"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:38:10 -0800, "Capt. JG"
said:

If the assets are "taken out" and the taxes are paid, then what becomes of
the reduced assets is a loss.

Why? You haven't sold them. Under your theory, no sale, no loss. And
what's
with this "reduced assets?" You moved $10,000 in assets, let's say, from
your 401K to a taxable account at your broker's, wrote a check from your
checking account at the bank for the taxes on that $10,000, and continued
to
hold the $10,000 in assets in your account at the broker's. No loss,
right?


?? 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?

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

"Capt. JG" wrote in message
easolutions...

?? 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?


At the age of 18 one puts $10,000 away in a retirement account. By age 58 it
is worth $1,000,000. The market crashes and at age 68 upon withdrawal it is
worth $10,000.

No loss eh?

Inflation?

Time value of money?

"Nothing changes except time". All right, loan me 100K$ today, I'll pay it
all back in 25 years, every cent and you wouldn't have lost anything. It's
only time.

Here's an MBA prep power point slide. Maybe you zoning out that day in
class:

itc.utk.edu/spotlight/archive/murphy/MBA_Prep_Summer_Tech.ppt

"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

"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.

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

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"

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

On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:14:00 -0800, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

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.

You should be sorry!