No. That was just for shits and giggles. We were feeling playful and mischievous. You piss us off though and it’s no more Mr. Nice Guy.
It’s not like somebody who counts got hurt. I think you are being way too sensitive.
He talks mostly to himself.
You have lost again, sucka. 
You’re so dumb, there isn’t any point in even trying to address this.
I mean, my God, this is so stupid. There’s no starting place to correct it. It’s just idiocy, start to finish.
See below.
But Joe Average does! Buahahahahaha!!!
OK, so this is:
1 year - year 26?
3 years - years 26-28?
…
20 years - years 26-45? So we’re looking at a base period of 1966-1991 for the stocks that raised their dividends 25 years in a row, and then observing how they did over the 20 years following?
Right? Or are you saying that if a company has raised its dividend each year during the past 25 years, we should have bought it 20 years ago?
I mean, we know that.
Just repeatedly asked you for cites. Which you’ve never bothered to produce.
Speaking of which, cite, please.
Cite, please.
No, there will be no cite. Or a cite to something hardly germane.
And you know why? Because you’re a lying fuck, that’s why.
Not that I would have any interest in meeting you at a Dopefest anyway. I certainly wouldn’t go out of my way to meet up with a jerk-off with serious dick-swinging issues, just so he can get in my face. It wouldn’t be fun, and I prefer not to do stuff that qualifies as not-fun in my free time.
Thank you! That’s what I’ve been saying! Instead of arresting them all we should just round them up and make them volunteer for Rebuilding Together to help repair homes for people that can’t afford it. Now that would make a difference.
Another thing that ki d of pisses me off is that the banks and the investment industry are the face, the scapegoats of the current financial crisis. I know there is a lot of legitimate blame there, but I don’t think it is the main or even one of the main underlying clauses. I think that blaming the investment industry is really an excuse not to view the deeper, more fundamental problem.
That problem was, and still is, incredibly cheap credit. We have had stupendously low interest rates since 2002 and it has fueled irresponsibility across all levels of society, individuals, corporations, the government, everybody stopped focussing on the cost of things because credit was cheap so cost didnt matter, and went on a great big spending spree that continues to today.
The real fundamental mechanical problem was and is low interest rates. That fueled everything else.
I don’t disagree with you that low cost of credit is A problem; however, is there a requirement that commercial/consumer banks loan out money at a specific value tied to the prime rate? Or is it the case that banks are free to set whatever interest rates they want?
If the latter, why aren’t they setting the rates higher? Wouldn’t it be more prudent for at least one company to say “we offer loans at 8%, savings at 5-6% for loan customers, and we guarantee we’re the most stable bank in the business”?
I’ve asked you twice what it is about your cite that you think contradicts something I said specifically you suggested that I would ignore it. Neither time have you bothered to answer.
And you accuse me of not engaging arguments addressed at me. It’s because when I do it often turns out as it has above, that you were just trolling.
If it’s his hobby he has a pretty good shot at it. Some individual investors and investor clubs do quite well. If they don’t have the interest, they can always hire me, somebody like me, or invest in some of the funds that do outperform. They have more choices than bring doomed to mediocrity by sn index fund.
No. I provide average annual return which is kind of an industry standard. I could provide actual calendar year numbers, if you prefer.
A stock gets on the list by being in the SP and for having raised its dividend for the previous 25 years. At that time one buys it. One sells it if it either drops out of the Sp or fails to raise its dividend. That’s it.
No you buy it after it has hit the 25 consecutive year mark.
I know you remember. You know I know.
I know. That was kind of the whole point.
You are happy to fuck around and act big on the internet. Not so much in real life.
That’s why you are a coward and a troll.
If the majority of managers don’t out-perform the morons who use indexes, why do they have jobs?
There are some fair lending law requirements but as long as they are. It discriminatory they are pretty much free to offer whatever rate they like.
You could try it. Economically though, it is unlike to work in a competitive market environment.
If I was a customer, what I would is borrow money from a bank that would loan it to me the cheapest. If I borrow I don’t care how stable the bank is. Then, any extra money i had I would deposit at the bank paying 5-6.
The bank would like find lots of people happy to deposit but very few who would want to borrow, and would therefore have trouble paying all their depositors.
Their very policy would therefor make them unstable. This becoming a case where the very claim disproves itself!
