Stock Market
So, is it going to crash?
No, I don't think so. There are plenty of folks around who are able to take advantage of the situation, when the time is right for them.
The billions that seem to be evaporating never really never existed, except on paper. Unsound investments in mortgages, based on the real estate bubble everyone knew would burst sooner or later, by fund managers playing with other peoples money, then walk away with a "sorry, not my fault" and a personal fortune.
Wow, I thought it was just a bullshit claim of a crash in 2007. But I guess this isn't nearly as severe as they predicted but hopefully nothing bad happens.
*knocks on wood*
No -- it's just a correction -- just a bit more correct than was anticipated. It will eventually wind down and represent a huge buying opportunity.
No it will not crash. And hopefully the correction will allow me to purchase many more shares at a lower price.
Unsound investments in mortgages, based on the real estate bubble everyone knew would burst sooner or later
B-b-but I thought there was no bubble and that prices can only continue to go up! "Buy now, or be priced out forever!" "Buy land, they've stopped making it!" How could anyone have predicted that this wouldn't last? :rolleyes:
Your right Kitsune, it's so unfair. We must bail these speculators out, after all, think of the children.
I don't think it's going to crash in the next few days, but I think we're headed for a world wide recession and a lot of 'middle class' people are going to be severely affected.
I believe that it's not going to "crash" but that it will effect people in large enough numbers that it will be seen as significant.
The value of the dollar is down and trending down, debt is going up and up. It seems to me that there is change in the near future.
Change that wont be seen as good news for most Americans.
Corrections happen. This will be but one of many. The central banks of many nations are kicking in money to help ease the pain by giving some liquidity to the guys who walked too close to the line. I just hope they don't go overboard and throw in too much. High, high risk investors (the fund guys) need to get a grip on reality and see that they must be responsible for the choices they are making with my money. I don't want it to tank, but some loss is normal and any investor must be willing to take the good with the bad. Like Merc stated, it will just give most of us the ability to pick up some good deals. There will be many unrelated stocks with values brought down by this correction. They will be the ones to watch and snatch up.
This is not going to affect just investors. This is going to affect your average joe who's just trying to pay off his or her mortgage. So many people are up to their eyeballs in debt and a rise of just a couple more percent is going to push a huge percentage of them over into the foreclosure market.
I'd lay money on it.
Only because the were stupid enough to buy more house than they could afford. If they had bought what they could pay for they wouldn't have had to buy into risky mortgage schemes.
Of course that's true Bruce. I think we all know people who've mortgaged themselves way higher than they should have, and there are some very attractive mortgages out there but when you do your homework you realise the whole scheme is a house of cards (almost literally).
The problem is that those mortgage companies are financed by major banks who're going to feel the pinch when the direct mortgager folds because their credit ridden clients can't pay their bills.
This in turn is going to push interest rates up for more stable borrowers who will then not have the money to invest in other items which is what drives the economy.
I predict that the knock on or trickle up effect will be a lot higher than some of our other members here seem to think.
What makes me nervous is when so many say this is only a correction. Well even a stock market crash is a correction.
For example, Citibank apparently made massive bets and is now exposed for a problem that amounts to $billions. Many hedge funds have been bailed out quietly on the order of many $billions by their holding companies that were once considered 'protected' by financial circuit breakers. Even Goldman Sachs is taking a beating.
Meanwhile, dollars are in massive amounts overseas. No one is quite sure how large those numbers really are. Those dollars are held in assets such as bonds. What is this problem mostly appearing in? Bond markets. What happened if those other nations decide to cut their losses due to a sharply failing dollar - start selling bonds which are financing the American government at about $2 or $3billion per day? Does that number open any eyes? Who has the most American bonds? China - on the order estimated in the $trillions. Remember an earlier post - the actualy amount of currency in all demoninations throughout the world is about $5.7 trillion.
Already central banks have been spending untold $billions trying to maintain liquidity. Capital assets once used as collateral for so many speculative loans is suddenly becoming worth far less than original market value estimates.
Appreciate the problem facing the Federal Reserve. Inflation is threatening. Therefore interest rates must remain same or increase. But the liquidity crunch means the Fed must lower interest rates. A nation that was using finance games to keep the housing and auto markets going (because other market sectors were not doing as well) means the Fed has lost significant manuevering room.
No, I don't believe we are in for a major crash. But when more people say this is not a problem then a worse downturn results. The problem: nobody really knows how much 'rot' is out there in the finance markets. Hedge funds and other risk diversification tools really have unknown value when things get this uncertain. Nobody is really admitting it. But the amount of bailouts appears to be much more massive than is really being reported. A problem that will not appear in corporate balance sheets typically more like for four years later.
Stock market crash was 1929. When did the resulting recession occur? More like 1933/4.
I predict that the knock on or trickle up effect will be a lot higher than some of our other members here seem to think.
That seems almost certain in my mind. We are all fuct until Hillary rides into office to change everything for the better.
No, I don't believe we are in for a major crash. But when more people say this is not a problem then a worse downturn results.
What changes would you make to improve the US economy if you had the power to do so?
What events and policies would you un-do if you had the opportunity to go back in time?
...until Hillary rides into office to change everything for the better.
HA!
Hmmm... we're in a bad place because of easy credit, so we'll fix it by making more money available. Got it, as you were.
Is it going to crash? That depends on your definition of crash. If you mean people running around making foolish decisions in a panic while watching well known entertainers (who do more entertaining than legitimate financial advising) scream and yell that the sky is falling and they will need to burn their houses down to get their money out...
Yep, we are already there.
If you mean a catastrophic downturn that leads to widescale corporate bankruptcies, bread lines around the block, and a massive flow of newly homeless people asking you for change... Probably not.
A lot of folks bought houses they shouldn't have. Did mortgage brokers assist them in their stupidity? Yep. Were some of the mortgage brokers participating in illegal activities to generate approvals? Yep, a few of them. Is it all just a big scam pulled on unwitting victims? No. Scratch that - HELL NO. If a person could look around and see that rates were at historic lows and they were stretching themselves thin to fit into the biggest ARM payment they could handle, well, maybe they deserve to be taught a very painful lesson. Markets have a very effective way of returning to averages and people never seem to learn. Most of the folks I meet who are seriously pinched because of the rates are the exact same folks who were screaming about the "unexpected" collapse of the tech boom a few years back. Get over it. A fool and his money... you know the rest.
The mortgage problems are big. They'll probably get bigger. We don't have widescale foreclosures ripping the economy apart. We have lenders who made bad decisions and are now sitting outside the risk exposure model that their business plan is built on. In a knee jerk reaction they've decided the response is to not lend. Oops. Now they don't have current fees coming in to generate revenue to keep investors happy. They will look at their books and realize that even though foreclosures are up, it still makes a very small portion of their portfolio, so they will open up loan programs slowly, allowing things to smooth out. It will not be overnight, but it will happen.
Yesterday we actually touched on the official definition of a "market correction", (a drop of 10% or more) but didn't close below that level. We are due. I have been telling everyone for a year to adjust portfolios for the rainy day in the future. It is all about your asset allocation. Those with good allocations didn't sustain large losses when the tech bubble collapsed because they understood the value of diversification. Those same people will ride this out as well. The loss from a missed opportunity is much less expensive than the loss of reaching too far.
One other thing. Turn off the news. These idiot talking heads only report that "The Dow tumbled 140 points today..." They don't explain that the Dow only represents 30 companies or that more importantly that a 140 drop(or rise) today is as insignificant today as a 20 point move fifteen years ago. Talk percentages, not points.
I'm watchful, but not panicky. I'm actually seeing some fantastic values out there too. And remember folks, Bulls make money, Bears make money, Pigs get slaughtered.
HA!
It's a scary thought, yes I know.
I think we are on a bit of a knife-edge right now. It's a strange situation the like of which I've not witnessed before myself - and I've seen and been in a few recessions (and booms).
I was kind of expecting the fuel hikes we've seen to push the economy downwards for quite some time. The availability of growing markets in India, China and the Far East generally seemed to be able to counter that threat, but as we begin to appreciate the cost associated with these markets' growth (slave labour, pollution, contamination in products and so on) we may see a correction there as we address these issues. This will remove the cushioning effect that these markets have provided. That aside the governments and markets generally are well -prepared (i.e. bank-rolled) to try to stave off any crisis - I guess for them it seems the lesser of two evil decisions - spend to stop a mess or lose (probably) more by letting it run unabated.
Well, that's the idea, anyway, but the trouble with this approach in the past has been that the fundamentals have won every time, and trying to buck these has only resulted in a massive loss/waste of revenue as the recession has still come and it has been deeper as a result of the attempts to delay its arrival.
Certainly, I feel that a correction is due - larger than we've seen so far - and I can't help also feeling that it would be better to take the hit as it comes, as this will undoubtedly cause less pain than that resulting from what has always been a futile fight attempting to delay the day.
It'll be interesting to see how durable the Fed's half-percent interest rate cut is as a solution. There's a lot more bad news to come, I reckon...
The 50 Bps was window dressing for the psyche. A large correction is coming. It has been coming since opening day of the bull market, that's how it works. Whether it comes today, tomorrow or 2009, no one really knows. Economists and market timers have predicted 11 out of the last 9 bear markets and their track record speaks for itself. Buy quality companies based on solid fundamentals. Hold them until there is a fundamental reason not to. Only buy companies that fit within your predetermined asset allocation model and do not veer to the right or left of this regardless of what you hear on the tv or radio.
This could be the beginning of the recession, or not. Just remember that the last recession only lasted 8 months and there are still doomsdayers waiting for that one to end so they can invest again. Seriously, I meet them all the time. They've been sitting on the sidelines since 2002. (notice that they sold at the bottom and missed the last 5 years of gains)
But unless you are retiring and drawing income from your investments in the very near term, relax. There are only two options:
A) This is just like every other time in the market history, it will go down then come back to set new highs, or B) This time it really is different and the market will fall to 0. If that happens so what? Now you are on a level playing field with Bill Gates - neither of your bank accounts are worth anything.:eyebrow:
Economists and market timers have predicted 11 out of the last 9 bear markets and their track record speaks for itself.
Say what?
Just my way of saying that if there were a recession every time the economists were united in believing it was at our doorstep we wouldn't have gone 4.5 years without one. Many many economists are permabears because they live in theoretical worlds surrounded by mountains of negative data. To be fair there are also many permabulls that see everything as proof of the boom we are just entering. Market timers are also notorious. Come to think of it - anyone who claims to be predicting the future of anything usually is wrong just as often as they are right. Crystal balls get foggy and all that jazz.
You can live and invest based on A) predictions, or B) principles (processes). I know what I choose, but everyone has to make that decision for themselves.
