Where is Don now? Can you say 12808.63!!!!!

[VandalBasher]

http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/market_quote?symbol=%24INDU


Our economy had a hicup and Don wants to jump out the window and blame, blame, blame. I have only given props to our great economy without making this a Red/Blue thing. Some people can't stop hating American. I say:

Go USA

[Bucky]

http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/market_quote?symbol=%24INDU


Our economy had a hicup and Don wants to jump out the window and blame, blame, blame. I have only given props to our great economy without making this a Red/Blue thing. Some people can't stop hating American. I say:

Go USA

It's comical. Back in 1999 we had a market that was one huge bubble. The fundamentals were awful, but the media kept hyping and hyping. When it finally burst, billions of dollars were lost along with a countless number of retirements.

Now in 2007, we have a booming market that is based upon great fundamentals, such as: wonderful corporate earnings, low unemployment, solid and sustainable growth. Sure there are a few reasons to be skeptical such as housing and geopolitical troubles in the mid-east, but by and large this is a bull run that has been based upon solid earnings across the globe. Yet, the main stream press refuses to acknowledge just how solid the current economy is.....hmmmm i wonder why??

[Don]

http://moneycentral.msn.com/detail/market_quote?symbol=%24INDU


Our economy had a hicup and Don wants to jump out the window and blame, blame, blame. I have only given props to our great economy without making this a Red/Blue thing. Some people can't stop hating American. I say:

Go USA


..explain your enthusiasm.

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/my/_/_dji

From the graph it doesn't seem to be anything worth shouting about.

[ZOOMBAG]

Logarithmic charting....introduce yourself to the concept.

[JamesHowell]

Plus you can clearly see where the tax cuts pulled us out of the Clinton recession.

[Don]

Logarithmic charting....introduce yourself to the concept.

Kindly explain what in heaven that has to do with the arguement!

Just in case you can't, here is the data in LINEAR form. Note to Zoombag, the slope of the line is steeper during the 90's. Maybe I don't know math but to my brain that means the current growth still does match the growth in the 1990's no matter how it is plotted!!!!! Perhaps you can introduce me to some of the more advanced math skills you clearly possess that will explain how that is wrong!

http://ichart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=%5EDJI&t=my&q=l&l=off&z=m&a=v&p=s

We have gone over this before. I provide quantitative info using the DOW, GDP, NYSE, etc., and not once have you presented anything in a concrete form to support your wild contentions other than put-downs like the quote above which provide no insight nor demonstrate any understanding of the problem (or even math).

[Don]

Plus you can clearly see where the tax cuts pulled us out of the Clinton recession.

Kindly provide ANYTHING factual to back up that ridiculous statement. Prove ANY connection between tax-cuts and economic growth (this would require a connection between tax-increases and economic recession).

[JamesHowell]

EVERY TAX CUT in American history has led to increased tax revenue. That doesn't appear by magic, it only appears when the economy grows. Economic growth just happens to end recessions.

[Don]

EVERY TAX CUT in American history has led to increased tax revenue. That doesn't appear by magic, it only appears when the economy grows. Economic growth just happens to end recessions.

I asked for FACTUAL info not anecdotal comments. The US economy grows constantly and therefore there will be more money in circulation and therefore more taxes collected. One CAN graph the GDP (adjusted for inflation) vs time. IF one does this one will see that the GDP almost always increases. One can calculate the average increase in GDP per quarter. One can also plot the US revenues (again adjusted for inflation) vs time and determine the average increase in revenues per quarter. PROVE that tax cuts produce increases in revenue above the average increase per quarter.

[Scarlet Hayes]

Don, please, the "science is in." C'mon, tax cuts spur on economic activity, hence....more cabbage for the treasury. No one should have to prove that to you. It's been proved in practice time and time again. But if you insist, I'm sure one of the econ guys on the board will step up.

