I’m sure there is overlap. Different investors are in the market for different goals. What I like about Stewart calling Cramer on the carpet was that he was playing both sides. The advice he was giving on his show did not serve the people he was giving it to. It served the back room.
I think that Cramer had a fiduciary responsibility not to misrepresent things this way, and he broke it and was rightly ripped apart.
Well said.
There is merit in what you say, but, you simply don’t tell people you are going to pay them for a job and then renege after the fact. These bonuses and the structure had government approval.
If you think they are earning too much, than we shouldn’t have offered to pay them that much. Seeing as we did, I think we’re obligated to follow through.
I’ve always seen it as a form of gambling. You’re betting your stock or bonds will go up. Sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. The big thing is to not invest (or bet) more than you can afford to lose. Just like poker, not everyone can win. It’s the loser who pays the winner. It’s the same with making a loan. You are betting the guy will pay it off. If he doesn’t you just lost. So you hope the other loans will be good, to cover that loss.
It’s a gross oversimplification, but everyone will NOT win every time. People forget that.
This thread is peppered with analogies, so forgive me if I make one more. It is all sounding like gangrene to me now. A middle aged, noncompliant diabetic (finally) goes to the doctor because his toes look “funny”. 3 toes are black and dry–gangrene. He has surgery to amputate these. In 3 months, he’s back at the doctor’s and the “black” has crept into his big toe and the remaining ones. Off they come. 6 months later, it’s his heel, then his arch, then the whole foot, then the calf, the knee, the thigh…
IOW, we no sooner expose one corrupt, “naked” vehicle or sector, then another is uncovered. Frankly, I don’t consider ANY investment “safe” period, but I’m about as risk averse as you can find (next to that little old lady of cartoon fame). It all comes down to trust–and whom are we (Joe Average) to trust with our money? Not investors like Lehman’s; not accountants like Arthur Andersen to keep track of it; not AIG to insure it; not the Gment, who is in bed with all of Wall St, apparently.
I get it that humans are corrupt, but where are the laws, the regulations to guard against this kind of shit? The entire industry disgusts me at this point. I am tail end Baby Boomer, so even my social security is fucked now–used to support yoga lessons and bottled water for older Boomers. I get no pension because the way my employer structures my work (I’m PT because I’m a MOM); all I have is my 401k. Make that had. A big, hearty FUCK YOU with a rusty shovel to everyone in the financial industry who went for that short term profit at the expense of long term growth.
I don’t understand a whole lot about “high” finance (actually that adjective is apt-you’re all high as kites while doing this nonsense, aren’t you?), but I know that I can’t sit here and read much more of this. I will try, but my emotions are getting the better of me.
I see no point in personal attacks on Scylla here–if anything, he’s giving us a valuable window into the world that most of us never see. I don’t like or approve of some of what I’m seeing, but irrelevant. As a nurse, I tend to deal in reality, while dealing with folks who don’t (lots of patients are in denial about all sorts of things). As much as I’d like to deny that this shit happens and is ongoing, I can’t. I’d like to waste less time in anger and more in what can we do about it? And where (and how) does one even try to make a reasonable rate of return on REAL(that is, money that one can ill afford to lose)money–not Monopoly money?
I am not asking investment advice. As if I’d take such advice from a public message board… I’m asking a general question here.
Except for the highly leveraged part, they really are ok, and not a house of cards, and even the highly leveraged isn’t always bad. it depends on how it’s being used. Leverage can allow you to hedge very large positions and portfolios and actually reduce risk.
For example, the guy that delivers your heating oil may fill his million gallon tank once a year. Let’s say it costs him $3 a gallon. If oil prices drop to $2 a gallon when it’s time to make a delivery to you, you are not going to want to pay $3. You want to pay $2, the market price.