...there are still doomsdayers waiting for that one to end so they can invest again. Seriously, I meet them all the time. They've been sitting on the sidelines since 2002. (notice that they sold at the bottom and missed the last 5 years of gains)
Schools of thought...
I've been saying it and saying it: for the last 4 years, the mainstream media's economics story is consistently the same: "The economy is secretly bad."
It's like they wrote it with the same outline:
The GDP had another quarter of excellent growth. But there are impending signs of disaster.
Every story has had its
but.
The major indicies said things were great. So they focused first on the market. When the market boomed, they focused on slow job creation. When the jobs came back, they focused on inequality. When inequality improved, they focused on bad loans.
Now that it's time for the next recession - the inevitable business cycle -
they write that it is a "perfect storm". "If people stop spending money we will go into a recession." Durr. Durrrr.
If the AP wrote a weather story it would be "Climate scientists tell us that it's sunny out now, but if a storm comes tomorrow, water will fall from the sky. Water is a major cause of drowning and rots untreated wood." Their economics stories are literally that dumb.
People have this mistaken idea that the media is still full of journalists who feel compelled to find and report the truth of the world around us, because "people have the right to know".
Turn on your tv and look for a homely broadcaster. Not going to happen. As long as they look good and can read the teleprompter, they're in. Sometimes they don't have to be that good at reading.
Turn on the radio and listen for someone who reports the news of the day in an unbiased, truthful, informative way. Not going to happen. Entertainment rules the airwaves.
The fact of the matter is the media exists for one reason: profit. The way they profit is by selling commercial space. The way they sell commercial space is by gaining and maintaining market share in listeners and viewers. There are only two ways they can get you to tune in daily, 1) Excite you, 2) Scare you. No one would tune into a channel that started their broadcast with, "Today the world was pretty much as it has always been. Some people made money, some people lost money, some people died, and some were born. Here are today's events..." So they have to excite or scare. They aren't creative enough to come up with compelling, positive stories that are also exciting, but they have scaring the public down to a science.
Take the lead paint story as an example. I've been following that one pretty closely so I know which toys are involved. But they got my attention last night with their teaser talking about the dangers found in "some of these toys your children may be playing with right now. Tune in for the details after the break." They showed a woman holding two toys that my son has that I was certain weren't included in the concerns. But they kept my attention for 30 freakin' minutes only to finally report that "toys are dangerous! The chinese are malicious! these toys we've been showing in our teasers are perfectly safe! But what if they weren't?!?" It is exactly what I figured but they still got me to keep their broadcast on.
They do the same thing with financial reports. I have a couple of media types as clients. I can promise you that they know nothing about money or investments, but they sound very convincing when they are expounding on the dangers of rising oil prices and the impending collapse of our economy. I literally saw one "journalist" gravely report that the economy was in danger of spinning out of control because oil went up that day. The very next day oil went down and this very same journalist reported how falling oil prices could lead to broadbased dangers for investors. HUH? Which is it,oh wise one?
The best thing you can do is turn off your tv. If you invest interview and hire an advisor based on his plan for downside money management. It isn't how much you make, it's how much you keep and volatile markets are where an advisor earns his money, or gives you reason to fire him.
I tend to agree with your views on generalised news coverage - although it's not that bad over here. The major players are the ones who move the markets, buy and sell our pension investments and so on and they rely on the likes of Reuters and Bloomberg for the news they need as part of their decision-making process. Added to this they have sophisticated models to refer to and the hype of the general media is of litte concern.
We, the individuals who see our money go into the institutions, have little control over how the main players react, and the worst we can do is make decisions based on the generl media's extremely (in terms of the way markets work) historic information - by the time they tell us, it's too late.
There's an interesting article in
today's Sunday Times Money section which shows the tools available to the likes of Morgan Stanley - not sure I undertood it all, but it shows how much details goes into their decision-making
The major players do not rely on news services for their tactical decisions, they have their own analysts and use a "use a boots on the ground" method. They send their own people to the companies to review processes, products, and prospects.
Individuals watch the news and make decisions. Those individuals may not mean much with their individual trades but remember "an avalanche starts with just one flake". Individuals are usually in mutual funds. If enough individuals get nervous and put sell orders in the mutual fund manager has to sell his positions to cover the client redemptions. Sometimes this means the fund looks to be losing when in reality it is in a great long term position. But then 10,000 other individuals get nervous and sell.... <insert painful cycle here>
they have their own analysts and use a "use a boots on the ground" method. They send their own people to the companies to review processes, products, and prospects.
That is where the problems start. Most stock analysts don't come from where the work gets done. They know all about investing in nuclear power and yet don't even know how a nuclear chain reaction works? That is the problem. Even worse, they take insist they need not understand such things.
One girlfriend as a bank VP heard rumors about a chicken farm disease. So she visited the clients - major chicken producers. All those chickens could have been sick and she would have never known it. She was an expert on this industry only because she could read spreadsheets.
Therein lays so much fear and wild speculation. We don't listen to stock commentators to know what industry is doing. We listen to them to learn how the street is feeling and guessing and rumor mongering.
How to make money on the street. Know the difference between reality and fear so often promoted by stock market bean counters.
The sub-prime fallout has created massive problems in some financial institutions. However, others saw this obvious problem long ago and bet accordingly. Whereas even Goldman Sachs is caught bailing out their bad investments, a few hedge funds are rumored to have made $billions by seeing the obvious.
We discussed here a serious problem in the housing market. An economy in recession if not for low interest rates that were maintaining strong housing sales and strong auto sales. Is that a healthy economy - or curing symptoms by throwing money at it? If other more productive parts of that economy start doing better, then low interest rates were a solution. In the past four years, without low interest rates, then this economy was not doing well. Those low interest rates can create economic activity which is confused with growth. An economy can have massive economic activity and near zero growth. Welcome to the early 1970s. Even with money games from easy money, economic growth had still fallen to about 60%.
Are stock brokers in panic mode? Good. Time to buy. We listen to bean counters because they have little idea what makes companies prosper. When they panic for reasons financial, then this is good time to return to the market. Only rarely do we listen to market analysts to know how productive or stable a company is. By the time the spread sheets finally report it, those realities have existed for years.
Now for caution. Market analysts like to panic in October. October with so many panicked market analysts tends to imply a stock market meltdown.
Did the stock market crash of 1928 create the recession? No. Those problems existed long ago - masked by easy money. If we are in a recession, then market analysts are only just beginning to suspect it - which makes October so dangerous.
How long ago were we talking about the housing market crash? What was known in reality finally appeared in the market how many years later? These are the people with "boots on the ground" who could not see this problem how many years ago?
Why do stock brokers underperform the market? They have 'boots on the ground' but forget to have what is necessary behind the eyes - knowledge of how the work gets done. This liquidity crisis did not just suddenly appear. It has been ongoing for years right in front of those so many 'boots on the ground' who still did not see. Why the panic? Because market analysts did not see for years what should have been obvious to every one of them. Instead they kept pointing to economic indictors (that measure things four and more years ago) to prove everything is just fine.
We listen to market analysts to learn about their emotions – because so many bean counter types have little grasp of what is really happening. But again, stock broker performance tends to underperform the market. Listen to learn their emotions because their emotions determine prices. Some are so foolish as to think they are experts on an industry.
I'll respond to that in two ways:
1) Who is this "we" you keep referring to? Are the voices getting to you again? (I'm actually just teasing, I'd be disappointed if you had broken form and hadn't posted this)
2) Who says stock brokers, financial advisors, financial planners, shiny shoe whores, (pick your favored term) underperform the market? I challenged you a few years ago to post your portfolio performance against my recommendations in real time, changes made as needed to test your theories. You have never even responded, let alone accept the challenge.
1) Who is this "we" you keep referring to?
The we is layman. We watch what so many market analysts say. To say ignore them is it lose a valuable source of information as well as take some of the fun out of it.
For example, important in what each of 'they' say are the reasons why. The 'whys' can quickly identify those who know only by playing numbers games from those who know by acutally understanding the a company is doing.
Same applies to finaniclal markets. Many appear to be taking significant losses verses a smaller number who saw this problem many years ago and hedged appropriately.
Meanwhile, numbers repeatedly reported from various sources noted how stock brokers underperform the market by about 1%. A summation of mutual funds (that are not indexed) also demonstrates the problem. Mutual funds tend to underperform the market by about 1% - sometimes 2%.
Recommending one to ignore the analysts is good if the investor blindly hands his money to others for investment. Becoming a good investor is not hard as long as one limits to industries that he understands. As Peter Lynch noted, the private investor with about 5 stocks can often outperform the market. But that means knowing the company, understanding its industry, and keeping an eye on those market analysts who can subvert or upend the market with their fears.
Applying to current situations - caution is advised. These market analysts have a history of misreading the numbers, promoting things as good (as they usually do) and then suddenly going into panic mode. This tends to occur in October but has lately occured in months earlier.
Having said that and if believing in an industry that is poised to get or stay on track, then one now would be watching some investments that should be very good buys in these next few months. But again, that means watching those market analysts so as to understand their and their peers emotions.
Investors in Google, Goldman Sachs, Toyota, and Citigroup have recently taken a beating. I believe each may have lost their entire profits for the year in but a month. The first three appear to be very solid companies. Could one take advantage of investments at fire sale prices?
Or invest in Cisco that is now at 150% of the price last September even after the sharp downturn? Or Intel that is now at 133% (did you notice how Intel started chewing into AMD)? Or Apple at 185% even after the downturn. Do we invest based upon these numbers? Both reasons are usually offered by those analysts. Neither are, by themselves, significant reasons for making a decision. But listening to those analysts who promote this reasoning should make it apparent whether he makes money on promotion - or actually understands the investement, its industry, and its products.
Listen to those market analysts. Sometimes they can draw attention to a gem. Use their emotion to understand the hype. Don't listen to them for what to do. Listen to them to, instead, understand the whys.
Now is a good time for making a decision if even only talking about 100 shares. I don't waste money on lottery tickets. 100 shares on the stock market is currently is far more fun than any lottery tickets. I don't like buying losers - such as lottery tickets. Second guessing market analysts is also part of the fun.
Right now is when it gets very fun.
tw, did you just use "fun" and "emotion" multiple times is the same thread? I must be sleep posting!
TW, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You have no idea what it is I (or other advisors) do for a living. You refer to numerous studies, but show me the actual numbers. Many mutual funds do under perform the market. Fewer underperform if actually compared to the appropriate benchmarks. That's the point. But many, MANY, outperform the market. Finding them is the trick. That is what I do. I match my clients up with the appropriate investments for their A) risk tolerance, B) time horizon, C) goals. When you take that into account, you'll realize that the benchmark isn't the end all, be all.