Now, let me sort of take your side on the economy. again, I'm no economist. But I don't think you have to be a genius to see that if this mery-go-'round comes to a halt we are in some serious trouble. i.e. this economy is largely fueled by consumer debt. One of the "canaries in the mine" is the surge in foreclosures.

An obvious catalyst to puting an end to this ride is soaring energy costs. I've been hearing $4/gal gasoline by the end of the summer. Anyone have an opinion on what would be the tipping point, regarding gas prices, that would bring this economy to its knees?

[ZOOMBAG]

For the utterly clueless socialists on the forum. We've been over the irrefutable FACT that the market of the 1990's was built on hype and nothing more. The bubble burst and today, becuase almost ENTIRELY on the Bush tax cuts, the market surge is based on sound economic fundamentals.

Simply no argument at all....as usual.....clueless.

[ZOOMBAG]

Well, no one ever needs prove this economic axiom any more than they have to prove the concept of gravity. At least to anyone with a brain larger than a walnut, which apparently is you're basic malfunction.

Also for you socialist pipe.

The top 1% of income earners pay 38% of all taxes

The top 5% pay 57%

The top 10% pay 76%

Time for the other 90% of freeloaders to pony up.

[mini_me]

Well, no one ever needs prove this economic axiom any more than they have to prove the concept of gravity. At least to anyone with a brain larger than a walnut, which apparently is you're basic malfunction.

Also for you socialist pipe.

The top 1% of income earners pay 38% of all taxes

The top 5% pay 57%

The top 10% pay 76%

Time for the other 90% of freeloaders to pony up.

AMEN BROTHER!!!

Funny how its always the people who don't pay much (if any) tax are in such a hurry to raise the taxes of those who pay and pay dearly.

AMT is an absolute abomination

[Don]

Well, no one ever needs prove this economic axiom any more than they have to prove the concept of gravity. At least to anyone with a brain larger than a walnut, which apparently is you're basic malfunction.

Also for you socialist pipe.

The top 1% of income earners pay 38% of all taxes

The top 5% pay 57%

The top 10% pay 76%

Time for the other 90% of freeloaders to pony up.


actually handle the math, Einstein! Now you can't even handle "you're" native language. Go pond sand, little boy and stop bothering the grown-ups with your idiotic babble!.

PS The 90% will "pony up" just as soon as they actually get some MONEY!

[ZOOMBAG]

Moron. So we who actually got an education and excelled in our careers, should "give" these losers money because they are so victimized by their own lack of motivation, skill, education....

There used to be a country losers like you could flock to.....but they fell apart about the time the of fall of the Berlin wall.

The only sad thing is that we have to actually allow people like you to share our oxygen.

[Don]

Moron. So we who actually got an education and excelled in our careers, should "give" these losers money because they are so victimized by their own lack of motivation, skill, education....

There used to be a country losers like you could flock to.....but they fell apart about the time the of fall of the Berlin wall.

The only sad thing is that we have to actually allow people like you to share our oxygen.

you are breathing. At least some parts of you work - your brain certainly doesn't.

[ZOOMBAG]

Nope, yours surely doesn't. Mainly because you cannot even fathom simple facts and economic axioms.

But then, Liberalism is not a logical thought process at all, but an emotionally based one....based almost solely on guilt. So please, continue on with your guilt ridden misery, while the rest of us enjoy what we have earned.

[terpintime]

The current rally is based largely on burgeoning business in foreign markets combined with the weak dollar and corporate buybacks...The former economic recovery you trumpet was financed by homebuyer equity. Greenspan, Bernanke, and even the IBD have opined thus...

[mini_me]

The current rally is based largely on burgeoning business in foreign markets combined with the weak dollar and corporate buybacks...The former economic recovery you trumpet was financed by homebuyer equity. Greenspan, Bernanke, and even the IBD have opined thus...



The rally in the stock market has next to nothing to do with housing. Nor does it have anything to do with home owner equity buybacks. Your citing of Greenspan and Bernanke are taken completely out of context. The housing market has been in a decline for quite some time now yet, the market continues to advance based on SOLID FUNDAMENTALS.

