Jump to content
leftwinger

Stocks losses deepen as a key recession warning surfaces

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, splunch said:

Here's a real question.  If you move your money out of the market in your 401k, put it all into some fixed product they offer, and the market tanks, is your money safe?  What about when the company holding your 401k is caught up in a larger 2008-style crash, and quite simply does not have the money anymore?  Is your money safe now?  Or do that institutions few remaining assets belong to the CEO and his friends, and you get nothing?

 

How can an average American hedge his 401k-style retirement money against a recurrence of the 2008 calamity?

The best advice is say the course. If you have invested wisely the market will recover.

They say put money in both stocks and bonds. The percentage in bonds should be the same as your age. 65 years old?  65% in bonds, 35% in stocks. Use no load funds, and let their managers decide what specific investments to invest in.

If you do this, you will average about 7% and have two down years and 8 up years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

Trump is the one that slashed taxes and increased the deficit, Trump is the one  who mongered a trade war and claimed that he knew how to win, and didn't.

 

Like I said ... just STUCK ON STUPID.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BeAChooser said:

 

Like I said ... just STUCK ON STUPID.

I agree: Trump is stuck on stupid. So are you. More nutty than twelve fruitcakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

The best advice is say the course. If you have invested wisely the market will recover.

They say put money in both stocks and bonds. The percentage in bonds should be the same as your age. 65 years old?  65% in bonds, 35% in stocks. Use no load funds, and let their managers decide what specific investments to invest in.

If you do this, you will average about 7% and have two down years and 8 up years.

+10

 

Splunch has a corporate boogeyman living under his bed, best he just stay out of the markets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, XavierOnassis said:

The best advice is say the course. If you have invested wisely the market will recover.

They say put money in both stocks and bonds. The percentage in bonds should be the same as your age. 65 years old?  65% in bonds, 35% in stocks. Use no load funds, and let their managers decide what specific investments to invest in.

If you do this, you will average about 7% and have two down years and 8 up years.

I would be worried that if you want to retire in 10 years, that might not be conservative enough. The DJIA, for example, didn't get back to pre-crash levels after 1929 until the FIFTIES.  Seeing as how Americans were driven out of pensions and into 401k's that represents a crater the size of the whole country's retirement savings for the next 20+ years.

 

After 2008, the market has been climbing so fast that it's already rebounded, but is that real?  Is growth built on debt at all sustainable?  If I have to wait 22 years for my investments to recover, a couple of problems.  First, the institution holding my money may not survive that kind of event.  Second, most obviously, I'm going to lose 22 years of investment growth, which is enough that most people would be crippled by it.

 

I'm just worried that your approach is built on a Glass Steagall market, a time when derivatives had not allowed Wall Street to hide just about any risk from anyone they wanted, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, XavierOnassis said:

The best advice is say the course. If you have invested wisely the market will recover.

They say put money in both stocks and bonds. The percentage in bonds should be the same as your age. 65 years old?  65% in bonds, 35% in stocks. Use no load funds, and let their managers decide what specific investments to invest in.

If you do this, you will average about 7% and have two down years and 8 up years.

 

And yet XO argued against investing social security contributions in the market.   In fact, he said "If Social Security money had been invested in the market, we would have millions of starving old people dying of hunger."   He refused to even consider that measures could be taken to ensure the invested money never had to be pulled from a down market.   You'd think he'd be all for doing what I suggested when the SSA itself indicates the returns for most people who contribute will be zero or even negative over their lifetime.   But no, he's too partisan a leftist to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Social Security is  a base income for the average person. It should not be subject to risk.

If people could invest in the market on whatever they wished, many would invest in fly by night companies and lose it all.

I stand by what I said, and suggest that you are too fooking stupid to even understand the matter.

 

Most people do not understand the matter of comparative odds. That is why they think that investing in the market is just like buying lottery tickets.

Four or five years ago, you could invest in Tesla or Elio.  Both were risky, but Tesla would have been a lot better than Elio. Perhaps someday, schools will teach about investing, but at present most people do not know diddley.

As it is set up Social Security means that nearoly all retired old people have some income.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

Social Security is  a base income for the average person. It should not be subject to risk.

It is 100% AT RISK if you happen to die before collecting.

 

Your family left in the gutter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

As it is set up Social Security means that nearoly all retired old people have some income.

If that were not there, everything that is currently covered by Social Security would have to be covered some other way.  And rather than having it funded out of a planned program, we would simply have to figure out how to pay for it as it came up.  No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, splunch said:

The DJIA, for example, didn't get back to pre-crash levels after 1929 until the FIFTIES.

 

Stop looking for alarmist excuses not to do the smart thing.   The 1929 crash couldn't happen today because there are systems in place to prevent such dramatic falls.   And stock can't climb to the sort of rarified levels they were just before the crash.   One reason they did back then is that 1929 investors could buy stock on the margin with only 10% down.  Today you can borrow no more than 50% to purchase a stock and there are checks to make sure you can afford the loss.   FINRA, for example, requires you to deposit with your brokerage firm a minimum of $2,000 or 100 percent of the purchase price of the stock, whichever is less.  Some firms may require you to deposit more.   And there are other rules to ensure you don't do what investors were doing back in 1929 when even the boy who polished ones shoes was investing in the market.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

DJIA is up 25.88 as of 11:42 am PST. Well, so much for the apocalypse

 

Right.  The market isn't going to crash.  That's just crazy talk.  "Apocalypse" is a word chosen to convey the belief that a severe crash is basically a baseless tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory.

