling too many things, of too great a size. Do you know what these are.
Suppose I decide to donate my shares in #1 to #3. Having this genuinely helps #3, whether it sells it, or keeps it.
So I should get a big tax deduction, and for something which I built with sweat, but cost me no money. If #1 is not public, how do I establish the worth of its shares?
So then could I sell like say $1 Meg of shares from #2, and then have that covered by a tax deduction from donating the shares of #1?
So I get $1 Meg free and clear ( for paying hookers for sex of course ), without actually giving up anything which cost me money, as I built #1, #2, and #3 up from nothing, putting in little more than sweat. And the donation of #1 to #3 really does help #3.
@SJG- Here's the thing you do too often, you aer essentially putting the cart before the horse. Starting a business you need to have profits before there are taxes due, I know all of the taxes that are paid are not profit on taxes and so does the government that is why they created the pass-throughs like Sub Chapter "S" and later LLC because in order to generate income you need to produce something be it goods or services, the assumption is that you have invested capital to be able to do just that, so it works this way. On sales you often must pay a sales tax that is due when you receive income but is usually charged in addition to your payment, then once you can no longer produce enough product you need to hire an employee, and in addition to payroll taxes and SS taxes which are deducted from said employee's paycheck, you have to generate enough income to pay the matching taxes that you contribute when paying that employee.
Now the second part of your term paper, as a general rule you get to deduct the cost of goods and services that you use to produce your product, now you are starting to get into some taxes that need to be paid but remember you are just a one or two man show at this point so your corp reflects this and elects the pass through distinction of Sub S or LLC, tax strategy at this point is not where you live and die, so you focus your energies on increasing sales and growing your business.
Here is where things are getting interesting, you have grown your small enterprise to a reasonable size having increased sales to reflect several hires along with the costs associated with these hires, you are starting to develop a good following and your revenues reflect this, now its time to give yourself a raise. Tax prep is starting to become important but not yet crucial. Remember if you are making a good living you pay your taxes using an experienced preparer usually a CPA .
At this point you need to decide on an exit or running strategy for your enterprise, you have been running hard for a long time at this point do you want to coast and just enjoy your increased income, solidify your good lifestyle, save enough money to have a nice long and hopefully enjoyable retirement, or grow this enterprise into a public company. That is completely up to you.
So as you see there are many different strategies it all depends on your goals.
Now coming to your often repeated theme what should a businessman who has retired do with the proceeds of his sale, if one was to listen to you just park the cash under your pillow and draw down as needed without knowing how long you need to make that nest egg last. Put it in a bank account and earn less than the cost of real inflation currently low but that may change, or invest it in the stock market and with a little luck and some smart investments grow that nest egg to allow you to continue in this great lifestyle that you have earned and created for yourself. You now can respond with some junk about investing in your self, or Ponzi schemes or you can give it a little thought and start to grow up a little where you realize that you don't have all of the answers. I hope for your sake you opt for the latter.
BTW the strategy of investing is for everyone whether they own a business which is probably the more difficult option or they have a job that they hopefully get satisfaction as well as income from.
SJG: "Now when you talk about a very large public corp, with widely held shares, then growth potential is no longer there."
Ah, that's the tough part to figure out. I was not a big fan of Facebook for instance. I thought they had limited growth potential a few years back, but it turns out I was wrong about them as were many other skeptics. Today there are plenty of large companies that may or may not have growth potential. For example how about AAPL? Right now they *appear* to be resting on their laurels of the iPhone and Mac. But do they have something up their sleeves? Hard to say. (Incidentally I think they are buy just on the basis of their cash and current business, so anything beyond that is gravy). There are many other companies in this boat as well. See if you can name some.
As for your tax questions, don't know. Not a private equity guy. Too bad LMN still wasn't here. I think there are some general rules for valuation based on your balance sheet, revenue, and growth, etc and IIRC those number tend to be very much smaller than for public traded companies. I think the number may be around 4x earning per share. But you'll need to ask PE guy.
And working with a group of close associates is the correct decision for some people, but it comes with risk. It's not the right call for everyone. People need to weigh all the factors. Which I think is what they already do.
As for "social" benefits I would, in general, the large public corporations are generally responsible for great social benefit. It's not always true, but when it is not, it's a an exception rather than the rule.
By large I meant like fortune 500, I meant NYSE, and widely held for decades. Not facebook or apple. These things could indeed have something up their sleeves.
But how much better to put $ into things you and your circle of close associates are running, rather than speculating, buying in with zero predictive knowledge and zero control, and making your broker rich with your stupidity.
And 25, Sub Chap S is good for things which are more collaborative. Not everyone wants that. Some of want to hold as high a percentage of the shares as possible, we want control, and this control can be even more important than profits, as control has financial benefits. You don't need to answer to anyone for the actions you take.
And cart before horse? What is the purpose of making money if you don't know where it is going to go? And it is better if you have ways to recirculate it with as little tax bite as possible. Our tax laws are set up with certain assumptions. Not that difficult to get completely around those assumptions. Most counter culture stuff has always worked like this.
Though at a smaller scale, I've been running my own stuff for over 25 years. Not your 40 years, but still enough to know.
If it is just about money, then you are just another squirrel spinning that cage wheel. My objectives are much bigger than just money.
We all have talents which we should be using. Don't help do Dougster's evils for him!
Ok, so it's okay if people invest in AAPL or FB because it's unclear if they have growth potential or if they've peaked. But we'll have a rule saying they can't invest in XOM?
People just have to decide all the factors going into working with their associates or investing the money in the markets. They could go with the latter by an index ETF, and spend maybe a few hours a year because of it. Keep their current jobs so there is little risk in that approach. Or they could size up their circle of associates and their idea for a business and see if it's worth the effort and risk. Lots of factors will weigh in. Their age for instance. How much time they want to devote to it. It will be right decision for some, but for most probably best just to buy that index ETF and spend their extra time with their families. Everyone has different values and risk tolerances and so will have to decide for themselves. But given most businesses fail that math says it would definitely be better just to invest it for most.
I'm just looking for SJGs answer as to how to maintain a decent lifestyle after your work days are over. He's going to say you never have to quit or retire but most here know that isn't true. What if something happens and you are not able to continue how will he provide for himself or his family if misfortune strikes ? Just pointing the inadequcies in his line of reasoning.
And to your point of not being about the money it really is about what the money can get for you money is neither good or bad it is a tool if you use it wisely you can buy the Presidency of the United States.
No, you misunderstand me. Investing in FB or AAPL is still just casino gambling. You have zero control, and the price is determined by large investors like pension funds and insurance funds. You know nothing that these people don't already know. Might as well just be getting LV odds makers to take your bet on the national weather service.
When I say people should invest in themselves, I mean things that they and their own circle of close associates are running. I mean become your own VC(s), but do it on a smaller and more frugal scale.
I never said anyone should quit any job. Sometimes jobs just go away. But outside money to put in always helps. But if you build enough of your own companies, and keep the overheads small, and do it with reliable things, instead of the way KP does it, then you will win.
1. Social benefit, developing your skills and your circle of outstanding people
2. Big money, but best to soak it up in new companies, find way to reabsorb it and avoid taxes.
None of this is higher risk than market speculation. And no one should quit any job or passively allow their job to go away, unless really involved in other ventures.
You Dougster are the one making straw man arguments.
Remember, if you are the boss, you do it on your own terms, meaning the hours. And today with electronic communications and redirection of cell phones etc, you can run a part time business and not interfere with a day job.
You are assuming that quitting a day job is a requirement. Not so.
But don't take money from VC's, be your own VC, just at a smaller and more frugal scale.
And you don't need to wear all the hats, you build a circle of close and trusted associates.
Lots of people are currently running as many as 1/2 dozen small companies doing diverse things.
Mom and pop businesses have a very low failure rate. If they get to where they have at least some revenue, the failure rate is very very small.
They don't have to have significant fixed costs. They can piggy back on other stuff.
VC funded stuff, on the other hand, has a very high failure rate. They are over capitalized and aimed at narrow market windows, and with flakey product / service offerings based usually on gaining market control. They don't serve real needs, they are gambits for control.
Believe me, I know KP first hand.
And above all, everyone, continue to build your talents and abilities and use them. Don't let Dougster and his political ilk convince you otherwise. They speak with forked tongues.
25, running your own stuff has a mathematical expectation of making you more money. And best is if you can keep this in equity until you need it. Better tax deal that way. And the whole affair has big tax benefits.
And if things never really go, then you still keep the day job.
You, 40 years running your own biz, should know this better than anyone.
The only reason I have a mathematical expectation of making more money, is because I have a track record, for those that don't have that track record, their mathematical expectation is actually less than 30%. My day job is running my business, and a lot of other peoples day jobs as well. Regardless of whether or not anything I produce is socially valuable, the fact that I employ a bunch of people is socially valuable, tax benefits are only useful, if you are making enough money to owe taxes. So you could say I am in a can't afford to fail situation, not just for myself but for many others who depend on me. That is really the fallacy, of your whole premise.
SJG: "You know nothing that these people don't already know."
If think you are completely missing the point. The object of the game is not to show you know more but to make some money. So even if you admit you don't know more. So what? Buy and hold an index ETF and you'll make money long term. Don't quite your job and that'll also be low risk.
SJG: "Might as well just be getting LV odds makers to take your bet on the national weather service."
Again you are missing a big point which is that the stock is a "positive sum" game. So you'll make money, unlike your Vegas example which is negative sum and the money would indeed end up with the house.
Not mention that I've pointed that you've contradicted yourself plenty in the past when you said you know that we are in a bubble. Nevertheless the pension funds you mention keep buying. So indicating you (and RickyBoy, I guess) no something they don't.
SJG = doesn't even know the basic, constantly contradicting himself.
One last point before I am done for this evening, in order to partner with me, or work for me, you need to be all in, that means you quit your job and be as committed to whatever venture we have together as I am. If I hire you you need to also be committed to my company as I am, I pay well but I expect you to do your best work, and demand exclusivity, at all times. If that isn't acceptable to you then we will not be using your talents
Dougster, yeah yeah yeah, say anything to promote your Ponzi scheme, and the ultimate goal of your ilk, to split humanity into two tiers. And it really is not a very good way to make money either, and certainly not for people who stand opposed to what you are trying to do.
