Dow to close 2011 at 13,000 or above

Translation: You are for real and astonishingly clueless about investing (if not basic reading comprehension).

This will be my last post since it is clear that you are incapable of stopping or ever admitting that you were in error (intentionally or otherwise).

1) You ALWAYS have money in the market? Good for you. That totally missed the point. The point was that in order to impact returns by moving more money in at opportune moments you need to have non-trivial amounts out of the market for non-trivial time periods. Otherwise your previous point about gaining an advantage over the index by buying more when the index is low is irrelevant and disingenuous.

2) If you cannot time the market (which you seem to be half-heartedly admitting in your standard obfuscatory manner) then you cannot gain an advantage over the index in this way (which you previously claimed to be the case).

3) Obviously there is a need to give you a lesson in which dividends to look at when claiming a bookkeeping edge over an index. Indeed, you really had no idea what I was talking about in my previous post and so wrote something completely off the point. Go back and think about B) again. Think about it real hard and for some time to see if that little light bulb goes off.

I would say that you are a clever troll but I know that you really believe the stuff you write (including your hilarious 23 for 23 claim). At any rate my dear lad you are relatively harmless and clearly intellectually incapable of much. So I'd like to wish you all the best which that limited and self-absorbed mind of yours is capable of experiencing.

anger issues?

So, you have no evidence of your own, just something from the huffington post, which has its own biases.

yes, I have undertaken a 6 month personal investigation into Fox News and have 154 examples of misleading or false information, on 8 x 10 color glossies with writing on the back of each one. Send me your e-mail and I will send them to you.

Oh wait, politifact actually fact checks for a living, so you should actually read the stories linked above instead of saying huffington came up with them.

I try not to use insults on lrc, but I am severely tempted to use a word that rhymes with rufus.

agip wrote:

anger issues?

stupidity issues?

You are assuming that Flagpole actually wants to learn something from others, even if it means some of his own assumptions have been flawed.

Poster: Flagpole, are you sure you are calculating all your returns correctly. You might want to time-weight those dividends and contributions

Flagpole: You know...that might be something I haven't thought of!

This conversation will never happen. So don't waste your time.

agip wrote:

yes, I have undertaken a 6 month personal investigation into Fox News and have 154 examples of misleading or false information, on 8 x 10 color glossies with writing on the back of each one. Send me your e-mail and I will send them to you.

Oh wait, politifact actually fact checks for a living, so you should actually read the stories linked above instead of saying huffington came up with them.

I try not to use insults on lrc, but I am severely tempted to use a word that rhymes with rufus.

I suppose that you have also done your due diligence on the other news companies. /sarcasm.

David St. Hubbins wrote:

You are assuming that Flagpole actually wants to learn something from others, even if it means some of his own assumptions have been flawed.

Poster: Flagpole, are you sure you are calculating all your returns correctly. You might want to time-weight those dividends and contributions

Flagpole: You know...that might be something I haven't thought of!

This conversation will never happen. So don't waste your time.

That is the core of the problem. One reason I came to this site was to learn more about running. I also want to learn where others are coming from with regards to their ideals in other areas. However, there are many on this site that are here for the sole purpose of running others down/educating us. I use the word "educate" in the loosest terms.

Is This Guy For Real? wrote:

stupidity issues?

You said your previous post would be your "last". Talk about being disingenuous.

agip wrote:

yes, I have undertaken a 6 month personal investigation into Fox News and have 154 examples of misleading or false information, on 8 x 10 color glossies with writing on the back of each one. Send me your e-mail and I will send them to you.

Oh wait, politifact actually fact checks for a living, so you should actually read the stories linked above instead of saying huffington came up with them.

I try not to use insults on lrc, but I am severely tempted to use a word that rhymes with rufus.

Steve Martin wrote:

I suppose that you have also done your due diligence on the other news companies. /sarcasm.

He gave you what you asked for. You whine about flagpole not admitting when he is wrong, yet you do exactly the same thing.

