Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
First of all, I hadn't read your list of articles when I typed my previous post, but after quickly skimming the first one--which is full of UTTER NONSENSE--I certainly didn't mean to imply that the arguments made in those articles were necessarily "legitimate." Hopefully, the others are better than the first.
You have time to tell me what you disagree with the James Altucher article on?
Quote:
As to what I've heard YOU say, while it would be great fun to dig 'em all up and respond, I simply don't have time. But they've been along the lines of "investing in the stock market is a pure gamble," "stocks are just a piece of paper and don't represent ownership in the company," and on and on and on.
In relation to ownership in the company, are you aware of the fact that when you buy stocks you are in the secondary marketplace and monies that you are trading back and forth around with other traders, isn't actually being invested in the company? I posted the Investopedia link to verify that statement. So are you in disagreement with this?
In relation to the stock market being gambling, I don't know what else to call it? You make money in stocks by buying a piece of paper at $25 and speculating that it will go up to $30. That's the only way you make money in stocks, dividends might or might not be paid. So are you in disagreement with this in relation to how money is made in stocks? Even if you buy/hold forever, if the stocks you are holding don't appreciate in paper value, there's no money to be made as dividends might or might not be paid. So are you in disagreement with this?
it is called believing your own -bull sh%t and closing your mind to being educated on all the things in the equation you have not considered since you do not know what you don't know about .
it is called believing your own -bull sh%t and closing your mind to being educated on all the things in the equation you have not considered since you do not know what you don't know about .
The day you tell me what I don't know, that I don't know I don't know, I will gladly listen. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what I'm missing in relation to my stances here. All you do is respond with white papers and name calling, that don't really address why my stances are wrong?
In relation to the stock market being gambling, I don't know what else to call it? You make money in stocks by buying a piece of paper at $25 and speculating that it will go up to $30. That's the only way you make money in stocks, dividends might or might not be paid. So are you in disagreement with this in relation to how money is made in stocks? Even if you buy/hold forever, if the stocks you are holding don't appreciate in paper value, there's no money to be made as dividends might or might not be paid. So are you in disagreement with this?
Aren't even your 2-3yr business projections fundamentally a speculation based on certain underlying assumptions holding true for that time period?
What if the people who are 'speculating' are ok with the underlying risk? What's the problem with that because they understand the risk (and not volatility) that comes with investing in a speculative asset?
Are you blaming the low interest rate period we're in squarely on the markets?
The day you tell me what I don't know, that I don't know I don't know, I will gladly listen. I'm still waiting for you to tell me what I'm missing in relation to my stances here. All you do is respond with white papers and name calling, that don't really address why my stances are wrong?
well for starters that statement is the statement of someone who wants to remain ignorant on the subject . when you imply you know it all and then argue with the things that are presented to you that are the things you don't know the game is over for you . you will never learn once you have that attitude .
which is why i stopped replying to your questions .
well for starters that statement is the statement of someone who wants to remain ignorant on the subject . when you imply you know it all and then argue with the things that are presented to you that are the things you don't know the game is over for you . you will never learn once you have that attitude .
which is why i stopped replying to your questions .
When did I imply that I knew it all? I'm giving you my opinions and commentary, you say I'm 100% off, I'm still waiting for you to tell me where I'm 100% off at. Even when you talk about my calculations on the CAGR of the Balanced Fund, I said we can use an estimate of 1% off of the average returns, when we actually looked at CAGR of Balanced Funds and they came in at about .50% off of the average returns, how would my 1% estimate be totally off?
This is why this drama keeps going on and on. All you guys are doing is shouting names at me, instead of having a reasonable discussion about the concepts.
How about we agree to just stop the name-calling, and let's just focus on debating what each person is saying, okay? I will agree to this going forward if you agree to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThisDamnLife
Aren't even your 2-3yr business projections fundamentally a speculation based on certain underlying assumptions holding true for that time period?
What if the people who are 'speculating' are ok with the underlying risk? What's the problem with that because they understand the risk (and not volatility) that comes with investing in a speculative asset?
Are you blaming the low interest rate period we're in squarely on the markets?
In relation to if business investing is speculation, I would say yes, but the difference is that you are actually investing in things such as equipment, marketing, hiring, etc. that are doing some form of direct stimulation of the economy.
By buying stocks, you are on the secondary market and you are not investing in the companies that underlie. You are trading stocks back and forth with other traders. There's no real "wealth" or "production" being created, it's all on paper.
Do you see what I'm saying? Do you disagree with me that it's all on paper and there's no production being made?
In terms of what if people speculating are okay with the risk and what's the problem with that, I keep telling you sir, I don't have a problem with that. Why do you keep asking me what's my problem with Stock investors when I keep telling you I have no problem with people who invest in Stocks? Can you please elaborate on WHY you keep asking me this same question, when I keep answering it, and you then turn around and ask it again and again?
In terms of the low interest rate period, yes, that's the Fed doing that and I believe the Fed did it to stimulate the Markets. Ben Bernake even mentioned that the reason they did it was to stimulate the Markets.
there is nothing further i care to debate . i am done. do what you want , no one cares .
Okay fine, but just know you never debated any stance I had. All you have been doing is name-calling and posting white papers saying why I was stupid for avoiding the Markets. That's not debating my stances based on a notion that you put out there that I was "stupid".
But okay fine, if you are done, then you are done. It still feels damn good sitting on my comfy CDs while others are on the rocky roller coaster ride
You might have missed my points in this thread. I said the Balanced Fund with the mix of Stock/Bond Indexes throughout the US and International will provide a HIGHER CAGR over 20 years based on the information than the Long Term CDs.
But the "higher" amount provided isn't enough for me to jump in yet. The higher amount is about 2% more per year CAGR which isn't chump change, but it's not enough for me to ride the roller coaster.
The point of this thread is to shed some light on the value of CDs, as well as look for maybe other Balanced Funds that can get into the 10% CAGR per year for 20 years average. If anybody knows of any of those, I would be interested.
But Dave, I'm not "arguing" anything in relation to if the Balanced Funds are higher rate of returns than CDs, they are.
Yes, would have been better to have been in a CD during the run up from SPX 666 to over 2100 , a 215% increase , or about a 35% a year gain. I see your point. People who wait, are waiting for Godot.
Yes, would have been better to have been in a CD during the run up from SPX 666 to over 2100 , a 215% increase , or about a 35% a year gain. I see your point. People who wait, are waiting for Godot.
Why didn't you respond to the response I made to you in the other thread?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