What I said above is the truth. The stock market is a positive sum game. You have absolutely no comeback to that I see. Truth is pretty hard to argue with isn't it?
All I can add to this is SJG really doesn't understand the markets at all, the stock market is being likened to a casino but that is not a correct analogy, the casino exists only to separate you from your money that is the ultimate goal of the bookie. The stock markets exist to actually give you a legitimate shot at owning a piece of a successful company, and making some money in cooperation with the companies that you should be researching, before you put your money in, hell in the casino you have to ante up before you get your cards.
Stock ticker ONVO is another one I like the super long term story of but very volatile. Looks like they had a little drop on Friday. Anyone else follow that ticker?
@Dougster do you have some inside information ? P/E is negative, EPS is negative, Revenue per employee is about -$332,000 also negative, is there an FDA approval pending is there a new product in the pipeline this could be interesting PM me if you want to
Nope no insider information. That's one where I just like the long term story. And yeah they'll probably burn alot of cash getting to that point.
I was thinking picking some up late last fall, but it didn't look like the best buying point. Thinking on the current dip it might be okay. $3 probably okay, but $2.5 would be really nice. Going to watch.
Buying was partly to make some money long term, but also to help out vinceygirlmichaels who is suffering from HIV that GILD is working on treatments for.
See vinceygirl: No hard feeling between me and you, okay???
Problem with ONVO is the balance sheet they are burning through cash like a drunk on a bender, unless you know about something that i don't see, it's hard for me to see them getting past 7-9 and they could very well go belly up from their burn rate.
Research is expensive in the biotech world, and can a long time to pay off. But yep, they are much higher risk/reward than something conservative. I'd put it at 25% chance of going to zero, but if they succeed should be at least a triple. (And there's jestie214's cue to short it). So far only got 5% of my personal portfolio in it, and it's not exactly something I'm allowed to buy for other people.
25, the mathematical expectations of the stock markets are not as bad as with casinos. But the stock markets are still glorified gambling. It is rather like betting on race horses. Except that with the stock markets, it is the people who run the big pension and insurance funds who set the odds. That is, the odds are already reflected in current pricing.
So I could watch the TV news weather forecast, and then get someone to give me odds and take my bet on what will actually happen. This is how the stock markets are. You don't have any info which the people who effectively control it don't. People get off on it because it makes them feel alive, when their lives have turned into doldrums, and when they have become so beaten down that they no longer see the talents which they have and what might be done with them. Don't let Dougster and his ilk do this to people..
Now that it often seems to be a positive net, well this is just the way our society is rigged to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The seeming positive tilt to the stock market is absolutely not a better deal than putting your money into your own affairs. With these you not only have knowledge, you have a degree of control. So you use your money to make it possible to do things you otherwise could not. You do this for yourself, and you do it for the circle of associates you build. Because it works in multiple dimensions, it offers a better economic prospect, and it also offers all kinds of other benefits.
And don't listen to any of Dougster's boosting for this or that. It is all forked tongue, pitch lines, Ponzi boosting. Instead, figure out how to derail he and his ilk, or we will all end up living in a dystopia like they show in The Matrix.
I'm waiting to see what Friday's GENERAL STRIKE against Trump does to the stock Market that day. I hope to hell we send a message that bites Trump where it counts
Listen up because this is getting tiresome. The stock market is not a casino, you have the opportunity to do research and examine any instrument before you buy it, be it a stock, a bond , a debenture of any type, an annuity or any other instrument with cash value. In a casino you sit down at a table or stand at station and put down your wager before you ever see your cards or throw your dice, if you don't want to participate that's up to you, but just because you don't understand something, or dislike something, doesn't mean it has no value. Thousands of people of all types, participate in the stock markets all over the world daily, it is not a ponzi scheme or anything else that you are calling it. With your ranting and raving and certainty that you know more than anybody else, you sound more like our new president than most, so if I were you I would stop being so absolutely sure of yourself and get some real facts and quit talking about things you don't know anything about. If you have a desire to learn about it i suggest that you take a class in economics or read some well written books by knowledgeable people, if you would like a recommendation for learning about investing try some books written by Jim Cramer the host of mad money on CNBC, he puts his money where his mouth is and explains concepts and markets in a simple fashion, actually so simple even a TUSCLer could understand them. I am done with this subject if you have a legitimate question and I know the answer I'll answer , if you just want to opine for the sake of opinionated jackassery, fight with dougster, or meat, or anyone else.
SJG: "the mathematical expectations of the stock markets are not as bad as with casinos."
Positive sum versus negative sum, dumbass.
Also there are about four hedge funds that consistently beat the markets and few guys like Buffet who have done the same, so, yes, some people are better at it than others.
"you have the opportunity to do research and examine any instrument before you buy it"
Almost never are you going to have anything the professional fund managers don't already have, in terms of info. And these are the guys who make the big buy and sell orders that determine the prices.
So if you find something which looks good, that is already reflected in the price. And if it looks iffy, that is already reflected in the price.
So it is a casino.
And it is a Ponzi scheme because the current level of economic activity depends upon people living beyond their means, on ecological unsustainability, and on social instability in that more and more people have less and less and so our Democracy is being placed at risk.
What seems to drive this Ponzi scheme 25, is the same psychology which keeps you wanting to defend it, and Dougster and his ilk using this to destroy our democracy in order to create a dystopia.
The basic stock market advice is still, buy low, sell high. But the way it works, most of the time it is just the rich getting richer by taking money off of the poor. If you examine these issues, you are acting on information which is always after the fact, has zero predictive power.
And that you even listen to Jim Cramer is a sad commentary on what your actual life must be like.
Don't listen to Dougster, you have actual talents which you could be using your own money to help you apply.
Buffet is interesting, but those hedge funds seem to run for a while, and then look for a government bail out.
But we all have tremendous under utilized skills, which we could use if we backed ourselves up with our money.
Like Varoufakis says, it is a $5.2 Trillion mountain of money which does nothing except inflate real estate and home prices, but nothing to meet the real needs of our evolving world.
None of the four I'm thinking of have ever need "a bailout" and all have been around for many years. One did have a very bad year in 2008 and had to suspend resumptions, but even factoring in that year, their long term average is pretty awesome.
I think just about everyone thinks of starting their own business at some point. And then weighs the risk versus reward and considers what they value, and comes to the decision. Probably must who are capable of profitably running their own business take a shot at it at some point. Along with the majority who thought they were, but were wrong.
Again, it's pretty easy to lookup the historical returns of people investing in the S&P. You say starting your own small business is better, but where is your data to back that up?
@SJG: If you are thinking of GS they had about a neutral year in 2008. They had some "big shorts" but it was mostly to offset their longs. Their Lloyd said they weren't exposed to AIG because they had CDS to offset that. So did they need a bailout or was it just chest thumping. My belief is that it was the latter along with WFC who also claimed they didn't need one. I think it's pretty obvious the whole system would have gone belly up and you would have the depression you have all your wet dreams about if not for Paulson and the bailouts.
In, any case, GS has had very good returns but I didn't include them in the four I mentioned because they are not a hedge fund. But it's another good example of how there are a few players out there who can consistently beat the market.
Minor correction. My avg buying price on GILD was $65.92. I did three buys and that's what the final avg came out to be. Just to make sure we have a super accurate historical record.
Dougster, still promoting your financialization agenda. Not surprising, but still sickening. People have actual talents and abilities, but they listen to you and they get swept in.
25, part of the problem is that from Reagan forward, federal policy has been to create stock market bubbles. So all these hedge fund things, and Warren Buffet, gain from that.
Its like it was with John C. Calhoun. He wanted every white man to own at least one negro slave. That way there would be no more opposition to slavery.
Well, Nixon was certainly a candidate of Wall Street. But he was not pushing further financialization. That only hurts working people, and that would look bad on the national stage.
But from Reagan onwards, they have been always trying to pull more money and more and more people into these financial markets. It is just a second layer between workers and the value.
25, sounds like you have done well now for some decades. But you have turned into a guy with more dollars than sense.
Yes, twentyfive, having more dollars than sense is not such a bad position. But maybe someday you will realize that if you'd of been listening to the Dougster's of this world, things might not be so rosy today. And then of Jim Cramer, yeah right.
And then as far as I, you keep forgetting something, I maintain a strict privacy wall, so you know nothing about me.
Two picks to watch on stocks, and don't ask for multiples or any earnings report on these companies because I don't believe in stock picking as an overall strategy. I just lick a handful for fun, and CERN and NKA are two plays due to long term trends.
If anyone has loved ones working in the hospitals they will tell you all medical charting is being digitized and reporting is done widespread by Cerner. Most staff across the country have been getting training on this software and technology. It will be the mode of record keeping for medical charting. The Niska play will be infrastructure for natural gas as that resource with its abundance and cheap availability will be the environmental safe play on fossil fuels. Cars will be run on natural gas and definitely more trucks and semi for our transportation needs. It's a growing trend. Sit in these two plays for the next 5-10 years and you will thank me!
If you go to a casino to gamble, the odds are fixed.
But if you call a bookie to bet on an athletic event, they give you odds.
If you decide to put your money into the stock market, large professional investors are the ones who set the odds, and the way they do this is by using their money to establish the current price. It is almost impossible for you to legally know anything more than they know. So basically, you are betting against these professional investors. They put money in, up to a certain price. Were they right or were they wrong?
At a personal level, the tragedy is that people are led to believe that this form of gambling is a better place for their money than investing in themselves, and in their own circle of close associates.
At the political level, people glorify the speculator, as work itself and the people who do it, because less and less valued.
Dougster and his ilk are working day and night to bring about fascism, and one of the manifestations of this will be a two-tier society.
It's actually SJG and his ilk who working to bring about Nazism. Listen to his rhetoric. The financial sector and people in it are parasites. Sound familiar? If it does that's because that is straight out of Nazi propaganda. Maybe SJG has be studying Goebbels lately.
