Dow 12,000 - NEWBIE

give him some time to respond....

i'm sure he's busy covering his A$$ after shorting the market the day before.

[quote=TexasRep]

give him some time to respond....

i'm sure he's busy covering his A$$ after shorting the market the day before.

[/quote]

Short the market?  I ended net short GOOG on Tuesday, not the market.

well that's working---

i thought in the thread where you and Bankrep1 were going at it, you were talking about shorting the market due to a very bearish bias........

Getting closer . . .

Here’s my layman’s prediction:

The Dow will be above 12,000 on Election Day, but will be below 12,000 on New Year’s Day.


Disclaimer:  I am not a broker.  This is not advice.

JC - do you believe that Oil prices will rise again after the elections?

You're making me nervous - like a Democrat in a good economy.

[quote=apprentice]

JC - do you believe that Oil prices will rise again after the elections?

[quote=bankrep1]Newbie,

The comments big ben made today make me all the more confident in my call, the Dow will hit 12,000 before the end of the year!

[/quote]

Congrats on your call, made all the more special since it was made during a tough time and in the face of more senior people here talking about the strong possibility of bearish outcomes....

I would agree.  Pretty bold statement, especially given the fact that it was made in July with six months left in the year.

Damn fine work.  We still have a ways to go and nothing guarantees that the market won’t fall from here, but still…damn fine work.

Has the Dow hit 12,000?

11,960.51.  That’s close enough that you shouldn’t be smug about it.

As the talking heads keep reminding us, twenty of the Dow thirty, have had a decent run.  But the broad market is not all that healthy, it's a cyclical rotation.

What's got me bamboozled is the churning going on in Google.  Just about everybody says that buying YouTube was a dumb idea, yet the stock won't go down.  Earnings due on Thursday--my upside breakeven is at 432 or so and I'm nervous as whore in church.  I suspect I'll chicken out and reduce my exposure on Wednesday or Thursday--but I keep telling myself you have to know when to hold them and know when to fold them.

How's your production Indy--up to 250,000 annualized?  Not bad for a guy who's been around for seventeen years.

I won't touch GOOG with a ten-foot pole...too irrational to go long or short.  Valuation says it's ridiculously overpriced yet the disciples keep buying..'99 all over again for that one.

My production is good...how's retirement?  Have you started those paperclip chains for your Christmas tree yet?

[quote=Indyone]11,960.51.  That's close enough that you shouldn't be smug about it.[/quote]

Agreed.  Especially since, like already mentioned, the prediction was made at a time when the markets were showing weakness.

[quote=dude]

[quote=Indyone]11,960.51.  That's close enough that you shouldn't be smug about it.[/quote]

Agreed.  Especially since, like already mentioned, the prediction was made at a time when the markets were showing weakness.

[/quote]

If you think you can talk me into transfering my accounts to that bank kid you're wrong.

It was certainly a bold prediction--the Dow as at 11,500 and he said it would go to 12,000.  A regular maven.

Soon 2 B Back,

You should transfer your accounts to the bank kid. 

[quote=dude]

Soon 2 B Back,

You should transfer your accounts to the bank kid. 

[/quote]

So I could quadruple his AUM?

Sure.  You're a nice guy, why not?

You are so dumb i bet my book is bigger than both of yours combined

Oh yeah, well my dad can beat your dad up.

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]It was certainly a bold prediction--the Dow as at 11,500 and he said it would go to 12,000.  A regular maven.[/quote]

If you can't read a chart better than that, well enough to know where the Dow was on 19 July, perhaps you should give him your money to stop your bleeding.

Read a chart?  Hell man, I’m using my flawless memory.  Don’t tell me I"m wrong.

Hmmm “fuzzy math?”, the Dow was at 10,854 when I made the call. Also, if you remember the reason I made the call is old NEWBIE was painting a doom and gloom picture, I am by no means a genius, however, my opinion would have held up, you’ll see when we pass the old 12K, I see alot of guys on TV with stupid opinions and the folks on CNBC bring them back time and time again for more stupid opinions when the last thing they said crashed and burned.

Bankrep, I echoed your prediction to many of my clients and added this to it--"And regular unleaded will be $2.00 per gallon on election day."  I might miss that one by a little bit in my area of the country, but it will be a hell of a lot closer to $2.00 per gallon than $3.00. 

