Down goes the Dow

Klondike5 wrote:

How do you do it? What logical thought process allows you to predict that direction of the market?

More logical wrote:

History...specifically that the market is up a vast majority of the time and that there is a mean positive rate of return over time.

Klondike5 wrote:

So, in other words, you don't think about it.

So your strategy is to have 100% of your available assets in equities since history shows that it is the profitable place to be in the long run

Do you always try to win your arguments by putting words into others' mouths? Or is it your reading comprehension that is lacking? Either way, you obviously don't have a reasonable rebuttal, so let's just chalk this one up to me.

Klondike5 wrote:

Even using your figures, his net worth increased by a factor of more than six.

The major stock indices didn't even come close to doubling in that time period.

It is unimaginable that you are trying to argue that his increase in wealth is almost ordinary.

Open your mind...the stock market is not the only legal way to make money.

Steve Martin wrote:

Klondike5 wrote:

Even using your figures, his net worth increased by a factor of more than six.

The major stock indices didn't even come close to doubling in that time period.

It is unimaginable that you are trying to argue that his increase in wealth is almost ordinary.

Open your mind...the stock market is not the only legal way to make money.

Isn't the Mayor supposed to be spending his efforts on behalf of the city, not making more billions?

More logical wrote:

Klondike5 wrote:

How do you do it? What logical thought process allows you to predict that direction of the market?

More logical wrote:

History...specifically that the market is up a vast majority of the time and that there is a mean positive rate of return over time.

Klondike5 wrote:

So, in other words, you don't think about it.

So your strategy is to have 100% of your available assets in equities since history shows that it is the profitable place to be in the long run

Do you always try to win your arguments by putting words into others' mouths? Or is it your reading comprehension that is lacking? Either way, you obviously don't have a reasonable rebuttal, so let's just chalk this one up to me.

Well, explain your philosophy then. You state that the basis for your investment philosophy is

"History...specifically that the market is up a vast majority of the time and that there is a mean positive rate of return over time."

If that is the main determinant, then why would you not put all your available dough into the market? Assuming you do not do that, what do you do and why?

Klondike5 wrote:

Even using your figures, his net worth increased by a factor of more than six.

The major stock indices didn't even come close to doubling in that time period.

It is unimaginable that you are trying to argue that his increase in wealth is almost ordinary.

really? unimaginable? You can't imagine that it is somewhat ordinary to increase net worth by 6x over 12 years? 17% per year or so? And you know something about investing and finance?

I just checked - my own net worth went up...6x from 12/31/2001 to now. And imagine the cash flow he gets from bloomberg lp...must be enormous.

seriously - your argument is indeed absurd. Just admit it. for once.Just admit for once that you are wrong. Please. Once.Once.

fan man wrote:

2) 2001 and 2002 were terrible years - so you are starting from a low point. Then appreciating wealth by 17%/yr since then? Almost ordinary. Stocks are up from 2001 lows something almost at that level, and bloomberg has a successful biz. I've done better than that and I don't own my own mega successful business.

You are being absurd.

ahahahaha!

Absurd - GREAT word for what you wrote above.

Stocks are up from the 2002 about 104% plus dividends(2001 the low? - haha again)

If your claim of "almost at that level" (17%/yr) was correct, the Dow Jones would currently be around 58,000.

hahahahahaha!

agip wrote:

[quote]Klondike5 wrote:

Even using your figures, his net worth increased by a factor of more than six.

The major stock indices didn't even come close to doubling in that time period.

It is unimaginable that you are trying to argue that his increase in wealth is almost ordinary.

really? unimaginable? You can't imagine that it is somewhat ordinary to increase net worth by 6x over 12 years? 17% per year or so? And you know something about investing and finance?

I just checked - my own net worth went up...6x from 12/31/2001 to now. And imagine the cash flow he gets from bloomberg lp...must be enormous.

Did you net worth go up $28 billion while you were supposed to be focusing on the needs of NYC as its mayor? Bloomie's did. But you find that not even worth a mention.

Were you 59 as of 12/31/01 having spent 3.5 decades accumulating wealth?

