RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


LookieNoNookie -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/13/2008 7:11:37 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Ken, if you want to take that tack, you've a lot of explaining to do.

"Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Great Depression

Longest and most severe economic depression ever experienced by the Western world. It began in the U.S. soon after the New York Stock Market Crash of 1929 and lasted until about 1939. By late 1932 stock values had dropped to about 20% of their previous value, and by 1933 11,000 of the U.S.'s 25,000 banks had failed. These and other conditions, worsened by monetary policy mistakes and adherence to the gold standard, led to much-reduced levels of demand and hence of production, resulting in high unemployment (by 1932, 25 – 30%). Since the U.S. was the major creditor and financier of postwar Europe, the U.S. financial breakdown precipitated economic failures around the world, especially in Germany and Britain. Isolationism spread as nations sought to protect domestic production by imposing tariffs and quotas, ultimately reducing the value of international trade by more than half by 1932. The Great Depression contributed to political upheaval. It led to the election of U.S. Pres. Franklin Roosevelt, who introduced major changes in the structure of the U.S. economy through his New Deal. The Depression also advanced Adolf Hitler's rise to power in Germany in 1933 and fomented political extremism in other countries. Before the Great Depression, governments relied on impersonal market forces to achieve economic correction; afterward, government action came to assume a principal role in ensuring economic stability."

"US History Encyclopedia: Great Depression
Great Depression, the longest, deepest, and most pervasive depression in American history, lasted from 1929 to 1939. Its effects were felt in virtually all corners of the world, and it is one of the great economic calamities in history.

In previous depressions, such as those of the 1870s and 1890s, real per capita gross domestic product (GDP)—the sum of all goods and services produced, weighted by market prices and adjusted for inflation—had returned to its original level within five years. In the Great Depression, real per capita GDP was still below its 1929 level a decade later."

Bank failures did, indeed reach their height in 1933, but that hardly signals the end of the depression. Nor does anemic recovery. And yes, 37 was better than 33, but that's hardly a case for the depression ending in 33.

Reminds me of Nixon's bullshit about the rate of increase decreasing.



Gross domestic product  

  1929  1930  1931  1932  1933  1934  1935  1936  1937  1938  1939                
103.6  91.2  76.5    58.7   56.4   66.0  73.3    83.8   91.9  86.1    92.2


Since you're such a bastion of knowledge on economics, I'm confident that you also know that a depression, just like a recession is deemed to be in one (recession / depression) when GDP contracts.

As clearly shown by the above Govt. stats, that ceased to be an issue at the end of 1933 (which as I recall, was what DomKen quite correctly asserted).

DomKen was dead on....the depression was no longer as of the end of 1933.  Did it feel like a depression to those that remained?  Uh huh, because GDP was still running 35% or more below peak...but the depression was as of then, by definition...no longer.

The guitar player missed it (naturally) by 7 years solely because he read one poorly researched article, written by someone who clearly has limited knowledge of economics or history (much like the guitar player) and accepted it without question because it came from an "encyclopedia", yet fairly consistently comes online to effusively lard on to those who don't know better...his "extensive" econ knowledge.

Let's make a deal MM...you quit trying to explain economics to anyone...we won't tell you how to play guitar.

(Don't give up your day job).




TNstepsout -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/13/2008 6:04:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Many people try to play that game. Few are as smart as they think they are. Good luck with that.





Thanks I appreciate it.  I tell you, it might be difficult to time perfectly, but even imperfect timing would net a better result than just sitting by watching one's investment account drop by 40%. If you lose 40% of your account, stocks have to increase by over 66% just for you to break even! If you get out at 20%, they only have to come up 25% to break even. IMO it will take a lot less time for the market to gain 25% than it will to gain 66%, and if it does gain 66%, you've made money instead of just breaking even!




Musicmystery -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/13/2008 6:18:32 PM)

The Encyclopedia Britannica, actually, but of course, you know better.




TheUtopian -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/13/2008 7:21:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The Encyclopedia Britannica, actually, but of course, you know better.


Hey Professor - I see you're at it playing those nice little semantics games of yours again [:D]

It's too bad some of us here can't match incomes, assets and investment performance - and see what shit floats {or cream rises to the top.....}




- R




rexrgisformidoni -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/13/2008 7:36:30 PM)

I bought a big shovel and wooden chest. Going to dig a big ass hole, put my money in the chest and bury it. mark it on me pirate map and come back for me buried treasure.




Real_Trouble -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/13/2008 8:44:14 PM)

Several thoughts:

1 - Part of what exacerbated the issues post-1929 was the fact that depositors at banks were being wiped out.  This was the whole reason for the creation of the FDIC; it's pointless to rush to a bank to pull your money out if you have less than the legal insured limit in the bank in insured accounts (checking, savings).  You're saving nothing and creating a paperwork headache for yourself.