I've often stated that it is not necessary to have a financial advisor. One can successfully build their own retirement plan, they may also be capable of planning for the catastrophic needs that come up. A few can effectively assemble an efficient estate plan as well. Unfortunately, most individuals would be just as successful doing all of those things as I would be building a computer, writing a program, mounting a successful legal defense, performing surgery, or designing a revolutionary component for the space program. The point is that not everyone has the time, ability, or desire to learn what it is that I spend all day every day doing. Most of those people aren't concerned with making sure they get to brag about milking every last basis point out of the market at the next geeks-r-us meeting. Believe it or not, successful individuals don't begrudge me my fees because they've taken the time to learn what I do for them. I provide returns in line with the market in up times, I protect them in down times, I walk with them through both up and down times, and I do this all with less risk than the overall market.
But you can keep reading your white papers about my industry, and thinking you know it all. BTW, care to venture a guess as to who is bankrolling the studies you refer to? I'm sure they don't have an agenda. But I'm sure you thought of that.
TW, I've said it before and I'll say it again. You have no idea what it is I (or other advisors) do for a living.
Are you going to pull a Yesman? I don't know. I don't care. It's not relevant what you do. And it has zero relevance to the discussion in this thread. I have no idea why you are bragging. I have no idea why what you do is even worthy of posting. It is all irrelvant. But somehow you are wasting everyone's time with expressions based in ego.
Ego is not relevant. Whether you are hurt or not is not relevant. The topic is the stockmarket that has nothing to do with any one or anyone's image.
If you have facts relevant to the discussion, then post them. Don't just threaten to post information. Post it - or get off the pot.
tw - I have tried, in vain, to make peace with you - I have posted numerous times my thoughts, opinions and YES my feelings. All of this and you still attack me or act as though you are better than me - before you go off on your "no attack was made therefore it doesn't exist" bullshit. Lemme ask you "Pulling a yesman" what exactly does that mean???? I tried to treat you with consideration and attempted to make amends - YOU, tw, are an asshole in the first, second and third person. There is no reason for you to bring me up in this thread - I have not posted once nor given you any call to use me as a negative reference. You are too much of a pussy to even respond when I directly post to you and here you go like a little girl??? Fuck you and the go cart you road in on.
I have not posted once nor given you any call to use me as a negative reference.
Er, except for post #34?
Quit taking it so personally, dude. Lots of people have no respect for lots of other people on this board. It's not the feud of the century you make it out to be.
Are you going to pull a Yesman? I don't know. I don't care. It's not relevant what you do. And it has zero relevance to the discussion in this thread. I have no idea why you are bragging. I have no idea why what you do is even worthy of posting. It is all irrelvant. But somehow you are wasting everyone's time with expressions based in ego.
Ego is not relevant. Whether you are hurt or not is not relevant. The topic is the stockmarket that has nothing to do with any one or anyone's image.
If you have facts relevant to the discussion, then post them. Don't just threaten to post information. Post it - or get off the pot.
What the hell are you talking about? You are such an amusing little man. You expound on the subject of the markets trying to wow us with your well of knowledge but anytime someone responds to your thoughts you can only respond with insults or condescension and then act like you've done no such thing.
Here's an idea. Step away from the keyboard and the encyclopedia. Walk out of your mother's basement and try joining the rest of humanity. You might just like it. You might also learn something. A good place to start would be with the idea that maybe you don't know everything.
Walk out of your mother's basement and try joining the rest of humanity.
Actually, he lives in a dingy apartment around the corner from you.
Are you going to pull a Yesman?
Well, if by that you mean astute and informed yet compassionate, then yes, i guess i'm pulling a yesman. :p
Er, except for post #34?
Quit taking it so personally, dude. Lots of people have no respect for lots of other people on this board. It's not the feud of the century you make it out to be.
you are right clod - I posted once.
Here's an idea. Step away from the keyboard and the encyclopedia. Walk out of your mother's basement and try joining the rest of humanity. You might just like it. You might also learn something. A good place to start would be with the idea that maybe you don't know everything.
:biglaugha
What the hell are you talking about?
For all we know, lookout123 could be the Einstein of finance. Completely irrelevant. What only matters here are the supporting whys for statments posted. Make claims and withhold the whys - then don't expect a post to have credibiity.
Lookout123, if you know so much about the stock market, then simply state those facts and and include numerous reasons 'why'. Posting emotional tells us you think you are smarter. I don't care if you are a genius. It is not relevant. Only relevant are the reasons why you obtain a conclusion. If your only reason 'why' is because you are a stock broker, then your post has zero credibility. That is no insult of stock brokes. Who you are is not relevant. Only the 'whys' are relevant.
So prove me wrong. Show me you can stay adult. Show us these insights you have into market analysts AND provide numerous supporting facts 'why'. Do it without a meltdown. I don't care about your emotional state. And I may just decide to feed on it because you cannot even state 'why' you are angry. Your emotion is not relevant to the topic. That you do not post reasons 'why' is very relevant.
I don't care who you are. You, the person, do not even exist here. Only existing here are your posts - that are currently shy of 'why'. Your posts only credibilty comes from posting those 'whys'. The source is not relevant. Why are you upset only because my conclusions are a completely different perspective from yours? If you are confident of your conclusions, then upset would instead be replaced with 'whys' and 'why nots'.
Okie dokie, Hal.
Dave Bowman: All right, HAL; I'll go in through the emergency airlock.
HAL: Without your space helmet, Dave, you're going to find that rather difficult.
Dave Bowman: HAL, I won't argue with you anymore! Open the doors!
HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye
tw - I have tried, in vain, to make peace with you - I have posted numerous times my thoughts, opinions and YES my feelings.
I have no idea what those peace offerings are. Again you were not attacked. Why do you take insult again where none exists? If you cannot acknowledge your previous meltdown over mythical insults , then you will always view posted facts as personal attacks. You had a meltdown over something that did not exist. That was the reality.
Yesman065 viewed a school bus with a perspective. Then took insult when another contrasted his perspective with the bigger picture. Those are the facts. Get over it. You had a meltdown over insults that only existed in your head; that did not exist anywhere in the post. Are you going to meltdown again - or learn from assumed insults that did not exist? I have no idea what constitute peace offerings. You had a meltdown over a post that was only a constrast of perspectives. Those are the facts. Get over it.
HAL: Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.
:yawn:
Let's have a contest to see who can use the word "meltdown" the most times in one post. Ready? Go!
Go take your medication tw - tw is totally irrational - yesman proved repeatedly what tw did and tw istoo small a man to admit it. What little credibility tw had here, evaporated with tw's inability to admit when tw was wrong - AGAIN. tw did it six months ago and tw just did it again.
Greatest
bag on tw...ever.
Greatest bag on tw...ever.
It was nicely done.
I have no idea what those peace offerings are. Again you were not attacked. Why do you take insult again where none exists? If you cannot acknowledge your previous meltdown over mythical insults , then you will always view posted facts as personal attacks. You had a meltdown over something that did not exist. That was the reality.
Yesman065 viewed a school bus with a perspective. Then took insult when another contrasted his perspective with the bigger picture. Those are the facts. Get over it. You had a meltdown over insults that only existed in your head; that did not exist anywhere in the post. Are you going to meltdown again - or learn from assumed insults that did not exist? I have no idea what constitute peace offerings. You had a meltdown over a post that was only a constrast of perspectives. Those are the facts. Get over it.
So how did you get those children off and taken care of - since you worry about things relevant? Those in MN responded accordingly. Why do you associate yourself with them?
I made no effort to solve any problem. I simply posted a link to which tw chose to attack me in post #8. Because I am a compassionate human.
That definitely was not Yesman065 who would somehow save children by worrying?
I never said I was going to save anyone by worrying about them. It is NORMAL to be concerned with the welfare of others though, and to express that concern. tw constantly claims that he does not read into others posts or make assumptions about that which may have been implied, reading only the words one has written. Why would tw assume that anyone was trying to save a child when all I did was post a link to an article with absolutely no opinion posted. And yet again an example of how tw reads into others posts that which was not written - Why does tw constantly tend to read into statements things which do not exist. Please refer to the original post in this thread for IRONCLAD proof. Contrastly, tw feels compelled to criticize others if/when they appear to have done the same?
Whereas you were concerned with details you could do nothing about, instead, I was more concerned with the bigger picture - and things I might be able to accomplish.
INCORRECT - I was not concerned with details at all. I VERY SIMPLY posted a link, nothing more nothing less. I had not intent at that time to solve any problems jump out the door and examine any bridges. tw seems to not be able to grasp this concept even though he has been repeatedly told. Why does tw continue to assume every post is about what HE thinks it is about instead of recognizing that other people post for their own reasons? All claims of superior thought through logical emotionless conclusions would not be made were it not for the underlying emotional need for said change or improvement to take place. One can only assume that posting dispassionately lets tw feel he is somehow greater or better or in some way superior. That tw's posts are intentionally devoid of any feeling has no bearing nor does it lend any credibility to his posts. This is a further example of how tw reads into posts that which is not there. Why tw? Why does tw see things that do not exist? What is it tw has accomplished by attacking yesman? Has tw accomplished anything since this bridge collapsed? has tw taken any action? Take notice - that information is conveniently lacking from tw's posts.
Your offer was simple. You stopped posting attacks and the only time I demonstrated what an insult really looks like then stopped - just as I stated. See how easy it works?
No, not really, the veil has been removed and the seething ridicule is now out in the open. For example see post # 8 where tw completely unprovoked in any way shape or form reads into a link that which does not exist and attacks yesman without any cause whatsoever. The demeaning TONE, yes there is a tone in the written word, which tw used was completely uncalled for. I made an offer to you for an end of your attacks and my counterattacks so that the cellar would not have to deal with this issue in ever thread where you choose to attack me. Furthermore, I created a thread specifically for tw to express his feelings, if any, attack me if tw wished or to reach a compromise. tw chose none of them - What we are left with is a "cesspool of wanker logic." {tm tw} The offer was apparently not simple enough for tw. tw could not even be man enough to respond to said offer in the appropriate place. Why is that? Why is it that tw is unable or unwilling to act accordingly when an offer for peace was made? Highly illogical for one who purports logical superiority.
Yesman065 worries about kids he can do nothing for (and calls that responsible action?)
yesman (now you have me referring to myself in the third person) - very strange indeed - will repeat himself again. It seems that tw must believe that if the same incorrect point is repeatedly stated enough times will somehow will it to validity. No it will not. A most serious illogical transgression. No matter how many times an incorrect assumption is repeated it shall forever remain incorrect. yesman posted a link - nothing more, nothing less. yesman had no intention whatsoever at that time to solve any problems nor examine any bridges. tw seems to not be able to grasp this concept even though he has been repeatedly told this. yesman made no effort to imply nor intended to determine a responsible course of action. That is another attempt by tw to make another erroneous claim completely unfounded and without basis. Why tw? Why does tw see things that do not exist?
yesman would like to take this opportunity to state that he was concerned about the traumatic events of that evening and would like to express his concern for the well being of the children on that school bus. Additionally, yesman would like to express his thankfulness to his God that they are all physically ok. Nothing more nothing less. There was never any attempt to examine any other bridges nor did yesman make any claims to have done so.
