Originally posted by uzlessLMAO!!!! Speaking of idiots .................
You are an idiot. Do us all a favour a stop posting.
[b]U.S. markets wipe out 10 years of gains
Globe and Mail Update
September 18, 2008 at 6:00 AM EDT
Ten years, wasted.
That's the bottom line on the U.S. stock market, which took another kick in the teeth yesterday. As stunning as it is to believe, you would have been better off ke ...[text shortened]... nes industrial average tumbled 447 points to 10,612, while the S&P 500 fell 57 points to 1,156[/b]
The S & P crashed down to about 1/2 of its 1998 high by 2002; by July of this year, it had set a new high. The same comment I made regarding the Dow is applicable to it.
If the Globe and Mail really believes that you would have been better off keeping cash then investing in the S & P index they are as woefully ignorant as you seem to be. There are these things called dividends you know.
Originally posted by no1marauderYeah, it depends on your time frame. The last 10 years have been rocky for the S & P 500. If you go back farther than 10 years, the numbers get better.
LMAO!!!! Speaking of idiots .................
The S & P crashed down to about 1/2 of its 1998 high by 2002; by July of this year, it had set a new high. The same comment I made regarding the Dow is applicable to it.
If the Globe and Mail really believes that you would have been better off keeping cash then investing in ...[text shortened]... ey are as woefully ignorant as you seem to be. There are these things called dividends you know.
But yeah, I don't think uzless' source was factoring in the dividends. As of yesterday (Sept 18, 2008), the Vanguard 500 Index Fund (basically a clone of the S & P 500, less the fund's operating expense) returned an average of 4.60 percent per year for the last 10 years. And it's average annual return from Aug 31, 1976 to Aug 31, 2008 is 11.32 percent.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderIf the US hadn't stepped in today and guaranteed payment of mortgage losses, the stock market would still be in the tank. Many media outlets (NYTIMES included) had predicted an extended horizontal stock market with little no gains similar to Japan in the 90's....all you've given us is your opinion based on nothing.
LMAO!!!! Speaking of idiots .................
The S & P crashed down to about 1/2 of its 1998 high by 2002; by July of this year, it had set a new high. The same comment I made regarding the Dow is applicable to it.
If the Globe and Mail really believes that you would have been better off keeping cash then investing in ...[text shortened]... ey are as woefully ignorant as you seem to be. There are these things called dividends you know.
AND, if your pension and or financial situation had neccesitated you to remove money from the market, ala RRIF requirements etc, you would have had to lock in your losses....which would have been even bigger if it weren't for the actions by the US today.
So, really, it depends on your stage in life...as ive said all along, some long term investors will be able to weather things but short term investors were in SERIOUS trouble until today....and there's still no guarantees the gains today will hold.
Originally posted by Mad Rookno doubt about that. I presume all that is coming in due course. Tough to do it all in such a short time frame.
Yes, that's good. But it only applies to financial stocks. (Although I realize that financial stocks are the main problem.) But I still think the US should reinstitute the uptick rule.
Edit - Also, I think the US government will have to address needed regulation of the derivatives markets.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou think the tech bubble crash in 2002 is similar in size and scope to what's happend in the last few weeks? You ACTUALLY think this is comparable? Man, give your head a shake. Recoveries from tech stock bubbles would have been completely different than one from a credit and underfunded liability crisis.
LMAO!!!! Speaking of idiots .................
The S & P crashed down to about 1/2 of its 1998 high by 2002; by July of this year, it had set a new high. The same comment I made regarding the Dow is applicable to it.
You obviously don't get the scope of things here...as evidenced by your previous shrugging of the effects of this crisis. The US government basically just told the world, "Hey, don't worry about your losses, our taxpayers will cover you"....you think the US does that just for no reason?
Jebus. Give your head a shake. This stuff is historic. 50 years from now they'll still be studying this in economics classes all over the world.
Originally posted by uzlessI already explained to you why the US government is bailing out rich people and foreign central banks.