However, in 1929 and shortly after, this was not the case.  If you didn't get to the exit first, you might have lost everything.  This meant, likewise, that savers were being wiped out when banks failed in a disorderly fashion, and there was less money to invest in business and the stock market.  The destruction of wealth, combined with a shrinking monetary supply, really fucked things up.

2 - Pulling money out of the market or putting money into the market should not be done on a whim.  Dollar-cost averaging and long-term investing work for a reason.  Trying to time the market has been the death of a lot more people than it has been profitable for.  I would strongly advise against it unless you are the kind of person who doesn't need to listen to my advice at all, which means you're probably working for a Hedge fund or something and need to get back to looking at your Bloomberg terminal, you lazy son of a bitch.




Paulnz -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/14/2008 4:18:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

A few individuals, or even a few million individuals pulling their money out of the stock market is not what has caused it to crash and burn. It is hedge funds that HAD to sell millions of shares to raise funds that has caused the drop. So in light of a sell off of mass proportions, it is good advice for the individual to get out, wait for it to bottom and then get back in. At least  IMO, that's the best thing to do. There are those who still think "buy and hold" pays out over the long term but I don't have the stomach for it.



I'm a buy and holder. The reason I don't sell and buy back cheaper is something to do with human nature. One thing leads to another and it just never seems to work out like that. Philip Fisher addresses the point in his book " Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits. " But you're right, the market has been driven down by hedge funds, along with institutional investors correcting their portfolio balance, or simply needing money to cover positions, pay tax etc





TNstepsout -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/14/2008 4:46:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Paulnz

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout

A few individuals, or even a few million individuals pulling their money out of the stock market is not what has caused it to crash and burn. It is hedge funds that HAD to sell millions of shares to raise funds that has caused the drop. So in light of a sell off of mass proportions, it is good advice for the individual to get out, wait for it to bottom and then get back in. At least  IMO, that's the best thing to do. There are those who still think "buy and hold" pays out over the long term but I don't have the stomach for it.



I'm a buy and holder. The reason I don't sell and buy back cheaper is something to do with human nature. One thing leads to another and it just never seems to work out like that. Philip Fisher addresses the point in his book " Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits. " But you're right, the market has been driven down by hedge funds, along with institutional investors correcting their portfolio balance, or simply needing money to cover positions, pay tax etc




Sure, I understand that for some people that's what they prefer to do and that's totally fine. I'm not here to tell anyone how they should invest. The reason I responded was to make the point that it's not the ONLY way to invest or necessarily the best way to invest. It's just one method.




LookieNoNookie -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/15/2008 5:37:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

........but of course, you know better.


(Well...at least he's finally being rational).




MzMia -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/15/2008 5:49:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The average investors have always been sheep, ignoring that the mere existence of a market means someone's buying when others are selling, and vice versa. Consequently, people "timing" the market buy high and sell low.

Greed and complacency play a role too. Now is the time to buy or wait, depending on individual circumstances. But when things are good again, it's time to move assets to bonds and the money market, not wait for the next bubble to burst.

Money from retirement accounts MUST be drawn down, by law, after age 70. Retirees without sufficient assets in bonds or cash are indeed going to get fucked.


I totally agree that many that are hitting the age of 70 that don't have a good deal or at least half of their mutual funds in bonds or cash, ARE not in a good place financially.
When you have a fund that has dropped around 30% it takes a damper out of retiring, and many would certainly NOT want to start withdrawing from their funds now, unless they have to.
I have heard of and read many stories about people who were planning on retiring soon and they are saying no way.




OneMoreWaste -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/16/2008 5:57:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TNstepsout
Sure, I understand that for some people that's what they prefer to do and that's totally fine. I'm not here to tell anyone how they should invest. The reason I responded was to make the point that it's not the ONLY way to invest or necessarily the best way to invest. It's just one method.


Exactly. There are two underlying assumption behind index fund investments and "dollar cost averaging". The first is that the average investor knows absolutely nothing. Some people are zany enough believe that they do actually have a spark of intelligence, and are willing to take financial risks based on that premise. The second assumption is that in the long run The Market will always go up, because that's what it's done for the past hundred years. To me this assumption is irrational, and very few of the people that blindly follow this assumption can provide any rationale for it.




Kirata -> RE: Stock market advice or fiction? (10/17/2008 9:30:42 PM)

~FR~
 
Investment advice from Warren Buffett
 
"Be fearful when others are greedy, and be greedy when others are fearful."
 
K.
 




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.125