On Mar 3, 9:04*pm, HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
om...
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
news:f56dnb95dsnDADDUnZ2dnUVZ_oTinZ2d@earthlink .com...
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
news:ENOdnbmmx96NHTDUnZ2dnUVZ_gqWnZ2d@earthli nk.com...
...are selling for the same amounts as "penny stocks" used to sell
for...

...what are penny stocks selling for?

My take on stock prices:

Stocks are now selling are prices that more closely reflect the actual
value of the companies that issued them, and the prices they should
have been selling for for the past two decades.
And who/what determines the actual value of stocks, your real estate,
your boat, your car, etc.?
The price of one's house (at least when you buy it new), car, boat,
commercial real estate, has little to do with the sort of speculation
and book-cooking done in connection with the sale of corporate stocks,
et cetera. Now, because of greed and outright fraud in the lending,
stock, insurance businesses, the value of just about everything has gone
down because far fewer people have the wherewithal to buy.

I saw earlier today that Citibank shares were selling for less than the
ATM charges some banks charge.

Does anyone really think the value of shares will rise to where they
were a couple of years ago? Or that they should?
If stocks don't go up, look at all the retirees that will be working at
Wal-Mart till they just can't do it any longer. *Many millions of people
have seen their 401Ks take a tremendous hit, money they were counting on
for retirement.
Oh, I understand the ramifications of the crash. I just believe the share
values of the past were grossly overinflated due to speculators, those who
feed and feed upon speculators, dishonest accounting firms and dishonest
corporate officials, banking, brokerage and insurance industries, and the
mal-, mis-, and nonfeasance of the regulatory agencies under Bush.

Any small investors who in the future decide to participate again in the
corporate stock ponzi schemes should be very, very sceptical of stock
prices and what supposedly underpins P/E ratios.

Oh, and the Teamster's pension fund problems come to mind.

Once again, I will remind you and others that if you are a trustee on a
union pension fund and "mess around" with the funds, you are prosecuted,
and the financial losses are made good by the mandatory bond. The
bonding company typically works closely with prosecutors to try to
ensure time in the slammer for the perps.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"The perps." What kind of talk is that? You've been watching too
much television, Krausie.

BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
...are selling for the same amounts as "penny stocks" used to
sell for...

...what are penny stocks selling for?


My take on stock prices:

Stocks are now selling are prices that more closely reflect the
actual value of the companies that issued them, and the prices
they should have been selling for for the past two decades.
And who/what determines the actual value of stocks, your real
estate, your boat, your car, etc.?
The price of one's house (at least when you buy it new), car,
boat, commercial real estate, has little to do with the sort of
speculation and book-cooking done in connection with the sale of
corporate stocks, et cetera. Now, because of greed and outright
fraud in the lending, stock, insurance businesses, the value of
just about everything has gone down because far fewer people have
the wherewithal to buy.

I saw earlier today that Citibank shares were selling for less
than the ATM charges some banks charge.

Does anyone really think the value of shares will rise to where
they were a couple of years ago? Or that they should?
If stocks don't go up, look at all the retirees that will be
working at Wal-Mart till they just can't do it any longer. Many
millions of people have seen their 401Ks take a tremendous hit,
money they were counting on for retirement.
Oh, I understand the ramifications of the crash. I just believe the
share values of the past were grossly overinflated due to
speculators, those who feed and feed upon speculators, dishonest
accounting firms and dishonest corporate officials, banking,
brokerage and insurance industries, and the mal-, mis-, and
nonfeasance of the regulatory agencies under Bush.

Any small investors who in the future decide to participate again in
the corporate stock ponzi schemes should be very, very sceptical of
stock prices and what supposedly underpins P/E ratios.


Oh, and the Teamster's pension fund problems come to mind.


Once again, I will remind you and others that if you are a trustee on
a union pension fund and "mess around" with the funds, you are
prosecuted, and the financial losses are made good by the mandatory
bond. The bonding company typically works closely with prosecutors to
try to ensure time in the slammer for the perps.


Yeah, right.




Yeah, right, what? If you are a trustee on a union fund, you have to be
bonded. The bonding company will have your butt on a platter if there is
monkey business with the money.

Here you go, ****-for-brains:

http://www.dol.gov/esa/olms/regs/com.../bonding.htm#b


Here's an excerpt:

Who Must Be Bonded

Organizations

Every union covered by the LMRDA is subject to the bonding requirements
except for unions with property and annual receipts that do not exceed
$5,000 in value. Every trust in which a labor organization is interested
is covered by the bonding requirements regardless of the value of its
property and annual receipts.