Did I explain that well?
Some are trying to be more conservative than the index, and, therefore they will earn less.
Some are being paid to follow a specific strategy Or style that is currently out of favor, but might be useful from a risk management standpoint.
Some are primarily for 401ks or annuities and investors don’t have a real choice.
Some might be socially conscious funds or have other restrictions.
Some just suck.
Some might have huge embedded capitol gains they daren’t take.
Managers do get fired, but even a good manager can have a tough time turning around a shitty fund he inherited.
Yeah, which is why I was envisioning a bank that required potential investors to first have loan interest in. Obviously unworkable in reality for similar reasons, but I’d expect lending rates to creep up in defiance of the prime rate across the board if the financial industry, as a whole, were concerned about credit availability being a bad thing.
It seems lately like they’ve elected to offer low rates but not actually loan money to anyone instead.
I’ve answered, you were apparently just too dumb to understand.
I can’t help you there.
Awww, you’re so sweeeeeeet!!!
Troll:
The list of stocks are things like:
Air products and chemicals
Kimberly Clark
McDonalds
Exxon
Chubb
Hormel Foods
Pepsi
Coke
Emerson electric
J and J
3M
Walmart
Target
McCormick
Etc.
You make it sound like it would be really difficult for an investor to pick individual stocks for himself and therefore he needs to buy an index.
That’s bullshit.
This part of it is not rocket science.
Define quality, and the buy it. That’s it.
But hey, you keep buying high and selling low and telling me what a scam it is when your returns suck.
You are right about the second part.
Theoretically the banks can offer whatever rates they want. Practically, they are at the mercy of the market environment and must set their rates in accordance with that environment.
To a large extent, the government through the Fed ends up controlling or very strongly influencing where those rates will be.
Question: Who buys the majority of indexes; individual investors or institutional investors?
That’s an interesting question. I don’t know. I would guess it would be institutions but that would only be a guess. A lot of computer trading programs trace index based etfs and they do big volume and even hundreds of trades a minute.
So I’d guess institutions but that’s a WAG
Ultimately, after you’ve followed me around, trolled and cajoled, and I take the time to actually respond and refute what you said, what I end up with is something like this.
Again, as a reminder, when I seem reluctant to waste my time responding to you. This is why. It’s why I think you are a troll, at least to me
-your Lord
I don’t think I’m leaning myself too far out the window by betting my family’s property on that bank folding within the year. There is one guiding force: the market. Offering loans with high interest rates is the mature, sane thing to do. But the mature, sane thing has never been where the money’s at on Wall Street.
It’s also not going to get you any business in that regards because why get a loan at 8% when you could get it at 2%, and the business you owe money to will be more likely to suddenly stop existing?
Very nice video showing who the 99% really are. Just folks like us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eaRWLCzPxI"]United We Rise - "Why Are You Here?" | #Occupy - YouTube
I’m at home. The heat works. The internet works. The kids are asleep. Hopefully this long overdue reply will have been worth the wait
But I wouldn’t bet on it.
This is correct, but not what I was getting at. Let me clarify: I agree that the occupiers probably have the legal right to be there. That’s not my point. My point is that it is morally wrong for them to monopolize the resource that is the park, depriving others of their fair use.
I find this ironic, because the occupiers seem to have this theme that a very few 1%ers are hogging a resource and depriving others of their fair share. They address this by… hogging a resource and depriving others of it?
Ummmm…
No I don’t. I think at the time that that right was recognized, it needed to exist because there was no other way for the people to assemble and force their government to take notice other than to go somewhere and force the issue. The inconvenience that this caused everybody else was a necessary byproduct.
Now, there are alternatives, and getting a message out does not require that you fuck over everybody else who is simply trying to live their lives without interference. I apply this equally. I don’t think those crazy baptists have any right to fuck up funerals, and I don’t think those protesters have any right to stand in front of abortion clinics and coerce and harangue women who are dealing with a difficult and private decision.
What makes me take this stance is that I think the purpose of protests has been hijacked. I gather in the past that it was a necessary way to gain the attention of the government. There was no instant media like we have now. So, now, protesters bring attention to their cause by inconveniencing and victimizing other people which produces media value. Protesters are trolling.
Ok. I’m going to submit this bad boy and do the second part so it doesn’t get lost again. Once bitten twice shy.