ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On 19/07/2010 9:13 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 06:13:24 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Jul 18, 11:03 pm, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:24:45 -0600,
wrote:

On 18/07/2010 10:37 AM, bpuharic wrote:
Hell, it's only down 10% for the year! A wonderful success story.
just think, if GWB had his way, social security could have the same
success my 401K is having.

wall street just keeps giving it to the american people...and taking
it...

If you trust some 401K plan operator there is the mistake. Might I
suggest learning how to invest it yourself?

gee. let's see... i work for a living. it's known as opportunity cost.
you dont know about economics, but look it up


Trading all the time you spend ranting here on the internet for
learning to invest would get you quite an education.

it already did. it taught me never to trust a conservative


But it *is* easier to whine in lower case than to take responsibility
for yourself.

like i say...i did take responsibility...i'll continue to spread the
word about how conservatism is a learning disability

Hahahah, defective human being. First you have to realize *YOU* are
your own limitation. If you think like a loser, you will be a loser.

--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On 19/07/2010 9:14 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:21:25 -0400, wrote:

bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 20:24:45 -0600,
wrote:


uh huh. if that's the case what happened to the 14 trillion wall
street lost in equity over the last 3 years?


You are obviously suffering financially yet you still think the Dems are
on your side?


yeah.

when's the last time the GOP proposed a capital gains tax INCREASE?

oh. never.

QED

Capital gains is really a wealth tax.

Say you owned an average company, stable but average in every way.
Worht $1 a share. Pays a constant 4% dividend. Some decades later it
is worth $4 but every you could by for a $1 is now $4, in dollars you
have 4 tiems as much but in buying power you are the same. Thus no real
gain other than the dividend you get.

But wait, government taxes capital gains so when you sell it for $4 and
realize the $3 gain you pay taxes of say $0.70 for a $3.30 left. But it
can't buy the $4 item...so purchasing pwoer is lost.

It is why you seek gains above inflation or it isn't worth owning unless
the divident is fat.
--

Government has liberals, idealists and lawyers, but where is the common
sense?

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:39:08 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
. ..
On Mo


Go to the link below and plug in "Up more than 0%" for the 3 year
return
option of the screener. The other entries remain in the default
setting.

http://screen.yahoo.com/funds.html

and here is where you're confused. 401K's are managed by fund
managers...the funds they manage CAN do pretty well on an individual
basis. yet, unless you're a full time manager yourself, you have NO
idea which ones these are going to be.

I'm not confused. When I was working the 401K I had options to invest in.
There was a group of mutual funds, some government obligations and a
GUARANTEED interest option. If you, THE MANAGER, selected the guaranteed
interest option you would not have lost a penny in the last three years.
Or
"I" could select a single mutual fund for my money.

ahem. let's see....the number of economists predicting this collapse
was about

5.


And what does that have to do with:

"not a single 401K manager has beat the market in the last 3 years."

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:09:37 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:






I am curious. How much of the 14 trillion lost on Wall Street represents
real money loses and not paper loses. I have very modest investments in
the
stock market that I started in 1999.

and the difference is? 'paper' losses are real losses representing a
loss in equity and a loss in the ability to extend further investments

Not a 401k. Just small investments that I manage myself. Don't spend
much time watching them. Not a day trader type.

The paper value of those investments right now is about four to five times
the initial investment, despite the meltdown of 2008. I suppose I could
complain that without the meltdown the stock values would be much higher,
but I don't regard that as loses. Loses would mean the value of the
investments today are less than the original deposit into the account.

what they represent is a loss of time. if you're 20 you have no
problem. in the next 40 years you'll be OK

if, however, you're a baby boomer, well that's a different story


CC


So, in other words, I should be screaming and bitching about the "loss" of
money that I never earned or had. I see. Starting to understand how the
left thinks.

