J.R. wrote:
Any time you buy stocks it's a loss.
You only gain when you sell.
It is foolish to say you've not lost anything because you've not sold what you've bought, because you already lost it when you bought. When the stocks keep going down then you're losing your opportunity to sell them for a reasonable price.
The object is to sell them for more than you paid when you bought them.
It's largely semantics, but yes, the concept you put forth is correct.
also young wrote:
J.R. wrote:Any time you buy stocks it's a loss.
You only gain when you sell.
It is foolish to say you've not lost anything because you've not sold what you've bought, because you already lost it when you bought. When the stocks keep going down then you're losing your opportunity to sell them for a reasonable price.
The object is to sell them for more than you paid when you bought them.
It's largely semantics, but yes, the concept you put forth is correct.
Peter Lynch said it well - "When stocks are attractive, you buy them. Sure, they can go lower. I've bought stocks at $12 that went to $2, but then they later went to $30. You just don't know when you can find the bottom."
After today its absolutely clear we have violated support levels that held up 1997, 1998, and 2002. I'm not a market predictor but a critical support level has been wiped out and there does not appear a short-term impetus for a market turn-around other than a possible short-term relief rally. Its a long way down to the next support level (450 on the S&P / 3500 on the Dow). Don't know that its likely we'll get that low but the market bias is clearly pointing south. I'd be much more nervous taking a significant long position than I would have been two weeks ago.
Is anyone else as happy as me to have read this last part??yeeeeaaaaaaa!!
Sagarin wrote:
Anyway, I'm done here.
Who would have "thunk" GE @ 7.60???
GE:US
General Electric Co
Industry: Diversified Manufact Op
Add Security to your Watch List
16:08 New York Currency: USD
Price
7.600 Change
-0.910
% Change
-10.693
Bid
N.A. Ask
N.A. Open
8.290
Volume
293,059,842 High
8.300 Low
7.510 52-Week High
38.52
(04/02/08) 52-Week Low
7.51
(03/02/09) 1-Yr Return
-75.236%
Sagarin wrote:
OK, so, I've never predicted ANY forever scenario. What I have said is that a multi-year stagnation is highly likely (that's what the market is telling us now) and a decade(s)-long Japan-style scenario cannot be ruled out. That doesn't mean the market will always "sync-up" with the economic landscape, but there's a good chance of a fallout, some type of rebound, and then multi-year flattish to downish trend, with all types of little cycles in between. We have entered a new secular era. Japan has lost nearly 80% of the value of its stock and real estate markets from almost 20 year ago. Am I predicting this? No, but I warned you about deflation well over a year ago, posted some robust links to it, and warned you about the risks of quantitative easing. Many structural differences, to be sure, but their Keynesian-style policy surely didn't help alleviate or abbreviate the situation.
Have you not read any of the links I post? That is what I do, consult, blog, and trade. For all YOU know, I am one of these guys (I'm not). You don't know as much as you think you do or purport to, Flagpole. Your vacuous and insipid references to this week's mortgage applications, or unemployment projections, or weekly jobless claims numbers make that much obvious. Now, you may be able to come back on here in 25 years and say, "I told you so," even though you haven't told anybody anything. But, that doesn't mean that there won't be others on here who will have been able to pack it in some 15 years earlier than you or have three times the money you should have. It also doesn't mean that I won't turn more bullish in a couple of months. Anyway, I'm done here.
It's good that you're done here. You need to be. Proclaiming to be smarter than Warren Buffett with regard to the stock market was the beginning of your downfall.
You are CORRECT that I will come back here in 25 years and say "I told you so". In fact, I will do it sooner than that; and the main reason I WILL be able to do that is because I AM RIGHT about what the market will be like then. My goal the whole time has NOT been to make more than anyone else. It has been to make enough to satisfy MY own needs within my own risk tolerance for a more than comfortable retirement. That you or anyone else MIGHT get to retirement sooner than me or with more money makes no difference to me. I don't have a "need to have more" or "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality. I long ago set my retirement time at initially 67 and then 65 and then 62 and now I still have 59 1/2 firmly in my sights. I have a set amount I want to have by then, and the last 18 months have NOT put a halt to that. My stated goal for annual growth is always conservative, I figure in no income growth for me, and I can still get where I need to be by age 59 1/2 even with conservative growth between now and then.
I love the "don't listen to Flagpole" comments. Why listen to me? I have more spendable money now than I did a year ago, even less debt, and I'm not worried about the stock market one bit since I don't need any of the money I have invested in it for at least 17 more years.
