Anyone scared about the economic crisis?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I dealt with this fallacy in the previous thread that you were unable to respond to.

Everything you posted had been answered in posts preceding. Meanwhile, four years of data and other sources demonstrate a fundamental fact. Stock brokers, on average, underperform the market. Index funds and ETFs are how to match the market. Legendary investors such as Warren Buffet and Peter Lynch describe how to beat the market - know the product and its industry.

Even the cable guy (whoever that showman is) that does Mad Money says better investment information is found on the front page of the NY Times; not in financial publications. Why? Product information is more often discussed there.

More facts that potential or learning investors should know. From The Economist of 22 Mar 2008:

At first this growth was built on the solid foundation of rising asset prices. The 18 years to 2000 witnessed an unparalleled bull market for shares and bonds. Corporate restructuring, wage competition and a revolution in information technology boosted profits. A typical portfolio of shares, bonds, and cash gave real annual yields of over 14% ... almost four times the norm of earlier decades.

Again, think product. During this period massive innovations including, so many pioneered and stifled in the 1970s, suddenly became hot and profitable marketable commodities. Innovation was similar to before, during, and after the 1950s.

But something changed in 2001, when the dotcom bubble burst. America's GDP growth since then has been weaker than in any cycle since the 1950s, barring the double-dip recovery in 1980-81. Stephen King and Ian Morris of HSBC point out that growth in consumer spending, total investment, and exports in this cycle has been correspondingly feeble. ... The industry has defied gravity by using debt, securitisation, and proprietary trading to boost fee income and profits. Investors hungry for yield have willingly gone along. Since 2000, .... the value of assets held in hedge funds, with their high fees and higher leverage, has quintupled. ...
This process has turned investment banks into debt machines that trade heavily on their own accounts. Goldman Sachs is using about $40 billion of equity as the foundation for $1.1trillion of assets. At Merrill Lynch, the most leveraged, $1 trillion of assets is teetering on around $30billion of equity. ...
Sooner or later, though, the music stops. And when it does, the very mechanisms that create abundant credit will also destroy it.

Expect growth rates to return to more traditional levels. Suddenly those high fees (ie 2% management fee on a mutual fund) removes a massive portion of those expected returns.

Even Wal-Mart has reorganized for a potential downturn. Investors might do same with Wal-mart style investments using index funds or ETFs and using discount brokers. With reduced growth expectations, management fees cost too much especially when those industry professionals, on average, underperform the market.

Do you have major investments and complex tax problems? Then industry investment professionals have a purpose. Tax laws, in particular, are so complex that even the better legal minds and lawmakers don't grasp them all. Common investor does not have these (unnecessary due to politicians) complex problems.

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by tw

Everything you posted had been answered in posts preceding.

You, sir, are a liar. I know it. You know it. Everyone who has bothered to read the threads knows it. You are a little bitch who throws around figures and your opinion demanding that others accept it as fact because you type it over and over again in your broken english without any consideration that you might be incorrect. When an alternative view is presented you attack the poster in your punkass passive aggressive manner. When they respond directly to your posts you throw a hissy fit about their emotional stability to draw attention away from your inability to support your ideas with relevant facts. When someone asks you a question you only have two responses, A) quit visiting the thread until you think people have forgotten about it, or B) you puke out irrelevant crap about GWB and mental midgets.

TW, I'm calling you out. You're a liar. You're a pussy. You've got no spine. You've got no integrity. You're the type of chickenshit that in real life wades into a discussion spouting bullshit only to piss down your leg when someone with integrity and a brain questions your ideas. TW, you are my Bitch.

I challenge you right here right now to refute what I've said. Sadly, I don't think you have the cajones to even try. I expect you'll respond with some drivel about emotional posting and insults. Sadly, you'll be wrong about that too. I'm not angry or upset. I'm weary. I'm saddened that new dwellars will see your post count and seniority in the cellar and be lulled into thinking you are worthy of respect. I find myself puzzled that a ridiculous little cunt like you has managed to survive in the cellar this long without running off in a temper tantrum. Then I remember that you're so disconnected from reality that you probably don't even realize what a pathetic little fuck you are. I'm sure that next you'll spin off into half-coherent gobbledy gook and pretend that it is perfectly logical. You'll sit smugly and think about how you showed me. You pathetic, delusional little bitch.

Go ahead, show me I'm wrong.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

You, sir, are a liar. I know it.

You are a stock broker. Lying is part of the job. I understand from where your bias comes. Meanwhile, your mutual fund recommendations were losers. Even UT's choice outperformed you recommendation. When you want to become civil again, let me know.