The minute that bridge collapsed, our immediate concern was why and what other school buses are at risk. For example, how many bridges of that design exist in your county? Three exist in MN. Did you know that? Do you know those answers that are very much relevant if concerned for the safety of your peers? Why not?
Those questions are not yesman's to ask. yesman is not in the field of engineering, however if yesman were to derive that information it would do yesman little good to know that information. Therefore that displays another illogical question derived on faulty logic which deserves no reply. How much time did tw spend to accrue that useless information? If that information becomes useful what is tw going to do with it? Has tw done anything constructive to address whatever situation tw has determined is in need? What tw, what would yesman or any other reader do with such information? Perhaps yesman could call his congressman and express his concern for the children in his area. Does yesman need that information to do that? yesman thinks not. In fact, yesman has already emailed and called his local representative to express his concerns about bridges in his area. Has tw done the same? Has tw taken any action? tw has offered no solutions, no ideas, in fact all tw has offered is long winded posts questioning others feelings and opinions. Hardly a prudent course of action. What tw, what logic was this course of action you have chosen based upon? tell us what tw has done to increase the safety of the children who ride school buses near tw. Perhaps tw is not concerned enough about the children in tw's area to take action himself? yesman does not know as tw has not offered any constructive information on the subject.
Maybe you worry about things that cannot be solved. So tell us. How many bridges in your area have the same non-redundant design? Did you ask? Is anyone? Or do we simply wait for another school bus to fall?
OMG - again? My fingers hurt from repeating myself ad nauseum - should you, at this point, still need and answer to these questions than you are beyond help.
In conclusion, yesman recognized a need and took the appropriate action (calling his representatives) whereas tw has simply chosen to attack other posters feelings and opinions - hardly logical nor constructive.
Why does tw find it necessary to attack others when no attack was initially made nor implied?
What Yesman065 calls an
attack:
Demonstrated is a difference between what yesman065 saw and what I saw. That yellow school bus: time to worry about it was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school busses.
Dude. Do you also get upset when someone looks at you wrong? Dude. Its not entertaining watching you make a fool of yourself. Get over it. You took insult where none existed.
Greatest bag on tw...ever.
Freaking brilliant. Except it makes more sense than his posts.
There is an industry related board that I frequent and there is a horrible little troll that lives there with a posting style very similar to our resident's. The only subject that this troll can go on about is how financial advisors are secretly the devil in disguise. He frequently uses the terms "mental midget", "where the work gets done", and rails on his perception of other posters emotional state.
Hmmm.
Greatest bag on tw...ever.
It's so perfect... builds to such a crescendo. And he hasn't changed a bit, not a single bit, in six years.
It's so perfect... builds to such a crescendo. And he hasn't changed a bit, not a single bit, in six years.
Why should he? Remember the so few who had respect for American troops as to say George Jr was lying. That resulted by ignoring popular held beliefs, eliminating reasons justified by fears and emotion, and going after the irrefutable facts. Why change what works? Should I entertain my emotions - which promote intolerance?
Return to an earlier post that demonstrated how tw steps back and sees a same event completely different:
Demonstrated is a difference between what yesman065 saw and what I saw. That yellow school bus: time to worry about it was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school busses.
So where is that an insult of yesman065? Did he see only posted sentences or did he entertain his emotions to see what was not posted?
I never apologize for conflict created because the other took offense due to emotionally based assumptions. Nobody should.
yesman065 took offense at something that did not exist apparently because he did what children and racists also do - entertain their emotions. Now look at that sentence. It was intentionally written that way. Read it again. What did I just do? Did I call yesman065 a child or a racist? Yes if you entertain your emotions. No if you look at that sentence as it was intended - just blunt facts. For those who still cannot see it: tw never said yesman065 is a racist or a child. Obviously. But I must post this expecting yesman065 to impose his emotions into that sentence - to assume I called him a child or a racist. Demonstrated again is the point.
Why did tw so accurately defend the troops when so many so hated America as to believe myths and lies about Saddam? You can see it in that post that contrasted and compared the difference between what yesman065 saw and what tw saw. Notice how yesman065 saw things in that post that were not posted, and were not implied. He applies his own biases to
assume facts that did not exist and that were not even intended. It says much about him.
Same applies in this thread. Lookout123 is upset because of a fact he does not dispute. Stock brokers tend to underperform the market by maybe 1%. That makes lookout123 mad. Apparently he applies his emotions to instead see "Lookout123 underperforms the market by 1%." But that was not posted, was it?
Is it my fault that he sees that? Not for one minute. It demonstrates a point I make repeatedly. People get mad and post insults when their emotions cannot grasp, change, or dispute facts.
Ibram - based on your posts, you more than anyone else should appreciate how how some denyperspectives that are unpopular - sometimes with insult. People get angry - entertain conclusions based in emotion - when you are not 'one of them' or state things they cannot emotionally grasp. Well I am not one of 'them'. I routinely stand back and look for larger and alternative perspectives - the refutable fact.
One fact that makes lookout123 so angry: stock brokers average a 1% underperformance. Lookout123 apparently takes it so personal as if it says, "HE underperforms the market". He should be acknowledging how many of his peers don't do a good job. He doesn't. Instead he takes personal offense of a fact that is not a statement about him.
Some people have difficulty emotionally dealing with facts; instead personalize things as yessman065 did. Ibram - your own posts say your peers have trouble with your lifestyle perspectives. Why? Are you a threat to anyone? Depends on whether they acknowledge you for who you are - or do as yesman065 has done here - apply his personal biases. Appreciate why some remain distant from you. Many people just fear anything contrarian because they cannot get beyond their emotion biases.
If you don't understand, well fine. However from your posts, I would expect you to understand tolerance far better than yesman065 or lookout123. Both even take insult where no such insult existed apparently because they have not learned to stop personalizing - therefore are less tolerant and easily angered. Lookout123 so dislikes that stock brokers underperform the market by 1% as to take personal insult. He apparently assumes that was directed at him. It clearly and obviously was not. But decisions based in emotions are the foundation of intolerance. Same reason why yesman065 assumed he was being attacked when
obviously no such attack existed. Same reason would explain why some people just cannot get along with you. Its not you. Some poeple routinely entertain their emotions rather then see reality. Yesman065 saw insult where none obviously exists.
Oh almight tw :notworthy- the one and only so full of statements
and talk without action. Have you once responded to my post directed specifically to you, or answered the questions
put to YOU?
Unlike an ASSHOLE
who only claims TW
to have not insulted, yet when shown he has, still ignores the reality
of that which has been proven repeatedly. Shall I post them all
again so you can ignore them and act as if nothing happened?
Should I waste my time?
Are you worth it?
Are you man enough to realize that most of us here are smart and
can to read between the lines, TW.
Surely you can see that only a COWARD
word attempt to ignore the facts when he was wrong. It takes a real
man to take responsiblity for his actions, apologize and move on.
edit* Is there an attack in the above text?
Ibram - based on your posts, you more than anyone else should appreciate how how some denyperspectives that are unpopular - sometimes with insult. People get angry - entertain conclusions based in emotion - when you are not 'one of them' or state things they cannot emotionally grasp. Well I am not one of 'them'. I routinely stand back and look for larger and alternative perspectives - the refutable fact.
What's that s'posed to mean?
What's that s'posed to mean?
:vader1: Come over to the dark side, Luke.
Same applies in this thread. Lookout123 is upset because of a fact he does not dispute. Stock brokers tend to underperform the market by maybe 1%. That makes lookout123 mad. Apparently he applies his emotions to instead see "Lookout123 underperforms the market by 1%." But that was not posted, was it?
Silly little muppet. I'm not angry at all. You don't have the ability to do that. I am disappointed because you refuse to ever do anything but play your same little game. You post repeatedly that advisors underperform the market by 1%. I asked you to cite your source. It is your claim, you should prove it, not wait for someone to disprove it. That would be the honest thing to do. If I claimed "tw jacks off everyday to The Economist", you would expect me to support that claim or admit that it might not be fact. You certainly wouldn't feel compelled to disprove my allegation. But as usual, rather than provide any support for your statement you choose to derail the conversation with some gobbledy-gook about others' emotions. You say shit and expect others to accept it as if it were gospel. You really should be a spokesperson for Bush. That is the method of debate you are using isn't it? Just repeat something loud enough and often enough until everyone accepts it as true?
You have made claims about how simple it is to invest and you know the right way to do it. I've never stated that you were wrong, I've just asked you to support your claims with actual facts. You've never bothered to respond.
You repeatedly claim that it is well known that mutual funds underperform the market. I've asked you to provide support for that statement. You have never bothered to respond.
You repeatedly claim that advisors underperfom the market by 1%. I've asked you to cite your source. You have never bothered to respond.
Tell me, are you this clueless in real life? Do you just say shit and expect others to accept it because you uttered it? Do you cry in front of the mirror every morning telling yourself this will be the day someone cares what you say? Tell me, does your mother still tell you that if you go out in the sun and talk
to instead of
down to others that, sooner or later someone will like you? Do you ever feel bad that even people in a little bulletin board ridicule you for being dense? :sniff:
Don't worry, I'm sure someday you'll grow out of it. Sad little muppet.
What's that s'posed to mean?
What do you think it means? I thought it was quite clear. What part do you have a problem with?
I cannot answer a question when I don't understand what you are asking - what you don't understand.
Silly little muppet. I'm not angry at all. You don't have the ability to do that. I am disappointed because you refuse to ever do anything but play your same little game. You post repeatedly that advisors underperform the market by 1%. I asked you to cite your source. It is your claim, you should prove it, not wait for someone to disprove it.
Well that is about as far as I need read. Lookout123 has confirmed my suspicion. An emotional tirade because you have personalized what is a well reported industry trend as even noted in Peter Lynch's book. Sorry that you have trouble separating industry trends from yourself.
Well you posted by intentionally insulting me. Posted insults by lookout123 - 5. By tw - 0. Sorry that you are having so much trouble dealing with reality.
Meanwhile, mutual funds (excluding index funds) on average underperform the market by 1%. An adult lookout123 would not be posting insults in response to this reality. An adult lookout123 would have instead posted reasons why this is not true. Apparently you cannot which raises two questions. Is lookout123 that emotional due to no facts - or emotional because you know it’s true? Not that I expect a rational answer from one in meltdown.