You'rr an idiot. sagarin is the only one on here that offers anything worthwhile. he's not a cheerleader like flagpole and he's not tying his own noose like peeps. He could have saved you some serious coinage over the past year, idiot.
finally! wrote:
Is anyone else as happy as me to have read this last part??
yeeeeaaaaaaa!!
Sagarin wrote:Anyway, I'm done here.
sagging pole wrote:
You'rr an idiot. sagarin is the only one on here that offers anything worthwhile. he's not a cheerleader like flagpole and he's not tying his own noose like peeps. He could have saved you some serious coinage over the past year, idiot.
Actually, while I believe we are succumbing to a secular "belt-tightening" scenario, a "noose-tightening" scenario cannot be ruled out at this point. Unfortunately, there will probably be acts of desperation for some people. And, even more unfortunately, we don't have an administration that subscribes to the belt-tightening scenario, which is what will cause the noose-tightening, ultimately and ironically. Anyway, I AM done with the diatribes. You should have learned plenty by now. By the way, lots of people are SMARTER than Warren Buffett. Doesn't mean I'm one of them, and I never claimed to be. That's just more Houdini-like equivocating. The smart money is generally not the long-term money anyhow.
Sagarin,
Thanks for all you\'ve offered. Not sure why you \"wasted\" so much time here - hopefully you helped some people.
Flagpole,
Thanks for taking the other side of the trade. I often say to myself - \"It cant be this easy?\". Your incessant posting of jaw dropping poppycock puts that quandary soon to rest. Look up the word \"Accountability\" and maybe work on that on a BIT.
And here\'s a freebie: The BEST you will get is a countertrend rally to 800-820 S&P over the next 2 weeks.
Flagpole wrote:
I love the "don't listen to Flagpole" comments. Why listen to me? I have more spendable money now than I did a year ago, even less debt, and I'm not worried about the stock market one bit since I don't need any of the money I have invested in it for at least 17 more years.
Dude, you're just an anonymous poster on an internet message forum. Forgive us for being a tad skeptical of your claims.
Do carry on with your market cheerleading. Maybe CNBC is hiring... Rah Rah Rah!
Sagarin wrote:
A bump in case you missed it.
Sagarin wrote:Here's an interesting piece on Buffett. As I suggested previously, people confused Buffett's brain with a bull market.
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/03/warren-buffett-loses-his-way.html
That is kind of a shit read.
Doesn't make it wrong, though it is narrow. Maybe you'll find this one more to your liking. Much better read, I promise:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10467023/1/buffett-watch-one-of-the-worst-beatings-ever.html
Sagarin wrote:
Doesn't make it wrong, though it is narrow. Maybe you'll find this one more to your liking. Much better read, I promise:
http://www.thestreet.com/story/10467023/1/buffett-watch-one-of-the-worst-beatings-ever.html
That one definetly is wrong. It is all about some bet on the index. But it pretends that Buffett lost a bunch of money on a bet that he didnt make.
I disagree. It's in the eye of the beholder. Did you read the embedded link in the first article and did you read the second?
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Buffett "decide to retire" for personal reasons and "age," referencing that he's been cultiating others to fill his shoes for some time. And that would be only partly authentic.
Sagarin wrote:
I disagree. It's in the eye of the beholder. Did you read the embedded link in the first article and did you read the second?
Do you mean the links to Bloomberg and WSJ stories I didnt click on them. I know about Buffet's bet on the index because he wrote about it in his letter to share holders on Berkshire's website.
Bobcat Goldthwaite wrote:
Flagpole,
And here's a freebie: The BEST you will get is a countertrend rally to 800-820 S&P over the next 2 weeks.
You apparently haven't been paying attention at all. I couldn't care less what any of the indicies do in the next two week, two month, two years, or even 7 years. I've got a lot longer than that brother to care.
I actually agree with you on your statement, but I couldn't care less. The recession is still several months from being over and then it will be a slow climb out from there (though not as slow as many think. Good news is out there -- manufacturing index rose...consumer spending rose...income has raised (relevant to inflation/deflation) so that people have more disposable income NOW than they have in months. I've said I predict that 2010 will be a positive GDP year, but that if it waited until 2011 or 2012 or 2013, I couldn't care less (actually though I would PREFER it wait longer so that I could acquire more).