Persons

Every officer, agent, shop steward, and other representative and
employee who handles funds or other property of a covered union or trust
must be bonded, including:

* elected union officers;
* key administrative personnel, whether elected or appointed (such
as business agents, heads of departments or major units, and organizers
who exercise substantial independent authority);
* trustees and key administrative personnel of trusts;
* salaried nonsupervisory professional staff of unions and trusts; and
* secretarial, clerical, and service personnel of unions and trusts.

***Before any new employees or officers may handle funds, they must be
bonded for an amount based upon the funds handled by their predecessors
during the last fiscal year. No additional bonding is required if a
bond, which meets the requirements of the LMRDA, is already in force to
cover them.***

If a person who is not bonded handles union funds, he or she is
violating the law. The person who assigns him or her those functions is
also violating the law.

On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:04:24 -0500, HK wrote:



Once again, I will remind you and others that if you are a trustee on a
union pension fund and "mess around" with the funds, you are prosecuted,
and the financial losses are made good by the mandatory bond. The
bonding company typically works closely with prosecutors to try to
ensure time in the slammer for the perps.

What's really sick about all this is that one of the largest surety
bond providers, if not the largest, is.....AIG.

--Vic

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2009 22:04:24 -0500, HK wrote:


Once again, I will remind you and others that if you are a trustee on a
union pension fund and "mess around" with the funds, you are prosecuted,
and the financial losses are made good by the mandatory bond. The
bonding company typically works closely with prosecutors to try to
ensure time in the slammer for the perps.

What's really sick about all this is that one of the largest surety
bond providers, if not the largest, is.....AIG.

--Vic


And it is, or was, "A" rated. I haven't kept up with that side of the
biz, but I don't recall reading that AIG had defaulted - yet - on surety
bonds.

wrote:
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:42:13 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

Oh, and the Teamster's pension fund problems come to mind.

Which pension fund problems are you talking about?
I remember in the late 50s and early 60s RFK was trying to say the
Teamsters squandered the pension funds by investing in Vegas casinos
but those investments out performed the Dow.
I guarantee the Teamsters retirees are in better shape than the UAW
right now. My sister's first husband is a retired teamster and he is
doing fine.

Sounds like the Teamsters pension fund benefited from being used as a
laundry facility.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:42:13 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

Oh, and the Teamster's pension fund problems come to mind.

Which pension fund problems are you talking about?
I remember in the late 50s and early 60s RFK was trying to say the
Teamsters squandered the pension funds by investing in Vegas casinos
but those investments out performed the Dow.
I guarantee the Teamsters retirees are in better shape than the UAW
right now. My sister's first husband is a retired teamster and he is
doing fine.

And Jimmy Hoffa was a fine upstanding citizen. 8)

D.Duck wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:42:13 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

Oh, and the Teamster's pension fund problems come to mind.
Which pension fund problems are you talking about?
I remember in the late 50s and early 60s RFK was trying to say the
Teamsters squandered the pension funds by investing in Vegas casinos
but those investments out performed the Dow.
I guarantee the Teamsters retirees are in better shape than the UAW
right now. My sister's first husband is a retired teamster and he is
doing fine.

And Jimmy Hoffa was a fine upstanding citizen. 8)




Compared to many of today's corporate CEO's? He sure was. It's hard for
me to imagine Hoffa knowingly distributing batches of peanut butter that
contained salmonella, or paying himself a $30 million bonus in a year
when his union lost a billion dollars.

Hoffa was a tough little guy because he had to be. But he was far less
violent and far more honorable than, say, the chairman of Blackwater.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
BAR wrote:
HK wrote:
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
...are selling for the same amounts as "penny stocks" used to sell
for...

...what are penny stocks selling for?


My take on stock prices:

Stocks are now selling are prices that more closely reflect the
actual value of the companies that issued them, and the prices
they should have been selling for for the past two decades.
And who/what determines the actual value of stocks, your real
estate, your boat, your car, etc.?
The price of one's house (at least when you buy it new), car, boat,
commercial real estate, has little to do with the sort of
speculation and book-cooking done in connection with the sale of
corporate stocks, et cetera. Now, because of greed and outright
fraud in the lending, stock, insurance businesses, the value of just
about everything has gone down because far fewer people have the
wherewithal to buy.

I saw earlier today that Citibank shares were selling for less than
the ATM charges some banks charge.

