Investor wrote:
My point was solely about realized gains.
Then your point added no value. His story was clearly not arguing the definition of realized gains for tax purposes.
Investor wrote:
My point was solely about realized gains.
Then your point added no value. His story was clearly not arguing the definition of realized gains for tax purposes.
Our discussion about realized gains/losses started well before his story. I suggest you go back and read the thread before posting again.
GenericlD wrote:
The story was also disingenuous because it's not realistic to expect someone to sell their stock and then IMMEDIATELY buy it back. No one is that stupid.
perfect - enemy of good enough wrote:
Speaking of stupidity... his story was clearly a simplification to evaluate the claim of the sell point being some magical key to whether money has been made or lost. (Simplification is a useful tool to evalute a premise... i.e. eliminate other variables to minimize complexity).
For taxes purposes, yes. But for common sense, not always. That is his point.
"MyWorldCom" stock is bought at $30 per share by Mr Hold & Mr Sell. The company basically fails, never to recover, but never filing bankruptcy. The stock drops to $0.05 per share and never recovers... basically staying at penny-stock status. Mr Sell sells the stock at $0.05 per share. Mr Hold continues to hold it for the next 20 years, never selling.
Are you really arguing that that Mr Hold has not lost any money? Because he never sold?
Maybe you should look up & understand the concept of mark-to-market or fair value accounting.
WTF are you babbling about? Do you always put words into others mouths? Show me where I said "'Mr Hold has not lost any money". I commented that the story contained the STUPID action of selling and then immediately buying back. That was it, dumbass. It wasn't my story. I'm not the guy who described it as a TRUE story. Obviously it was bullshit because it was so unrealistic. Your near bankruptcy scenario at least is plausible. That other moron doesn't have a clue.
GenericlD wrote:
WTF are you babbling about? Do you always put words into others mouths? Show me where I said "'Mr Hold has not lost any money". I commented that the story contained the STUPID action of selling and then immediately buying back. That was it, dumbass. It wasn't my story. I'm not the guy who described it as a TRUE story. Obviously it was bullshit because it was so unrealistic. Your near bankruptcy scenario at least is plausible. That other moron doesn't have a clue.
Since you don't like babble...
His story wasn't stupid.
Your criticism of it was.
You're a fucking moron. Come back when you have something substantial to say. In the meantime, I'll take a victory lap.
perfect - enemy of good enough wrote:
drivel
You are not factoring in that he sold at a loss right off the bat because he had bought all the way up to 14,100; I didn't make a sale then at a loss. In fact, every thing I bought up to then the first time is now a GAIN. You are not factoring in RISK. You can't just do some simple math and say "look at X". NO ONE knew the market would drop that much...yes you can find an "expert" who said so, but then you'll find that same expert said some other crazy stuff that didn't happen too. VERY lucky that he did what he did at all, ESPECIALLY SINCE he goes on "hunches". I don't know what the "hunch" was at 9,000 on the way back up, because there were some scary things in the news then...I guess he decided "holy sh!t, it has climbed from 6400 to 9000; guess I'd better get back in." Wash at best.
Also, why are you limiting dividends to 3%? Depends on how you're invested.
You are CORRECT that I also bought at 10,000 and 11,000 and up to the 12,800 where he went out. Good thing, and a point in my favor that I did so. He doesn't have those purchases to look back on now.
Playing hunches and getting lucky with a market up and down is no way to invest. He even said he doesn't know much which means ANY positives he gets from doing that is purely luck...not even an educated guess, just flat out luck.
You are incorrect in your final sentence assumption. Matters not how big your account is or how old it is, and you assume a big cash store was sitting there forever. Sometimes people get unexpected bonuses. Sometimes an extra job that wasn't anticipated comes through and nets you a big chunk of change that you didn't expect. Finally, who cares how much you already have, if you suddenly have $30,000 that you can dump into a mutual fund when the Dow is at 6400, then go for it. Doesn't take long for 6400 Dow to get up to the point that WITH DIVIDENDS you now have ~$100,000 based on just that one entry. Even for someone who might end up with several million dollars, $100,000 from unexpected money is not chump change.
