Investors: For Sale...

Erik Tracy

I must be a contrarian - I bought today.

wayne3burk

In 1993 i bought a Macintosh Quadra 650 for 2000... when apple stock was $7 a share

285 shares worth of apple stock which today is valued at $373 a share

in 2000 i bought a beige Apple G3 for ... $2000

in that year the stock price ranged from a high of $28 to a low of $10 per share... so lets say another 100 shares... valued now at $373 per share.

I still have the Quadra and the G3

I'll sell the two of them to whoever offers me $144K their current value in apple stock

Rivrrat

Erik Tracy wrote: »

I must be a contrarian - I bought today.

I thought about rolling part of my 401k into stock funds today. Right now I'm all into bond funds, but I'm thinking hard.

Big Dawg

nooshinjohn wrote: »

The use of the term "Gov" is not bringing politics into the discussion by any strech of the imagination, Pointing out the abysmal lack of leadership at any level, including in the business sector also is not political, so I fail to see the reason for your post, unless pointing out the obvious is somehow the wrong thing to do.

I don't recall saying that the term "Gov," which isn't even a word, was at issue.

When you state that

nooshinjohn wrote:

The Gov has business by the short and curlies

you are making a political statement.

I would be happy to engage you in a political discussion if I thought you could keep up, and if it wasn't on an audio board. I've seen many other posts, including in at least one other thread tonight that has already been closed down, where you were also spewing your personal viewpoints on politics. Please discontinue, it is against the rules and has no place here.

Big Dawg

tonyb wrote: »

Yeah, I guess government policy/debt/ monetary policy....has nothing to do with the stock market.:rolleyes:

Are you suggesting that the market drop on Thursday was directly caused by a specific government policy, or because the debt ceiling had just been raised? Government and monetary policies absolutely impact value and thus the markets over the long-term, but as much as people may wish to believe it, short-term stock market movements are merely a reflection of the collective psyche. Fear and greed drive short-term volatility, and often have nothing to do with underlying value.

nooshinjohn

Big Dawg wrote: »

I don't recall saying that the term "Gov," which isn't even a word, was at issue.

When you state that you are making a political statement..

More a point of fact that everybody knows already, and not a political statement at all, just the truth. care to point out where exactly this is wrong, either factually or in theory?

Big Dawg wrote: »

I would be happy to engage you in a political discussion if I thought you could keep up...

If your only means of making a point is to use put-downs and other demeaning comments that are meant to convey a lack of intelilligence in your opponent, (typical of the left btw...) I would win the debate every single time, so good luck with that tactic. I am firm im my principles and understand the history from where they came. Just tell me when and where.

Big Dawg wrote: »

Please discontinue, it is against the rules and has no place here.

On this we agree. I also believe that anyone reading the thread will see that you made politics a part of the conversation, and not the other way around.



Peace!

nooshinjohn

Big Dawg wrote: »

Are you suggesting that the market drop on Thursday was directly caused by a specific government policy, or because the debt ceiling had just been raised? Government and monetary policies absolutely impact value and thus the markets over the long-term, but as much as people may wish to believe it, short-term stock market movements are merely a reflection of the collective psyche. Fear and greed drive short-term volatility, and often have nothing to do with underlying value.

This is not even remotely an accurate statement. Cannot tell you why because guess what...

aviator

big dawg wrote: »

are you suggesting that the market drop on thursday was directly caused by a specific government policy, or because the debt ceiling had just been raised? Government and monetary policies absolutely impact value and thus the markets over the long-term, but as much as people may wish to believe it, short-term stock market movements are merely a reflection of the collective psyche. Fear and greed drive short-term volatility, and often have nothing to do with underlying value.

Fail!

tonyb

Big Dawg wrote: »

Fear and greed drive short-term volatility, .

You got that part right, but guess who has a big part in creating that fear, and is greedy as all hell ?

Big Dawg

aviator wrote: »

Fail!

Exactly which part of my statement do you think is incorrect, and on what basis?

Big Dawg

tonyb wrote: »

You got that part right, but guess who has a big part in creating that fear, and is greedy as all hell ?

Tony, I agree that fear and greed are driven by many things, expectations of the future key among them. If you're saying that various policies impact future expectations, then we are in full agreement. The point I was trying to make was that short-term news and events are often viewed like "hickey sticks," as if their impact will be perpetual, and the resultant volatility seldom reflects true long-term value, up or down.

I'm actually not clear as to whom you're referencing in the second half of your sentence, but it doesn't matter. I'm on this site for audio.

Big Dawg

nooshinjohn wrote: »

More a point of fact that everybody knows already, and not a political statement at all, just the truth. care to point out where exactly this is wrong, either factually or in theory?