@25: GS is the stock I've made the most money on over the years. Some ETF and options have done better for me but that's my number favorite all time equity. And I'm sure that will cause SJG to blow a gasket!
The thing that nobody here, gets about GS, is that they are embedded in both sides of the aisles of our government, they are a always in definitively the in crowd.
An amateur day trader has little likelihood of long term success over professional investors with experience and voluminous research.
However, investing in equities over longer periods of time is relying on the belief that management will run the company in such a way as to maximize shareholder value. Large and small shareholders share alike in growth and dividends. Diversifying across a cross-section of businesses and sectors reduces the likelihood of losing everything.
If a person owns and operates a business, they have equity and control. If they are skilled (and surround themselves with skilled individuals), entrepreneurial ownership can pay handsome rewards. However, for the majority of individuals lacking entrepreneurial ideas and resources, investing in a diversified portfolio of well run, solid corporations is the next best way to grow ones savings at a rate outpacing inflation.
Investing is not fascism. Investing is not gambling. Investing is investing. Holding stock is ownership. Period.
To discourage anyone from investing in a well run 401(k) plan is lunacy, bordering on financial homicide.
Promoting financialization just further devalues work. It is just another layer between workers and management. It does bring about fascism and a two-tier society, and Dougster knows this.
And 25, how many of those companies in the 401K do you control? I am very surprised that you, a 40 year long business owner, do not understand this.
If you put money into your own abilities, then you have the better chances of good results.
And no, you don't need to do it alone, to wear all the hats. I have always made it clear that you need to have a team.
Now, there is one difficulty, to start and run a corporation, and do a good job with distribution of equity, you need to have great lawyers and accountants, and this is out of reach for most people.
I don't admire KP. But they do have great lawyers and they know all the tricks. Their firm is not a proprietorship, it is a corporation with shares. And the money, comes from rich investors and it goes into funds, and then the funds own the shares in the startups.
This is tremendously complex and the legalities are extreme. And they use one of the highest power law firms, Wilson Sonsini. This is out of reach of most people, by far.
And then the quality of management in the start ups, it typically sucks. Because KP wants things with huge win potentials, they emphasize novelty and market control. This is why 9 out of 10 fail. But KP does not care, because to them it is just money, no pride in the work for them.
I don't want to do things his way. But he showed me that there can be lots and lots of ways. And much of what he gives his companies is non-monetary, just advice and connections.
I am more inspired by the English Arts and Crafts Movement in the 1900, and by our own Open Source / Open Standards movement.
It shows how the further the startup gets from its goals, the more it becomes like the Tower of Babel. People don't even speak the same language. These startup companies are very often complete reality distortions, nonsense.
So when you put money into the stock market, you do not have this kind of inside view.
Think about it, the investors ( reps of the VC's ) are being treated to monthly dog and pony shoes where all kinds of people are giving presentations. You can gauge the people and question them.
But if you are just an outside investor in a public firm, that kind of detail has to be concealed by confidentiality agreements. All you get are the financials. And then of course the higher the P to E, and the more it is a start up instead of an established firm, the less the financials really mean.
I say, very stupid to put money into things you are not on the inside of, and really into things you don't control.
Putting money into stuff you don't run and where you don't know the people, is just betting against the inside and pro investors. It is just a way of getting an adrenaline rush and making yourself feel important. You can get a better buzz just from paying hookers.
Put your money into your own stuff.
In my organization this issue of quality lawyering for the legalities will be solved, everything involving real estate, contractual agreements, and especially equity.
But other people can work together to solve these problems too, and they can make the rules work for them too.
Nat gas is a pretty bold call. I remember guys kept trying to bottom fish it during the relentless decline a few years back, and it would always just falling more. Can't really say I follow it too much to have an opinion. I think one of farmerart's last ventures involved nat gas.
Good luck Meat72. You should know by now that lap dances are a chumps game, and you should put your money and talents into people and your own talents, not this ponzu scheme artificially propping up the markets with your inflated values. The quicker it crashes the sooner we get back to putting our talents into local services. That's where the real money is at. Buying into the market is like buying lap dances. It's a chump's game. Lol!
^^^@ meat I don't know enough about either to make an accurate call one way or another, of the 2 NKA is much riskier, there are stronger energy plays than that.
^^^ No, that's the definitely the one thing we can't call SJG, a chump. There's plenty of other names to label him; too many to list, but playing the chumps game isn't one of them.
I think he is the all time leader in creating enemies with TUSCL members. That's one successful organization he's created; a laundry list of people who hate him on TUSCL. I wonder how SJG would survive in the rest of the country in parts like Texas, Ohio, Arizona, or Iowa? Those people don't fuck around with counter cultural attitudes like his. It usually ends with someone being dragged behind a pickup truck through gravel roads for several miles, and SJG isn't driving the pick up.
@ JimGassagain read Dadillac;s response to the bozo, I fully support just not paying him no nevermind.
"Daddillac
Joined Jul 2008
Clubs: 27
Reviews: 79
Yesterday • SJG.... I did read the thread, Shadow asked "What is the most expensive lap dance price shown on TUSCL for straight lap dances?"
I did not see him ask for an opinion, which is what you answered with.
In the beginning your opinions were funny and I enjoyed your casual comments. Later I felt sorry for you that you had to voice your opinion about everything, your existence must be so miserable. Finally, it got to where it pissed me off to see your comments. You never give a straight answer on anything and only try to piss people off with your opinions. Honestly I don't think even you believe most of the shit that comes out of your mouth, you just want to be heard.
Yep! ^^^ Placing the idiot on ignore is the best way to handle his stupidity. Just like IME mentioned in a new discussion thread. Better to let sleeping dogs lay.
Putting money into publicly issued corporations which you have no control over is just a glorified game of gambling. People do it because of the emotional charge, and because it makes them feel like they are someone.
It may seem to have a positive tilt most of the time, but this is because the government promotes this, in order to maintain high approval. Our Federal Lottery, is the stock market. Sad.
And the issue was raised about having a place to park your reserve fund or nest egg. I think the sum of 50k was suggested.
Well that underscores the advantage of running your own stuff. It is not just money, it is control. Better if you don't need to take the money out. The less money you take out, the less taxes you pay. Having to take it out is because your are an employee.
And of course it is always better to let new companies you start soak up as much taxable income as possible, within legal limits of course.
All of this requires good lawyers and accountants. The people who run Kliener Perkins have benefited from this at every turn. Most of us have not had this.
But we know that playing the stock market is not the best way for them to make money. And in fact, it would be far worse than it is if it did not have federal economic policy supporting it. It is simply a bought off constituency of glorified gamblers, to lazy to do something more constructive with their money.
Dougster, when you sold your soul, I hope Mr. Big gave you something good in exchange. Mind if I ask what that was, because I certainly don't see any evidence of it.
I think the limbo was decided with a break to the upside: started when they said Dodd Frank would be repealed (shortly before @25 posted this) but was really clenched with the announcement of an announcement regarding taxes. To screw it up you'll need him not deliver on taxes or Europe to start its inevitable break up. But the French election aren't until May.
But what if you have no real skills and have to rely on a 40 hour work week as a stiff of an employee, and all you know how to do is show up to work and put away some of your paycheck like the majority of working class Americans? The stock market is the one asset class that historically gives an individual the greatest rate of return, so are you saying SJG that those people should not invest in the stock market? They have no tolerance to start their own business or do they have enough time to venture beyond their steady $70-$100k annual salary, should these people with no tolerance to start their own trades stay away from the market?
So far many have signed up including me, 25, and meat. Are you interested in joining? As ime points out, SJG has no interested in discussing what people really believes. He wants to argue against a bunch of strawmen he sets up to make himself look like a hero. No regard for the truth of how he represents his opponent whatsoever.
About 2/3's of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Don't have any rainy day fund or self funded retirement. Don't get paid enough to have that.
Where I live, some people have 2 or 3 jobs and can't afford anymore than renting the sofa in someone's living room.
With each of these boom and busts, the situation gets worse. We have not added a single living wage job since the 2008 sub prime melt down.
If people are without options, that is because they have been politically marginalized. All this talk about the stock market is intended to do that!
If people can politically organize, they can come up with better financial options also.
But absolutely no way, are a majority of working class American's putting money in the stock market. Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer, talks about this in detail.
Dougster and supporters are simply preaching fatalism, convincing people that their own social and political organizing skills are worthless. This what Dougster and his ilk want people to believe.
And the more Right Wing A. Holes who boycott me, the less time I will need to spend doing thread by thread troll patrols.
Interesting action today. Tomorrow is looking likely to open down given where futures are right now. That will the gap after Trump's speech and put us back in a region where there should be lots of buyers on the S&P. But if the seller can overwhelming them, could get interesting...
Please go down.....markets. I need to put in another $15k this month from my awesome production compensation!
Word of mouth keeps me too busy with repeat asset management business. I win again! Kicking ass in the real world and TUSCL. AUM for me has increased over $50 million in one year! Duck off SJG!
Probably is so more downside based on today's action, but we have now closed that gap after Trump's speech last week. SPY $235 is the level to watch. Should be lots of buyers between $235 and $236.5. If they all get taken out... :-) Tomorrow should be telling. I still think caution is warranted. Market had every reason to rally big today, but did not.
It was nice to see oil back below $50 yesterday. The whole rally on Opec didn't make much sense to me. I think short terms players should be watching that as well along with the $235 level on SPY. Long term people can keep calm and carry on. :-)
When Carlo Ponzi's scheme collapsed, it took down a medium sized New Jersey bank. He tried to argue that his business was legitimate. But SCOTUS would decide otherwise. Chief Justice, former President, and Republican, William Howard Taft wrote the opinion. After serving a lengthy term in federal prison, they revoked Ponzi's naturalized citizenship, and then they deported him. He ended up working for Mussolini.
Stock market is a Ponzi scheme, as it runs on the money which is not paying our public expenses. It inflates, with money which should be meeting real needs.