Flagpole wrote:

... by the time my wife and I are both 62 and can take social security also, I may not need or want to take 4% from my investments.

FP, I know you CAN take SS that early, but is that really something you are seriously considering? I'm sure you realize that delaying it will increase your monthly benefits.

Pants on fire wrote:

Is This Guy For Real? wrote:

stupidity issues?

You said your previous post would be your "last". Talk about being disingenuous.

Last post in response to Flagpole. Sorry if you lacked the intelligence to make this connection.

Is This Guy For Real? wrote:

You are for real and astonishingly clueless about investing (if not basic reading comprehension).

This will be my last post since it is clear that you are incapable of stopping or ever admitting that you were in error (intentionally or otherwise).

People who live in glass houses..... ;-)

Yes. I'm seriously considering it. I will have already been retired for 2 years, and longevity is not guaranteed to anyone. The amount you get even at age 62 continues to climb with inflation, so why not. Right now, if my wife never enters the work force again, we're scheduled to get just under $50,000 per year between us if we start at age 62. While that's not a ton and really won't be 17 years from now, that's not bad for someone who will have no debt, and it will be nice to add that to the other money we will have in our retirement accounts. I'll use that as my fun money.

Pay attention wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

... by the time my wife and I are both 62 and can take social security also, I may not need or want to take 4% from my investments.

FP, I know you CAN take SS that early, but is that really something you are seriously considering? I'm sure you realize that delaying it will increase your monthly benefits.

David St. Hubbins wrote:

You are assuming that Flagpole actually wants to learn something from others, even if it means some of his own assumptions have been flawed.

Poster: Flagpole, are you sure you are calculating all your returns correctly. You might want to time-weight those dividends and contributions

Flagpole: You know...that might be something I haven't thought of!

This conversation will never happen. So don't waste your time.

I learn stuff from posters here all the time, admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong, and ask questions here frequently. Your paintbrush doesn't work my brother.

Reality Checker wrote:

agip wrote:

yes, I have undertaken a 6 month personal investigation into Fox News and have 154 examples of misleading or false information, on 8 x 10 color glossies with writing on the back of each one. Send me your e-mail and I will send them to you.

Oh wait, politifact actually fact checks for a living, so you should actually read the stories linked above instead of saying huffington came up with them.

I try not to use insults on lrc, but I am severely tempted to use a word that rhymes with rufus.

Steve Martin wrote:

I suppose that you have also done your due diligence on the other news companies. /sarcasm.

He gave you what you asked for. You whine about flagpole not admitting when he is wrong, yet you do exactly the same thing.

Well, you have me confused with someone else. I forgot who it was that whined about that, but I think I just agreed with the whine.

However, this post had nothing to do with who was wrong, but with his lack of credibility when it comes to bias. He says he spent 6 months digging up dirt on FoxNews, but I wonder if it was based on a bias or on a real pursuit of the truth.

News Flash: They all have distortions, half-truths and lies. If he had spent 6 months on CNN or MSNBC, he would find the same number of falsehoods. As for me, I choose to not watch any of those three. There are far too many other sources for news.

Flagpole wrote:

David St. Hubbins wrote:

You are assuming that Flagpole actually wants to learn something from others, even if it means some of his own assumptions have been flawed.

Poster: Flagpole, are you sure you are calculating all your returns correctly. You might want to time-weight those dividends and contributions

Flagpole: You know...that might be something I haven't thought of!

This conversation will never happen. So don't waste your time.

I learn stuff from posters here all the time, admit I'm wrong when I'm wrong, and ask questions here frequently. Your paintbrush doesn't work my brother.

If he spends a little more time on here, he will find that there are few things that we differ about. Same goes for the guy who came to defend your honor to me. He needs to read more of our discussions to see that we agree on probably 90% of things, to some degree, even if we agree completely on less than half of the issues.

13,000 by end of January?

We're over 12,700