You think the tech bubble crash in 2002 is similar in size and scope to what's happend in the last few weeks? You ACTUALLY think this is comparable? Man, give your head a shake. Recoveries from tech stock bubbles would have been completely different than one from a credit and underfunded liability crisis.
You obviously don't get the scope of things he ...[text shortened]... 50 years from now they'll still be studying this in economics classes all over the world.
The stock market fluctuates all the time; your Chicken Littleish rantings and hysteria are absurd. But the rich folks who run the US government are very happy there are plenty of people as gullible as you are; it's makes it easier to raid the public treasury to bail out incompetent CEOs and unwise wealthy investors.
Originally posted by no1marauderWhich central banks need bailing out?
I already explained to you why the US government is bailing out rich people and foreign central banks.
The stock market fluctuates all the time; your Chicken Littleish rantings and hysteria are absurd. But the rich folks who run the US government are very happy there are plenty of people as gullible as you are; it's makes it easier to raid the public treasury to bail out incompetent CEOs and unwise wealthy investors.
Originally posted by no1marauderThis statement shows your idiocy.
I. But the rich folks who run the US government are very happy there are plenty of people as gullible as you are; it's makes it easier to raid the public treasury to bail out incompetent CEOs and unwise wealthy investors.
Everyone from the NYTimes, CNN, Wall Street, Warren Buffett, Steven Levit, BBC, CBC, and every frickin media outlet around the world have said that everything (with maybe the exception of the Bear Stearns bailout) was absolutely necessary. It's horribly wrong that US taxpayers are on the hook for this, but the alternative could not be allowed to happen. Why you can't figure this out is beyond me.
World Central Banks injected over $300 BILLION dollars into the market and it STILL didn't work.
YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED IN THE END.
All you think was that a few rich people would have less money than they do now and the rest of us would have been fine. Idiot.
AMF
3 edits
Originally posted by PalynkaThese ones.
Which central banks need bailing out?
Not that they "needed" bail out but keep in mind these are the same central banks that buy American treasury bonds every year the US runs a budget deficit ($400+ billion this year and $10 trillion overall). Also note that the US treasury just approved another issuing of about another $500 billion in debt to pay for all these bailouts. Who do you think buys this debt?...FOREIGN CENTRAL BANKS. You dump mortgage losses in their laps and they have less to spend buying your deficit debts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"But the takeover of the companies reinforced concerns about troubles of the American economy and highlighted its significant reliance on foreign investors, particularly in Asia.
Almost immediately, the move will protect central banks in Asia, which have amassed hundreds of billions of dollars of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac bonds, from taking big losses.".....
...Yet for foreign investors, particularly in Asia, the takeover will do little to assuage mounting fears that the economic problems in the United States are not only far from over, but could also hurt growth in China, India and other emerging economies.
“People don’t know about the depth of the problem,” Mr. Ali said.
Asian central banks, particularly the People’s Bank of China, have emerged over the last several years as important buyers of bonds from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two American government-sponsored enterprises.
Standard & Poor’s estimates that the People’s Bank of China held $340 billion of these agency securities at the end of June, but has been unable to estimate Asian holdings over all because the data is too unclear.
While central banks around the world have historically accounted for a quarter of purchases of Freddie Mac debt, their share rose to 37 percent for debt issued since 2006, according to an analysis of the latest available data by CreditSights that was released on Wednesday".
Originally posted by uzlessMore Appeal to Authority with a few childish insults thrown in. The idea that "media outlets" are reliable sources for what is and isn't "absolutely necessary" in the political economy gets a: LMFAO!
This statement shows your idiocy.
Everyone from the NYTimes, CNN, Wall Street, Warren Buffett, Steven Levit, BBC, CBC, and every frickin media outlet around the world have said that everything (with maybe the exception of the Bear Stearns bailout) was absolutely necessary. It's horribly wrong that US taxpayers are on the hook for this, but the alternat ...[text shortened]... ld have less money than they do now and the rest of us would have been fine. Idiot.