That kind of financial system makes our whole society into a Ponzi Scheme.
And both Mussolini and the Underground Reich run on manipulation of financial markets, fraud, Ponzi fraud.
Fascism is really just the concentration of power and destruction of democracy. Financial fraud is very much this.
"As it runs on the money which is not paying our public expenses". ^^^
SJG, the public is separate from private when it comes to ownership of stock. That is the opposite of a Ponzi scheme. There is no ownership in Ponzi schemes. When you own stock you have an ownership in commerce, which deals in the ownership of goods and services. This is the very ownership that you promote, which is creating your own companies, so if you had your own organization you should support stock ownership, as those very same people would be investing in your organization. Ponzi schemes have no valuations, yet the stock market does have valuations. People buy and sell them everyday in the most regulated system in the history of earth. Explain that one SJG! And don't side step the issue with some false narrative.
Not open to outside investment? I've been standing in line for a month behind fifty other people, because we were all told we could get in on your organization on the ground floor. Guess I'll have to tear up my check. More money to spend at the Las Vegas TUSCL meetup!
I think the sentiment took a big hit because Trump appears weaker than ever. His bluster is starting to get old he needs to show that he actually can accomplish something real not these made up stories, the market is becoming cynical.
I also think his antics yesterday didn't helped. I guess on Friday he was coached to come out and say he didn't blame Freedom Caucus or Ryan, when, of course, he did. Said he blamed the Democrats. Yesterday he was back to a bit more believable version of Trump!
If we do break down, I was thinking it's almost a freefall to $229 on the SPY, then should get some buyers again. Definitely around mid $227's there should be lots of buyers show up.
Dougster and twentyfive, the things I am doing and not open to outside investment.
So your discussion of them is complete nonsense.
People should not listen to these people, telling them that their actual skills are worthless and promoting a form of glorified gambling, and then patting themselves on the back.
^^^Listen and listen good I have no interest in you or anything you are doing, at one point I thought you were intelligent but misguided, but your constant harping on subjects you know nothing about, leads me to one inescapable conclusion that you are nothing but a one trick pony incapable of learning anything new, that goes directly to your intelligence or more correctly your lack of intelligence.
Gaffigan, ownership of stock is not ownership of commerce. All it gives you is proxy votes. Otherwise you have not claim to the corporations cash or assets. You would have dividend money if they were showing profit and paying it. Otherwise you have nothing. Only exception would be via bankruptcy, that in some cases assets could be divvied up. But usually there would be other creditors ahead in the line.
And when the stock markets are inflated beyond a point, they most certainly are Ponzi schemes.
And I'm not the originator of that insight. For one thing we have the 1929 example.
But also, Douglas Rushkoff, an expert on media and representation issues. refused to write about that during the dotcom boom, because he did not want to contribute to the "largest Ponzi scheme in all history", that Nasdaq bubble. He says this in his intro to "Nothing Sacred". Instead of contributing to the dot com bubble, he wrote about Judaism.
And Dougster, here is how media is used to influence elections, and at all levels. Very reasonable seeming people were going along with this idea that Hillary Clinton is corrupt.
"
And what they did with this organization, which the Mercers poured millions of dollars into, was they aimed to kind of create the—drive the political narrative in the 2016 campaign. They created a book called Clinton Cash, which was a compendium of all the kinds of corruption allegations against the Clintons. And they aimed to get it into the mainstream media, where it would pretty much frame the picture of Hillary Clinton as a corrupt person who couldn’t be trusted. And their hope was that they would mainstream this information that they dug up. It was like an opposition research organization, sort of masked as a charity and nonprofit. And they took this book, Clinton Cash, gave it to The New York Times exclusively, early, and the Times then ran with a story out of it, that they said they corroborated. But they ran with it, nonetheless, on their front page, which just launched this whole narrative of Hillary Clinton as corrupt. And it just kept echoing and echoing through the media after that. So, it was a real home run for them. A year later, they made a movie version of it also, which they launched in Cannes.
"
Businesses hate uncertainty, and the more it becomes obvious Trump has no idea what he's dong, the worse it will get. I'm going 100% in silver. Ask me in a year how I did!
@suckstar: Well, shoot, I'm in silver as well. Just as a short term thing, though. Funny you think Trump is bad for the markets then you invest in silver. An inflation play, so effectively a positive bet on his fiscal policy. And if anyone tells me precious metals are a "safe haven" I'll will slap them personally.
@suckstar, et al: Before you count Trump out, remember that one of his strength is said to be to learn from failures. Also when you under estimate him he proves you wrong. Keep the 3rd presidential election debate in mind. That's point where I knew he would win. He will act like a goof and clown around, between he knows it's time to be serious I think he can pull something good off.
@SJG: Oh, good. One day you are saying nobody can know anything about the price of stocks beyond their current value. Then the next you say that you are know they are bubble. Think nobody is going to notice the blatant contradictions there? What a dumb fag you are.
None of us can know what the stock market will do tomorrow, just like none of us can say that Juice cannot walk into a Vegas casino and put his money down on a roulette wheel number and win. I would prefer that he not gamble, but as he does, I hope he wins. And I hope the girls start climbing all over him, as I know he would like that even more than the money. Easy come, easy go. On tee shirts: The Rooster Gave Me Money, The Women Took It Away.
But as to whether or not the stock market amounts to glorified gambling:
He is since an investigative journalist devoted to exposing government corruption. About narcotics, his position on our country is,
"We are more addicted to drug money than to drugs."
Specifically he refers to the "pop on Wall Street", by which I think he means P to E. Its the multiplier factor, value of the outstanding shares / gross annual earnings, as I know. He was talking about numbers as high as 30 for a single issue, as being extreme. As you can see, even the aggregate now is often higher than that.
We have at least a $1 billion dollar narcotics trade. Most of this money one way or another washes into the 'legitimate economy', and the Wall Street Pop. though not specifically indicating this, it does depend on this continual influx.
And so Ruppert wrote of a number of years ago about the head of the NYSE going to Columbia to make a cold call on the leader of one of the drug mafia rebel groups, to persuade them to keep the money coming in.
And then there were also these "Pizza Connection" cases on the East Coast, where heroin money was being laundered through pizzerias, and then through the E. F. Hutton investment firm, then being run by Barbara Bush's brother-in-law, Scott Pierce.
And then of Wachovia Bank, it has been widely reported that they had been laundering money from the Mexican drug trade. They became adapted to this, dependent on this. And then when Philippe Calderon came in he deployed the army, first to Michoacán, and then all over. This did not reduce the quantity or quality of drugs coming on, or increase the price, quite the opposite. But it did diffuse the drug trade, and it left Wachovia hanging out to dry.
So having been absorbed into Wells Fargo, I hope any remaining traces of it can be obliterated. But as we see, Wells Fargo does not seem to know how to keep its nose clean either.
Suffice to say, stock market prices depend on many more things than just what goes onto the company balance sheets. And then even the company balance sheets are highly influenced by perceptions. Most of our economy serves the very softest of needs, like keeping up with the Jones. So stock market and real estate inflation also inflates consumption. And the central indicator has long been automobiles. What really took the jobs market down in the Great Depression, not the stock market but the jobs market? It was when the automobile plants closed. That ripples back to about 25% direct unemployment, then plus more for consumer fear.
And what indicated for sure that the Dot Com Ponzi Scheme was over in Silicon Valley? Collapse of the German car dealerships. The San Jose Metro published a cover page cartoon of an overturned Porsche Boxter. After that they and NPR started saying all sorts of critical things, things which they had sequestered while the Ponzi Scheme was running.
And what terrified the entire nation in 2008? It was when the auto plants shut down. That was the point when everyone knew that this was a great deal more than just another recession, and there was no way to cover it up.
And how long do cars last? Well, in the Great Depression, people would drive their cars to stand in bread and soup lines, so that they would not feel like they were being looked down upon. And it was in the Great Depression that the replacement parts industry developed. Cars can last as long as you want them too, just like those big UPS trucks. The issue is social status.
So our entire economy serves extremely soft needs, and the stock market indices depend on many more things than the amount of commerce being done. And then that amount of commerce also depends on perceptions just as much as do the stock market prices.
And then Gaffigan, if you want to own some of the commerce, you need to do more than just own stock in an Inc. You would need to be a proprietor, or at least a full partner. Then you could say that the business's money is your money. The reason we have Inc's, and stock, is specifically because people want to avoid direct ownership.
I see this now, and while not conclusive, it does suggest that despite the high stock market indices, that there could be a recession developing, and in multiple industries simultaneously.
What the fuck weave is SJG telling here? His story goes on a multitude of tangents throwing out red herrings left and right so nobody knows which direction he is speaking of. First it was the stock market and on a dime he pivots to drug narcotics trade in the US?
You failed to prove a point SJG, other than you are truly psychotic.
Yeah you dumb fuck SJG! A Ponzi scheme is a pyramid scheme, with no fundamentals to keep it afloat. Where as the stock market is ownership in corporations backed by equity. There is value in the market that always has a value, either high or low.
The Ponzi scheme goes away to zero as soon as the gig is up, like Bernie Madoff, or like the organization you're building.
How many people ha e you recruited in your Ponzi scheme SJG? I bet it's only 2, you and your mom's gravy!
Two Tier Society is only an interim arrangement for Dougster and his friends. Then its the rail cattle cars and the interment camps. But that is only interim as well.
@SJG you need to start your own threads if you don't want to discuss the topic that is posted. You are nothing but a super opinionated troll and an idiot I have no one on ignore but you are coming very close.
Fieldofschemes.com is the companion website to Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit, by Joanna Cagan and Neil deMause. Since 1998, we have been casting a critical eye on the roughly $2 billion a year in public subsidies that go toward building new pro sports facilities.
You have to pay to play, and if you don't then the professional team will go somewhere that someone will pay.
If this guy is a so called expert, tell us how your economy does with no team in town? Tell us how you fill the stadium seats and restaurants when no events are going on?
If you really believe this Stanford "expert", then you're as nuts as he is.
Remember that he is speaking about the case of building a stadium. He says that usually it will be a money sink.