Does anyone really think the value of shares will rise to where they
were a couple of years ago? Or that they should?
If stocks don't go up, look at all the retirees that will be working
at Wal-Mart till they just can't do it any longer. Many millions of
people have seen their 401Ks take a tremendous hit, money they were
counting on for retirement.
Oh, I understand the ramifications of the crash. I just believe the
share values of the past were grossly overinflated due to speculators,
those who feed and feed upon speculators, dishonest accounting firms
and dishonest corporate officials, banking, brokerage and insurance
industries, and the mal-, mis-, and nonfeasance of the regulatory
agencies under Bush.

Any small investors who in the future decide to participate again in
the corporate stock ponzi schemes should be very, very sceptical of
stock prices and what supposedly underpins P/E ratios.


Oh, and the Teamster's pension fund problems come to mind.


Once again, I will remind you and others that if you are a trustee on a
union pension fund and "mess around" with the funds, you are prosecuted,
and the financial losses are made good by the mandatory bond. The
bonding company typically works closely with prosecutors to try to
ensure time in the slammer for the perps.


Yeah, right.




Yeah, right, what? If you are a trustee on a union fund, you have to be
bonded. The bonding company will have your butt on a platter if there is
monkey business with the money.

Here you go, ****-for-brains:

http://www.dol.gov/esa/olms/regs/com.../bonding.htm#b


Here's an excerpt:

Who Must Be Bonded

Organizations

Every union covered by the LMRDA is subject to the bonding requirements
except for unions with property and annual receipts that do not exceed
$5,000 in value. Every trust in which a labor organization is interested
is covered by the bonding requirements regardless of the value of its
property and annual receipts.

Persons

Every officer, agent, shop steward, and other representative and employee
who handles funds or other property of a covered union or trust must be
bonded, including:

* elected union officers;
* key administrative personnel, whether elected or appointed (such as
business agents, heads of departments or major units, and organizers who
exercise substantial independent authority);
* trustees and key administrative personnel of trusts;
* salaried nonsupervisory professional staff of unions and trusts; and
* secretarial, clerical, and service personnel of unions and trusts.

***Before any new employees or officers may handle funds, they must be
bonded for an amount based upon the funds handled by their predecessors
during the last fiscal year. No additional bonding is required if a bond,
which meets the requirements of the LMRDA, is already in force to cover
them.***

If a person who is not bonded handles union funds, he or she is violating
the law. The person who assigns him or her those functions is also
violating the law.

Even as a local treasurer, I had to be bonded as per requirements of our
national Union.

"HK" wrote in message
m...
D.Duck wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:42:13 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

Oh, and the Teamster's pension fund problems come to mind.
Which pension fund problems are you talking about?
I remember in the late 50s and early 60s RFK was trying to say the
Teamsters squandered the pension funds by investing in Vegas casinos
but those investments out performed the Dow.
I guarantee the Teamsters retirees are in better shape than the UAW
right now. My sister's first husband is a retired teamster and he is
doing fine.

And Jimmy Hoffa was a fine upstanding citizen. 8)


Compared to many of today's corporate CEO's? He sure was. It's hard for me
to imagine Hoffa knowingly distributing batches of peanut butter that
contained salmonella, or paying himself a $30 million bonus in a year when
his union lost a billion dollars.

Hoffa was a tough little guy because he had to be. But he was far less
violent and far more honorable than, say, the chairman of Blackwater.

There's bad apples in every barrel. No one group is exempt.

D.Duck wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
m...
D.Duck wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Mar 2009 21:42:13 -0500, "D.Duck" wrote:

Oh, and the Teamster's pension fund problems come to mind.
Which pension fund problems are you talking about?
I remember in the late 50s and early 60s RFK was trying to say the
Teamsters squandered the pension funds by investing in Vegas casinos
but those investments out performed the Dow.
I guarantee the Teamsters retirees are in better shape than the UAW
right now. My sister's first husband is a retired teamster and he is
doing fine.
And Jimmy Hoffa was a fine upstanding citizen. 8)

Compared to many of today's corporate CEO's? He sure was. It's hard for me
to imagine Hoffa knowingly distributing batches of peanut butter that
contained salmonella, or paying himself a $30 million bonus in a year when
his union lost a billion dollars.

Hoffa was a tough little guy because he had to be. But he was far less
violent and far more honorable than, say, the chairman of Blackwater.

There's bad apples in every barrel. No one group is exempt.




Well...that's encouraging.

Frankly, I am a fan of old style union organizing and operation, sans,
of course, any corruption that harms the interests of the members or
retirees. Alas, the lawyers have infected the process.