(See, they don't call me Soothsayer for nothin', although Bankrep had way more sack than me to put the 12,000 call on this board.)

I am still worried about next year, probably sometime around the second quarter--most likely May or June.  I still say there is no soft landing for real estate, only hard lessons.  There was simply too much liquidity and money floating around for too long for some real pain to not be felt.  There.  That's my prediction.

[quote=Soothsayer]

Bankrep, I echoed your prediction to many of my clients and added this to it–“And regular unleaded will be $2.00 per gallon on election day.”  I might miss that one by a little bit in my area of the country, but it will be a hell of a lot closer to $2.00 per gallon than $3.00. 

(See, they don't call me Soothsayer for nothin', although Bankrep had way more sack than me to put the 12,000 call on this board.)

I am still worried about next year, probably sometime around the second quarter--most likely May or June.  I still say there is no soft landing for real estate, only hard lessons.  There was simply too much liquidity and money floating around for too long for some real pain to not be felt.  There.  That's my prediction.

Getting closer… where is the doom and gloom Newbie talked about? Maybe that is why he changed his screename, utter embarrassment

[quote=bankrep1]Getting closer..... where is the doom and gloom Newbie talked about? Maybe that is why he changed his screename, utter embarrassment[/quote]

If the Dow doesn't get there tomorrow it probably won't--tech earnings coming tomorrow are expected to be somewhat soft and the market may take any of them very hard.

On the other hand, if it does close above 12,000 tomorrow--or anytime--does that mean it will never go to 6,000 as I think it will?

Tell me again, how many weeks have you been in the business?

If the Dow doesn’t hit 12K before the election, I don’t think you’ll see it this year.  New polls show the Dems likely getting both the house and senate, and I don’t see Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy being good for the market.

It will never see 6000.

[quote=bankrep1]It will never see 6000. [/quote]

Is that right?  Why don't you think so?  What are the fundamentals that will prevent a 50% decline in the value of thirty companies?

[quote=Indyone]If the Dow doesn't hit 12K before the election, I don't think you'll see it this year.  New polls show the Dems likely getting both the house and senate, and I don't see Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy being good for the market.[/quote]

Amen to that.  How are you planning to reposition your client's portfolios to protect against the upcoming market decline if the Dems get control?  Theoretical of course, since we can't offer investment advice on the internet.

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]

[quote=bankrep1]It will never see 6000. [/quote]

Is that right?  Why don't you think so?  What are the fundamentals that will prevent a 50% decline in the value of thirty companies?

[/quote]

The same ones that prevent a 99% decline in their values.

[quote=Indyone]If the Dow doesn’t hit 12K before the election, I don’t think you’ll see it this year.  New polls show the Dems likely getting both the house and senate, and I don’t see Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy being good for the market.

Amen to that.  How are you planning to reposition your client's portfolios to protect against the upcoming market decline if the Dems get control?  Theoretical of course, since we can't offer investment advice on the internet. [/quote]

Unfortunately, there's not a lot of refuge in bonds from what I can see, although I'm certainly migrating that direction again, especially since I'm not seeing much upward rate movement.  I've held stocks stubbornly, and I certainly won't abandone them, but a 20% allocation shift is probably in the cards for me and my clients.  I'm using very short paper and ETFs to cover this area.  I should probably defer to Bond Guy/tjc and others who are better bond traders than me, but that's my simple solution on that side.  Equally obvious is to stay with defensive/undervalued equities and dividend payers.  I keep expecting large growth to makea move, but I'm perplexed as to when, so I'm not adding any exposure in that area now either.

Of course, you could always just take the anti-Cramer strategy of doing the opposite of what Mad Money is recommending.  I think he was pounding the table for tech stocks last week and here they are today getting crushed again...what an idiot.

At any rate, that is my generic two cents (without specific recommendations...).

[quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Indyone]If the Dow doesn’t hit 12K before the election, I don’t think you’ll see it this year.  New polls show the Dems likely getting both the house and senate, and I don’t see Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy being good for the market.[/quote]

Amen to that.  How are you planning to reposition your client's portfolios to protect against the upcoming market decline if the Dems get control?  Theoretical of course, since we can't offer investment advice on the internet.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Indyone]If the Dow doesn't hit 12K before the election, I don't think you'll see it this year.  New polls show the Dems likely getting both the house and senate, and I don't see Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy being good for the market.[/quote]

Amen to that.  How are you planning to reposition your client's portfolios to protect against the upcoming market decline if the Dems get control?  Theoretical of course, since we can't offer investment advice on the internet.