The new stadium in Santa Clara could go this way, as there is a contractual rent reduction on the table, and it is all now the subject of a lawsuit and forensic accounting.
If they get the rent reduction, then based on what they put into public coffers the first year, it becomes a money sink, and this would violate the ballot measure which authorized it. Needless to say, this is a huge mess.
Most people agree that it has done nearly nothing for retail business ( not including when my Christian Eating Lions were there of course. )
In Oakland, the Mayor is saying that they lose $8 million per month on the Raiders, and this is in a very old stadium. One city council member wants to kick them out of the stadium and let it remain unused.
This author has long held that most of these stadiums are public money sinks, to the tune of about $2 billion per year total.
It sounds like now, the Raiders will move to Las Vegas, but it will take 2 years to build them their stadium. That will in turn also be used by UNLV.
Now of course Las Vegas is a one of a kind place. So the normal rules might not apply. But as I see it, there is a good chance that their new stadium will be a money sink as well. And also, more and more cities are becoming more and more like Las Vegas, running on boosting and fatalism, and on distortions of truth.
During the 80's, San Jose tried to brand itself as, "Capitol of Silicon Valley". This has never been true. But it did mean lots of public money going through re-development into private profits, and this has much to do with why San Jose has been in such financial trouble for well over a decade now.
197 comments
Latest
As far as sentiment goes, it's unclear. I saw one piece saying people are extremely bullish: the most since 2004 another showing an crazy-insane positioning of 8:1 shorts versus longs.
Might want to play it with a strangle since volatility is current very low, unless your better able to analyze the minds of Trump and the Republicans than I am.
He's a much better market analyst
Executive Order 1/27/2017 appears stalled, now in the courts. #NotABan #POTUShasConstitutionalAuthority
source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off…
I wonder if the most recent Executive Order 2/3/2017, to change Dodd-Frank has any effect. Are the markets worried President Trump will try to get Glass-Steagall reinstated???
source: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-off…
Plus aren't the tax cuts tabled until after Congress does repeal/replace of the Healthcare Act? Log-jam / clam-jam. So the tax cuts might not play until 2018 at this rate with the healthcare log jam.
What a bunch of bird brains. They need to think long term, like Dougster suggests.
I read that market sentiment by some measures was the most bullish since early 1987. Of course October 1987, I think the market dropped over 20%.
Usually when magazines start talking numbers like DOW 30,000 etc that seem sky high, it's a sign of upcoming pullbacks. When all Bulls have bought stocks at the peak of investor optimism and you have no bears to convert to Bulls, you run out of buyers.
When people start getting statements reflecting losses in (previously thought to be "safe") bond funds, bond funds will sell off, generating further losses due to untimely liquidation. This is called a bubble.
Sold off bond proceeds will be divided between stocks and gold. Watch gold spike. Watch stocks temporarily spike.
After that, look out belooooooooow . . .
So short treasuries? :-)
==================================
Not saying it will necessarily unfold this way, but maybe...
(1) Yellen will raise interests rates in good intention in order to prevent a bubble and stabilize the markets.
(2) The markets will go down slightly in response.
(3) In a paranoid furry, Trump will go on a Twitter war against the Fed taking Yellen's rate rise as a personal insult.
(4) Trump will replace Yellen with an Ayn Rand, free-market type in 2018. Could be, say, Greenspan, who will be 92 (or might be dead by that time -- doesn't matter). We don't need no stinkin' financial regulation.
Back on topic, if I were @LarryFishstix age, I would put 100% into stocks and ride out all the fluctuations over time. At my age, my wife and I max out our 401Ks and put all new money into stocks, which is a sort of dollar-cost-averaging. We do have bonds -- but it's in the form of bond ladders (not bond funds) that we hold to maturity, mostly high-quality corporate debt. And we have real estate. Don't have the skill or time to study the markets in detail, but I do pay attention to the CAPE index which attempts to measure the overall valuation of the S&P. It's not perfect, but it does show a market at very high valuations and I wouldn't be surprised if the market tanks at some point. I've been saying that for years, and it hasn't happened yet.
Link describing the CAPE index:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclically…
Add to that the simple fact that we don't know how many posters are actually anonymous horny virgins that just make up stories about fucking strippers!
What will have an effect, however, is Europe. The right there is going to get alot of fuel off Trump's success here. Gonna have people shitting their pants that it's 1848 all over again. Will be a great buying opportunity.
Also wanted to throw out a stock ticker for discussion this morning: GILD. vincemichaels should be familiar with them because of the work they do on HIV medications. Now it's definitely a super long term hold and not for little girlies who will get scared if it does dip another 10-15% from here but I think it's very good from a value and future potential perspective. What do the rest of you think of GILD?
===================================
TUSCL isn't such a bad place to trade investment stories. There's a correlation b/w guys who have enough money to piss away on strippers and those who have some investment experience. We also have a few guys here in finance, at least one actuary, and (I think) some guys who do financial planning. TUSCL probably beats talking to your broker. And their's plenty of bandwidth available for those interested in another excruciating chapter of @Smith's midlife crisis.
As an outsider to finance, two books by Robert Shiller had the biggest influence on me. He's a hard-core MIT educated economist who was influenced by his wife (a psychologist). He writes about the psychology of bubbles and they gave him a Nobel Prize. No matter how analytical you are, there are times when market psychology takes over everything. We've got an insane-clown president in office and a bunch of Goldmanites in the cabinet. Watch for history to repeat itself.
Then we have some so bad (e.g. RickyBoy and SJG) that they actually great negative correlations (nearly -1.0) between what they say and what actually happens.
So if you can distinguish the two, these discussions actually pay off.
So what does Trump offer except right wing doctrines of scapegoating?
Hillary Clinton offered affordable college and restoration of Bill's 2% extra tax on high income. Both of these create economic growth.
But besides, why would anyone want to put their hard earned money into something that they and their own pool of associated do not control?
I know Dougster is trying to promote a Ponzi scheme, with the ultimate goal of splitting the human race into two tiers. Why would anyone else be going along with this.
SJG
twentyfive --> "Let me say in response to @JS69s assertion above, that Random opined on, that is sad and it wouldn't hurt for some of you to read some of these financial threads, and even if you don't take them verbatim at the very least explore some of the wisdom imparted with an advisor that you trust.
^^^ Well said. This is the #1 reason I'm still here / around Tuscl. It's not really for the SC advice. This is a great collection / concentration of successful people (some are 1%ers). So I am trying to learn and absorb what good advice I can find. So, thank you. :)
twentyfive --> "If this applies to you"
LOL!
SJG
The most basic kind is a consulting business. No reason it ever needs to fail, as it has zero overhead.
SJG
And then when this can be integrated with building a product for your own company, bingo.
SJG
SJG
To both, I do.
Enjoy your quartz.
SJG
Bond funds (especially those with longer average durations) are more susceptible to interest rate hikes. If one must hold bond funds, as in many 401(k) plans, choose options with shorter duration to reduce interest rate risk. Also, consider mixing with high yield options aka below-investment grade bond funds aka junk bond funds.
Importantly, as the equity markets achieve new all-time highs week after week, keep something in cash and/or in low duration bonds so that you have some "dry powder" to make equity purchases when those dreaded 20% market downturns/buying opportunities arise.
Most importantly, don't spend more than you earn.
SJG
"We know that the leading cause of erectile dysfunction is marriage."
Shadowcat + 20
Good discussion about how the Constitution is about property rights over people rights:
https://www.amazon.com/Commonwealth-Mich…
Black Panther's band - The Lumpen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQZEwco3…
Ashley Graham
https://www.yahoo.com/style/model-ashley…
The Egyptian ( 1954 ), about Akhenaten.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046949/
Whole movie on youtube, watch soon, as these don't last long
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QGrqYm4…
You're going to have to cite a reference. And does it take into account that corporations are often structured to pass the income through to the owners so they don't have to pay that ridiculous 35% tax?
I won't rule out a 20% correction this year if Europe gets bad enough, but that would just be a good buying opportunity and do nothing to slow down the rally long term.
Could be 1848 all over again, and I think this is one time the markets don't know in advance how it all plays out, although every day brings a bit more clarity.
I don't know what the above means. A corporation can pay salaries, and not have that be subject to the 35%. But if they pay shareholder dividends, I believe they have to pay the tax, and this is but only one of the reasons that only the largest pay dividends.
Now as far a Chapter S Corps, I do not know. They could well have some special channel to avoid taxes. Seems like they would need this.
Now about giving benefits to executives, company cars and all, there are rules. But it is in the pushing of those rules to the limit that many owners benefit.
Dougster, this is not 1848. But things on the ground are real bad. More and more Americans are living closer and closer to the margins, with less and less job security and housing costs taking up a greater and greater portion of their incomes. And the nonsense you are putting out only makes things worse. You are part of a contingent which is bringing us to dystopia.
And what you are promoting is a Ponzi scheme. And people have lots of skills which they should use, and also invest their money in their own doings, instead of speculating.
Is there to be any kind of a revolution? Well Trump is forcing it. And here local government is too. This is where I am currently involved.
SJG
The Egyptian, 1954, watch soon, as movies don't stay up long
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QGrqYm4…
Now if a corporation has revenue and we subtract from that its expenses, aren't there ways the corporation can shield the money from taxation:
1. Building Reserve Fund
2. Giving People Raises and Paying Bonuses
3. Investing In More Plant And Equipment
4. Buying Other Businesses, sometimes suppliers and customers
5. Expanding by starting new product lines
6. Paying for services of outside contractors ( R and D, Advertising, etc )
7. Buying contractual rights, timber, mining, public airwaves, airport use, etc.
8. Exploration costs ( like drilling more oil wells )
Now I know that their are legal limits on all of these things. But sometimes these limits are a bit plastic. And many times those of the above can rightly be considered mandatory costs if they want to stay in business. So as I know, this is how most corps pay no tax. I don't see this as illegitimate, so long as they are following the same rules as other corporations.
