or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by idfnl

Maybe we're being semantic, but I only view a real loss as such when you hit the sell button on a trade. Otherwise I just consider myself down or up on the bet.I don't trade margin, so the idea of a loss on the value of the portfolio doesn't hold a lot of meaning to me beyond a data point.I don't see a difference between averaging down and dollar cost averaging beyond one taking place when the equity falls below a price or average price you paid for it.If you hold an...
Its a paper loss. The market should eventually price in rising rates so in the mean time you can take advantage of the lower level.
I always thought averaging down was the best way to deal with it
It's relevant to wider point about large corporations and bailouts, special treatment in general for those deemed too big to fail.
This is not reserved for banks, hence mentioning GM
If I ran a small sized corporation that failed thru being badly run, nobody would bail it out, nor give it an emergency loan. So there is this body of public corporations than qualify for this special state supported status. General Motors, for example. In essence, these become state run corporations because they will be there to catch a fall.The state just ends up becoming a reckless risk taking enabler.
Glass–Steigel didn't allow banks and securities firms under one roof, I was wrong I thought it also meant they couldn't act as fiduciaries and market makersI do realize that, I was an AIG shareholder shortly after the crash. The government shoved money down the banking system's throats.While you believe it was a great idea, I roll my eyes now every time I hear anyone talk about capitalism. Good or bad, it wasn't capitalist. And too big too fail remains an open ended...
Goldman failing was orders of magnitude worse than Bear or Lehman? As I understand capitalism, if you are reckless and irresponsible, you fail. But it seems like losses are now socialized and profits remain private, except if you're an average citizen.
It's exactly the fact that many of us partly rely on it for an eventual retirement that makes it condemn-able. In '08, how many people lost their retirements? Had to go back to work? And then this little weasel is in front of congress explaining how his massive corporation, deeply mired in what just transpired, is able to take both sides of a bet. I understand professionals were watching that saying 'of course', but there was a time where it wasn't allowed. I believe...
The inclusion of a pipe was extra clever.
New Posts  All Forums: