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.
Good luck with that prediction. You sound like those goobers predicting the DOW would be down to 4000 or so back in mid-2009 (when the markets were first starting their recovery). They were wrong then and you are likely wrong now.
Good luck with that prediction. You sound like those goobers predicting the DOW would be down to 4000 or so back in mid-2009 (when the markets were first starting their recovery). They were wrong then and you are likely wrong now.
Ken
Yes, I remember them going on about how they were putting their money on canned foods and stuff, because food riots were going to break out in the cities.
That's pretty bogus logic - to pin the profitablity of those banks on the US government just because they get the lowest rates.
That isn't what the article is about. In many cases these banks are actually paid to take the governments money. They get it at basically zero interest and then put it back in the Fed and get paid interest on it.
The FED isn't driving the DJI directly. Indirectly, though, their extremely low interest rate policies don't leave many people who want a more conservative portfolio much choice if they want to see any sort of gains. They have pretty much no choice but to invest in the market.
So let's recap. Exiting the high interest rates of the early 80's people looked for another place to put their retirements. They went to the stock market. For over a decade that worked out and when the tech bubble started to grow they adjusted their portfolios even more to be based heavily in the NASDAQ.
When that went bust they moved to housing and real estate.
When that went bust and with all time low interest rates they're back in the market.
I hope people understand that this is a retirement investment bubble and that sooner or later those retirees will move back to a more conservative portfolio when they have something to actually go to. Meanwhile they're not going to invest in something like treasuries when there's nothing to be gained in doing so.
That isn't what the article is about. In many cases these banks are actually paid to take the governments money. They get it at basically zero interest and then put it back in the Fed and get paid interest on it.
Where does the article say any of that? Aside from the fact that the biggest (ie "too big to fail") banks get the best interest rates there's nothing in the article to back up what you say. So no, that isn't "what the article is about".
The FED isn't driving the DJI directly. Indirectly, though, their extremely low interest rate policies don't leave many people who want a more conservative portfolio much choice if they want to see any sort of gains. They have pretty much no choice but to invest in the market.
This ignores the billions they have pored into the markets. It's not just low rates.
Where does the article say any of that? Aside from the fact that the biggest (ie "too big to fail") banks get the best interest rates there's nothing in the article to back up what you say. So no, that isn't "what the article is about".
Ken
It says that taxpayers have GAVE the banks $85 billion dollars. What I noted is one way that taxpayers are on the hook for the money going into investment banks.
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.