And then also related, start-up companies usually don't pay taxes or dividends. What they offer their shareholders is growth. It is assumed that it is better to keep the money in the start-up than to bleed it out. And then when the shares are closely held, the owners are often getting other benefits as well.
Now when you talk about a very large public corp, with widely held shares, then growth potential is no longer there. And the shareholders are very distant, then the only way to reward them is dividends. And so the corp then also has to pay taxes.
Are there situations when a corp is not paying dividends, but still has to pay income tax? Probably, but I don't know enough about this to know what those would be.
And Dougster, I have never suggested that anyone should quit any job!
What I have said is that they should invest their money in themselves, and in what they can do with a circle of close associates. This way they stand to get a double win, monetary and social.
And as a corollary, one can deduct the costs of a non-profitable business for some time, and even subject to some limits, the costs of a zero revenue business. I have done this myself.
Here is a question for you Dougster:
Suppose I run three organizations:
1. For profit, local services firm, I own vast majority of shares.
2. For profit, world wide high tech manufacturing firm, I own vast majority of shares.
3. Non-profit, likely religious. I am its director and for all intensive purposes have total control.
Now I know there are limits on one person controlling too many things, of too great a size. Do you know what these are.
Suppose I decide to donate my shares in #1 to #3. Having this genuinely helps #3, whether it sells it, or keeps it.
So I should get a big tax deduction, and for something which I built with sweat, but cost me no money. If #1 is not public, how do I establish the worth of its shares?
So then could I sell like say $1 Meg of shares from #2, and then have that covered by a tax deduction from donating the shares of #1?
So I get $1 Meg free and clear ( for paying hookers for sex of course ), without actually giving up anything which cost me money, as I built #1, #2, and #3 up from nothing, putting in little more than sweat. And the donation of #1 to #3 really does help #3.
Legal? What are the limits?
And thank you 25 for that info on Sub Chap S.
SJG
Egyptian, 1954
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QGrqYm4…
FYI, the Babylonian Courtesan is played by Daryl Zanuck's current mistress, Bella Darvi, an actress from Poland. The part was expanded for her.
Now the second part of your term paper, as a general rule you get to deduct the cost of goods and services that you use to produce your product, now you are starting to get into some taxes that need to be paid but remember you are just a one or two man show at this point so your corp reflects this and elects the pass through distinction of Sub S or LLC, tax strategy at this point is not where you live and die, so you focus your energies on increasing sales and growing your business.
Here is where things are getting interesting, you have grown your small enterprise to a reasonable size having increased sales to reflect several hires along with the costs associated with these hires, you are starting to develop a good following and your revenues reflect this, now its time to give yourself a raise. Tax prep is starting to become important but not yet crucial. Remember if you are making a good living you pay your taxes using an experienced preparer usually a CPA .
At this point you need to decide on an exit or running strategy for your enterprise, you have been running hard for a long time at this point do you want to coast and just enjoy your increased income, solidify your good lifestyle, save enough money to have a nice long and hopefully enjoyable retirement, or grow this enterprise into a public company. That is completely up to you.
So as you see there are many different strategies it all depends on your goals.
Now coming to your often repeated theme what should a businessman who has retired do with the proceeds of his sale, if one was to listen to you just park the cash under your pillow and draw down as needed without knowing how long you need to make that nest egg last. Put it in a bank account and earn less than the cost of real inflation currently low but that may change, or invest it in the stock market and with a little luck and some smart investments grow that nest egg to allow you to continue in this great lifestyle that you have earned and created for yourself. You now can respond with some junk about investing in your self, or Ponzi schemes or you can give it a little thought and start to grow up a little where you realize that you don't have all of the answers. I hope for your sake you opt for the latter.
BTW the strategy of investing is for everyone whether they own a business which is probably the more difficult option or they have a job that they hopefully get satisfaction as well as income from.
Ah, that's the tough part to figure out. I was not a big fan of Facebook for instance. I thought they had limited growth potential a few years back, but it turns out I was wrong about them as were many other skeptics. Today there are plenty of large companies that may or may not have growth potential. For example how about AAPL? Right now they *appear* to be resting on their laurels of the iPhone and Mac. But do they have something up their sleeves? Hard to say. (Incidentally I think they are buy just on the basis of their cash and current business, so anything beyond that is gravy). There are many other companies in this boat as well. See if you can name some.
And working with a group of close associates is the correct decision for some people, but it comes with risk. It's not the right call for everyone. People need to weigh all the factors. Which I think is what they already do.
As for "social" benefits I would, in general, the large public corporations are generally responsible for great social benefit. It's not always true, but when it is not, it's a an exception rather than the rule.
But how much better to put $ into things you and your circle of close associates are running, rather than speculating, buying in with zero predictive knowledge and zero control, and making your broker rich with your stupidity.
And 25, Sub Chap S is good for things which are more collaborative. Not everyone wants that. Some of want to hold as high a percentage of the shares as possible, we want control, and this control can be even more important than profits, as control has financial benefits. You don't need to answer to anyone for the actions you take.
And cart before horse? What is the purpose of making money if you don't know where it is going to go? And it is better if you have ways to recirculate it with as little tax bite as possible. Our tax laws are set up with certain assumptions. Not that difficult to get completely around those assumptions. Most counter culture stuff has always worked like this.
Though at a smaller scale, I've been running my own stuff for over 25 years. Not your 40 years, but still enough to know.
If it is just about money, then you are just another squirrel spinning that cage wheel. My objectives are much bigger than just money.
We all have talents which we should be using. Don't help do Dougster's evils for him!
SJG
2 Pillars of Solomon
https://archive.org/details/2PillarsOfSo…
People just have to decide all the factors going into working with their associates or investing the money in the markets. They could go with the latter by an index ETF, and spend maybe a few hours a year because of it. Keep their current jobs so there is little risk in that approach. Or they could size up their circle of associates and their idea for a business and see if it's worth the effort and risk. Lots of factors will weigh in. Their age for instance. How much time they want to devote to it. It will be right decision for some, but for most probably best just to buy that index ETF and spend their extra time with their families. Everyone has different values and risk tolerances and so will have to decide for themselves. But given most businesses fail that math says it would definitely be better just to invest it for most.
And to your point of not being about the money it really is about what the money can get for you money is neither good or bad it is a tool if you use it wisely you can buy the Presidency of the United States.
When I say people should invest in themselves, I mean things that they and their own circle of close associates are running. I mean become your own VC(s), but do it on a smaller and more frugal scale.
I never said anyone should quit any job. Sometimes jobs just go away. But outside money to put in always helps. But if you build enough of your own companies, and keep the overheads small, and do it with reliable things, instead of the way KP does it, then you will win.
1. Social benefit, developing your skills and your circle of outstanding people
2. Big money, but best to soak it up in new companies, find way to reabsorb it and avoid taxes.
None of this is higher risk than market speculation. And no one should quit any job or passively allow their job to go away, unless really involved in other ventures.
You Dougster are the one making straw man arguments.
Remember, if you are the boss, you do it on your own terms, meaning the hours. And today with electronic communications and redirection of cell phones etc, you can run a part time business and not interfere with a day job.
You are assuming that quitting a day job is a requirement. Not so.
But don't take money from VC's, be your own VC, just at a smaller and more frugal scale.
And you don't need to wear all the hats, you build a circle of close and trusted associates.
Lots of people are currently running as many as 1/2 dozen small companies doing diverse things.
SJG
They don't have to have significant fixed costs. They can piggy back on other stuff.
VC funded stuff, on the other hand, has a very high failure rate. They are over capitalized and aimed at narrow market windows, and with flakey product / service offerings based usually on gaining market control. They don't serve real needs, they are gambits for control.
Believe me, I know KP first hand.
And above all, everyone, continue to build your talents and abilities and use them. Don't let Dougster and his political ilk convince you otherwise. They speak with forked tongues.
SJG
https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/1…
SJG
And if things never really go, then you still keep the day job.
You, 40 years running your own biz, should know this better than anyone.
SJG
If think you are completely missing the point. The object of the game is not to show you know more but to make some money. So even if you admit you don't know more. So what? Buy and hold an index ETF and you'll make money long term. Don't quite your job and that'll also be low risk.
SJG: "Might as well just be getting LV odds makers to take your bet on the national weather service."
Again you are missing a big point which is that the stock is a "positive sum" game. So you'll make money, unlike your Vegas example which is negative sum and the money would indeed end up with the house.
I don't think you get even the basics here, SJG.
SJG = doesn't even know the basic, constantly contradicting himself.
What's the rate and please cite your source.
Thanks!
Dougster, yeah yeah yeah, say anything to promote your Ponzi scheme, and the ultimate goal of your ilk, to split humanity into two tiers. And it really is not a very good way to make money either, and certainly not for people who stand opposed to what you are trying to do.
SJG
Panthers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bcubkt6…
What I said above is the truth. The stock market is a positive sum game. You have absolutely no comeback to that I see. Truth is pretty hard to argue with isn't it?
Lol!
Any opinions on ONVO, SJG?
I was thinking picking some up late last fall, but it didn't look like the best buying point. Thinking on the current dip it might be okay. $3 probably okay, but $2.5 would be really nice. Going to watch.
I also got into some GILD last week around $65.8. Again, who knows short term. These are things I plan on holding for years though.
See vinceygirl: No hard feeling between me and you, okay???
So I could watch the TV news weather forecast, and then get someone to give me odds and take my bet on what will actually happen. This is how the stock markets are. You don't have any info which the people who effectively control it don't. People get off on it because it makes them feel alive, when their lives have turned into doldrums, and when they have become so beaten down that they no longer see the talents which they have and what might be done with them. Don't let Dougster and his ilk do this to people..
Now that it often seems to be a positive net, well this is just the way our society is rigged to help the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
The seeming positive tilt to the stock market is absolutely not a better deal than putting your money into your own affairs. With these you not only have knowledge, you have a degree of control. So you use your money to make it possible to do things you otherwise could not. You do this for yourself, and you do it for the circle of associates you build. Because it works in multiple dimensions, it offers a better economic prospect, and it also offers all kinds of other benefits.