The market is cheap on a current P/E basis. In fact, the P/E ratio is cheaper today than it was at the market bottom of Oct 9th 2002.

Corporate balance sheets as a whole, are in the best condition they have ever been. Corporate free cash levels are at historical highs and earnings are still very positive. This recent rally is a sound reaction by the previous things I mentioned.

Bullish moves climb a wall of worry. You have trouble ahead when there is irrational exuberance.

[Bucky]

Don, you can put this in your big government pipe and smoke it....

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=WSJ%2FMGArticle%2FWSJ_BasicArti cle&c=MGArticle&cid=1173351081213&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161


Did you also notice that the French people have finally gotten the point? Socialism destroys your economy. They have had enough of anti-capitalist policies which have led to stagnate growth and double digit unemployment.

[terpintime]

The ordinary consumer led the recovery through spending based on cheap credit and ample home equity. As I noted, Bernanke, Greenspan, and Investor's Business Daily have all asserted this...The recent rally is indeed based largely on the burgeoning foreign market for American corporations. Why don't you research the percentage of foreign based revenue on those balance sheets you tout? As for the P/E ratios, they mean little if growth stalls. That's why the market hangs on every word in the Fed statement and almost every economic report from week to week...I have done well in this bull market and expect it to continue through the next year. No complaints here on that score.

[Bucky]

The ordinary consumer led the recovery through spending based on cheap credit and ample home equity. As I noted, Bernanke, Greenspan, and Investor's Business Daily have all asserted this...The recent rally is indeed based largely on the burgeoning foreign market for American corporations. Why don't you research the percentage of foreign based revenue on those balance sheets you tout? As for the P/E ratios, they mean little if growth stalls. That's why the market hangs on every word in the Fed statement and almost every economic report from week to week...I have done well in this bull market and expect it to continue through the next year. No complaints here on that score.



In 6 of the past 10 recessions, the markets have grown while GDP has contracted.

The recently rally is based upon strong corporate earnings, not the huge bubble in the late 90's that cost so many people their retirement. The bubble was largely influenced by a main stream press that painted such a rosy picture of the Clinton economy. Funny how drastic the press's opinion can change of our economy when there is a R in the White House.

[terpintime]

money managers are influenced by rosy pictures painted in the press, then you are simply Buckynuts!

[mini_me]

The ordinary consumer led the recovery through spending based on cheap credit and ample home equity. As I noted, Bernanke, Greenspan, and Investor's Business Daily have all asserted this...The recent rally is indeed based largely on the burgeoning foreign market for American corporations. Why don't you research the percentage of foreign based revenue on those balance sheets you tout? As for the P/E ratios, they mean little if growth stalls. That's why the market hangs on every word in the Fed statement and almost every economic report from week to week...I have done well in this bull market and expect it to continue through the next year. No complaints here on that score.

You've done well... its been my experience that the overwhelming majority of people cant even begin to tell you what there rate of return is let alone what the markets did over the last 1,3,5 and 10 years.

Growth has almost no significance to what a P/E ratio does in relationship to the broader market. You can have a company who is growing at 12-15 % per year yet, its P/E is shrinking. P/E ratios, particularly those of say, the S&P merely indicate a market this is expensive, fairly valued or cheap.

All the P/E tells you is if the market or a company is Cheap or expensive relative to the broader indicies or if we are talking about the market, if the market is expensive or a cheap relative to recent history. Growth in of itself plays a nearly insignificant role in P/E expansion and/or contraction.

Instead of telling me to "Why don't you research the percentage of foreign based revenue on those balance sheets you tout?" Why don't you get educated about the market and read say Dodd and Graham.

[mini_me]

In 6 of the past 10 recessions, the markets have grown while GDP has contracted.

The recently rally is based upon strong corporate earnings, not the huge bubble in the late 90's that cost so many people their retirement. The bubble was largely influenced by a main stream press that painted such a rosy picture of the Clinton economy. Funny how drastic the press's opinion can change of our economy when there is a R in the White House.