AND, it's not timing the market...not really...you have to buy AND sell for it to REALLY be that. This is just putting in extra when you have it and the market appears to be low. Yes, you can be wrong about that, but it WILL go back up eventually, so if you have the money and don't need it now, then why not? And yes, I DID make extra purchases at 10,000 and 8,000 by the way. Took a while to bear fruit, but they have as I knew they would.
Finally, I don't preach buy and hold. I buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy and buy some more, and then I don't JUST hold onto it either. Sometimes I move money around, or USUALLY what I do is I buy another fund for diversification.
Finally (again) -- It's easy to say what you did AFTER you've done it. Who knows what he really did...people (not me though) have a way of stretching the truth. Now that he's put it all on the table this time, we'll see how smart he was.
Goodness. I always assumed you were brighter than this. Shame on me.
If you can't grasp simple math, yet think you can, it's not worth my time to argue with you.
perfect - enemy of good enough wrote:
Goodness. I always assumed you were brighter than this. Shame on me.
If you can't grasp simple math, yet think you can, it's not worth my time to argue with you.
Um...simple math is what both of us get...YOU don't know how to factor in RISK.
Flagpole wrote:
Um...simple math is what both of us get...YOU don't know how to factor in RISK.
Math - not if you think his sell & buy was a wash.
Risk - yes I do. I don't endorse his approach for the average investor due to the risk of getting it wrong. I endorse buy & hold, or buy and buy and buy. But that does not change the fact that his action in 2008/2009 was a very profitable move. You are denying that it was. That is simple math.
perfect - enemy of good enough wrote:
Bigfoot investments wrote (p3): "That is false. The fact that a gain or loss is 'realized' is relevant for purposes of calculating tax liabilities. It is not in any way relevant to whether or not you have actually made or lost money."
Wow. Did he really say that?
Bigfoot Investments wrote:
Wow, they deleted the response by 'perfect - enemy of good enough' which was very detailed and completely accurate.
The mods on this thread are totally out to left field. As such, this is my last post.
To those of you who have at least a bit of functioning gray matter and some level of integrity (agip, perfect - enemy of good enough, probably several others) - Cheers.
To those who are lacking - Even to you I wish the best.
Out
Unbelievable.
Take care. Keep fighting the good fight. Enjoy most of your posts.
Bigfoot Investments wrote:
It is unfortunate that some on here have to resort to such childish pranks after they are shown to be lacking in substance.
That's just as bad as insulting someone's intelligence just because they happen to disagree with you. Recognize these...?
To those of you who have at least a bit of functioning gray matter ...
if you are honest and have an IQ over 85 you will finally get it. If not, there is no helping you.
you can't really be that dense
Flagpole's argument seems to be.
1. What I did in 2008 - 2009 was the wrong move. Or too risky.
2. It also somehow resulted in my having less money than I would have by just staying in the market anyway.
3. I am lying anyway.
The first two are laughable. Clearly I ended up avoiding losing hundreds of thousands of dollars (my estimate is @ $300,000)by bailing out in when the Dow was in the high 12,000s and getting back in the next year at @ 9,000. It is amazing to me that he apparently disputes that. As if my missing out on a year of dividends overwhelms the losses I avoided.
The third. Well, what can I say. You can believe what you will. N/A to me.
Flag et al strategy of being in the market at all times no matter what you see happening in the markets and the world at large seems the risky move to me. As borne out by our experience of 2000-2002 and again in 2008. Massive losses in a short time. Lifetime accumulations of worth cut in half.
[quote]buffett wrote:
"But I don't think that trying to deny that a particular move was a good one - when it very clearly was, by luck or by skill - is the best way to defend this approach."
Most likely Klondike5 is a f*cking lier. Blowhards like him always are. They tell you how smart they are and what great moves they made AFTER the fact.
Actually, I am telling you about the move I made out of the market this past June which so far has been neutral.
I am a blowhard because I made an educated guess -- one I am sure that many people made -- and got lucky in both those incidents?
