Down goes the Dow

Quite difficult to put imaginary money into an imaginary fund.

FP FOS wrote:

Flagpole wrote:

Well, you got that right.

A stock drop after a dividend payment is usually temporary because the long term effects of dividends are more from profitability of the company, potential growth, and expectations of investors than from accounting adjustments.

How much of that cash you always have laying around did you invest back into this fund since it's definitely going right back up? One would be foolish not to invest more or nor to reallocate some funds in a sure thing like that.

Klondike5 wrote:

agip wrote:

and no, insiders and big players are not sure of what the market will do. 99% of them got killed in 2002 and 2008.

No inside players lost a dime in the meltdown. Some rich outsiders did, sure. But do you think Bernanke or Bloomberg lost a dime? Of course not.

Bloomberg became mayor of NYC in 2001 at age 59 with a net worth of $1 to $2 billion per Forbes.

Twelve years later (following two massive meltdowns in the market)he is worth well over $30 billion.

You are a piece of work.

Bernanke's net worth is estimated at $2 million dollars. Which is about 10% of what he would have made on wall street. Did he lose a dime in the financial crisis? Probably, but who cares - he is not a rich man.

Bloomberg? An insider? He owned a privately owned business and then he was mayor of NYC. How does that make him an insider? What did he know about anything?

oh wait...you chose those two because they are jewish. Whoops. You aren't thinking about facts. My bad.

More logical wrote:

Is that better or worse than working your investments by "feel"?

Klondike5 wrote:

And you do your investments how? Not thinking at all? Doing what the investment industry tells you?

I do my investments by thinking, not by feel. Do I listen to what the investment industry says? Yes, but that doesn't mean I do what they suggest (how can you when there are so many diverse recommendations coming from them). So I'm a thinker and you're a feeler. We'll just have to disagree on that, I guess.

[quote]agip wrote:

[quote]Klondike5 wrote:

Do you actually have no suspicion of the actions of a mayor who grows his net worth from $1.5 billion to over $30 billion while most people lost money?

Do you deny that Bernanke's actions affect the market?

Is it because they are Jews that they are above criticism?

Is it because they are Jews that you single them out?

More logical wrote:

I do my investments by thinking, not by feel. Do I listen to what the investment industry says? Yes, but that doesn't mean I do what they suggest (how can you when there are so many diverse recommendations coming from them). So I'm a thinker and you're a feeler. We'll just have to disagree on that, I guess.

Obviously my actions are based on what I think -- which is largely based on experience and on guesswork. Call it feel if you wish.

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

Anti-Semite detector wrote:

Is it because they are Jews that you single them out?

1. I pointed out that some people do indeed have sway over the market in contrast to those of you who claim that nobody does. Clearly the Chairman of the Fed does. You guys brought up his ethnicity, not me.

2. It is amazing that a mayor is allowed to use his office to so enrich himself like Bloomberg did. Never mind the racial profiling, the spying on Muslims by his NYPD outside of NT state never mind outside NYC, his buying off the City Council to get a third term.

how did bloomberg enrich himself as mayor? I thought his money came from his business.

fan man wrote:

how did bloomberg enrich himself as mayor? I thought his money came from his business.

You are allowing facts to dictate your conclusions. Don't be so naive. Bloomberg is part of the Israeli Lobby and is only interested in furthering their goals. Everything he does is to that end. Follow the money.

fan man wrote:

how did bloomberg enrich himself as mayor? I thought his money came from his business.

At the age of 59, after decades in business, he became mayor of NYC with a net worth, according to Forbes, of between $1 and $2 billion.

After 12 years as Mayor, his net worth is over $30 billion.

Now you tell me. Nothing suspicious here? It takes him 35 plus years to get to $1 billion in private industry and adds another $30 billion plus in 12 years as Mayor.

At a time when two massive bubbles burst in the economy and he cut the sh*t out of the NYC budget for the poorest people.

And you guys defend this monster?

Klondike5 wrote:

fan man wrote:

how did bloomberg enrich himself as mayor? I thought his money came from his business.

You are allowing facts to dictate your conclusions. Don't be so naive. Bloomberg is part of the Israeli Lobby and is only interested in furthering their goals. Everything he does is to that end. Follow the money.

Fake Klondike 5 -- is that you AGIP? Why must you always steer the conversation to be about Jews?

Does anyone really believe that Bernanke has a real net worth of only $2 million?

well that's funny - you seem to be lying.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/03/11/how-worlds-richest-politician-michael-bloomberg-got-5-billion-richer-this-year/

When we calculate Mayor Mike’s fortune, we’re valuing his stake in his major asset: Bloomberg LP, the financial data firm he co-founded in 1982 with fellow billionaires Thomas Secunda and Charles Zegar. He owns 88% of the private, closely-held company, which generated $7.9 billion revenues in 2012, up from $7.6 billion in 2011.

The rest of Bloomberg’s fortune — at least, that we can trace — comes from his cashing out of private equity firm the Quadrangle Group in 2010, when he took out some $5 billion in assets. Since then, the Mayor has given away a huge chunk of money through his Bloomberg Philanthropies. In the first two months of 2013 alone, he’s pledged $450 million ($350 million to his alma mater Johns Hopkins and $100 million to the Gates Foundation to help eradicate polio). His lifetime giving now totals over $2.5 billion, said a spokesperson.

[quote]fan man wrote:

well that's funny - you seem to be lying.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2013/03/11/how-worlds-richest-politician-michael-bloomberg-got-5-billion-richer-this-year/

When we calculate Mayor Mike’s fortune, we’re valuing his stake in his major asset: Bloomberg LP, the financial data firm he co-founded in 1982 with fellow billionaires Thomas Secunda and Charles Zegar. He owns 88% of the private, closely-held company, which generated $7.9 billion revenues in 2012, up from $7.6 billion in 2011.

The rest of Bloomberg’s fortune — at least, that we can trace — comes from his cashing out of private equity firm the Quadrangle Group in 2010, when he took out some $5 billion in assets.

Cashing out does not change one's net worth and does not explain how it is that it took him 35 years to become a billionaire but only 12 years as Mayor to add another $30 billion plus.

ok, let's see....

2002 net worth: 4.8 billion

2013 net worth: 31 billion

that is around 17% per year. Is that so crazy? Doesn't sound crazy to me.

speaking of crazy...

Klondike5 wrote:

Obviously my actions are based on what I think -- which is largely based on experience and on guesswork. Call it feel if you wish.

You're the one who called it feel. I was using your word.

Klondike5 wrote:

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

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.

Elected in 2000 as Mayor with a net worth of $1 to $2 billion at age 59 per the 200 issue of the Forbes richest 400.

Leaves office in 2013 worth $31 billion.

Despite massive losses in the net worth of most folks in 2001, 2002, and 2008-09.

It takes him a career of 3.5 decades to get to $1 billion.

That grows to $31 billion in his 12 years as mayor.

Nothing suspicious?

Come on. Such denial

More logical wrote:

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

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.[/quote]

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

1) um, he was elected in 2001, took office in 2002.

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.