There is a saying that says "Its never different" The second you hear "It's different this time..." Who ever says it, and I don't care what his/her pedigree is, its almost a sure thing that they are wrong.

All the gibberish about the "new economy" was wrong just like Bill Grosses call on the Dow dropping to 5000 was wrong. Both said "its different this time."

There were a number of factors that led to the blow off that happened. First, something like 95% of the money in the market came into the market AFTER 1992. The VAST majority of these "investors" had never seen a significant market downturn. Second, the VAST majority of money managers had not been running portfolios prior to about the same period of time.

You have inexperienced investors with irrational expectations coupled with portfolio managers who had never handled money in seriously difficult markets. A very large number of SMA's and Mutual Funds really had no sell disciplines.

You had excessive investment by bankers and private equity funds who were financing deals based upon pure hype coupled with investors who completely abandoned reasonable investment strategies.

I can recall clients firing brokers for getting clients 30% rates of return because the neighbor down the street got 120% in his dot.com fund.

The beginning of the end was when Greenspan started preaching about irrational exuberance. WorldCom and Enron were the sure signs of corruption and fudged numbers. Trust me, they weren't the only 2 who were manufacturing earnings to pump up the stock.

[Bucky]

money managers are influenced by rosy pictures painted in the press, then you are simply Buckynuts!


Trust me. There is no money manager, much less insignificant financial advisor who are influenced by anything that the ignorant press spews out.

But the all important consumer, who you love to mention so often, are directly influenced by what Katie Couric, or any other liberal want to say.

[terpintime]

on how cheap you think a stock is using a PE ratio or its Book Value, then you are surely not doing that well. The PE ratio is used mostly as an indicator of how popular a stock is, not as a measure of how expensive or cheap it is. Earnings growth informs investors about the relative worth of a stock at its current price. Ever heard of the PEG ratio? To assert that growth has a "nearly insignificant role in PE expansion and/or contraction" seems naive to me. And if you have a stock that is growing earnings at 12-15% a year with a contracting PE, you had better reexamine your reasons for holding onto that stock...

[terpintime]

by 0% interest offers on new SUVs than by the musings of network news personalities on the economy (regardless of political affiliation)...

[terpintime]

may also fall on the Fed for hiking interest rates six times in the latter years of the Clinton presidency.

[Bucky]

may also fall on the Fed for hiking interest rates six times in the latter years of the Clinton presidency.

Greenspan and the Fed Board raising rates had nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

[mini_me]

on how cheap you think a stock is using a PE ratio or its Book Value, then you are surely not doing that well. The PE ratio is used mostly as an indicator of how popular a stock is, not as a measure of how expensive or cheap it is. Earnings growth informs investors about the relative worth of a stock at its current price. Ever heard of the PEG ratio? To assert that growth has a "nearly insignificant role in PE expansion and/or contraction" seems naive to me. And if you have a stock that is growing earnings at 12-15% a year with a contracting PE, you had better reexamine your reasons for holding onto that stock...


The sad thing is you THINK you actually know what you are talking about.

Im telling you that the P/E of the S&P was higher in October of 2002 than it is right now. Thats not my opinion, its a freaking FACT.

Listen up Einstein, the market has BOOMED from the bottoms of 2002 while P/E have CONTRACTED.

From trough to peak the S&P has climbed nearly 50% while P/E have contracted and earnings have been steadily growing at double digit rates. The bottom line is YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

[mini_me]

Greenspan and the Fed Board raising rates had nothing to do with Bill Clinton.


Bucky, you are trying to have a conversation with an idiot.... dont waste your time.