Amusing how simple facts are so personalized as to make him so angry - and then lie about his anger. It does not change reality. Stock brokers tend to underperform the maket by at least 1%.
Compromise
Compromise on what? I have no idea what there is to compromise about?
Demonstrated is a difference between what yesman065 saw and what I saw. That yellow school bus: time to worry about it was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school busses.
Where is the attack? it does not exist.
In another post, I will again be discussing this same concept called perspective. Where you see victory in tactical accomplishments, instead, those who see the same thing strategically see a completely different story. You are seeing victory where even Petraeus says it cannot exist. But again, you see only a school bus whereas I see something must larger, more important, and well beyond a little skirmish.
There are no grounds to even build a compromise. You see the little picture. I see the bigger picture. The only compromise is that there was no insult overtly, covertly, intended, or implied.
I explained it all for you and everyone else already - they all seemed to get it. Why don't you? - I'll make it simple - perhaps even you can understand it then.
You are demeaning, rude, disrespectful and arrogant. It seethes out your very pores. The fact that you are the only one who "apparently" doesn't see this is most amusing.
I offered you a chance to respond - you didn't. I pointed out your weak attack - you denied it. I asked you VERY SPECIFIC questions several times - you ignored them. you tw are by every definition a tiny little man - if one at all.
You are a coward and afraid to respond for fear of something that exists only in your pathetic little mind. Your writing style is grating and redundant - you bury innuendo and insinuations in every post and everyone sees them. You misjudge the intelligence of everyone else here.
Your demeanor and attitude are disparaging, depreciatory and derogatory. You are an ass - I can prove every point I have just made by citing your own posts - therefore by your own faulty logic and reason this is not a personal attack - its simply the truth.
Posted insults by lookout123 - 5. By tw - 0.
Insults? Really tw, how can you be insulted by words on a screen? I'd expect an adult wouldn't be insulted, if only they could discuss a factual issue without emotion. Silly little muppet. I apologize for hurting your feelings. I had no idea you were so sensitive. Is there really a scared little boy under that vulcan charade? my oh my.
But back to the subject. TW assertions - many. Lookout's requests for evidence - many. TW's sources provided - 0. TW's BS factor - off the chart.
Don't cry little muppet, you still have your Popular Mechanics collection to comfort you. And remember, soon there will be a new discussion here that you can drop an encyclopedic post on. Oh think of the possibilities... there are probably hundreds, if not thousands of future threads just waiting for your winning debate tactics. How exciting. Sad, sad muppet.
You know, muppet, I feel bad. You're going to waste your whole night googling to find support for your claims. I don't want you to take that much time away from your knitting so I'll just make it easy for you.
If your claim is that 75-80% of mutual funds underperform the market in a typical year - you are correct. But do you have the curiosity to wonder what that means? Do you have the intellectual honesty to post the reasons if you have, in fact, researched to find out?
If your claim is that financial advisors underperform the market by 1%. You are partially correct. Care to explain what that number signifies?
It's up to you big boy, I've done half your work for you. Now it's time to prove your honesty. To ignore the challenge before you or to show some honesty and post information brings the truth to shine on your claims. Such a conundrum, my little muppet.
It's so perfect... builds to such a crescendo. And he hasn't changed a bit, not a single bit, in six years.
Actually, he reads
The Economist now...
You are demeaning, rude, disrespectful and arrogant. It seethes out your very pores.
Care to quote examples? I am just blunt and honest - as I always said I would be. Those who are honest at the expense of being politically correct will be considered demeaning, rude, and disrespectful by those who wear their emotions on their sleeve. You don't like it. You (not anyone else) are responsible for your emotions.
Why is the paragraph insulting or demeaning only because you see a single school bus that you cannot do anything about - and don't see the bigger picture - all those other school busses? It's not insulting. It's a statement of fact. But that simple ‘contrast and question’ is enough to start a meltdown? Apparently - and directly traceable only to your emotions.
There was nothing demeaning, rude, or disrespectful in that post - except to one who personalizes. Anything that is demeaning, rude, and disrespectful is completely inside Yesman065's brain. It is not in that posted text. There was no intent as made obvious in the rest of that post. But again, where is this demeaning, rude, or disrespectful word in this post quoted but again? tw does not even use profanity as yesman065 so often does.
Reposted again because Yesman065 never cites the demeaning word.
Demonstrated is a difference between what yesman065 saw and what I saw. That yellow school bus: time to worry about it was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school busses.
Where is the demeaning word? It does not exist as demonstrated by how many times yesman065 still cannot cite one.
Again we have the quote. Again yesman065 will never cite a personal attack. He just knows it must be rude, demeaning, or arrogant - because he knows. Well that is insulting to me - and only because yesman065 cannot control his emotions.
How can you ask for a compromise when you cannot even define what to compromise on? A compromise on nothing is no compromise. We cannot compromise on your emotions. Your emotions are 100% your problem. Until you obtain control of your emotions, then you will degrade with Cellar with more insults and profanity. You cannot even cite the demeaning word ... because it does not exist except inside your head. You cannot even define what to compromise on - because the attack did not exist.
Insults? Really tw, how can you be insulted by words on a screen? I'd expect an adult wouldn't be insulted, if only they could discuss a factual issue without emotion. Silly little muppet.
Well then lets talk about your intelligence. It was so low that you supported the mental midget president and adovcated the massacre of American soldiers in a war justified by lies. Clearly only one with an enlarged anus would have been friends with someone who even disposed of voter registration applications. But then intelligence is not found in stock brokers who make money by lying.
Of couse I never posted any of that before because that would be insulting and irrelevant. But since you have lowered the threshold to make personal attacks acceptable, then let's talk abut your wife ... oh, she left you. Why? Please explain why she could not longer put up with you. Clearly these discussion are now acceptable since accusations without foundation are the new standard.
Sorry, I don't have a long list of four letter insults to direct at you. I have little practice at profanity. Please read some previous yesman065 posts and consider them directed at you. (yesman065 - I now find this funny.)
Or maybe you want to stop personalizing and deal with the issue - that stock brokers tend to underperform the market. Strange how you don't put up a weighted average of all mutual funds (not including indexed ones) compared to the S&P 500. Then you could fill the Cellar with facts instead of your emotions.
Meanwhile, mutual funds (those where stock brokers make the decisions - not index funds) tend to underperform the market.
I don't say ignore the brokers or analysts. I say listen extensively to them - to find the few who actually know what they are talking about. Even the lesser ones sometimes through out a useful gem. Ignore them all only if letting a stock broker do the investing. Of course none of those previous posts said anything about lookout123. How curious he took vast emotional insult at what is only an industry trend. Funny that he replies with emotion rather than numbers - which he more than anyone else has most access to.
BTW, call me by my real name. Cookie Monster.
*rereads muppet's post for the 3rd time*
Nope, I didn't miss it. You post yet again and still have yet to answer even one question. Couldn't you set your emotions aside, wipe the foam from your mouth, and pull up google to even attempt locating an answer for even one question? Sad. So sad. Wipe the tears from your eyes, I'm sure it is hard to think straight when someone rubs your nose in the reality of your sad little existence, but try. Just remember, you have a choice. No one can make you feel inferior, it is all just in your head(like the voices. and your friends). All men (and women) were created equal - even you. That means you have the ability to come out of your shell and join humanity. (That's what we call all those people you see outside the window of your mother's basement) You can put down the encyclopedia, rinse the bile from your mouth and take part in the joy that is real life. Don't fear the sunlight, muppet. It's ok. Mom will still love you if you leave the basement.
And I promise that I'll forgive you and still love you if you wipe the foam from your mouth. I understand you have no control over the vitriol you spew once the rage you suppress wells up and breaks out of its cage. (I heard it was Karl Rove's fault) Poor, sad, repressed little muppet.
I tell you what, I'll give you another chance. I'll bet with a few deep breaths and the help of some medication you can overcome your phobia of questions. I want to help you. Take that first step and answer at least one of the questions I set before you. I'll even give you another hint. You're getting close to the point in the very way you post your allegations, or as you like to call them "facts". Be brave little muppet. You've had a lifetime savoring the bitter taste of failure. Try a new flavor, you can overcome your affliction. I believe in you.
Come on, everybody. Let's give our little muppet a round of applause. He seems shy, but I can see by the little gleam in his eye that he really does want to come out of his cage. Come on, fella - we're pullin' for you.
tw, when you wrote "numbers repeatedly reported from various sources noted how stock brokers underperform the market by about 1%", I wonder if you could post one of those sources. Thanks
Another tip of the
'mortgage meltdown' iceberg.
Mortgage swindlers buy buildings dirt-cheap or use brazen cons to gain control of people's homes. They apply for hefty mortgage loans, take the cash, then disappear, leaving empty buildings and destitute victims in their wake.
tw, when you wrote "numbers repeatedly reported from various sources noted how stock brokers underperform the market by about 1%", I wonder if you could post one of those sources. Thanks
I cited Peter Lynch's book as one example. It also may have been in Warren Buffet's book. I don't remember. But the fact that stock brokers average underperformance was reported often in numerous sources back when I was avidly learning this stuff and was demonstrated by a weighted average of non-indexed mutual funds by some business news sources.
Did stock brokers get smarter today then 20 years ago? I doubt it.
Of course, that is no longer relevant. Lookout123 has somehow taken this personally. Why does he care what his peers do? Why is he so defensive? Emotion replaces logic.
We also disagree on his original point. He says to ignore those market analysts. I say learn from them - especially by grasping the most important point they make - the 'whys'. Reasons 'why' say far more about which analysts have a clue. Ignore them all and then learn nothing. But lookout123 says to ignore them all. Especially with a market this volatile is a perfect time to learn which ones have a clue.
I cannot go back to so many news reports even 20 years ago. But lookout123 has access to all these numbers. Why did he go emotionally ballistic instead of citing numbers that he has routine access to?
Who's emotional, muppet? You're the one foaming at the mouth.
Again, explain to me why I should pull out the numbers to disprove what you claim. I've simply asked you to support your claims. Should be very simple, for an intelligent, honest muppet such as yourself.
Did I say to ignore analysts? *If I did, please quote it. If I didn't quit putting words in my mouth to divert attention from your inability to support your position.
Wipe the foam from your mouth, quit your sputtering and answer the questions.
* I did say to ignore a certain entertainer and the talking heads. Those certainly don't qualify as analysts. In fact, few analysts ever make it in front of a tv camera.
Since our DLM (dear little muppet) doesn't seem interested in actually answering any of the questions he's been asked, or for that matter, providing any support for his opinions that he presents as facts, I'll briefly do it for him.