AMF
Stabilizing the stock market is not the job of the US government esp. when to do this dubious task it has to put future generations of Americans in hock for trillions of dollars. Why you can't see this would be hard to understand, but you've apparently put a lot of stock in the ideas of "media outlets" i.e. mostly the same ones that supported the deregulation of the financial service industry that led to this mess.
Short term economic pain is an inevitable by product of poor investment and business decisions in a capitalist, market economy. The US economy has weathered these types of panics and stock market roller coasters many times before without the necessity of bailing out private corporations to the tune of trillions of dollars. This is nothing more than a handout to the super-rich and to companies that deserve to fail. Bankruptcy would have been a preferable option for these weak companies; after all, that is overseen by judges and appointed experts anyway without the need for the taxpayers to get soaked.
Your knowledge is limited and your emotionalism and gullibility are high - a bad combination for someone trying to understand what is going on here.
Originally posted by uzlessIt's sure a sweet deal for foreign central banks; they now get guaranteed payment on non-government securities with that to be funded by issuing more debt that FCBs will buy a large share of. Win-win for them, lose-lose for American taxpayers.
These ones.
Not that they "needed" bail out but keep in mind these are the same central banks that buy American treasury bonds every year the US runs a budget deficit ($400+ billion this year and $10 trillion overall). Also note that the US treasury just approved another issuing of about another $500 billion in debt to pay for all these bailouts. Who ...[text shortened]... o an analysis of the latest available data by CreditSights that was released on Wednesday".
1 edit
Originally posted by uzlessAccording to this NYT graph, China has nearly 1.8 trillion USD in foreign exchange reserves.
Standard & Poor’s estimates that the People’s Bank of China held $340 billion of these agency securities at the end of June, but has been unable to estimate Asian holdings over all because the data is too unclear.
While central banks around the world have historically accounted for a quarter of purchases of Freddie Mac debt, their share rose to 37 percent ...[text shortened]... ng to an analysis of the latest available data by CreditSights that was released on Wednesday".
Sure, $340 billion is $340 billion but it would not put them into severe distress (as you seem to agree, with your opening statement). Sure, they gain from the bail-out, but I don't agree that this was one of the motivations of the US authorities.
Pumping USD into the market is not good for USD denominated bonds. If the USD depreciates, USD denominated assets have to compensate with extra earnings for them to be worth it. So far the dollar has been holding on through all this. I'm of the opinion that this will change.
Originally posted by shavixmirExcept when some people like George Soros (allegedly) short a currency and cause a regional stockmarket crash as happened with the Asian crash of '97. Its a bit like we don't accept that anyone has a right to shout fire in a cinema. People tend to get trampled.
Sounds like capitalism to me.
Surely you can't create a system which makes people rich over other people's backs and then whine about it when people make good profits out of it.
Personally I find it hard getting around the idea of selling short. Apart from the corrupt short and distort practices employed to help knock a stock off its perch,it just seems a bit wrong to take a position on something, hoping it will fail.
I know its supposed to help keep things in balance and it helps stock from being overvalued, but when you adapt the practice to derivative products and the amplification of risk that leveraging adds to derivative arrangements and then you work out that the hedge fund managers who try and maximise their commissions by leveraging themselves in derivatives up to the eyeballs they end up with this fund that can only make money by being this great big speculative blight that sits dead in the water hoping no one notices it has to find more capital to service its margin calls. Its like a bunch of guys wading down a sewer and if the markets steadily bullish its like they are walking on a ridge in the pipe that gets their chin further and further up above the muck, but when the market begins to slow down and rates go up and the underlying securities that they have insured against start losing their value a bit, then they start to descend into the sewer trying to make nary a sound lest the rest of the market notice how close the kaka is to their gills. When the market suspects that you are vulnerable and your creditors then start asking about your reassessing your risk and then no one wants to lend you any more to help you service your position and as everyone starts short selling your underlying asset base around you, you gently sink beneath the river of grime without a trace.
I'm sure there's a certain poetic cycle about it, but its not only the fund managers who are being dumped in the poo.