[terpintime]

I was not referring to the broader index or to a 5 year window. I was citing an individual stock that suffers from a contracting PE despite seeing earnings growth of 12-15% yoy. Clearly, that company or that sector is held in some disfavor by analysts and money managers, maybe due to a fundamental factor or the stage of the business cycle. Growth is rewarded with a premium in the market (hence the importance of using PEG ratios). That is why your argument about PEs reflecting the relative value of stocks is an inferior basis for making investing or trading decisions...By the way, aren't you contradicting yourself by noting that PEs have contracted due to double digit earnings growth since 2002 after maintaining that growth has a "nearly insignificant role in PE expansion and/or contraction"? Even an idiot can see that if earnings grow and the price is not bid up in turn then the PE contracts...

[mini_me]

I was not referring to the broader index or to a 5 year window. I was citing an individual stock that suffers from a contracting PE despite seeing earnings growth of 12-15% yoy. Clearly, that company or that sector is held in some disfavor by analysts and money managers, maybe due to a fundamental factor or the stage of the business cycle. Growth is rewarded with a premium in the market (hence the importance of using PEG ratios). That is why your argument about PEs reflecting the relative value of stocks is an inferior basis for making investing or trading decisions...By the way, aren't you contradicting yourself by noting that PEs have contracted due to double digit earnings growth since 2002 after maintaining that growth has a "nearly insignificant role in PE expansion and/or contraction"? Even an idiot can see that if earnings grow and the price is not bid up in turn then the PE contracts...


Yet again you are wrong. You are the only one talking about trading, not me. P/E are nothing more than an indication of the market or a company trading a discount or premium on historic valuations. Nothing more, nothing less.

By the way, aren't you contradicting yourself by noting that PEs have contracted due to double digit earnings growth since 2002 after maintaining that growth has a "nearly insignificant role in PE expansion and/or contraction"?

Wow, you REALLY do not understand this stuff do you.

Prices can advance in spite of poor earnings. The Tech bubble is a perfect example of this. CMGI (now defunt) was only one of many such companies trading at P/E ratio's well over a 100 times. The fact that the market multiple is less than it was at the bottom of the market decline (2000-2002) also clearly shows that great earnings do not equate to P/E expanding. In fact they did the exact opposite they CONTRACTED.

Like I said, go read Graham and Dodd because its very clear to me you really do not understand what you are trying to talk about.

[terpintime]

1. From a trading and investing perspective, I know I am right. Earnings growth is the fundamental driving force in a stock's price. Can a stock price decline despite the company having a good quarter? Of course, due to some other fundamental factor.

2. You contend that the lower multiple of today's market compared to the multiple during the nadir of the recession proves great earnings do not equate to PE expansion. Well, that seems obvious as an absolute statement. On average, however, persistent and accelerating growth is rewarded in the market. Beyond that, the higher multiple during the bubble likely proves how undisciplined investors were during the tech frenzy. Money managers and retail traders have become more sophisticated in playing the market (turning more to derivatives or index trades, for instance) to better control risk.

3. And the initial point of dispute involved your assertion that "the market continues to advance on solid fundamentals." I noted that the recovery was fueled largely by consumer borrowing based on home equity. I added that foreign revenue and corporate stock buybacks were primary factors fueling current market growth. You seemed to scoff at this notion. Recently on CNBC, a market commentator estimated that 27% of earnings reported for the last quarter by DOW stocks came from overseas. Where do you think the market would be if earnings took even a 10% hit?

4. I don't know anyone relying on Graham for trading or investing decisions in today's market. If you use his criteria in your own investment decisions, good luck!

[mini_me]

1. From a trading and investing perspective, I know I am right. Earnings growth is the fundamental driving force in a stock's price. Can a stock price decline despite the company having a good quarter? Of course, due to some other fundamental factor.

2. You contend that the lower multiple of today's market compared to the multiple during the nadir of the recession proves great earnings do not equate to PE expansion. Well, that seems obvious as an absolute statement. On average, however, persistent and accelerating growth is rewarded in the market. Beyond that, the higher multiple during the bubble likely proves how undisciplined investors were during the tech frenzy. Money managers and retail traders have become more sophisticated in playing the market (turning more to derivatives or index trades, for instance) to better control risk.

