|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: hpopehpope Date: Jul 22, 2008 12:32
Months and years, and perhaps, never ending chaos for America.
Becoming a third-world cesspool
does nothing for stability.
mitch
|
| |
|
| | 83 Comments |
|
|
Author: Video61Video61 Date: Jul 22, 2008 12:43
>
> Months and years, and perhaps, never ending chaos for America.
> Becoming a third-world cesspool
> does nothing for stability.
>
> mitch
|
| Show full article (1.05Kb) |
|
| | 8 Comments |
|
|
Author: FrediFizzxFrediFizzx Date: Jul 22, 2008 13:33
Months and years, and perhaps, never ending chaos for America.
Becoming a third-world cesspool
does nothing for stability.
mitch
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Video61Video61 Date: Jul 23, 2008 08:51
On Jul 22, 11:44 pm, jdoe aol.com> wrote:> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:27 -0700 (PDT), Vide...@ tcq.net wrote: >
>
>>> Months and years, and perhaps, never ending chaos for America.
>>> Becoming a third-world cesspool
>>> does nothing for stability.
>
>>> mitch
>
>> yep, if you can retire on the top of a bubble, you may do well. but
>>if you cannot time your life with the top of a bubble, you will retire
>>most likely with a huge loss on your investment.
>> the buy and hold, this is a good buying opportunity crowd needs your
>>money, to keep their ponzi scheme going. from 1929-to today i think,
>>there were only 31 up years, and they were spaced apart. lots of down
>>years of brutal bear markets lasting sometimes 2 decades, or more. ...
|
| Show full article (1.49Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Jeff DegeJeff Dege Date: Jul 23, 2008 10:55
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:27 -0700, Video61 wrote:
>
> yep, if you can retire on the top of a bubble, you may do well. but
> if you cannot time your life with the top of a bubble, you will retire
> most likely with a huge loss on your investment.
That's simply not true.
I once scanned the tables from the "Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation
Yearbook", so I could run the numbers on various scenarios. It provides
monthly data going back to 1926. I ran the numbers from, IIRC, the 1994
book.
In that period, if you were dollar-cost averaging into small-cap stocks,
the longest period over which you would have lost money - in real terms,
accounting for inflation - was five years.
If you invested $10,000 in 1929, just before the crash, you'd not have
seen your stocks worth $10,000 again for 22 years. But that's not the
way retirement accounts work.
|
| Show full article (1.56Kb) |
| 6 Comments |
|
|
Author: The BuffettHaterThe BuffettHater Date: Jul 23, 2008 11:23
What we are witnessing is a Bear Trap ---a sharp counter trend rally
which should never be confused with a good market.
The next stage down will be disasterous for the longs, we have seen
3 counter trend rallies which failed within a few months of being set
up by gov't actions (interest rates, short coverings, baliouts, etc.)
It is important to note that each successive rally becomes shorter
in time frame, sharper in counteraction (i.e., rally) and more
destructive
on the downside. IMHO the next round will have culminated in
capitulation not seen since 5 years.
What will set it off? Will it be an attack on Iran by Israel or a
natural
calamity? Stay tuned, stay short.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Video61Video61 Date: Jul 23, 2008 11:41
On Jul 23, 12:55 pm, Jeff Dege jdege.visi.com> wrote:> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:27 -0700, Video61 wrote:
>
>> yep, if you can retire on the top of a bubble, you may do well. but
>> if you cannot time your life with the top of a bubble, you will retire
>> most likely with a huge loss on your investment.
>
> That's simply not true.
>
> I once scanned the tables from the "Stocks, Bonds, Bills, and Inflation
> Yearbook", so I could run the numbers on various scenarios. It provides
> monthly data going back to 1926. I ran the numbers from, IIRC, the 1994
> book.
>
> In that period, if you were dollar-cost averaging into small-cap stocks,
> the longest period over which you would have lost money - in real terms,
> accounting for inflation - was five years.
>
> If you invested $10,000 in 1929, just before the crash, you'd not have
> seen your stocks worth $10,000 again for 22 years. But that's not the ...
|
| Show full article (2.54Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
Author: Video61Video61 Date: Jul 23, 2008 11:48
On Jul 23, 1:23 pm, The BuffettHater gmail.com> wrote:> What we are witnessing is a Bear Trap ---a sharp counter trend rally
> which should never be confused with a good market.
>
> The next stage down will be disasterous for the longs, we have seen
> 3 counter trend rallies which failed within a few months of being set
> up by gov't actions (interest rates, short coverings, baliouts, etc.)
>
> It is important to note that each successive rally becomes shorter
> in time frame, sharper in counteraction (i.e., rally) and more
> destructive
> on the downside. IMHO the next round will have culminated in
> capitulation not seen since 5 years.
>
|
| Show full article (1.55Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Date: Jul 23, 2008 12:29
On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:41:54 -0700, Video61 wrote:
> On Jul 23, 12:55 pm, Jeff Dege jdege.visi.com> wrote:>> On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 12:43:27 -0700, Video61 wrote:
>>
>>> yep, if you can retire on the top of a bubble, you may do well. but
>>> if...
|
| Show full article (3.08Kb) |
| 4 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Video61Video61 Date: Jul 23, 2008 12:54
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 12:55:49 -0500, Jeff Dege jdege.visi.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>If you started putting $100/month into the market in 1929, and continued
>>to do so after the crash, you were getting more shares for your money in
>>1930 and 1931 than you were in 1929, you'd have been in the black by
>>1934, despite the fact that the market had again crashed in 1932.
>
|
| Show full article (1.78Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