And don't listen to any of Dougster's boosting for this or that. It is all forked tongue, pitch lines, Ponzi boosting. Instead, figure out how to derail he and his ilk, or we will all end up living in a dystopia like they show in The Matrix.
SJG
Positive sum versus negative sum, dumbass.
Also there are about four hedge funds that consistently beat the markets and few guys like Buffet who have done the same, so, yes, some people are better at it than others.
Almost never are you going to have anything the professional fund managers don't already have, in terms of info. And these are the guys who make the big buy and sell orders that determine the prices.
So if you find something which looks good, that is already reflected in the price. And if it looks iffy, that is already reflected in the price.
So it is a casino.
And it is a Ponzi scheme because the current level of economic activity depends upon people living beyond their means, on ecological unsustainability, and on social instability in that more and more people have less and less and so our Democracy is being placed at risk.
What seems to drive this Ponzi scheme 25, is the same psychology which keeps you wanting to defend it, and Dougster and his ilk using this to destroy our democracy in order to create a dystopia.
The basic stock market advice is still, buy low, sell high. But the way it works, most of the time it is just the rich getting richer by taking money off of the poor. If you examine these issues, you are acting on information which is always after the fact, has zero predictive power.
And that you even listen to Jim Cramer is a sad commentary on what your actual life must be like.
Don't listen to Dougster, you have actual talents which you could be using your own money to help you apply.
And a General Strike against Trump? Count me in!
SJG
But we all have tremendous under utilized skills, which we could use if we backed ourselves up with our money.
Like Varoufakis says, it is a $5.2 Trillion mountain of money which does nothing except inflate real estate and home prices, but nothing to meet the real needs of our evolving world.
SJG
Again, it's pretty easy to lookup the historical returns of people investing in the S&P. You say starting your own small business is better, but where is your data to back that up?
In, any case, GS has had very good returns but I didn't include them in the four I mentioned because they are not a hedge fund. But it's another good example of how there are a few players out there who can consistently beat the market.
25, part of the problem is that from Reagan forward, federal policy has been to create stock market bubbles. So all these hedge fund things, and Warren Buffet, gain from that.
Its like it was with John C. Calhoun. He wanted every white man to own at least one negro slave. That way there would be no more opposition to slavery.
Well, Nixon was certainly a candidate of Wall Street. But he was not pushing further financialization. That only hurts working people, and that would look bad on the national stage.
But from Reagan onwards, they have been always trying to pull more money and more and more people into these financial markets. It is just a second layer between workers and the value.
25, sounds like you have done well now for some decades. But you have turned into a guy with more dollars than sense.
SJG
I forget who said this but "Living well is the best reward"
And then as far as I, you keep forgetting something, I maintain a strict privacy wall, so you know nothing about me.
SJG
SJG
If anyone has loved ones working in the hospitals they will tell you all medical charting is being digitized and reporting is done widespread by Cerner. Most staff across the country have been getting training on this software and technology. It will be the mode of record keeping for medical charting. The Niska play will be infrastructure for natural gas as that resource with its abundance and cheap availability will be the environmental safe play on fossil fuels. Cars will be run on natural gas and definitely more trucks and semi for our transportation needs. It's a growing trend. Sit in these two plays for the next 5-10 years and you will thank me!
Then how were people able to find your LinkedIn profile so easily?
But if you call a bookie to bet on an athletic event, they give you odds.
If you decide to put your money into the stock market, large professional investors are the ones who set the odds, and the way they do this is by using their money to establish the current price. It is almost impossible for you to legally know anything more than they know. So basically, you are betting against these professional investors. They put money in, up to a certain price. Were they right or were they wrong?
At a personal level, the tragedy is that people are led to believe that this form of gambling is a better place for their money than investing in themselves, and in their own circle of close associates.
At the political level, people glorify the speculator, as work itself and the people who do it, because less and less valued.
Dougster and his ilk are working day and night to bring about fascism, and one of the manifestations of this will be a two-tier society.
SJG
An amateur day trader has little likelihood of long term success over professional investors with experience and voluminous research.
However, investing in equities over longer periods of time is relying on the belief that management will run the company in such a way as to maximize shareholder value. Large and small shareholders share alike in growth and dividends. Diversifying across a cross-section of businesses and sectors reduces the likelihood of losing everything.
If a person owns and operates a business, they have equity and control. If they are skilled (and surround themselves with skilled individuals), entrepreneurial ownership can pay handsome rewards. However, for the majority of individuals lacking entrepreneurial ideas and resources, investing in a diversified portfolio of well run, solid corporations is the next best way to grow ones savings at a rate outpacing inflation.
Investing is not fascism. Investing is not gambling. Investing is investing. Holding stock is ownership. Period.
To discourage anyone from investing in a well run 401(k) plan is lunacy, bordering on financial homicide.
Mic drop.
And 25, how many of those companies in the 401K do you control? I am very surprised that you, a 40 year long business owner, do not understand this.
If you put money into your own abilities, then you have the better chances of good results.
And no, you don't need to do it alone, to wear all the hats. I have always made it clear that you need to have a team.
Now, there is one difficulty, to start and run a corporation, and do a good job with distribution of equity, you need to have great lawyers and accountants, and this is out of reach for most people.
I don't admire KP. But they do have great lawyers and they know all the tricks. Their firm is not a proprietorship, it is a corporation with shares. And the money, comes from rich investors and it goes into funds, and then the funds own the shares in the startups.
This is tremendously complex and the legalities are extreme. And they use one of the highest power law firms, Wilson Sonsini. This is out of reach of most people, by far.
And then the quality of management in the start ups, it typically sucks. Because KP wants things with huge win potentials, they emphasize novelty and market control. This is why 9 out of 10 fail. But KP does not care, because to them it is just money, no pride in the work for them.
So is there another way? What opened my eyes was
http://www.khoslaventures.com/
I don't want to do things his way. But he showed me that there can be lots and lots of ways. And much of what he gives his companies is non-monetary, just advice and connections.
I am more inspired by the English Arts and Crafts Movement in the 1900, and by our own Open Source / Open Standards movement.
This book talks about people I have worked with:
https://www.amazon.com/Money-No-Object-V…
It shows how the further the startup gets from its goals, the more it becomes like the Tower of Babel. People don't even speak the same language. These startup companies are very often complete reality distortions, nonsense.
http://www.darktarot.com/images/cards/80…
So when you put money into the stock market, you do not have this kind of inside view.
Think about it, the investors ( reps of the VC's ) are being treated to monthly dog and pony shoes where all kinds of people are giving presentations. You can gauge the people and question them.
But if you are just an outside investor in a public firm, that kind of detail has to be concealed by confidentiality agreements. All you get are the financials. And then of course the higher the P to E, and the more it is a start up instead of an established firm, the less the financials really mean.
I say, very stupid to put money into things you are not on the inside of, and really into things you don't control.
Putting money into stuff you don't run and where you don't know the people, is just betting against the inside and pro investors. It is just a way of getting an adrenaline rush and making yourself feel important. You can get a better buzz just from paying hookers.
Put your money into your own stuff.
In my organization this issue of quality lawyering for the legalities will be solved, everything involving real estate, contractual agreements, and especially equity.
But other people can work together to solve these problems too, and they can make the rules work for them too.
SJG
I think he is the all time leader in creating enemies with TUSCL members. That's one successful organization he's created; a laundry list of people who hate him on TUSCL. I wonder how SJG would survive in the rest of the country in parts like Texas, Ohio, Arizona, or Iowa? Those people don't fuck around with counter cultural attitudes like his. It usually ends with someone being dragged behind a pickup truck through gravel roads for several miles, and SJG isn't driving the pick up.
"Daddillac
Joined Jul 2008
Clubs: 27
Reviews: 79
Yesterday • SJG.... I did read the thread, Shadow asked "What is the most expensive lap dance price shown on TUSCL for straight lap dances?"
I did not see him ask for an opinion, which is what you answered with.
In the beginning your opinions were funny and I enjoyed your casual comments. Later I felt sorry for you that you had to voice your opinion about everything, your existence must be so miserable. Finally, it got to where it pissed me off to see your comments. You never give a straight answer on anything and only try to piss people off with your opinions. Honestly I don't think even you believe most of the shit that comes out of your mouth, you just want to be heard.
Count me as one who is no longer listening
Fuck Off SJG
It may seem to have a positive tilt most of the time, but this is because the government promotes this, in order to maintain high approval. Our Federal Lottery, is the stock market. Sad.
And the issue was raised about having a place to park your reserve fund or nest egg. I think the sum of 50k was suggested.
Well that underscores the advantage of running your own stuff. It is not just money, it is control. Better if you don't need to take the money out. The less money you take out, the less taxes you pay. Having to take it out is because your are an employee.
And of course it is always better to let new companies you start soak up as much taxable income as possible, within legal limits of course.
All of this requires good lawyers and accountants. The people who run Kliener Perkins have benefited from this at every turn. Most of us have not had this.
SJG
No they do it because it's generally the best way for them to make money long term.
Dougster, when you sold your soul, I hope Mr. Big gave you something good in exchange. Mind if I ask what that was, because I certainly don't see any evidence of it.
SJG
SJG
ime is organizing a Boycott SJG campaign here on TUSCL:
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=4…
So far many have signed up including me, 25, and meat. Are you interested in joining? As ime points out, SJG has no interested in discussing what people really believes. He wants to argue against a bunch of strawmen he sets up to make himself look like a hero. No regard for the truth of how he represents his opponent whatsoever.
Where I live, some people have 2 or 3 jobs and can't afford anymore than renting the sofa in someone's living room.
With each of these boom and busts, the situation gets worse. We have not added a single living wage job since the 2008 sub prime melt down.
If people are without options, that is because they have been politically marginalized. All this talk about the stock market is intended to do that!
If people can politically organize, they can come up with better financial options also.
But absolutely no way, are a majority of working class American's putting money in the stock market. Doug Henwood, Left Business Observer, talks about this in detail.
Dougster and supporters are simply preaching fatalism, convincing people that their own social and political organizing skills are worthless. This what Dougster and his ilk want people to believe.