3. And the initial point of dispute involved your assertion that "the market continues to advance on solid fundamentals." I noted that the recovery was fueled largely by consumer borrowing based on home equity. I added that foreign revenue and corporate stock buybacks were primary factors fueling current market growth. You seemed to scoff at this notion. Recently on CNBC, a market commentator estimated that 27% of earnings reported for the last quarter by DOW stocks came from overseas. Where do you think the market would be if earnings took even a 10% hit?

4. I don't know anyone relying on Graham for trading or investing decisions in today's market. If you use his criteria in your own investment decisions, good luck!


Yet again you provide further proof you know not what you speak of.

The Dow means nothing. I have told you REPEATEDLY the institutional investor doesn't care about the DOW they look at the S&P, Russell and NYSE.

Graham is the FATHER of FUNDEMENTAL investing. You been flapping your gums about PEG ratio's P/E and guess what those roots go back to Graham and Dodd.

Please stop you are only exposing your own ignorance

[terpintime]

that you know little or nothing about trading and investing. Rather than reply to my very reasonable points, you repeat yourself ad nauseum despite defying logic with your idiotic musings about fundamental analysis...You keep throwing around Graham as though he is the ultimate authority on fundamental investing in the market. Even one of his most ardent disciples, Warren Buffet, accords more respect for earnings growth than you seem to. But there are many other voices in the discussion of fundamentals and stock investment. Ever hear of Peter Lynch? James O'Shaughnessy? Martin Zweig? Kenneth Fisher? Maybe you should try updating your obsolete approach to analyzing stocks. Or just trust your money to a mutual fund manager...If you spend your time looking for stocks trading at a discount to their book value, then your money will likely be gathering dust in a money market fund for long stretches or underperforming when in play...

[Bucky]

that you know little or nothing about trading and investing. Rather than reply to my very reasonable points, you repeat yourself ad nauseum despite defying logic with your idiotic musings about fundamental analysis...You keep throwing around Graham as though he is the ultimate authority on fundamental investing in the market. Even one of his most ardent disciples, Warren Buffet, accords more respect for earnings growth than you seem to. But there are many other voices in the discussion of fundamentals and stock investment. Ever hear of Peter Lynch? James O'Shaughnessy? Martin Zweig? Kenneth Fisher? Maybe you should try updating your obsolete approach to analyzing stocks. Or just trust your money to a mutual fund manager...If you spend your time looking for stocks trading at a discount to their book value, then your money will likely be gathering dust in a money market fund for long stretches or underperforming when in play...




Whoa...wait wait just a minute. I thought bleeding heart liberals despised everything and anything on Wall Street??


You know, kind of like anti-capitalism John Edwards.....who took down a cool $2 million dollars last year while working for a hedge fund. Oh, my bad, he was working at the hedge fund as a way to educate himself on how greedy and evil people who make money are.......how incredibly kind of him.....if only all of us could pull down $2 million while decrying everything that the free markets are about.

[Bucky]

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his wife reported $29.5 million in assets, including millions of dollars in a hedge fund he worked for part-time.
The couple also reported investment income of nearly $6 million over the past 16 months and earned income for Edwards of $1.25 million.

His biggest single source of earned income was his $479,512 salary from Fortress Investment Group, the hedge fund for which he was a consultant last year.

Edwards has made fighting poverty a signature element of his campaign. He has said his work for a fund that generally caters to the wealthiest of investors was designed to educate him about the relationship between poverty and wealth and should not overshadow his work for the poor.










$29.5 million net worth. Not bad for a man who loathes the American way of life.

[Scarlet Hayes]

millions for working part time. where do i sign up?

[terpintime]

Why should building wealth be inimical to holding liberal principles? In my mind, the question then becomes what a person does with accumulated wealth to help those less fortunate. Hopefully, liberals and conservatives could find some common ground here. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have decided to put their stunning wealth to charitable use, for instance. Joel Greenblatt, a respected Wall Street money manager, ends his popular book on value investing by encouraging his readers to consider charitable causes once they have become successful...As a "liberal", I appreciate the opportunities afforded me as an American citizen. I am also mindful of those who are less fortunate. I see no conflict there.

