Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#51
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#52
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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? |
#53
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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." |
#54
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#55
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#56
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#57
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#58
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#59
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
ah, yes, the latest on my company 401K
|
#60
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Obama and the SEIU want to nationalize your 401K | General | |||
( OT) Known by the company you keep | General | |||
Known by the company you keep | General | |||
3 company 2 | ASA | |||
looking for company | General |