So, the oil delivery guy buys a leveraged contract for a small amount of money that gives him the right to sell the oil at $3. To pay for this, he may sell a leveraged matching contract to buy the oil at, say, $3.50. The money he gets from that offsets his cost for the one he bought. All he’s done is given away the upside of the oil past $3.50.
Now, if oil prices drop to $2 a barrel, the first contract goes up in value by the exact amount of the loss he takes selling it to you. He’s hedged his inventory with leverage.
In this case, matching futures contracts, or options on the same are examples of highly leveraged examples lowering risk.
Now, you may argue that that’s ok, but what about speculators in the market that are just looking to make a quick buck. They’re vital. Those are the guys our oil delivery man is trading securities with. They want the risk, he doesn’t.
Because they did it reasonably for a long time, and it worked fine. When they did it unreasonably they pushed it to failure.
No, but I don’t think that gives us the right to cheat them.
Few, if any.
I agree. But again, I don’t think it is OK to cheat. The government approved the conditions of this compensation. The workers contracted to do a job. They did the job. We have to pay them what we said we would. If we didn’t want to pay that much, we should have offered less. Than they could decide whether or not they wanted the job.
I see no rationale that enables to behave in bad this way, and openly steal.
Well, not so much. Think of the economy and the markets as an ecosystem. Even the mosquito plays its vital role.
Short sellers take on extreme risk. Their potential for loss is infinite. In most environments they serve a sane and useful purpose. They help stop bubbles. Example: ABC stock has the new hot product, the next Ipod. There stock is going through the roof. Soon, it is at values that exceed the wildest expectations of this new product. As this occurs, short sellers begin selling the stock. This selling pressure slows down the bubble.
They are profiteering pirates, true, but at their best they are also agents of efficiency who help maintain sane valuations. They smooth out the bubbles and prevent crashes.
In this environment something else has happened. The market has become so volatile that instead of seeking out and revealing weakness in a company, short sellers have actually been able to create by attacking a stock. Not a good thing.
The UN??? What or who in the UN would have made such a statement, and based on what capacity?
I’ve a hard time thinking that any institution would recommend moving away from the dollar right now (even though you’re right when saying that China has fired warning shots and has made its displeasure known). This would seriously compound the issue for everybody. And moving away from the dollar towards what?
I’m not saying that the dollar couldn’t possibly lose its status in the aftermath of the current crisis, but I’m pretty sure that almost everybody is praying that it won’t.
Sorry, but this doesn’t make sense. On a very casual glance, it looks like it could make sense because 100% is a larger number than 50%, but in fact, you’re just saying that if the value of your investment has been halved, you have to double it to recoup your loss, which is perfectly straightforward.
It’s of course true that losing 80% isn’t the inverse of gaining 80%, but I disagree with the concept that down years hurt you more than up years. The only thing that matters is timing. A bad year might be devastating if it happens at the wrong moment, but a good year can equally make you wealthy beyond any expectation if it happens at the right moment.
I think if you have a diversified portfolio of high quality funds, you’ll be ok. If had decided that your asset allocation should be 50% stocks, 50% bonds. Right now, you are probably 25% stocks 75% bonds. You need to rebalance. Things are cheap and good companies will thrive again.
You make all your money in a bear market. You just don’t know it. If you had a rational investment policy before this, follow through.
Thank you, but they truly don’t bother me.
I won’t give advice, but I will give strategy and philosophy. I think every investor should have an investment policy statement. This is a written document that outlines what they are trying to do with their investments and how they plan to do it.
It will include time horizon, rate of return needs, and risk tolerance. From there it will describe in detail the asset allocation you will use to achieve it. The mix of stocks, bonds, and cash. Each of these will also be detailed. What kind of stocks? Large, mid, small, value or growth, dividend payers or not? Same with the bonds.
You take that allocation and use an online monte carlo simulation to back test it. This simulation basically looks at the distribution of returns of different asset classes over time and strings them together into random simulations. It might run 2000 different market simulations, than it takes those and produces a bell curve of possible outcomes. If you can create an allocation with a 95% succcess rate, you are doing great. 80% or more is pretty good. Much less than that and you need to rethink things.