For the past several years to tweak my nose, DLM has repeatedly stated that mutual funds underperform the market. He points this out as his proof that money managers and advisors aren't worth their fees, and are generally thieves and liars. (DLM places a very high value on honesty.) I've asked him repeatedly asked DLM to cite his sources because I wanted to give him the opportunity to put the information into context. Something about intellectual honesty and all that jazz... He couldn't be bothered to respond, so in a nutshell here is the info.
It is common knowledge that "mutual funds underperform the market in a typical year." yep. That's a fact. That is such a commonly accepted fact that I won't even bother to cite a specific source. It is generally accepted that 75-80% of all funds underperform "the market". It is generally accepted that "the market" is represented by the S&P 500. That is the number that the talking heads get so agitated about on the nightly news. That is an index used to measure price movements of 500 companies. Now here is the thing, DLM's statistic of "most mutual funds underperform the market" is misleading because MOST mutual aren't even designed to beat the S&P 500 in any given year. What is even more telling is that they aren't even benchmarked against the S&P 500 because they have very little (if any correlation).
Example:
XYZ* bond fund has averaged 8.1% total return for the last ten years, net of all fees. The S&P 500 has averaged better than 11%. Our DLM would point at this fact as support for his position, ignoring the fact that XYZ fund is actually benchmarked against a different index - one made up of :eek: bonds. It isn't supposed to outperform the S%P 500, anequityindex. It is an investment used to provide income. It is an investment that should have a negative correlation with equities. It is an investment that a wise investor puts a portion of their assets in to provide income, stability, and diversity to their portfolio. It is the type of investment that is designed to be at optimal performance and earn its keep by going up when "the market" goes down. That is the point of asset allocation, balancing risk so as to provide a desireable rate of return in relation to an investor's personal goals and risk tolerance.
That is but one example of the "mutual funds that underperform the market". Roughly 25% of the mutual funds in existence are designed to benchmark against the S&P 500. Many of them do, in fact, underperform the market in any given year, but if our generally accepted figure is that 20-25% of funds "underperform the market" but only 25% of funds are designed to even correlate with that index... where is the problem?
I would be happy to discuss this further, but I have to go try to kick a ball into a net for awhile.
Next up: Stockbrokers routinely underperform the market by 1%. Care to beat me to the punch, DLM? You've only had a couple of years to prepare.
*Not the actual name of the fund, but for legal and ethical reasons I cannot discuss the actual name of the fund without knowing the specifics about every person who reads what I write. It is however a very real fund.
Why is the paragraph insulting or demeaning only because you see a single school bus that you cannot do anything about - and don't see the bigger picture - all those other school busses? It's not insulting. It's a statement of fact. But that simple ‘contrast and question’ is enough to start a meltdown? Apparently - and directly traceable only to your emotions.
There. That's what is insulting and demeaning. You have made an assumption, because the aspect of the picture on which yesman commented was the immediate (and untouchable) fate of the children on the bus, that this means he doesn't see the bigger picture. You have made a leap from one thing to another and in the process accused yesman of the worst kind of myopia. How do you know he doesn't see the bigger picture, simply because he chose to comment on a small part of the picture?
Even worse yet is the
FACT that I DID NOT comment on it! Please read what was actually posted. PLEASE! This truth is self evident - I didn't say one thing about it before being attacked.
Post #1 was mine - a link and quote from the story - post #8 by tw, the mental midget compared my view (of which there was none) to his. tw, the mental midget, made an assumption which was totally and completely wrong - tw's just too small a man to admit it. The only fact there is that tw was wrong.
That fact is there for all to see - look for yourself - please and end this now. tw was wrong and my response was not only correct, but justified as well.
Yesman, tw's style is, everything posted in the thread is wrong and tw is here to bring truth and light .. blah, blah, blah. Then he'll taunt you if you let him.
Let this one go, you'll have plenty of reason to jump his shit later, with something fresh, and you'll be just as right then as you are now.
There. That's what is insulting and demeaning. You have made an assumption, because the aspect of the picture on which yesman commented was the immediate (and untouchable) fate of the children on the bus, that this means he doesn't see the bigger picture.
I don't watch the show but am told one judge is particulary good. He does not waste time with silly emotions. If you are bad, he says so. That is what your best friend does - honest.
So you tell me. Is having people say what you want to hear more important than saying truths bluntly? If so, we would never get along. I would resent that you always lied to me. Yes, everything would be considered a lie because I could not trust what you say. As noted previously, I have highest contempt for liars - including those who do it to be nice. Only children worry about emotions. Nice to me is one who is honest.
So you tell me. How would you rephrase it to be not demeaning? Since you know it was demeaing, then you phrase it to be 100% honest. You criticized. Now show us how it should be phrased to appease emotions.
So you tell me. Is having people say what you want to hear more important than saying truths bluntly? If so, we would never get along. I would resent that you always lied to me. Yes, everything would be considered a lie because I could not trust what you say. As noted previously, I have highest contempt for liars - including those who do it to be nice. Only children worry about emotions. Nice to me is one who is honest.
So you tell me. How would you rephrase it to be not demeaning? Since you know it was demeaing, then you phrase it to be 100% honest. You criticized. Now show us how it should be phrased to appease emotions.
Could you explain that first paragraph t me please?
Thanks Bruce. Remember I tried to make amends twice - I'll try again. I have a passion (yes tw thats an emotion) for peace.
Could you explain that first paragraph t me please?
The fundamental point. I want no one to be nice if they must lie. Of course, that is not justification for personal attacks and profanity. Example: One homeowner was in a tirade as he explained how Habitat for Humanity has deceived him into selling his home. After about 15 minutes, he stopped and said, "Nothing much bothers you, does it." "Why?", I replied. "You are stating a perspective." I did not care how angry he was. It was not relevant and was completely ignored. He was telling me something I had not heard from others."
Well the guy did have a cohesive story as long as we ignore some missing facts. He was telling the truth - completely - which is why I kept listening. But with a few other facts, one would arrive at a complete different conclusion. Most would have only heard his emotion- probably tuned him out. I don't care. I only heard his facts. Appreciate the difference.
If you tell me a lie to be nice to me, well, many a salesman lost a sale for doing just that. I associate political correctness with lying to create another's death. Yes, I associate the lying called 'political correctness' to be that bad. Therefore one car salesman could make the deal with me in only 5 minutes. I do not need people worrying about emotions - mine or anyone else’s. To not state facts for fear of offending another is outright lying with contempt for everyone. Apparently that is not DanaC. We apparently are that different.
Some hours after reading your two above post, I still kept asking about what was missing in DanaC's post. *WHY* is that demeaning. You never included 'why'. You said it was demeaning only because it was demeaning. Why? Is it demeaning to say someone only takes short term and microscopic perspectives? Well that would explain why DanaC views "and don't see the bigger picture" as demeaning.
No it is not. Obviously it is not. It just is - a statement. What did yesman065 do? He did not see the bigger picture. I don't find that demeaning for the same reason I never understood 1960s racism and why I still see racism even among peers who insist they are not racist. If they cannot say the same thing in front of a black man, then they are lying even to themselves. We call that political correctness. What they call being nice, I call outright lying. Are you telling me you never saw someone say something different to you that they would not say in front of others? It is what I do. I don't 'spin' based upon the audience.
Implications or human biases have zero place in that quoted phrase. The phrase only says "and don't see the bigger picture". Where is the emotion - the hidden meaning? Where is the demeaning statement?
And one more question. Why do I keep posting this - and you do not see it? Why do you outrightly deny what I keep posting. Does your world only contain people who are so politically correct? Is that why you have assumed I too am a liar?
That need to see hidden meaning in the phrase would explain why you can be a politician - always say the 'right thing'. Seeing "and don't see the bigger picture" for anything but a statement is, to me, embarrassing usage of emotion: viewing something that does not exist. And that is why we would not get along. Apparently you don't believe people only state what they state. Apparently you see hidden or implied meaning in everything. That would drive me nuts because that, to me, is lying to everyone including yourself.
Paul is dead because he has no shoes on the Abbey Road cover. Did you not understand that example? Those English Nazis were also outrightly lying to me the same way. That Paul had no shoes has zero hidden meaning. That Paul had not shoes only meant Paul had no shoes. No other meaning. No emotion. The picture only said one thing. Paul had no shoes. Do you see the same thing? If you saw anything else on the Abbey Road cover, then to me you were even lying to yourself. Did you forget the meaning of that example? If not, then why do you read into "and don't see the bigger picture" something that never was there? I am totally flabbergasted why you must see something where nothing exists. The only reason to see something more comes from emotional bias - this need to have a world that is politically correct.
I have probably posted too much. Your eyes probably have long since glazed over. If you don't understand explicitly the Abbey Road example, why political correctness is overt lying, and why you see something in that phrase that does not exist, then you must assume I am lying.
DanaC - based upon your posts, you are a political type. Therefore you will not see what I have actually posted without multiple rereads. If you really do want to understand what I have posted, then reread it multiple times with many hours between each reading - before replying. I am apparently telling you something that you have zero grasp of. Those hidden meanings in that phrase do not exist. To assume it was demeaning, you would have to assume myopic perspective is an insult. Obviously never was. But it would explain why you find what is not demeaning to be demeaning. It would explain why you see insult where none exists.
Again, you call that phrase demeaning? Fine. Why? You never said why. So how am I to even consider your post as credible? I have posted repeatedly why not. Your turn. To have credibility, your post must tell us why that phrase is demeaning.
(BTW, was that last paragraph demeaning? No. Never was. Never was intended. But intentionally worded so that you might see a hidden meaning - where none exists.)
Actually, Dana did explain why she thought it was demeaning.
I have probably posted too much. Your eyes probably have long since glazed over. If you don't understand explicitly the Abbey Road example, why political correctness is overt lying, and why you see something in that phrase that does not exist, then you must assume I am lying.
Nope. I assume you are talking bollocks.
Actually, Dana did explain why she thought it was demeaning.
Good. Post it. Don't forget exactly what my original post said - a difference between how two people see a same thing differently in a first minute. Yesman065 immediately was worried about something he could do nothing about. In that same one minute, I saw a bigger picture. Where is that an insult to anyone? Yesman065 posted exactly what is summarized here. But you tell me. Where is this paragraph in error? How does my post differ from what he did?
So where is the attack? Show me where DanaC cites reasons for ít being an attack? She even quotes a phrase that attacks no one, calls that an attack, and does not say why. So show me where "and don't see the bigger picture" attacks anyone. If you see a reason 'why' in DanaC's post, then rephrase it and post it here. Yes it is an overt challenge. Show me. I am now going right after the same mindset that also creates racism, bar room fights, and support for the 'Pearl Harboring' of Iraq.