Eventually the economy here in the US (which is NOT Japan or anywere in Europe) will rebound, and all you people will get from me is an I told you so, because I have been telling you that if you are 10+ years away from retirement that you shouldn't worry about what the market does today...and you shouldn't. Some of you will just say "Well, of course it went back up 6 years later" or however long it takes to head north again. Well, then what are you all arguing with me about? Positive territory in 5-7 years -- fine by me. Some of you have declared decades of flat or negative markets, and that's just flat wrong. I'll point you out when the time comes -- not for any kind of revenge -- it will just be funny. I DO hope though that somehow those of you who don't beleive the markets will once again return decent money have found other ways to retire rich, because I don't wish failure on anyone. You young people who are graduating soon (2-3 years from now), you have perhaps the best situation for new graduates since about 1900 -- an economy that is primed for a rebound, tons of workers that will be retiring in droves opening up jobs for you (contrary to what some of you have suggested, older workers CAN'T work forever even if they'd like to or feel they need to), housing prices that are low, and a stock market that is in a trough, ready to take off.
Sagarin wrote:
I disagree. It's in the eye of the beholder. Did you read the embedded link in the first article and did you read the second?
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see Buffett "decide to retire" for personal reasons and "age," referencing that he's been cultiating others to fill his shoes for some time. And that would be only partly authentic.
You're posting a lot for someone who said they were "done".
Flagpole wrote:
Some of you will just say "Well, of course it went back up 6 years later" or however long it takes to head north again. Well, then what are you all arguing with me about? Positive territory in 5-7 years -- fine by me. Some of you have declared decades of flat or negative markets, and that's just flat wrong. I'll point you out when the time comes -- not for any kind of revenge -- it will just be funny.
It's all relative, isn't it Flagpole? Flat or negative relative to what level? The 14,000, 13000, 12000, or 11,000 levels where you also championed stocks or even the 9000 when you started this thread? Or, will you twist the argument yet again so that if the market actually does fall to 5000 or something worse, then of course there probably won't be a flat to negative return from that level over a decade, though there could be? Positive in 5-7 years from a level of 5000 isn't quite the same as from 10,000 now is it? Of course, if the Dow is at 8000, you will say, "See, I told you." But, in reality, you are behind the eight-ball from where you started this thread even.
By the way, who has DECLARED decades of flat to negative markets? Nobody has DECLARED that. They have simply said it's a risk, and frankly, we've ALREADY lost a decade. 12 years actually, and even more when you adjust for inflation. 5-7 years is the immediate time frame for me as well, and I see stagnation. And, if we don't handle it correctly as the market is clearly telling us we're not, then it could be much longer. I do see the Dems getting thrown out of Congress in 2010 though, so that would be a positive.
Flagpole wrote:
You're posting a lot for someone who said they were "done".
"Done with the diatribes," as I posthumously corrected. Anyhow, I had actually meant to say this was getting stale originally, and it is. But I may address specific posters, as I did with the Buffett links. You should read them yourself.
Sagarin wrote:
I do see the Dems getting thrown out of Congress in 2010 though, so that would be a positive.
Yeah, because it was the dems who got us into this f***ing mess, wasn't it now? Get real Sagarin. And for all your " l like divided gov't", somehow if the repubs take over congress in 2010, somehow.....I don't see you voting for Obama over say, Mitt Romeny or someone like that. Would you? Of course not. But oh yeah, you're not a republican and there are lots of issues you disagree with them on, correct? But no, you'll vote party line every time. YOUR party. The party that just brought this country to its knees financially (if you think the Dems 2 years in power with a slim majority where they could get nothing done had ANYthing to do with this current mess, you are delusional).
And as far as Buffet bashing, why don't you tell us who one of your financial heroes are (or simply someone you respect a lot) ?? I guarantee you we could find some serious mistakes they've made. Don't you always bring up Laffer?? Laffing-stock should be more like it. I remember seeing him on CNBC several months ago before the the market had really crashed to where it is now, and he was saying how the economy was super strong and he was super optimistic for a quick turnaround. What a joke.
At least Buffer recognized before many that derivatives were going to sink us all. Since they were so ingrained in so many investments it was nearly impossible to avoid being knocked down by them. But in 2002, yes, 2002, he was warning against catastrophe because of them. Read this:
http://www.fintools.com/docs/Warren%20Buffet%20on%20Derivatives.pdfOn the other hand, Alan Greenspan said there was nothing to worry about with them and blocked their regulation. He now say he was wrong. Haven't you had kind words for Greenspan? Looks like he blew this one. But sure, blame the Dems if it helps you sleep at night.