Stock brokers, typically, underperformed the market. But then I had advantages. I learned from history, Peter Lynch, The Economist, and a long list of other sources that all said same. I don't care that lookout123 hates it. Reality is not something you have to like. Reality is something that you should learn to accept.

Why does lookout123 dispute so many honest sources? Does he provide facts? Lookout123 - you are a stockbroker. A saleman selling Dr. Miles Restorative Tonic. You don't have to like it. But that is what finanical advisers do best - sales; not finanical analysis.

It was an old ABC News report. Two people apply for the same job. One clearly had a better resume, education, experience, etc. The other was better looking. Comments such as 'He even looks like a broker' choose the good looking applicant over a far more qualified, educated, and accomplished applicant. Stock brokers are most about image. Get over it. Stock brokers, on average, underperform the market. Brokers are too often about selling themselves. When cornered by reality, a meltdown? Get over it (or did you find a copy of the oldest thing in my refrigerator?)

[lookout123]

Congratulations pussy, you've fulfilled my very low expectations of you. Coward.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by lookout123

snip~ I'm saddened that new dwellers will see your post count and seniority in the cellar and be lulled into thinking you are worthy of respect. ~snip

I don't know if this is common, but it would be a huge mistake, on the readers part.

Neither seniority, nor post count, adds one iota of credibility to any post. I've seen members contribute brilliance in their first post and others just shit out hundreds, before ringing the bell.

Every post stands on it's own merit.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Every post stands on it's own merit.

That was the point another (forgotten who, when, or where) made. A post is not the author. Whereas a post reflects conclusions (actions) made by an author, challenging the post should not be considered an attack on the first author and should not result in a second (challenging) author being attacked. The post is a thought - a concept - that lives like a balloon. Some want to tap that balloon back up. Others want to puncture it. But the bottom line remains. A post that has no credibility is not an attack on the author. An author who takes his posts personally tends to then attack other authors.

Example - stock brokers, on average, underperform the market. That is a fact. That says nothing about lookout123. Somehow and repeatedly, lookout123 takes it personally. I don't know why. lookout123 may be the minority that matches or outperforms the market. That also would be consistent with the statement. Whether he does or does not is irrelevant to the post - that stock brokers, on average, underperform the market.

Clearly that statement - stockbrokers on average underperform - says nothing about nor disparaged lookout123. However, for reasons that totally befuddle me, lookout123 does take it personally.

[lookout123]

stock brokers, on average, underperform the market. That is a fact. That says nothing about lookout123. Somehow and repeatedly, lookout123 takes it personally. I don't know why.

I don't take it personally. I know that you are a worthless liar. If I took it personally I'd probably run on and on about my personal performance. I simply asked you support your idea - you refuse to do so. Wait, is it still a refusal, if the reason you don't respond is that... YOU CAN'T, because you are liar? Eh, either way. I gave you multiple opportunities to support your claims. You chose to ignore the opportunities to do so. I responded to your claims in detail. You chose to ignore that. You simply waited until you thought people had forgotten to restate your original misrepresentation. I called you a liar. You choose not to refute that. You are a fucking worthless liar. Prove me wrong.

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

I don't take it personally. I know that you are a worthless liar. If I took it personally I'd probably run on and on about my personal performance. I simply asked you support your idea - you refuse to do so.

Supporting facts were provided including facts and numbers from a recent The Economist study on this topic. I fail to see where you refuted any of those facts and numbers. Meanwhile, taking investment recommendations from four years ago, UT's mutual fund recommendation outperformed your recommendations. Just another fact.

Demonstated by lookout123 again is the difference between dealing with concepts verses taking things personally - attacking another author. Well last night, maybe he was drinking. Today, a hangover? Jack makes some meanly good stuff.

[lookout123]

Meanwhile, taking investment recommendations from four years ago, UT's mutual fund recommendation outperformed your recommendations. Just another fact.

If that were true I would congratulate UT on choosing better than I did, but see the problem is that I didn't make ANY recommendations at all in the thread you talking about. I didn't even name a specific investment.

You are a liar. You still haven't stepped up to the plate and answered a single question you've been asked. You haven't even bothered to support any of your incorrect ideas.

I find it bizarrely ironic that you have such a heartfelt hatred of GWB when you are so similar. Neither one of you is willing to step up and admit that you might have been wrong. You each made judgements based on the information you had, you were both wrong and have been shown to be wrong by reasonable people, and yet you cannot admit you made a mistake so you just make bigger asses of yourselves. GWB's mental midget status is well known, so what does that say about yours?