[/quote]

I'll be buying some puts if the Dems continue to look better in the polls.
[/quote]

The odd lot theory come to life.

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone][quote=joedabrkr] [quote=babbling looney]

[quote=Indyone]If the Dow doesn't hit 12K before the election, I don't think you'll see it this year.  New polls show the Dems likely getting both the house and senate, and I don't see Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy being good for the market.[/quote]

Amen to that.  How are you planning to reposition your client's portfolios to protect against the upcoming market decline if the Dems get control?  Theoretical of course, since we can't offer investment advice on the internet.

[/quote]

I'll be buying some puts if the Dems continue to look better in the polls.
[/quote]

The odd lot theory come to life.

[/quote]

Ouch.  Had to hit him below the belt eh?

30 companies. Not really if a compnay starts to look bad they will replace it. Think about all of the moves they have made in the past.

Forget polls.There's a website that has an uncanny ability to predict political outcomes, www.tradesports.com. This website allows people to trade, with real money, predicted outcomes of political races or sports. 

Right now, according to trades placed thus far, the Republicans have received 66% of the trades to retain control of both the House and Senate. Typically, anything over 80% is considered a sure thing; so, a 66% majority is still wishy-washy.

[quote=bankrep1]30 companies. Not really if a compnay starts to look bad they will replace it. Think about all of the moves they have made in the past.[/quote]

So you're saying that the Dow Industrials is a manipulated stock index and cannot be relied to as an indicator of anything?

Who do you suppose is manipulating it?

Tell us again, how many hours has it been since you entered the business?

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]

[quote=bankrep1]30 companies. Not really if a compnay starts to look bad they will replace it. Think about all of the moves they have made in the past.[/quote]

So you're saying that the Dow Industrials is a manipulated stock index and cannot be relied to as an indicator of anything?[/quote]

Don't tell me Putsy thinks the Dow 30 has been the same stocks since inception....

Putsy looks like you need an edamacation:



According to Dow Jones, the industrial average started out with 12 stocks in 1896. For all of you trivia buffs out there, those original stocks and their fates are as follows: American Cotton Oil (traces remain in CPC International), American Sugar (eventually became Amstar Holdings), American Tobacco (killed by antitrust action in 1911), Chicago Gas (absorbed by Peoples Gas), Distilling and Cattle Feeding (evolved into Quantum Chemical), General Electric (the only survivor), Laclede Gas (now Laclede Group but not in the index), National Lead (now NL Industries but not in the index), North American (group of utilities broken up in 1940s), Tennesee Coal and Iron (gobbled up by U.S. Steel), U.S. Leather preferred (vanished around 1952), and U.S. Rubber (became Uniroyal, in turn bought by Michelin). The number of stocks was increased to 20 in 1916. The 30-stock average made its debut in 1928, and the number has remained constant ever since.



Here are some of the recent changes.



On 17 March 1997, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson, Travelers Group, and Wal-Mart joined the average, replacing Bethlehem Steel, Texaco, Westinghouse Electric and Woolworth.

In 1998, Travelers Group merged with CitiBank, and the new entity, CitiGroup, replaced the Travelers Group.

On 1 November 1999, Home Depot, Intel, Microsoft, and SBC Communications joined the average, replacing Union Carbide, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Sears, and Chevron.

Between 1999 and 2004, several stocks in the index merged and/or changed names: Exxon became Exxon-Mobil after their merger; Allied-Signal merged with Honeywell and kept the Honeywell name; JP Morgan became JP Morgan Chase after their merger; Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing offically became 3M Corp; and Philip Morris renamed itself Altria.

On 8 April 2004, American International Group, Pfizer, and Verizon joined the average, replacing AT&T, Eastman Kodak, and International Paper.

Does this look manipulated to you? Or could it just be a broad measure of our economy going forward. To say 6000 is to say, no area of our economy will be making money more so than today. I don’t buy it.

[quote=bankrep1]Does this look manipulated to you? Or could it just be a broad measure of our economy going forward. To say 6000 is to say, no area of our economy will be making money more so than today. I don't buy it.[/quote]

The Dow has been cut in half several times.  I watched it drop from +/- 1,000 to about 575 in the 1970s--in the previous decades the declines were even greater.