 

Meanwhile, it happened, it JUST HAPPENED, 10 years ago, and the only thing that "ended it" was our willing to write off the casino losses of the banks by just printing more money and pretending that it didn't have to actually come from somewhere or ever be paid back by anyone.

 

People who are still wary of another 2008 are not luantics.  This is a very real thing that has happened many times throughout history, and we have done almost nothing to protect ourselves following that last crash.  

 

I might even say that pretending that can NOT happen and in fact denying that it is likely to happen is the tin-foil-hat angle on all of this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

Social Security is  a base income for the average person. It should not be subject to risk.

 

LIAR.  Social Security was sold as an INVESTMENT by FDR and his cronies.   They promised certain returns on the contributions that are not being met.   

 

Quote

If people could invest in the market on whatever they wished, many would invest in fly by night companies and lose it all.

 

As I have said countless times before ... including to you ... I am not suggesting SS contributions be invested in individual stocks.   So stop dishonestly portraying what I've suggested, XO.    I have ALWAYS proposed that SS contributions be invested in broad market funds like the S&P 500 so what you describe can't happen.    And as you yourself admitted that the broad market has averaged about 7% return with average downturns of only 2 years.   The government could easily invest the money for the contributors in these funds ... in named accounts that the contributors OWN ... keeping an amount out of the market as the person approaches retirement that would effectively guarantee that the rest of the assets would not have to be sold during a down market.    And those contributors would get back 3 to 4 times what they'll get under the current SS system.   With far less risk than the current system.   I've said this over and over and over ... proving it with numerical examples and sourced material ... and STILL you dishonest clowns misrepresent what is being proposed.   You do that because your agenda is not to protect the contributors to SS but to further the agenda of the socialists and communists of the DemocRAT"ic" Party who designed the current Social Security boondoggle.

 

Quote

I stand by what I said, and suggest that you are too fooking stupid to even understand the matter.

 

No, you're the one who is apparently too "fooking" stupid to undertand the matter, XO.  

 

And as proof, I offer this conversation that I had previously with you on this subject:

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/164922-we-cant-afford-to-be-everywhere-forever/page/279/?tab=comments#comment-1059682405

 

And your response?

 

CRICKETS.


YOU RAN.

 

And here's an earlier exchange I had with you on this subject (mentioned in the above post):

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/188536-why-trump-will-win-the-nomination-but-lose-the-general-election/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1059403240

 

YOU RAN FROM THAT ONE, TOO.

 

Just as you're dishonestly trying to run from the current one.

 

I see a pattern here, snowflake.  :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, splunch said:

Right.  The market isn't going to crash.  That's just crazy talk.  "Apocalypse" is a word chosen to convey the belief that a severe crash is basically a baseless tin-foil-hat conspiracy theory.

 

Meanwhile, it happened, it JUST HAPPENED, 10 years ago, and the only thing that "ended it" was our willing to write off the casino losses of the banks by just printing more money and pretending that it didn't have to actually come from somewhere or ever be paid back by anyone.

 

People who are still wary of another 2008 are not luantics.  This is a very real thing that has happened many times throughout history, and we have done almost nothing to protect ourselves following that last crash.  

 

I might even say that pretending that can NOT happen and in fact denying that it is likely to happen is the tin-foil-hat angle on all of this.

The true "tin foil hat" angle on this would be to think that there are a few omniscient and all powerful individuals pulling strings and no one else having a clue. This "Illuminati" of sorts acts in complete secrecy and the world has no idea what they are doing and also has no ability to counteract them. 

 

The more realistic perspective ties economic ups and downs to human behavior not conspiracy theories. Human behavior/society is slow moving and no one person to blame hence why it gets brushed aside. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JoeAverage said:

It is 100% AT RISK if you happen to die before collecting.

 

Your family left in the gutter.

 

OWNERSHIP is a concept that socialists/communists like XO do not like and will never understand.  

 

That's why they can't acknowledge the advantage in named SS accounts, where the money is invested (for real) by the government in broad market funds.

 

They don't like the concept of the contributor OWNING those investments soif they die die before retirement, the proceeds can given to someone besides the government.  

 

XO doesn't really care about risk, Joe.  

 

He has a agenda to force us all to eventually submit to a socialist/communist government ... that will OWN US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

The true "tin foil hat" angle on this would be to think that there are a few omniscient and all powerful individuals pulling strings and no one else having a clue. This "Illuminati" of sorts acts in complete secrecy and the world has no idea what they are doing and also has no ability to counteract them. 

 

The more realistic perspective ties economic ups and downs to human behavior not conspiracy theories. Human behavior/society is slow moving and no one person to blame hence why it gets brushed aside. 

Well I don't know about all that.  But I detected that tone in your "apocalypse" post.  You've now directly stated that the belief that our markets are not being run properly is equivalent to believing in an Illuminati conspiracy.

 

Our system used to have a slew of firewalls in place to guard against unknowable, unmanageable risks.  We used to be naturally suspicious of organizations of a certain size, because we know huge dominating organizations can corrupt markets.  We used to block insurance companies and investment banks and deposit institutions from living under one corporate roof, because of the risks and opportunities those entities present for would-be greedy bastards to manipulate the system for their own gain.

 

If you think LIBOR is a hair-brained conspiracy theory, some "Illuminati" type crap, then you're delusional.  This is not "Illuminati".  This is the cumulative, long-term allure of easy money slowly corrupting our system, encouraging the biggest most powerful players to gradually strip away meaningful regulation, leaving us vulnerable not to shadow elites that decide everything, but to people who are gradually corrupted by greed, who do things in large numbers around the globe to game the system and make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...