[mini_me]

that you know little or nothing about trading and investing. Rather than reply to my very reasonable points, you repeat yourself ad nauseum despite defying logic with your idiotic musings about fundamental analysis...You keep throwing around Graham as though he is the ultimate authority on fundamental investing in the market. Even one of his most ardent disciples, Warren Buffet, accords more respect for earnings growth than you seem to. But there are many other voices in the discussion of fundamentals and stock investment. Ever hear of Peter Lynch? James O'Shaughnessy? Martin Zweig? Kenneth Fisher? Maybe you should try updating your obsolete approach to analyzing stocks. Or just trust your money to a mutual fund manager...If you spend your time looking for stocks trading at a discount to their book value, then your money will likely be gathering dust in a money market fund for long stretches or underperforming when in play...

I am an investment professional with over 14 years experience. You sir are way, way off base. This is what I do for a living but thanks for playing

[terpintime]

I feel sorry for your clients. Based on the extent of your knowledge shared in this thread, I can't understand how anyone would trust their money with you. I have taken seminars with a hedge fund manager and financial analysts who have worked with Wall Street firms. I have also read a few books by well respected money managers and traders. I'll accept their expertise and views on investing and trading over yours anyday...I wish you luck in the market, mostly because it seems you need it, and partly because I would like to see your clients prosper...

[Bucky]

Why should building wealth be inimical to holding liberal principles? In my mind, the question then becomes what a person does with accumulated wealth to help those less fortunate. Hopefully, liberals and conservatives could find some common ground here. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have decided to put their stunning wealth to charitable use, for instance. Joel Greenblatt, a respected Wall Street money manager, ends his popular book on value investing by encouraging his readers to consider charitable causes once they have become successful...As a "liberal", I appreciate the opportunities afforded me as an American citizen. I am also mindful of those who are less fortunate. I see no conflict there.


HAHAHHAHA



Liberals decry everything and anything that capitalism stands for.....its soo HILARIOUS to see a liberal defend the free markets...so funny it makes you want to puke.


You bring up Buffet and Gates....which reminds me of what the GREATEST President of the 20th century had to say......

"A rich Republican is called an aristocrat....while a a rich Democrat is called a philantropist"......


Such a simple way of stating just how the liberal media thinks and operates.....

[terpintime]

I hope your remark was made tongue in cheek. Certainly you can't be that obtuse...By the way, I hope you're not one of Mini's clients. No way you could afford to be a philanthropist if you are...

[mini_me]

I hope your remark was made tongue in cheek. Certainly you can't be that obtuse...By the way, I hope you're not one of Mini's clients. No way you could afford to be a philanthropist if you are...

Go fuck your self asshole

[VandalBasher]

This has been the best thread ever. I love the arguement/counter about the strengths and weaknesses of our current economy. But 12,808 seems a longggggg time ago. With the DOW hitting 13,500 points, it can only provide confidence to the new investor.



Go USA


Where is Don now?

[terpintime]

and buy yourself a sense of humor? I was willing to have a relatively well mannered debate about fundamental analysis in the markets. You were the one who started the chain of insults. And now you whine? Get real...

[terpintime]

I was surprised others didn't join in the thread. Maybe they're out running with the bulls or managing their profits from the market. A minor correction could be around the corner, but everything I read and hear suggests higher index levels by the end of the year and well into the election season.

[ZOOMBAG]

I feel sorry for your clients. Based on the extent of your knowledge shared in this thread, I can't understand how anyone would trust their money with you. I have taken seminars with a hedge fund manager and financial analysts who have worked with Wall Street firms. I have also read a few books by well respected money managers and traders. I'll accept their expertise and views on investing and trading over yours anyday...I wish you luck in the market, mostly because it seems you need it, and partly because I would like to see your clients prosper...

