What's new
By:

Thoughts on the stock market and

No. You just asked what you said was so preposterous.. I was just being awkwardly witty by pointing out that using the word may qualify as such.
 
PKM said:
I'll address the secondary real estate bubble. I don't see it. In 2004 - 7 banks were lending unlimited amounts to unqualified buyers and it created a false real estate reality.
When the economy tanked, the real estate holders defaulted because they couldn't pay the loans. This next group are cash buyers, at a record-breaking clip.. greater net worths.. too much to be foreclosed on (too collectible).

This real estate economy is one of the most 'real' I have ever seen, IMO.
Click to expand...

Well... you're no fun. I was trying to incite a debate, but you had to go and be a spoil sport.

Incidentally, the Economist agrees with you: https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/06/us-house-prices?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/realitycheck

And back to the original question... dividend or growth?
 
leftyjace said:
Well... you're no fun. I was trying to incite a debate, but you had to go and be a spoil sport.

Incidentally, the Economist agrees with you: https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/06/us-house-prices?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/realitycheck

And back to the original question... dividend or growth?
Click to expand...

I'm not much in the stock market so never cutting edge. (I do have an aunt that is a c-level exec with Merrill Lynch so I do get very nice tips.)

Having said that, I would GUESS/INSTINCT that I would go dividend over growth right now. I can interpolate the dividend into my ROI while taking advantage of the short-term buy-back frenzy. Versus going growth when companies are not re-investing well at the moment and economic indicators are suggesting stall/decline.
 
I have investments that are zero risk with 10% gains .. that I control. I know the mkt can/does much better, but I like KNOWING what I'm doing with my cash.
 
PKM said:
I have investments that are zero risk with 10% gains .. that I control. I know the mkt can/does much better, but I like KNOWING what I'm doing with my cash.
Click to expand...

No such thing as zero risk.

Zero perception, yes.
 
dalamon said:
How about you don't make sweeping judgements about municipalities you have no connection to, or on individuals you have never heard of?


Or you can, if you want to continue to make an utter fool of yourself.
Click to expand...

Must spread. Nice housecleaning.

PKM said:
I'll address the secondary real estate bubble. I don't see it. In 2004 - 7 banks were lending unlimited amounts to unqualified buyers and it created a false real estate reality.
When the economy tanked, the real estate holders defaulted because they couldn't pay the loans. This next group are cash buyers, at a record-breaking clip.. greater net worths.. too much to be foreclosed on (too collectible).

This real estate economy is one of the most 'real' I have ever seen, IMO.
Click to expand...

This. If I were high net worth I'd have been buying McMansions hand over fist about 1.5 years ago, and that was after advising small timers to wait a couple years.

PKM said:
I'm not much in the stock market so never cutting edge. (I do have an aunt that is a c-level exec with Merrill Lynch so I do get very nice tips.)

Having said that, I would GUESS/INSTINCT that I would go dividend over growth right now. I can interpolate the dividend into my ROI while taking advantage of the short-term buy-back frenzy. Versus going growth when companies are not re-investing well at the moment and economic indicators are suggesting stall/decline.
Click to expand...

I prefer getting a couple years ahead of the Goldman Sachs reports. Much more profitable if you have strong convictions.

PKM said:
I have investments that are zero risk with 10% gains .. that I control. I know the mkt can/does much better, but I like KNOWING what I'm doing with my cash.
Click to expand...

This!! I'd much rather underperform slightly and avoid the volatility, while controlling the cash flow instead of some CEO I don't know. WTS, I tend to follow companies for several years before investing and bet exclusively with the ones who prove they're great people.

babe said:
No such thing as zero risk.

Zero perception, yes.
Click to expand...

Good point, unless it was Treasuries in the 80's. what I would give for that scenario again.
 
MoreFeasts said:
what did I say that was preposterous?
Click to expand...


For starters, this:

MoreFeasts said:
Who thinks this (that politicians make decisions based on what they think is correct) about politicians? You must not be from around here.
Click to expand...



But anywho.


If the politicians are so noble in purpose, your hero would have wanted to stay on the team, not to quit his political party and be a lone wolf.
Click to expand...

No, he went independent so he could bring some media attention to the very-poor conduct of the Progressive Conservative party. It has raised many questions, and some have already considered it as the final blow that will prevent Prime Minister Stephen Harper from being re-elected after his term is up (presuming that he he isn't kicked out prior, via lack of confidence from the House)

Again, you would understand these things if you actually lived here. But you don't. So quit making judgements about things you do not understand.
 
dalamon said:
No, he went independent so he could bring some media attention to the very-poor conduct of the Progressive Conservative party. It has raised many questions, and some have already considered it as the final blow that will prevent Prime Minister Stephen Harper from being re-elected after his term is up (presuming that he he isn't kicked out prior, via lack of confidence from the House)

Again, you would understand these things if you actually lived here. But you don't. So quit making judgements about things you do not understand.
Click to expand...

People are obnoxiously irate at politicians. I figure it's an out for their inner hatred at not getting their whiny *** way and needing to control everything all the damn time (even though they preach freedom lol).

Prime example, when Trout was running locally, there were a bunch of dip****s bitching on the SLTrib comment section about nepotism since there was small mention of his father in law being in office already. Dumbasses were too stupid to realize he was in the opposite party and likely much more in line with their own wants. I suppose voters want to cut off their own nose.
 
PKM said:
I have investments that are zero risk with 10% gains .. that I control. I know the mkt can/does much better, but I like KNOWING what I'm doing with my cash.
Click to expand...

I am skeptical, as others have said, all investments have risk.
What are these investments?
 
dalamon said:
No he went independent so he could bring some media attention to the very-poor conduct of the Progressive Conservative party.
Click to expand...
Again, if he felt that the majority of politicians were acting in the best interests of the country, he would not have felt compelled to leave his party.
 
MoreFeasts said:
Again, if he felt that the majority of politicians were acting in the best interests of the country, he would not have felt compelled to leave his party.
Click to expand...

FINE! Politicians are evil...can we stop beating the horse now?
 
F, I wouldn't want the same family too influential in both parties, I agree with the masses on this point. If Trout could not overcome this minor obstacle, then maybe he didn't have what it takes to be an effective politician.
 
MoreFeasts said:
F, I wouldn't want the same family too influential in both parties, I agree with the masses on this point. If Trout could not overcome this minor obstacle, then maybe he didn't have what it takes to be an effective politician.
Click to expand...

Yeah, with two family members on the city council they would have owned Taylorsville. Boom!

Think of all the money, fast cars and women...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top