It is nonsense to believe that it is not possible for earnings to decline.

Tell us again, how many minutes have you been in the business?

Just a few and I have managed to acquire more knowledge than you’ll ever have. First no one should invest in the DJIA with their portfolio so who really cares, my point is if the index is falling consistently for reasons more than the fear of a bear market they will address the issue. Don’t you think things are a little more proactive today than in the past?



That is like saying don’t put your money in a bank because I was around for the depression. or stocks are a bad investment because one day in 1987 people lost alot of money.

[quote=bankrep1]Just a few and I have managed to acquire more knowledge than you'll ever have. First no one should invest in the DJIA with their portfolio so who really cares, my point is if the index is falling consistently for reasons more than the fear of a bear market they will address the issue. Don't you think things are a little more proactive today than in the past?

That is like saying don't put your money in a bank because I was around for the depression. or stocks are a bad investment because one day in 1987 people lost alot of money.[/quote]

What do you mean when you use the word "proactive?"  Are you suggesting that decision makers will simply replace underperforming stocks with others simply because they are underperforming?

When Kodak was dropped from the Dow did that mean that people who were invested in Kodak lost even more, or did they lose less--why do you suppose Kodak was dropped at all?

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]

[quote=bankrep1]30 companies. Not really if a compnay starts to look bad they will replace it. Think about all of the moves they have made in the past.[/quote]

So you're saying that the Dow Industrials is a manipulated stock index and cannot be relied to as an indicator of anything?

Who do you suppose is manipulating it?

Tell us again, how many hours has it been since you entered the business?

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]

It is nonsense to believe that it is not possible for earnings to decline.

[/quote]

No one's ever said it wasn't possible, but don't let that stop you, old timer.

On 17 March 1997, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson, Travelers Group, and Wal-Mart joined the average, replacing Bethlehem Steel, Texaco, Westinghouse Electric and Woolworth.

In 1998, Travelers Group merged with CitiBank, and the new entity, CitiGroup, replaced the Travelers Group.

On 1 November 1999, Home Depot, Intel, Microsoft, and SBC Communications joined the average, replacing Union Carbide, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Sears, and Chevron.

Between 1999 and 2004, several stocks in the index merged and/or changed names: Exxon became Exxon-Mobil after their merger; Allied-Signal merged with Honeywell and kept the Honeywell name; JP Morgan became JP Morgan Chase after their merger; Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing offically became 3M Corp; and Philip Morris renamed itself Altria.

On 8 April 2004, American International Group, Pfizer, and Verizon joined the average, replacing AT&T, Eastman Kodak, and International Paper.



This really opens one’s eye’s. ‘’’’???

[quote=bankrep1]

According to Dow Jones, the industrial average started out with 12 stocks in 1896. For all of you trivia buffs out there, those original stocks and their fates are as follows: American Cotton Oil (traces remain in CPC International), American Sugar (eventually became Amstar Holdings), American Tobacco (killed by antitrust action in 1911), Chicago Gas (absorbed by Peoples Gas), Distilling and Cattle Feeding (evolved into Quantum Chemical), General Electric (the only survivor), Laclede Gas (now Laclede Group but not in the index), National Lead (now NL Industries but not in the index), North American (group of utilities broken up in 1940s), Tennesee Coal and Iron (gobbled up by U.S. Steel), U.S. Leather preferred (vanished around 1952), and U.S. Rubber (became Uniroyal, in turn bought by Michelin). The number of stocks was increased to 20 in 1916. The 30-stock average made its debut in 1928, and the number has remained constant ever since.

Here are some of the recent changes.

On 17 March 1997, Hewlett-Packard, Johnson & Johnson, Travelers Group, and Wal-Mart joined the average, replacing Bethlehem Steel, Texaco, Westinghouse Electric and Woolworth.
In 1998, Travelers Group merged with CitiBank, and the new entity, CitiGroup, replaced the Travelers Group.
On 1 November 1999, Home Depot, Intel, Microsoft, and SBC Communications joined the average, replacing Union Carbide, Goodyear Tire & Rubber, Sears, and Chevron.
Between 1999 and 2004, several stocks in the index merged and/or changed names: Exxon became Exxon-Mobil after their merger; Allied-Signal merged with Honeywell and kept the Honeywell name; JP Morgan became JP Morgan Chase after their merger; Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing offically became 3M Corp; and Philip Morris renamed itself Altria.
On 8 April 2004, American International Group, Pfizer, and Verizon joined the average, replacing AT&T, Eastman Kodak, and International Paper. [/quote]

It's really wild to see it all listed out like that.  Sometimes I forget just how often it does change.  Thanks Bank.