Demonstrated is a difference between what yesman065 saw and what I saw. That yellow school bus: time to worry about it was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school busses.
Yesman immediately replied that he was tired of such attacks. What attack? Show me because DanaC will not. She only says it is an attack – does not post any reason why. Show me where that attack is. Show me the words that disparage anyone. You cannot without applying personal biases and implications. And that is the point, is it not? Where is this paragraph in error?
Simply stated was how two people responded to a same event in a first minute - nothing more. Yesman065 immediately replied about being tired of being attacked when the only attack was in his head. He cannot even cite text that attacks him because none exists. He repeatedly ignores request to cite that attacking text. Where is this paragraph in error?
But show me. Show me why that text is an attack. DanaC does not. If you think otherwise, then show me. That's maybe four different 'show me's requested because so many have opinions – and will not even cite a single reason why. Show me where and why an attack exists without adding personal biases or implications.
Nope. I assume you are talking bollocks.
So you somehow know and cannot be bothered to first learn? You never once say why that phrase is an attack. You just know? That is the exact same reason why the emotional are so quick to start barroom fights. Why do you make claims of an attack and yet cannot even cite the attack words? Or do you have access to knowledge that you refuse to share?
DanaC if you cannot even provide reasons why, then why should you have credibility here? But again, I offer you the opportunity to be emotional and take offense OR to be logical and answer the question.
You were also asked to rephrase then paragraph so that it was not an insult. I will suggest why you did not do so. The original paragraph never was an insult. However show me. Show me that you can your next post will be passed in a grasp - and not another knee-jerk response.
Good. Post it.
OK...here's Dana's explanation:
There. That's what is insulting and demeaning. You have made an assumption, because the aspect of the picture on which yesman commented was the immediate (and untouchable) fate of the children on the bus, that this means he doesn't see the bigger picture. You have made a leap from one thing to another and in the process accused yesman of the worst kind of myopia. How do you know he doesn't see the bigger picture, simply because he chose to comment on a small part of the picture?
However...
But show me. Show me why that text is an attack. DanaC does not. If you think otherwise, then show me. That's maybe four different 'show me's requested because so many have opinions – and will not even cite a single reason why. Show me where and why an attack exists without adding personal biases or implications.
I never said whether I agreed with her explanation, or not.
I already did rephrase it for you in the Bridge Collapses thread. To whit:
Or even better, DanaC - rephrase that first paragraph to be political correct? You know what my point was. Post the rewrite.
ok.
Quote:
Demonstrated is a difference between what yesman065 saw and what I saw. That yellow school bus: time to worry about it was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school busses.
or
It's been pointed out that the eye is drawn immediately to the yellow school bus...the time to worry about that schoolbus was was long ago when this failure was predictable. Whereas contents of that bus were immediate concern to those on the bridge, instead, the rest of us should be worrying about all school buses.
Note in the second reworded paragraph that no one person is singled out as short sighted. Nor does the second paragraph raise the poster to the heights of good sense as yours does. In your paragraph you manage to both insult yesman and elevate yourself.
I don't watch the show but am told one judge is particulary good. He does not waste time with silly emotions. If you are bad, he says so. That is what your best friend does - honest.
I'm sorry... did tw just compare himself to Simon on American Idol?
The complete lack of context makes me think he wrote more, and intended to delete whole reference but missed a line.
So how am I to even consider your post as credible? I have posted repeatedly why not. Your turn. To have credibility, your post must tell us why that phrase is demeaning.
How sadly amusing. Our DLM doesn't even recognize the irony here. A person's post isn't credible because that person didn't provide an answer to a question that DLM asked. (never mind the fact that they did provide that answer) Sad, so sad.
Note in the second reworded paragraph that no one person is singled out as short sighted. Nor does the second paragraph raise the poster to the heights of good sense as yours does. In your paragraph you manage to both insult yesman and elevate yourself.
Ok. And having done that, the example is now distorted and ambiguous. Your assumption is that by using two people we all know, then it is somehow insulting or demeaning. So let's make the example even more ambiguous and useless. Let's instead talk about mythical A and mythical B. And then we cannot even imply anyone as example since we must so worry about the emotions of adult children. Then we have zero idea what the example demonstrates.
Why do I so disdain political correctness? Your rewrite is a perfect example. Distort and make ambiguous only because we must be ‘politically correct’. Worry about emotions of children at the expense of clarity? Just another example of why politicians must tell half truths or lie rather than be honest to get elected.
Second point is about applying personal bias to see insult. Why does my paragraph insult yesman and elevate me? All people who view from a bigger perspective are superior? Are those who only see details of an event are inferior? Where did that spiteful bias come from? Why do you have so much contempt for the latter group? Why do you make an assumption using the same emotion that also justified racism? Why do you apply class to different people? You applied your personal biases to my paragraph. Had you not valued one group as inferior, then no insult exists.
Change your bias. If all who only see the little picture and all who see the bigger picture are equal, then where is this insult? The insult only exists when we apply your bias to that paragraph. That is DanaC’s bias; not tw’s.
Is a sergeant inferior to the general? That also is what you have just declared. Sergeant is an expert on making tactics work - application of weapons - trivial details. He can only see the little details. He does what yesman065 did. According to your bias, a sergeant is inferior because he can only see the little picture. Only the general has that larger perspective. Only the general is superior? Why do you make such value judgments? Why do you have such bias?
That ‘sergeant verses general’ concept was where I was headed with that paragraph and post. I would have never guessed you (and so many others) are so pre-judgmental as to consider a sergeant inferior to a general. Are all sergeants only cavemen? Is yesman065 also only a caveman because he did not immediately see the bigger picture? Only your assumptions are the source of insult.
I also do not accept the spiteful concept of 'good verses evil'. Do you remember that discussion? Do you think I just invented that to argue? Bull. There is no ‘good verses evil’ just as there is no value judgment of a ‘sergeant verses general’ AND no such value judgment in a paragraph contrasting ‘yesman065 and tw’. There was no value judgment except where the reader injected his own biases into that paragraph. Insult did not exist until you applied a personal bias that also defines sergeants as inferior. How many times must I make that point before you appreciate what I am saying? Only you saw the ‘little perspective’ as inferior to the ‘big perspective’. It's not even implied in my paragraph.
Well at least you are willing to put your opinions up for scrutiny. Yesman065 will not. He would entertain his emotions rather than explain why that paragraph is demeaning (the "it is because it just is" logic).
DanaC was willing to rewrite the paragraph. In doing so, you demonstrated how you would rather be politically correct than be honest and definitive. That you would distort the message only to appease those who must inject their bias into what they read. But then, that is what I have been saying all along. Does it make sense to you yet?
I am not playing a game with you. I truly don't have your personal biases which, for example, is why I saw so much hatred of April when others mocked her with contempt. Ask why I saw something completely different in the animosity spitefully directed at April. So much hostility only because she was probably posting as a confused teenager. Did you also hold so much contempt for April? Did you see overt bias that resulted in ‘I loath April’ posts? Do you also see “good and evil"? That too only comes from personal biases that even some religions openly (hatefully) encourage.
The only reason you took insult with that paragraph? You applied personal biases to that paragraph when no such emotional judgment was stated or even implied. I am not playing games with you for the exact same reason I was previously so adamant – there is no such thing as ‘good verses evil’ except among those who are so biased. My paragraph only has insult when we include your bias of 'those with little perspectives must be inferior'.
Two points. First your rewrite is ambiguous and distorted only becase we must worry about something that only children have - silly emotions. Some rediculous need to be "politically correct" because we must worry about another's emotions? Second, the only reason you saw insult is because of your biases. Only you saw the sergeant with trivial perspectives as somehow inferior. That silly and erroneous assumption is your bias; was never in my paragraph.
I'm sorry... did tw just compare himself to Simon on American Idol?
Is Simon the guy who honestly rates acts? Then he is the best friend each contestant has. He is the one we should all aspire to be. There is no reason to lie only because we might hurt someone's emotions. Those are not children up there. That 'politically correct' lying is so spiteful.
Did I compare myself with anyone? No. How do you compare to Simon (if he is the honest one). Are you honest enough to do as he does; or do you have so little respect for another as to sugar coat reality?
Did you see what DanaC just did? She finally posted an example of how my paragraph should have been written. Unlike others, she had the balls to honestly put up something - the whys. Due to her honesty, we now have meat; something to work with. She has simply posted something that can demonstrate how 'politically correctness' creates other problems.
Simon (if that is who he is) being honest; is therefore the best judge for every contestant. Is Clodfobble honest? Are Clodfobble's friends honest? Compare and contrast Simon to you. That really is the point. Are you honest or only politically correct? Are your friends secure enough to accept honesty?
~snip~ the example is now distorted and ambiguous. Your assumption is that by using two people we all know, then it is somehow insulting or demeaning. ~snip~ And then we cannot even imply anyone as example since we must so worry about the emotions of adult children. Then we have zero idea what the example demonstrates.
Let us take this one at a time. #1 you don't know me at all so your references to me are invalid. Using faulty logic again is not a way to express a cogent argument when none exists. If your initial assumption is wrong, as it obviously is in this case, then the rest of your argument has zero validity.
#2 Repeating it as you have done still does not make it valid no matter how many times you do so. Stop it, this makes your posts overtly long winded and a waste of time for the reader.
... Worry about emotions of children at the expense of clarity?
The emotions aren't the issue here - the issue is that your premise is completely unfounded and incorrect from the beginning and therefore invalidated.
Change your bias. If all who only see the little picture and all who see the bigger picture are equal, then where is this insult? The insult only exists when we apply your bias to that paragraph. That is DanaC’s bias; not tw’s.
Every reader and writer has innate biases from all that which has brought them to the point of writing or reading. It is impossible to separate them - impossible. Dana's rewrite deftly explains what you were meaning to say and the only reason you find it ambiguous is because of your biases.
Sergeant is an expert on making tactics work - application of weapons - trivial details. He can only see the little details. He does what yesman065 did.
You just stated that a sergeant is in charge of trivial details - obviously something that is trivial is not as important as something which is reasonably considered vital.
Definition of TRIVIAL:
fiddling: (informal) small and of little importance; a little (or small) matter"; ; "limited to petty enterprises"
Antonyms for TRIVIAL:
: vital, critical, central, decisive, key, essential, fundamental, important, necessary, imperative
How much clearer and example of what we are all trying to explain to you do you need? You just compared yesman to a sergeant -
trivial, and tw to a general -
vital. That is disparaging, rude disrespectful and again - INCORRECT. If you cannot see that then you are denser than originally thought.
Is yesman065also only a caveman because he did not immediately see the bigger picture? Only your assumptions are the source of insult.
