wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:32:12 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Dave" wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 09:12:07 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

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.

The absurdity of that view has been conclusively demonstrated above to
any
reasonable observer.


There's nothing absurd about it, and the only thing you've demonstrated is
your inability to accept when you've lost an argument. It's a fact. If you
can't handle facts, then I think you need to find another profession.

Are you kidding? Lawyers avoid truth at all costs, unless they think
they can somehow use it to their advantage without getting too
involved with it on a permanent basis. Accountants can make figures do
all sorts of things, and lawyers have a similar apptitude with "facts"



I'm trying to be solicitous, and I'm accounting for Dave's behavior as best
as I am able. LOL - sorry for the puns.


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