Not everybody knows, because it is an opinion, not a fact. It would be difficult to debate with someone unable to discern the difference.

nooshinjohn wrote: »

If your only means of making a point is to use put-downs and other demeaning comments that are meant to convey a lack of intelilligence in your opponent, (typical of the left btw...) I would win the debate every single time, so good luck with that tactic. I am firm im my principles and understand the history from where they came. Just tell me when and where.

If you want to prove your intelligence, you may wish to start by spelling it correctly. I see a lot of swagger in this statement, but nothing of substance on which to retort other than your admission of closed-mindedness.

nooshinjohn wrote: »

On this we agree. I also believe that anyone reading the thread will see that you made politics a part of the conversation, and not the other way around.

Did not! You did it first! Naa-naa.

nooshinjohn wrote: »

Peace!

Agreed. You're building some beautiful amps. Let's keep it about that.

tonyb

Big Dawg wrote: »

The point I was trying to make was that short-term news and events are often viewed like "hickey sticks," as if their impact will be perpetual, and the resultant volatility seldom reflects true long-term value, up or down.

True....short news cycle info is treated with a grain of salt, unless of coarse it's huge game changing news. Value, be it long term or short, in anything of worth, is only what one is willing to pay at a certain time. Markets go up and down,daily,weekly, year over year, no news there, but trending markets are more a long term view, opinion if you will, on an economic picture set forth by those who stand to make or lose billions.

potee

Big Dawg, If your here for the audio why the hell did you click on this thread? It didn't say any thing about audio in the title.

Big Dawg

potee wrote: »

Big Dawg, If your here for the audio why the hell did you click on this thread? It didn't say any thing about audio in the title.

You're right, the clubhouse isn't all about audio. It's for general discussion. However, politics is one of several taboo topics. I was trying to be civil.

I have no issue with almost anything discussed on the site, and if you check my posts, you'll note that I've almost universally remained silent on topics like this one. However, John has made a point of inserting his politics into other discussions. There was an entire thread with similar rants that was removed last night where he and others were being even stronger in espousing their political views. I am tired of reading political viewpoints on these pages.

As you'll also note, although John tried to label me as "left" in the assumption that I must oppose his views if I am protesting his opining of them, I have not once made any comment that would indicate my political opinions or affiliations.

Danny Tse

I have always wondered about why the ratings of those 3 credit agencies can basically determine how someone is viewed. Same with Standard & Poor. What give its opinions so much "pull"? What happens if its analysis is wrong, does the company just go "oops"? Why aren't there any groups out there rating these so-called "credit rating agencies"? If someone can pick apart Consumer Reports' "evaluations", then people should be able to see how S&P come up with its analysis.

tonyb

You should really just do a tad bit of research on the credit rateing agencies. You may be surprised at what a scam the whole shabang is. Warren Buffet is a big stake holder in Moody, which also rates Buffets companies. No conflict of interest there eh ? The Senate finance commitee has alot to do with S&P, just google this stuff. Makes for an interesting read.

Big Dawg

Danny Tse wrote: »

I have always wondered about why the ratings of those 3 credit agencies can basically determine how someone is viewed. Same with Standard & Poor. What give its opinions so much "pull"? What happens if its analysis is wrong, does the company just go "oops"? Why aren't there any groups out there rating these so-called "credit rating agencies"? If someone can pick apart Consumer Reports' "evaluations", then people should be able to see how S&P come up with its analysis.

The theory goes something like this: since the rating agencies' existence is predicated on the accuracy and timeliness of their analyses, a few inaccurate ratings should have a negative impact on their reputations, and thus on the reliability attributed to their ratings. The reality is that ratings are nothing more than sophisticated opinions, and are sometimes quite wrong. Much of the blame for the real estate bubble and subsequent bust can be laid at their feet. But who would buy a bond without knowing at least one rating?

Tony is correct, there are lots of conflicts of interest in this industry. Do you know who pays the rating agencies to issue their ratings (opinions)? You got it - the issuers of the bonds!

The main reason why ratings are important is because most bond issues aren't big enough to create well-informed liquid markets. The ratings create a simple quality measure on which to base valuations. That's why, although it will likely take a long time to undo, the AA+ rating S&P gave to senior USA debt is largely irrelevant. The quality-based value of T-bonds is really not much different today than it was a year ago. Even when we were on the brink of insufficient cash to pay all of our expenses on or about August 2, we were never going to default on our debt payments. Everyone knew that to be the case. Thus, the new rating didn't really change anything. Of course, if we don't get our financial house in order, that could change over time.

tonyb

Not only what Dawg said, but certain financial institutions are required to carry x amount of triple A securities. Dawg is right, it's basically an opinion put forth by investors for investors....if that makes any sense.