You assumed - incorrectly, that I did not see the bigger picture and further assumed that you were superior to me because you assumed you did. I stated that I recognized the "bigger picture" as you put it AND I took action upon that realization. You, it can be assumed by your ignorance of the question put to you, did nothing to rectify or take any action whatsoever to protect the children in your area - I not only saw the "bigger picture", but also took action and did my part to ensure the safety of the children in my area. Do not make assumptions that the "bigger picture" was not seen simply because a post containing an article was made. Another faulty assumption of tw based upon tw's biases.
How many times must I make that point before you appreciate what I am saying?
Well at least you are willing to put your opinions up for scrutiny. Yesman065 will not. He would entertain his emotions rather than explain why that paragraph is demeaning (the "it is because it just is" logic).
BS - I have made my point repeatedly and if what I think, feel and have ALREADY done are not clear to everyone who has read the previous posts I will gladly repeat myself. I won't here because it would be redundant to do so.
The fact that I embrace my emotions and am passionate about what I think and about my opinions, does not devalue them in any way. In fact, I think it elevates my opinions over yours for, if no other, that very reason. Posting devoid of emotions does not lend any more credibility to your posts - it actually makes them robotic in nature and difficult to ascertain what the hell it is you are trying to say. Leaving the reader to guess at what you are saying is creating more problems, not solving them. Your dehumanizing posts are tiresome to read because there is no emotion - there is no feeling there is nothing but raw opinion based on, at times, incorrect information or assumptions. That which you claim to bother you most about others is that which you are most guilty of here.
I am not playing a game with you. I truly don't have your personal biases ~snip~
BS again - if you need me to expound upon them also, I will.
I will ask you one question tw - something I think everyone would like to know. Are you passionate about anything, and if so what?
DanaC was willing to rewrite the paragraph. In doing so, you demonstrated how you would rather be politically correct than be honest and definitive. That you would distort the message only to appease those who must inject their bias into what they read. But then, that is what I have been saying all along. Does it make sense to you yet?
Nope. Could you explain it again please?
Did you see what DanaC just did? She finally posted an example of how my paragraph should have been written.
Wrong. There was no 'finally' about it. That was a cut and paste from the thread in question, I think from about a week ago. So, no, I did not 'finally' post the rewrite just now. I repeated the rewite because you clearly didn't read it the first time. Cock.
I will ask you one question tw - something I think everyone would like to know. Are you passionate about anything, and if so what?
Writing long winded posts that are total bull shit?
Now just a damn minute. I want you all to back up and apologize to our sad, sad DLM. It is not his fault that his medications are a little off at the same time that his mother demanded he turn off his turntable and clean the basement. I think his little episode of overly emotional posting is perfectly understandable under the conditions. Poor DLM, I've got your back. Don't cry.
Don't be fooled, Lookout is part of the system, a shill for "the man".
Probably even wears socks.
SILENCE YOU!!! I'll have the man put you back in your cage. or take away your doodads! :eek:
Ah lookout, you know I loves ya man.
SILENCE YOU!!! I'll have the man put you back in your cage. or take away your doodads! :eek:
Even with direct access to all databases, lookout123 still cannot dispute an original point. Stock brokers on average underperform the market.
Are you serious? It took you two days to compose that response? Let me guess, did your spellchecker eat the rest of your response? You know, the part where you dispute what I've posted, answer a question... or for that matter - even acknowledge that you've read what has been posted between your sad little musings. Can you not set aside your overwhelming emotions long enough to even read anymore? Poor, poor DLM.
Oh, DLM - my heart aches for the pain you must endure trying to cover up your inadequacies. Oh, little muppet, I've known you to be sad and insecure, but I'd have never guessed at your pathetic feebleness until that post.
tw, you conveniently ignored posts 96 & 97 both of which specifically addressed you and asked you to explain yourself - don't think we didn't notice. Your diversionary tactics are no longer going to work here. Man up or ship out
Well, it has been several days since I last asked our sweet DLM to provide some support for his emotional meltdown and views on investments, investors, and advisors. Unless the muppet has started a new forum and posted the answer there, I'll just have to accept the fact that he has failed to borrow a cup of integrity from his neighbor so DLM is still unable to post a reply.
I should just let this die but for several years the muppet has made the same claims but has refused to respond to any questions or provide support. I already wrote a little about the misdirection that DLM uses when claiming that "funds underperform the market". No response. I will now very briefly address his claim that it is well known that financial advisors underperform the market by 1%. It's quite simple.
DLM has yet to provide any support for his claim so I can't be 100% certain that I'm addressing his actual concern, but I will try.
Unless muppet boy has a super secret chart showing the performance of every advisor's recommendations I'm not sure where he is getting his number. The significance of 1% is fairly simple to grasp though. 1% is a typical (but not universal) fee applied to assets under an advisor's care in a fee based program. So a client who has $100,000 with an advisor would pay $1000 during a 12 month period regardless of the number of trades or performance. (commission is the other prominent option. each has an appropriate client type).
To say that advisors underperform by 1% would be true if an advisor accepted a client's money under management, charged a 1% management fee and simply threw them into an index fund with no further service or activity. So there you go. Market performance - 1% equals "advisors underperform the market by 1%.
The problem is that this scenario is based on the idea that an advisor puts the money to work in an index, doesn't look at it anymore, and provides no other service for a client. This is a complete misunderstanding of a financial advisor's role at a very basic level. DLM wants to reduce investing to simple mathematics. In his mind it is all about the investment. He fails to understand that the investment is only a very small part of the puzzle. The central component of any investment plan is... *drum roll* THE CLIENT! Seems pretty logical, huh?
Now consider this; "the market" has averaged better than 11% annually over the last 20+ years. But during the same time frame, average INVESTOR returns hovered around 3%. That is horrifying. Why is that? Here is an idea. Investors are people. Left unchecked they follow the herd. They make their decisions based on feelings and comfort. That tendency applied to investing can be devastating. That is why people buy high and sell low. They wait until the market is running up before they find the confidence to throw their money in, but then they get scared when their account values are down and they sell. The time frame we are talking about directly correlates with the rise of the individual investor, and the DIY approach. Before the '80's the average american worked for a pension and had cd's and maybe a few other small positions. Wealthy (er) individuals invested in the market with the assistance of advisors unless they had the necessary skillset to do it themselves. As pensions were eliminated and 401 (k)s and IRA's became the retirement vehicles of choice the Suze Orman's and Dave Ramsey's came to the forefront. They gave (generally) accurate information about the ease of investing and they stressed that you don't need to pay an advisor. Never mind that you are paying them for the books and seminars to teach you how to do this. Or that Suze is a failed Merrill Lynch broker who doesn't even invest in the stock market because she doesn't understand it. (I'll try to dig that interview up.) They are right, you can get the exact same performance (sometimes better) as an advisor if you have the skillset and discipline.
Anyone can make money in the market. Buy an index and enjoy the ride. Buy individual stocks in a diversified manner and monitor them and enjoy your increases. At least that holds true in an upmarket. But, uh oh... the market goes flat or down one out of four years. That is when a good advisor really earns his/her keep. Asset protection is the key to a successful financial plan. A properly enforced buy/sell discipline is an absolute must.
Who is going to hold the DIYers hand through market volatility? Who is going to reassure the investor about the quality of their investments on days the market drops 2-3% before lunch time? Who is going to enforce a rebalancing plan if a sector outperforms? Who is going to establish, maintain, and implement an estate or wealth transfer plan? Who is going to develop an asset protection plan? Who will research, propose, and implement plans for college, retirement, disability, long term care, life insurance, trust construction and maintenance, multiple generation planning, etc.?
DLM lives in a world of theory where truth is a simple set of equations. I, and most of you, operate in the real world. Investments, like our DLM, are just tools. It is the INVESTOR that matters. It is INVESTOR BEHAVIOR that dictates success or failure in financial planning. A good advisor spends relatively little time managing investments, the bulk of their time is spent managing behavior.
Investor behavior can only be managed if proper expectations are established and maintained. This can only happen if the advisor really understands the client's goals, risk tolerance, and time frame. By doing those things the advisor and client establish a plan. Here is the kicker - sometimes the performance expectation that is established is below market averages because a client's goals and risk tolerance should dictate the types of investments held. If a client can expect an average return of 8.5% annually (net of expense) and be reasonably assured of never losing more than 5% in any given year do you really think they care if their neighbor earned 10% that year? Nope. Their goals, their plan, their tolerance.
A trusted advisor's goal is to help a client achieve their goals, not to beat a benchmark.
So, here you go TWat. I've asked you for a couple of years to support your claims. I've offered to put your recommendations against mine. You have never had the integrity to do anything but splutter and spit "george jr...mental midget...shiny shoe salesman...smoking gun" Well here is your chance big boy. Roll up your sleeves, wipe the spittle from your chin and actually step up. Discuss the realities of the situation or shut up. If you can't step in here and refute something I've posted I don't ever want to see your simpleton attempts at discussing investing again. You have no credibility in this arena as you have failed to demonstrate even a sliver of integrity. So put that in your pipe and smoke it Dearest Little Muppet.
But try to leave your emotional responses at home. We are adults here, after all.
pwnership has its privileges!
tw, you had an opportunity to address a buttload of facts after l123 posted #77. But you didn't consider or dispute any of them. You now have a direct, understandable challenge to one of your golden rules -- one of the "facts" that buries itself deep into your mind, and that you then use to suggest to us you've applied critical thinking to a matter.
The right reply now is "Damn l123, you're right. I accepted Lynch's number at face value without really knowing what face value was. Now that it's not as interesting a number any longer, I will probably argue around these matters a little differently. And perhaps I will read different sections of my precious Economist. Thank you for the valuable insight, as someone who has considered these matters much more closely than I have."
The wrong reply is "Since you made these arguments with a veil of emotional insults I will utterly fail to consider anything you said."
I expect option #2 - then again he will probably just avioid the issue now hoing that we all forget - thas his typical response. He did it to me this week, a year ago and as l read past threads, he's been doing it for several years prior. Too small of a man to admit when wrong.
Three cheers for tw. He finally got lookout to explain how all this shit works, to the clueless multitude. Now I'll know vaguely, what the rich people are taking about at the next cocktail party
Yeah and now he'll act like he knew it all along - pobably take him a weeks worth of research to come up with something to counter with - if at all. Rather pathetic, IMO.
But back to the original question. The sky is not falling and the world is not coming to an end. But I would strongly suggest anyone who is invested consider moving to defense if they haven't already. This is not the time to stretch in pursuit of alpha. Talk to your advisor if you don't know what that means. Fire your advisor if they don't know what that means.
*bump*
tw wanted to discuss something so i'm just making this available to remind him he has some questions to address before i consider him worthy of conversation again.
