- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dow down 5% in last 4 days of trading
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:03 pm to Lg
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:03 pm to Lg
quote:
I don't know if I can take that. Do you think he is trying to get an answer from a financial adviser?
Honestly, I fully expected an answer. I expected that he was going to look at a graph and just pick damned near the lowest point to claim that's when he entered.
But, I'm not sure he understands investing well enough to even lie badly.
1
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:04 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
You've been "here" for like a week, but say you've been reading the board for a long time.
Bruhhhh I been reading this board for 10 years. Had an account like 10 years ago maybe posted a time or 2 but have no clue what my login credentials are and decided I would make an account. U need to know anything else about me?
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:05 pm to LSURussian
quote:
My congressman, Richard Baker, literally had death threats because he wanted to regulate FNMA and FRMC more. He retired from congress not long after that.
Cool. Now here is the Republican Aministration calling for a regulatory committee over Fannie and Freddie and here is Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer whining that the system would cause less "affordable housing".
Here are even more Republicans calling for a regulatory committee, and even more Democrats throwing fits and even throwing out the terms, "lynching".
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:10 pm to BigAppleBucky
The markets are overheating and justifiably skittish. It seems as if the DJIA is more comfortable with periodic quantitative easing than relaxing regulations.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:14 pm to AmericaOverParties
This is hilarious:
Alex Jones:
No. It's just the stock market doing one of its typical over-reactions.
Alex Jones:
quote:
Is the historic -1500 DOW drop a false flag by the big banks? Should we investigate Goldman Sachs?!
No. It's just the stock market doing one of its typical over-reactions.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:20 pm to AmericaOverParties
quote:
No, whenever they screw up. Ya know like that time the housing market crashed, stock market crashed, and we entered the greatest recession since the Great Depression under REPUBLICAN leadership.
Here's a little history lesson for you...
The roots of the Great Recession began with the CRA passed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. By itself this was not a bad thing as its intended goal was to get capital for businesses and home purchases into poor neighborhoods, but as we shall soon see (unless you're just a hyper-partisan hack) even the best-intended legislation can go askew when politicians push it too far for their own political agendas.
The next step on our trip through history is to the term of George HW Bush when he tied FM/FM bonuses to the amount of sub-primes they underwrote.
From there we go to the tenure of Bill Clinton. With the push to repeal Glass-Stegal all hot and heavy, Clinton strong-armed lending institutions into writing more sub-prime loans if they wanted to open a satellite office or even add an outdoor ATM that wasn't attached directly to the bank building.
All of these added up to create a new cottage industry: the real estate flipper.
Now we flash-forward to 9/11 and its immediate aftermath. Prior to 9/11 the newly elected GW Bush urged Congress to reign in sub-primes because he thought the market might overheat and create a bubble. Bush and Republicans in Congress were famously shouted down by Democrats calling them racists for even thinking that such a thing could happen.
When 9/11 hit the Fed began cutting the literal frick out of interest rates in order to keep the market from tanking. The combination of low rates and pressure to write more sub-prime loans caused a massive upsurge in loans with more than a few shady institutions peddling shady deals and many fiscally inept consumers buying into the fantasy that they could have a $300k home on a $30k/yr income.
These mortgages were then bundled into securities and sold as a disguised pyramid scheme to unsuspecting investors. Eventually mathematics won out and these bad loans starting coming due in amounts the borrowers couldn't pay and then the whole house of cards fell down.
Both sides had plenty of culpability, from GW giving up on trying to sound the alarm and just caving in and starting to tout housing numbers as so awesome to the Dems in Congress that put their heads in the sand for purely partisan purposes to Clinton for incentivizing banks in making riskier and riskier loans and to HW Bush for incentivizing FM/FM to underwrite as many as possible to poor, old Jimmy Carter for trying to do something good but forgetting that DC shits on everything eventually.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:22 pm to The Spleen
quote:
That certainly contributed to the problem, but the wheels were set in motion with the repeal of Glass-Steagall, pushed by Republicans and signed by Clinton on his way out the door.
Eh. Glass-Steagall split up banks and brokers. Separating commercial and investment banking. Its repeal was going to create a conglomeration of the two because they were the two strongest financial institutions and they are intrinsically tied and the last great M&A frontier. However, all of the industries were still regulated. Banking was still regulated. Insurance was still regulated. Savings and loans was still regulated.
So I can buy that Glass-Steagall's repeal allowed for more systemic failures by creating "too big to fail" institutions, but once Glass-Steagall's repeal happened, these new super banks didn't invent subprime loans. The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 did. Investment banks and commercial banks being under the same umbrella would never have contributed to the financial crisis had we not forced homes on people that couldn't afford them.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:23 pm to tarzana
quote:
The markets are overheating and justifiably skittish. It seems as if the DJIA is more comfortable with periodic quantitative easing than relaxing regulations.
lolwut?
Just stop man. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:25 pm to Bard
quote:
Here's a little history lesson for you...
The roots of the Great Recession began with the CRA passed by Jimmy Carter in 1977. By itself this was not a bad thing as its intended goal was to get capital for businesses and home purchases into poor neighborhoods, but as we shall soon see (unless you're just a hyper-partisan hack) even the best-intended legislation can go askew when politicians push it too far for their own political agendas.
