View Single Post
  #10   Report Post  
posted to alt.sailing.asa
Capt. JG Capt. JG is offline
external usenet poster
 
First recorded activity by BoatBanter: Jul 2006
Posts: 7,757
Default 7.4 Trillion! 7.4!!!!

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 17:39:50 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

If I had stock that was worth $100K, then, after the drop in stock
market, it would be worth say 1/2 that; however, no actual loss happens
unless I move the reduced assets to another set of instruments. If I do
that, I have built in the loss. If I don't move them, and the stock market
comes back, nothing changes except time. Are you really confused or just
trying to cover yourself?


Not at all confused. Just trying to straighten out your muddled thinking.
Take this example:

Case 1: Your GM stock has fallen 80%. You sell all your GM stock and put
the
proceeds into a money market fund. 2 days later the price of GM is the
same
and you decide that selling was a mistake, and you buy the stock back,
using
funds from the money market fund.

Case 2: Your GM stock has fallen 80%, but you decide it will come back, so
you decide not to sell.

Assume there's no tax on the transactions, because the stock is in a 401k.
Under your theory, you lost money in Case 1, but didn't lose money in Case
2. Yet in both cases the value of your GM stock on day 4 is precisely the
same.

An absurd conclusion? It should be obvious to anyone it is.



?? There is NO theory involved. If there's no sale transaction, how can
there possibly be a loss unless the business goes out completely??? Case 2:
I decide it will come back, I'm right, it does. My stock has the same or
greater value.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com