I knew that you wouldn't admit you were wrong, but I thought I would give it a shot. Maybe over so many posts of being wrong so many times...but no. I did know you couldn't admit it.

i would say so wrote:

fan man wrote:

2) 2001 and 2002 were terrible years - so you are starting from a low point. Then appreciating wealth by 17%/yr since then? Almost ordinary. Stocks are up from 2001 lows something almost at that level, and bloomberg has a successful biz. I've done better than that and I don't own my own mega successful business.

You are being absurd.

ahahahaha!

Absurd - GREAT word for what you wrote above.

Stocks are up from the 2002 about 104% plus dividends(2001 the low? - haha again)

If your claim of "almost at that level" (17%/yr) was correct, the Dow Jones would currently be around 58,000.

hahahahahaha!

Fan man has a point, empty brainer.

The Dow is a silly index and US big caps have been some of the worst stocks on the planet since 2001.

The vanguard emerging markets fund was at 6.64 on 12/31/2001 and now, guess what - it is at 26.22. That is 12% per year.

The value line index, which is the broadest measure of US stocks, small and large, is up 10% per year since 12/31/2001.

Some hedge funds are up 20%+ per year since 12/31/2001. Any of them would love to have bberg as a client.

So stocks could have been a meaningful part of bberg's enrichment. But most comes from bloomberg lp - You people have no idea how profitable it is to own a massively successful privately owned business. Even if he had no hand in managing it - that's where his net worth increase came from.

agip wrote:

I knew that you wouldn't admit you were wrong, but I thought I would give it a shot. Maybe over so many posts of being wrong so many times...but no. I did know you couldn't admit it.

You better check that math there Agip.

Even your cherry picked indices are no match for how much Bloomie grew his net worth while he was cutting funds and programs for the poorest people in NYC.

No wonder he spent $139 million to get the City Council to change the two term limit for being mayor. Best scam he has run yet. Imagine, adding $28 billion in net worth while ostensibly serving the people of New York.

I think we all know who is wrong

Klondike5 wrote:

Isn't the Mayor supposed to be spending his efforts on behalf of the city, not making more billions?

So, since you have a job that means that you are not supposed to try to maximize your investment returns?

Klondike5 wrote:

agip wrote:

I knew that you wouldn't admit you were wrong, but I thought I would give it a shot. Maybe over so many posts of being wrong so many times...but no. I did know you couldn't admit it.

You better check that math there Agip.

Even your cherry picked indices are no match for how much Bloomie grew his net worth while he was cutting funds and programs for the poorest people in NYC.

No wonder he spent $139 million to get the City Council to change the two term limit for being mayor. Best scam he has run yet. Imagine, adding $28 billion in net worth while ostensibly serving the people of New York.

I think we all know who is wrong

Lord man you are dense.

People can make money in other ways than the stock market.

Grow up.

He owns his own private company.

I'm sure stocks play a part in his wealth. but if you dig deep enough you will see that his own PRIVATE company brought in most of the wealth.

Shot a lot of billionaires have nothing to do with the stock market and made all their money in real estate.

You are quickly becoming one of the most annoying posters on this site. I can't wait until the brothers ban you so we don't have to listen to your crazy conspiracy theories WITH NO EVIDENCE (except copied and pasted from prison planet) anymore.

6x? Pssssst. Flagpole's net worth has increased at least 147x since 12/31/2001. Heck. It increased 6x just by getting that RIDICULOUS dividend last month.Losers.

agip wrote:

Klondike5 wrote:

Even using your figures, his net worth increased by a factor of more than six.

The major stock indices didn't even come close to doubling in that time period.

It is unimaginable that you are trying to argue that his increase in wealth is almost ordinary.

really? unimaginable? You can't imagine that it is somewhat ordinary to increase net worth by 6x over 12 years? 17% per year or so? And you know something about investing and finance?

I just checked - my own net worth went up...6x from 12/31/2001 to now. And imagine the cash flow he gets from bloomberg lp...must be enormous.

seriously - your argument is indeed absurd. Just admit it. for once.Just admit for once that you are wrong. Please. Once.Once.

Klondike5 wrote:

Well, explain your philosophy then. You state that the basis for your investment philosophy is

"History...specifically that the market is up a vast majority of the time and that there is a mean positive rate of return over time."