CC

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

Charles C. wrote:


"bpuharic" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:09:37 -0400, "Charles C."
wrote:






I am curious. How much of the 14 trillion lost on Wall Street
represents
real money loses and not paper loses. I have very modest investments
in the
stock market that I started in 1999.

and the difference is? 'paper' losses are real losses representing a
loss in equity and a loss in the ability to extend further investments

Not a 401k. Just small investments that I manage myself. Don't spend
much time watching them. Not a day trader type.

The paper value of those investments right now is about four to five
times
the initial investment, despite the meltdown of 2008. I suppose I could
complain that without the meltdown the stock values would be much
higher,
but I don't regard that as loses. Loses would mean the value of the
investments today are less than the original deposit into the account.

what they represent is a loss of time. if you're 20 you have no
problem. in the next 40 years you'll be OK

if, however, you're a baby boomer, well that's a different story


CC


So, in other words, I should be screaming and bitching about the "loss"
of money that I never earned or had. I see. Starting to understand how
the left thinks.

CC

Bill Clinton got the Dems thinking like Reps.
Everybody will be rich just by putting money in Wall Street.
Suckers.
But it worked for the older boomers who got in early on the Ponzi scheme
and took enough profits out.
That's the nature of a Ponzi scheme.
And when the Ponzi operators own the government it has some legs.


Jim - Skeptic.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:10:30 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 19:46:34 -0400, "Harold"
wrote:


http://screen.yahoo.com/funds.html

and here is where you're confused. 401K's are managed by fund
managers...the funds they manage CAN do pretty well on an individual
basis. yet, unless you're a full time manager yourself, you have NO
idea which ones these are going to be.

Move your $40 to a money market fund and STFU.

You'd think all the Limo Liberals here would get up a collection for poor
bpuharic


notice how the right ignores the situation facing the middle class?

the rich are doing fine...so that's all that matters

Seriously, Bob, do you really think all the conservatives here, or anywhere, are
rich? Do you not think a bunch of us might be middle class? Yet you are the one
doing all the whining because you paid little attention to your investment.

I asked if your 401K had a money market fund. By putting your money in same, you
could have prevented the losses you took.
--

John H

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:15:30 -0400, John H
wrote:

the rich are doing fine...so that's all that matters

Seriously, Bob, do you really think all the conservatives here, or anywhere, are
rich? Do you not think a bunch of us might be middle class? Yet you are the one
doing all the whining because you paid little attention to your investment.

I asked if your 401K had a money market fund. By putting your money in same, you
could have prevented the losses you took.

Bob took such a beating that he is down to his last yacht.

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:42:13 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:15:30 -0400, John H
wrote:

the rich are doing fine...so that's all that matters

Seriously, Bob, do you really think all the conservatives here, or anywhere, are
rich? Do you not think a bunch of us might be middle class? Yet you are the one
doing all the whining because you paid little attention to your investment.

I asked if your 401K had a money market fund. By putting your money in same, you
could have prevented the losses you took.

Bob took such a beating that he is down to his last yacht.

LOL!

And I wasn't even trolling this time.
--

John H

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 06:47:48 -0400, wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:08:45 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 07:39:08 -0400, "D.Duck" wrote:


ahem. let's see....the number of economists predicting this collapse
was about

5.

That may be right but "economists" are largely idiots from what I have
seen.

now THAT is true...

Thee were plenty of hedge fund managers who saw this coming.
Ever hear of the Goldman Sachs thing?
I know for a fact Andy Hannigan at Centex Homes knew this was coming
as early as 2q07. They were pulling back by then.

and there as many HF managers who saw this coming as economists

ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
 

On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 07:59:55 -0500, Jim wrote:


CC

Bill Clinton got the Dems thinking like Reps.
Everybody will be rich just by putting money in Wall Street.
Suckers.
But it worked for the older boomers who got in early on the Ponzi scheme
and took enough profits out.
That's the nature of a Ponzi scheme.
And when the Ponzi operators own the government it has some legs.


Jim - Skeptic.


kind of like when bush wanted to do for social security what the 401K
did for retirement plans.

good thing the dems stopped THAT