The next step on our trip through history is to the term of George HW Bush when he tied FM/FM bonuses to the amount of sub-primes they underwrote.
From there we go to the tenure of Bill Clinton. With the push to repeal Glass-Stegal all hot and heavy, Clinton strong-armed lending institutions into writing more sub-prime loans if they wanted to open a satellite office or even add an outdoor ATM that wasn't attached directly to the bank building.
All of these added up to create a new cottage industry: the real estate flipper.
Now we flash-forward to 9/11 and its immediate aftermath. Prior to 9/11 the newly elected GW Bush urged Congress to reign in sub-primes because he thought the market might overheat and create a bubble. Bush and Republicans in Congress were famously shouted down by Democrats calling them racists for even thinking that such a thing could happen.
When 9/11 hit the Fed began cutting the literal frick out of interest rates in order to keep the market from tanking. The combination of low rates and pressure to write more sub-prime loans caused a massive upsurge in loans with more than a few shady institutions peddling shady deals and many fiscally inept consumers buying into the fantasy that they could have a $300k home on a $30k/yr income.
These mortgages were then bundled into securities and sold as a disguised pyramid scheme to unsuspecting investors. Eventually mathematics won out and these bad loans starting coming due in amounts the borrowers couldn't pay and then the whole house of cards fell down.
Both sides had plenty of culpability, from GW giving up on trying to sound the alarm and just caving in and starting to tout housing numbers as so awesome to the Dems in Congress that put their heads in the sand for purely partisan purposes to Clinton for incentivizing banks in making riskier and riskier loans and to HW Bush for incentivizing FM/FM to underwrite as many as possible to poor, old Jimmy Carter for trying to do something good but forgetting that DC shits on everything eventually.
Now you know, and knowing is half the battle.
Also what this guy said. This was beautiful and 100% on point. Wish everyone knew this.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:26 pm to AmericaOverParties
Thanks Trump
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:28 pm to Centinel
When I started looking into getting more involved with some extra investing a few months ago, I was reading about the benefits of cost-averaging (e.g., putting it in biweekly or monthly, like when you get paid). It made sense, but seeing it in action with a correction, really gives it a real-time scenario where it even makes even more sense.
This post was edited on 2/5/18 at 3:29 pm
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:28 pm to Centinel
quote:
lolwut?
Just stop man. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
The market is so automated now, that the only macro impacts generally due come from the Fed. They announced inflation was rising, but they weren't going to raise rates this time. He has a point, IMO. It's not a complete explanation, but given that the plan was to raise rates, and they didn't... it would seem to be contrarian to the actual fundamentals of what's been happening. You'd generally expect them to not raise rates when they had planned to in the opposite environment.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:31 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:The market takes the stairs up and the elevator down. This is normal. Just keep putting money in at regular intervals and you'll be ok.
When I started looking into getting more involved with some extra investing a few months ago, I was reading about the benefits of cost-averaging (e.g., putting it in biweekly or monthly, like when you get paid). It made sense, but seeing it in action with a correction, really gives it a real-time scenario where it even makes even more sense.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:32 pm to Centinel
quote:He never does. I'm convinced he either has dementia or is an eight year old kid using his Mommy's computer.
Just stop man. You have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
You should read his posts on the Rant when he tries to share his knowledge of college sports.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:34 pm to beaverfever
quote:O I know. The concept of spreading out one's investment is easier to understand when we see fluctuations downward from time to time than when it was such a consistent growth trend.
The market takes the stairs up and the elevator down. This is normal. Just keep putting money in at regular intervals and you'll be ok.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:35 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
When I started looking into getting more involved with some extra investing a few months ago, I was reading about the benefits of cost-averaging (e.g., putting it in biweekly or monthly, like when you get paid). It made sense, but seeing it in action with a correction, really gives it a real-time scenario where it even makes even more sense.
There are some variations on DCA that really can help.
I'm a fan of systemic investing(with an ELEMENT of brain power) involved.
I try(although it's hard) to find ways to pull emotion out of the equation.
Among them, is variable DCA. A simple approach to this would be to envision an amount you want to invest per month.
In month 1, you do that.
In following months, you follow a pattern.
If the month is higher than it's immediate predecessor(or, you could use moving averages), you invest a fixed amount or percentage less. If the next month is lower, you invest a fixed amount more.
In months you invest less, you simply move that to the side and THIS part is used when you feel correct. The only non systemic element.
You can skin that can 100 ways, but systemic in any case.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:36 pm to Parmen
My guess is the OP is an alter of that clown who predicted brexit would crash the UK economy and Trump;s election would crash ours.
Claimed to have an MBA from a school that didnt exist...ill think of his name in a minute
ETA: 5thTiger is the clown.
Claimed to have an MBA from a school that didnt exist...ill think of his name in a minute
ETA: 5thTiger is the clown.
This post was edited on 2/5/18 at 3:45 pm
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:37 pm to buckeye_vol
I agree. You can't time the market. The guys paid for their opinions can't time the market. I've lost a lot in the past thinking I had figured out the secret to timing the market haha.
Posted on 2/5/18 at 3:44 pm to AmericaOverParties
Awesome, great time to buy more. thanks for the insider information ??
Page 8 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News