Wow! You read book and went to some seminars.... Vs a man who makes his living as a professional in the business. Thanks for proving his point! Geez, what a maroon.

[ZOOMBAG]

Because you are person who read a book and went to some seminars arguing with a professional who makes his living at this. Sorry, pal, but you not only are uninformed, you are insulting.

[ZOOMBAG]

...because the economy, based on lower marginal tax rates for those who actually pay the freight in this country, is absolutely rolling on inspite of a war, out of control energy prices and a hostile press. Imagine a pro white house press, and $2.00 gas....DOW would be at 20,000+ by now.

[terpintime]

well reasoned insights about fundamental analysis in the markets. Please post them...As for my opinions, yesterday the Wall Street Journal printed an article on page 1 supporting the view that revenues from overseas business were bolstering corporate profits and the stock market in the US. Greenspan's unfortunate musings regarding a correction in China triggered a significant selloff in the US market, about 9 points in the S&P 500 in less than an hour. Gee, I wonder what that means...As for Mini's alleged profession, I don't know whether he trades or simply peddles annuities or mutual funds. My point was that his posts regarding the PE ratio were illogical. Having that fine government sponsored education, I am sure even you can understand at a basic level that if one element of a ratio changes, the value of the ratio changes. On a more sophisticated level, if a company's earnings are growing but it is not rewarded with a bid up in price, there is likely a fundamental reason for its PE contracting. Tell me what is controversial about that or with my point that making trading or investing decisions based strictly on the PE ratio is inferior to considering the growth rate as well. (Even Warren Buffet, a student of the Graham value approach, likes to see ROE and EPS growth above 12%.) Mini couldn't...Now I don't profess to be an expert in these matters, but I do believe I know enough to carry on a debate about basic issues in fundamental analysis of stocks. If I am shown to be wrong, I'll admit it. Perhaps you're the one who will set me straight, Zoomie...

[HellYeahHokie]

Liberals decry everything and anything that capitalism stands for.....its soo HILARIOUS to see a liberal defend the free markets...so funny it makes you want to puke.


Bucky, can you tell us more about liberals. You seem to know so much about them. Can you tell us how the embrace Reverand Dobson again?

One of these days, you might actually think for yourself, rather that repeating what nutjobs like Coulter, Savage, and Limbaugh spew out in the name of entertainment ratings.

[Don]

For the utterly clueless socialists on the forum. We've been over the irrefutable FACT that the market of the 1990's was built on hype and nothing more. The bubble burst and today, becuase almost ENTIRELY on the Bush tax cuts, the market surge is based on sound economic fundamentals.

Simply no argument at all....as usual.....clueless.

Where are those "sound economic fundamentals"??? Clueless as usual! Let's hear your spin on this one, champ!!!

[ZOOMBAG]

I see nothing fundamentally wrong with this economy at all. Recessions are a normal and HEALTHY part of a free market. They serve a valuable cleansing process, ridding the market of "weak sisters".

Just like the recession of eight years ago was a reaction to a pack of speculators who bid up tech stocks to ridiculous levels forcing markets to snap back to equilibrium we see the exact same thing today in housing. In fact this current housing "crisis" was started by pretty much the same pack of fools who bid up the tech industry, only the speculated on housing, mostly on the coasts and resort areas with greedy financial institutions helping out by making loans anyone with a brain larger than a walnut would never make.

Well, welcome to a bounce back to equilibrium! If you are well employed and have a standard mortgage you are living pretty well right now as your credit card rates have plummeted, you can now refinance at remarkably lower rates, and with the savings you can buy a hybrid SUV and put up a wind generator in your back yard and a solar panel on your roof and thumb your nose at Exxon and the local power company at the same time!

[Bucs90]

Zoom, I want an SUV that is POWERED BY a wind generator. I'll have to live on top of a big ole mountain so I can roll downhill to get the initial power going to start the car, but with some momentum from the roll my ultimate green vehicle will be just fine!