If that is the main determinant, then why would you not put all your available dough into the market? Assuming you do not do that, what do you do and why?

Because "a vast majority of the time" is not the same as 'always'. I diversify for likely the same reasons that you do.

More logical wrote:

Klondike5 wrote:

Well, explain your philosophy then. You state that the basis for your investment philosophy is

"History...specifically that the market is up a vast majority of the time and that there is a mean positive rate of return over time."

If that is the main determinant, then why would you not put all your available dough into the market? Assuming you do not do that, what do you do and why?

Because "a vast majority of the time" is not the same as 'always'. I diversify for likely the same reasons that you do.

Huh?

Hard to understand why nobody is suspicious that it took Bloomber 35 years to accumulate a billion dollars yet added nearly another 30 billion during his 12 year tenure as mayor. And that doing so during a period of economic downturn for the majority of Americans is considered ordinary.

And that my even bringing this to light is considered so dangerous that you would call for my banning

For you, many things seem to be unimaginable and hard to understand.

Klondike5 wrote:

Hard to understand why nobody is suspicious that it took Bloomber 35 years to accumulate a billion dollars yet added nearly another 30 billion during his 12 year tenure as mayor. And that doing so during a period of economic downturn for the majority of Americans is considered ordinary.

And that my even bringing this to light is considered so dangerous that you would call for my banning

[quote]agip wrote:

For you, many things seem to be unimaginable and hard to understand. [quote]Klondike5 wrote:

Yes. I do have trouble accepting transparent nonsense.

By the way, the Dow is now 14,948 and falling.

Explain to me again how it is that when you are in the market and it falls, you don't really lose any money. Yet when I am out of the market and it goes up, I actually lose money.

Re Michael Bloomberg's wealth: In 1981, Salomon Brothers was acquired, and Michael Bloomberg, a general partner, was given a $10 million partnership settlement. Bloomberg, having designed in-house computerized financial systems for Salomon, used his $10 million severance check to start Innovative Market Systems (IMS). Bloomberg developed and built his own computerized system to provide real-time market data, financial calculations and other financial analytics to Wall Street firms. In 1983, Merrill Lynch invested $30 million in IMS to help finance the development of "the Bloomberg" terminal computer system and by 1984, IMS was selling machines to all of Merrill Lynch's clients.

In 1986, the company was renamed Bloomberg L.P., and 5,000 terminals had been installed in subscribers' offices . Within a few years, ancillary products including Bloomberg Tradebook (a trading platform), the Bloomberg Messaging Service, and the Bloomberg newswire were launched. Bloomberg launched its news services division in 1990. Bloomberg.com was first established on September 29, 1993 as a financial portal with information on markets, currency conversion, news and events, and Bloomberg Terminal subscriptions.

In late 1996, Bloomberg bought back one-third of Merrill Lynch's 30 percent stake in the company for $200 million, increasing the company's market value to $2 billion. In 2008, facing losses during the financial crisis, Merrill Lynch agreed to sell its remaining 20 percent stake in the company back to Bloomberg, Inc., the trust that manages Michael Bloomberg's assets, for a reported $4.43 billion. After the sale, Bloomberg L.P. was valued at approximately $22.5 billion.

Bloomberg L.P. has remained a private company since its founding; the majority of which is owned by Michael Bloomberg. In 2009, Bloomberg L.P. services accounted for a third of the $16 billion global financial data market. At this time, the company had sold 315,000 terminals worldwide. Moreover, the company brought in nearly $7 billion in annual revenue, with 85 percent coming from terminal sales. In 2010, Bloomberg L.P.'s market share stood at 30.3 percent, compared with 25.1 percent in 2005. Market value 1983 $100 million- 1996 $2 billion (CAGR 26%); 1996 $2 billion- 2008 $22.5 billion (CAGR 22.3) Bloomberg's share 88%. Because Bloomberg L.P. is privately owned, financials are not public. Thomson Reuters a similar company had a profit of $2.070 billion on revenue of $13.27 billion.(15.6%) In 2012 Bloomberg L.P. had revenue of $7.92 billion, similar profit margin would yield $1.24 billion.(side note: Michael Bloomberg's net worth was over $5 billion when he became mayor of NYC not $1 billion.)