An f%cking lier (sic) and a blowhard? Why such anger?
You recovered the losses you suffered in 2008 in a little more than a year? Not by just staying in the market you didn't.
As far as from 1929 to the 1950s, it took 25 years for the Dow to return to it's height in 1929 -- without factoring in inflation. Any money invested and left in the market from 1929 on did not recover it's value (adjusted for inflation)until well after the 1950s.
Klondike5 wrote:
[quote]buffett wrote:
"But I don't think that trying to deny that a particular move was a good one - when it very clearly was, by luck or by skill - is the best way to defend this approach."
Most likely Klondike5 is a f*cking lier. Blowhards like him always are. They tell you how smart they are and what great moves they made AFTER the fact.
Actually, I am telling you about the move I made out of the market this past June which so far has been neutral.
I am a blowhard because I made an educated guess -- one I am sure that many people made -- and got lucky in both those incidents?
An f%cking lier (sic) and a blowhard? Why such anger?
You recovered the losses you suffered in 2008 in a little more than a year? Not by just staying in the market you didn't.
As far as from 1929 to the 1950s, it took 25 years for the Dow to return to it's height in 1929 -- without factoring in inflation. Any money invested and left in the market from 1929 on did not recover it's value (adjusted for inflation)until well after the 1950s.
I don't see why people need to be MAD at you Klondike5, so the dude calling you a [lier] and a blowhard is off base. We for sure have the right thing from this time around as you told us that you left the market at 15,000 in June. Again, we'll see how that pans out for you. For your sake, I hope we have a quick 1000-2000 point drop so that you can get back in and feel like you've won. From what you've continued to say about investing and the markets though, I feel even stronger than ever that you don't have the stomach for it. You should continue to fund your pension and then live on that and Social Security if you qualify. Maybe real estate is something you might enjoy. The stock market isn't for everyone. It's not for you.
To my earlier point, I'm not saying you are lying about what you did in the past...I'm just saying that we (you all, not me) tend to stretch the truth a little bit. For example, you say you got out at "high 12000s"...well, was that 12,999 or 12,585? You got back in around 9000. Ok. 9258, or 8991? A little bit of swing either way can make a halfway decent difference...it's just spin really...we like to put our best foot forward (though for me I put the truthful foot forward, but I am unique (well, rare) among humans in that way).
Right.
I do not have the stomach for losing hundreds of thousands of dollars while the market melts down.
When a panic is beginning -- panic early.
How is my not knowing the exact number the Dow was at when I sold in 2008 stretching the truth? I do recall it was in the high 12,000s. Ditto on when I got back in -- although in that case I stated I got back in when it hit 9,000 and that is what I did as that as a conscious plan.
Once again you make a completely nonsensical statement. Losing money is a good thing in the long run, not recalling the exact value of the Dow on a specific day is stretching the truth, missing out on dividends for a year hurts more than taking a 50% ride down in value. I do believe you are nuts
Right.
I do not have the stomach for losing hundreds of thousands of dollars while the market melts down.
When a panic is beginning -- panic early.
How is my not knowing the exact number the Dow was at when I sold in 2008 stretching the truth? I do recall it was in the high 12,000s. Ditto on when I got back in -- although in that case I stated I got back in when it hit 9,000 and that is what I did as that as a conscious plan.
Once again you make a completely nonsensical statement. Losing money is a good thing in the long run, not recalling the exact value of the Dow on a specific day is stretching the truth, missing out on dividends for a year hurts more than taking a 50% ride down in value. I do believe you are nuts
FP: "...we like to put our best foot forward (though for me I put the truthful foot forward, but I am unique (well, rare) among humans in that way)."
The height of self delusion.
Probably believe Saddam moved WMDs to Syria too.
Klondike5 wrote:
I do not have the stomach for losing hundreds of thousands of dollars while the market melts down.
You would not have lost any 'dollars' if you did not sell. That's not to say you made a mistake...I understand your strategy of selling high and buying low. But stocks, or anything, does not become 'dollars' until you sell.
Flagpole telling some one that they stretch the truth. Now that's rich. LOL