Now, what you do is you follow your plan. Each year you revisit your policy statement and revise it as necessary. Some of your assumptions or needs may change. But, you follow your plan.
Typically, what will happen is that there will be a couple of very good years for one of your asset classes. Maybe you had that asset class with a 20% allocation. It’s done so well, it’s now 45% of your portfolio. You think it is going to keep doing well. You don’t want to sell it. You know you have a plan, but the very idea that you are going to sell half of your asset class that you love, is doing great, and making you rich makes you sick. It makes you doubly sick, because what your plan tells you to do is take that money and buy into this really stinky asset class that has been sucking and losing money. You don’t want to do it.
The average person will not to do it. They will not rebalance. Everybody agrees that you need to buy low and sell high, but it’s very hard to do.
The definition of high is that you love it, it’s doing great, you’re making money, you want more of it, and everybody you talk to thinks it’s great.
The definition of low is that you hate it, it’s killing you, ruining your portfolio, you think it fucking sucks. Everybody you talk to thinks it sucks. It scares the shit out of you, and you absolutely do not want it. You want to sell what you have of it, and you certainly don’t want any more.
Do that, and follow through, and I think you will do well.
It does make sense. What I think you are missing is that you don’t get returns based on what you had, or your starting point. You only get returns based on what you have:
Start with 100K
Year one you get a negative 50% percent return. You now have 50K.
Year two you make 100% You now have 100k. See.
If you run the aforementioned monte carlo simulations you’ll see that the effect is even more pronounced because of compounding. When you have a negative year the money you lost is no longer available too reap the benefit of positive years.
Try it yourself. Make up a distribution of returns for 10 years and then run money through it and see the effect.
What you are absolutely right about is that it matters when you get the positive returns and when you get the negative returns.
If you take a distribution of returns and set them up so the negative ones come at the end, you have a much higher ending value than if you use that same distribution but put the negative ones at the beginning.
Now, this is much better, informative without trying to further a bankrupt agenda. Good show, that. Seems a bit of sharp scolding here and there brings out the best in you. No, don’t thank me. Happy to oblige.
You have a fair point. In retrospect, I realize the anger at AIG was misdirected. I am outraged by the large bonuses the executives were paid at these failed financial firms, but I know the anger needs to be directed at the government.
The most disturbing aspect of the financial bailout is the appearance of collusion between banks and the government, especially following eight years of an administration that secretly eroded civil rights. Secrecy is the hallmark of corruption. If this new administration wants the public’s trust, there needs to be transparency.
It would be naive to believe that the current administration didn’t know about the bonuses. There was an agreement and not honoring it for political reasons is as dishonest as initially agreeing to the terms.
<slaps Luci with wet trout>
[Irrelevant aside]I can only absorb so much “money talk” at once. It bores me silly. I hate it. I want nothing to do with it, I just want my money to be there when I need it. This is not a good attitude to have. I’ll be back later when I can stomach more of this. At least no-one has said I shouldn’t worry my pretty head about it. For this, I’m grateful. [/IA]
ONLY if you refrain from commenting on my um, upper body and how it looks in said cheerleader sweater, you sexist cad!.. <fetches wet carp>
Ok, I’ll behave. Back to the thread!
With all this mess swirling around, I can’t believe someone isn’t challenging this tax–which is retroactive and has got to be discriminatory. I think Congress has overstepped itself in a big way, no? How much of this is theater and how much is nuts and bolts, here to stay stuff? (and that question applies to Wall St as well).
Right only a quarter billion. Do you think they could have made this kind of money the last decade if they did not determine their own salaries? They wrote the bonus contracts to assure they would get them no matter how much the company lost. Does that seem like a brilliant management decision or more like they had them written that way? I would love to see them be defended in court.