And the more Right Wing A. Holes who boycott me, the less time I will need to spend doing thread by thread troll patrols.
SJG
Word of mouth keeps me too busy with repeat asset management business. I win again! Kicking ass in the real world and TUSCL. AUM for me has increased over $50 million in one year! Duck off SJG!
SJG
https://www.amazon.com/YOU-CANT-CHEAT-HO…
SJG
pensions; social security; medicare prescription drug coverage; the national debt = Ponzi scheme against the young.
Notice a trend???
That kind of financial system makes our whole society into a Ponzi Scheme.
And both Mussolini and the Underground Reich run on manipulation of financial markets, fraud, Ponzi fraud.
Fascism is really just the concentration of power and destruction of democracy. Financial fraud is very much this.
SJG
SJG, the public is separate from private when it comes to ownership of stock. That is the opposite of a Ponzi scheme. There is no ownership in Ponzi schemes. When you own stock you have an ownership in commerce, which deals in the ownership of goods and services. This is the very ownership that you promote, which is creating your own companies, so if you had your own organization you should support stock ownership, as those very same people would be investing in your organization. Ponzi schemes have no valuations, yet the stock market does have valuations. People buy and sell them everyday in the most regulated system in the history of earth. Explain that one SJG! And don't side step the issue with some false narrative.
as for my own affairs, NOT OPEN TO OUTSIDE INVESTMENT.
SJG
Given the choice would you rather invest $20,000 in SJGs church or in the S&P.
:-)
Looks like it will be a fun market open today!
Oh, well, should be good some good buying opportunities out of this.
If we do break down, I was thinking it's almost a freefall to $229 on the SPY, then should get some buyers again. Definitely around mid $227's there should be lots of buyers show up.
So your discussion of them is complete nonsense.
People should not listen to these people, telling them that their actual skills are worthless and promoting a form of glorified gambling, and then patting themselves on the back.
SJG
And when the stock markets are inflated beyond a point, they most certainly are Ponzi schemes.
http://www.multpl.com/
And I'm not the originator of that insight. For one thing we have the 1929 example.
But also, Douglas Rushkoff, an expert on media and representation issues. refused to write about that during the dotcom boom, because he did not want to contribute to the "largest Ponzi scheme in all history", that Nasdaq bubble. He says this in his intro to "Nothing Sacred". Instead of contributing to the dot com bubble, he wrote about Judaism.
And Dougster, here is how media is used to influence elections, and at all levels. Very reasonable seeming people were going along with this idea that Hillary Clinton is corrupt.
"
And what they did with this organization, which the Mercers poured millions of dollars into, was they aimed to kind of create the—drive the political narrative in the 2016 campaign. They created a book called Clinton Cash, which was a compendium of all the kinds of corruption allegations against the Clintons. And they aimed to get it into the mainstream media, where it would pretty much frame the picture of Hillary Clinton as a corrupt person who couldn’t be trusted. And their hope was that they would mainstream this information that they dug up. It was like an opposition research organization, sort of masked as a charity and nonprofit. And they took this book, Clinton Cash, gave it to The New York Times exclusively, early, and the Times then ran with a story out of it, that they said they corroborated. But they ran with it, nonetheless, on their front page, which just launched this whole narrative of Hillary Clinton as corrupt. And it just kept echoing and echoing through the media after that. So, it was a real home run for them. A year later, they made a movie version of it also, which they launched in Cannes.
"
https://www.democracynow.org/2017/3/23/j…
SJG
But as to whether or not the stock market amounts to glorified gambling:
http://www.multpl.com/
You might also find this interesting: Mike Ruppert was an LAPD Narcotics Officer, who accidentally uncovered the CIA's LA narcotics channels.
http://fromthewilderness.com/about.shtml
He is since an investigative journalist devoted to exposing government corruption. About narcotics, his position on our country is,
"We are more addicted to drug money than to drugs."
Specifically he refers to the "pop on Wall Street", by which I think he means P to E. Its the multiplier factor, value of the outstanding shares / gross annual earnings, as I know. He was talking about numbers as high as 30 for a single issue, as being extreme. As you can see, even the aggregate now is often higher than that.
We have at least a $1 billion dollar narcotics trade. Most of this money one way or another washes into the 'legitimate economy', and the Wall Street Pop. though not specifically indicating this, it does depend on this continual influx.
And so Ruppert wrote of a number of years ago about the head of the NYSE going to Columbia to make a cold call on the leader of one of the drug mafia rebel groups, to persuade them to keep the money coming in.
And then there were also these "Pizza Connection" cases on the East Coast, where heroin money was being laundered through pizzerias, and then through the E. F. Hutton investment firm, then being run by Barbara Bush's brother-in-law, Scott Pierce.
And then of Wachovia Bank, it has been widely reported that they had been laundering money from the Mexican drug trade. They became adapted to this, dependent on this. And then when Philippe Calderon came in he deployed the army, first to Michoacán, and then all over. This did not reduce the quantity or quality of drugs coming on, or increase the price, quite the opposite. But it did diffuse the drug trade, and it left Wachovia hanging out to dry.
So having been absorbed into Wells Fargo, I hope any remaining traces of it can be obliterated. But as we see, Wells Fargo does not seem to know how to keep its nose clean either.
Suffice to say, stock market prices depend on many more things than just what goes onto the company balance sheets. And then even the company balance sheets are highly influenced by perceptions. Most of our economy serves the very softest of needs, like keeping up with the Jones. So stock market and real estate inflation also inflates consumption. And the central indicator has long been automobiles. What really took the jobs market down in the Great Depression, not the stock market but the jobs market? It was when the automobile plants closed. That ripples back to about 25% direct unemployment, then plus more for consumer fear.
And what indicated for sure that the Dot Com Ponzi Scheme was over in Silicon Valley? Collapse of the German car dealerships. The San Jose Metro published a cover page cartoon of an overturned Porsche Boxter. After that they and NPR started saying all sorts of critical things, things which they had sequestered while the Ponzi Scheme was running.
And what terrified the entire nation in 2008? It was when the auto plants shut down. That was the point when everyone knew that this was a great deal more than just another recession, and there was no way to cover it up.
And how long do cars last? Well, in the Great Depression, people would drive their cars to stand in bread and soup lines, so that they would not feel like they were being looked down upon. And it was in the Great Depression that the replacement parts industry developed. Cars can last as long as you want them too, just like those big UPS trucks. The issue is social status.
So our entire economy serves extremely soft needs, and the stock market indices depend on many more things than the amount of commerce being done. And then that amount of commerce also depends on perceptions just as much as do the stock market prices.
And then Gaffigan, if you want to own some of the commerce, you need to do more than just own stock in an Inc. You would need to be a proprietor, or at least a full partner. Then you could say that the business's money is your money. The reason we have Inc's, and stock, is specifically because people want to avoid direct ownership.
I see this now, and while not conclusive, it does suggest that despite the high stock market indices, that there could be a recession developing, and in multiple industries simultaneously.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/airfare-ba…
Anybody besides me remember Freddie Laker? And his DC-10's?
SJG
https://sites.google.com/site/sjgportal/…
King Crimson - Live in Hyde Park (1969)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiA_q-Kf…
You failed to prove a point SJG, other than you are truly psychotic.
Lol!
SJG
The Ponzi scheme goes away to zero as soon as the gig is up, like Bernie Madoff, or like the organization you're building.
How many people ha e you recruited in your Ponzi scheme SJG? I bet it's only 2, you and your mom's gravy!
Lol, SJG! You should repent your sins right now, or forever hold your peace.
And the one who needs endless quantities of piss to keep him going is Gaffigan.
SJG
SJG
SJG
https://economics.stanford.edu/people/ro…
Sports stadiums do not generate significant local economic growth, Stanford expert says
http://news.stanford.edu/2015/07/30/stad…
Field of Schemes
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/
Fieldofschemes.com is the companion website to Field of Schemes: How the Great Stadium Swindle Turns Public Money Into Private Profit, by Joanna Cagan and Neil deMause. Since 1998, we have been casting a critical eye on the roughly $2 billion a year in public subsidies that go toward building new pro sports facilities.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/04/ra…
SJG
Nazareth - "Holiday"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7pG2ju5…
Gabriela Gunčíková - Love Hurts
https://economics.stanford.edu/people/ro…
Gabriela Gunčíková - How To Sing JANE - Jefferson Starship - Ken Tamplin Vocal Academy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz3AE840…
Gabriela Gunčíková & Bite Hazard - Still Of The Night (Whitesnake cover)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAQfkLAK…
If this guy is a so called expert, tell us how your economy does with no team in town? Tell us how you fill the stadium seats and restaurants when no events are going on?
If you really believe this Stanford "expert", then you're as nuts as he is.
The new stadium in Santa Clara could go this way, as there is a contractual rent reduction on the table, and it is all now the subject of a lawsuit and forensic accounting.
http://www.mercurynews.com/2016/03/18/sa…
If they get the rent reduction, then based on what they put into public coffers the first year, it becomes a money sink, and this would violate the ballot measure which authorized it. Needless to say, this is a huge mess.
Most people agree that it has done nearly nothing for retail business ( not including when my Christian Eating Lions were there of course. )
In Oakland, the Mayor is saying that they lose $8 million per month on the Raiders, and this is in a very old stadium. One city council member wants to kick them out of the stadium and let it remain unused.
This author has long held that most of these stadiums are public money sinks, to the tune of about $2 billion per year total.
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/
It sounds like now, the Raiders will move to Las Vegas, but it will take 2 years to build them their stadium. That will in turn also be used by UNLV.
Now of course Las Vegas is a one of a kind place. So the normal rules might not apply. But as I see it, there is a good chance that their new stadium will be a money sink as well. And also, more and more cities are becoming more and more like Las Vegas, running on boosting and fatalism, and on distortions of truth.
During the 80's, San Jose tried to brand itself as, "Capitol of Silicon Valley". This has never been true. But it did mean lots of public money going through re-development into private profits, and this has much to do with why San Jose has been in such financial trouble for well over a decade now.
SJG