Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#32
![]()
posted to alt.sailing.asa
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Bush Blows $1.6 Trillion on War of Lunacy | General | |||
1+ trillion dollar bailouts | ASA | |||
$7 Trillion on Iraq? | General |