I think what I mean by proactive is that in todays world we don’t wait and see what happens. Sometimes this is good and sometimes it is bad. There is no argument that the index changes have occurred more frequently in the last 10 years than the prior ten and the ten before that and the ten before that. This is a trend you will continue to see as the Dow marches on upward.



Kodak shareholders didn’t need any help losing money, they were a victim of technological change and the company failed to respond to those changes fast enough. It was no longer a top business and replaced with something with a rosier future.

[quote=bankrep1]I think what I mean by proactive is that in todays world we don't wait and see what happens. Sometimes this is good and sometimes it is bad. There is no argument that the index changes have occurred more frequently in the last 10 years than the prior ten and the ten before that and the ten before that. This is a trend you will continue to see as the Dow marches on upward.

Kodak shareholders didn't need any help losing money, they were a victim of technological change and the company failed to respond to those changes fast enough. It was no longer a top business and replaced with something with a rosier future.[/quote]

So you're saying that the Dow is a manipulated index--if a company's future appears bleak just take it out of the index altogether, that way everything is always upbeat.

What happens when all the companies in the country experience declines in sales because the country is in a recession?  Is it wrong to conclude that stocks will go down because earnings go down?

Oh wait, I forgot.  Earnings never go down.  My bad.

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]Has the Dow hit 12,000?[/quote]

Yes...but it was a short stay this morning.  Long enough to say the banker was right, though.

[quote=Indyone]

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]Has the Dow hit 12,000?[/quote]

Yes...but it was a short stay this morning.  Long enough to say the banker was right, though.

[/quote]

If you're playing tennis and have your opponent down five games to love, and forty love in the final game--but end up losing do you get credit for the win because you were close enough for a few minutes?

The Dow will be considered to have been at 12,000 if it closes there, until it does intraday celebrations are meaningless.

Is 12,000 going to become a support zone, next stop 20,000? 

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone][quote=Indyone]

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]Has the Dow hit 12,000?[/quote]

Yes...but it was a short stay this morning.  Long enough to say the banker was right, though.

[/quote]

If you're playing tennis and have your opponent down five games to love, and forty love in the final game--but end up losing do you get credit for the win because you were close enough for a few minutes?[/quote]

You might not have noticed this, Putsy, but unlike tennis, the market "game" never ends.

Why not have the grace to admit you were wrong and that the young whippersnapper was right? When he made his call the air was thick with "older, wiser" reps (who are now strangely quiet) giving lessons on how they were preparing for the coming decline and how everyone with a positive market outlook was a fool.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=mikebutler222]

You might not have noticed this, Putsy, but unlike tennis, the market "game" never ends.

Why not have the grace to admit you were wrong and that the young whippersnapper was right? When he made his call the air was thick with "older, wiser" reps (who are now strangely quiet) giving lessons on how they were preparing for the coming decline and how everyone with a positive market outlook was a fool.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[/quote]

There are three ways to look at the Dow Industrials--the close, the intra-day high, and the theoretical high.

The standard by which it is measured is the close.  It has yet to close at 12,000.

If it does should we all just forget about the downside--there will never be a decline, so it's not necessary to consider defensive strategies?

Will a bell be rung to let us know when to sell?  Should we ever sell, or should we just hold on because earnings always go up so the market will always go up?

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]

If it does should we all just forget about the downside--there will never be a decline, so it's not necessary to consider defensive strategies?[/quote]

Why change the subject to a strawman of your own creation, Putsy? No one ever said forget the downside.

Give the kid his due, you bitter old low-level management blood sucker.

[quote=mikebutler222]

Why change the subject to a strawman of your own creation, Putsy? No one ever said forget the downside.

[/quote]

Do you agree with the kid, that the Dow will NEVER decline 50%?

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]

[quote=mikebutler222]

Why change the subject to a strawman of your own creation, Putsy? No one ever said forget the downside.

[/quote]

Do you agree with the kid, that the Dow will NEVER decline 50%?

[/quote]

He never said that.

Are you saying that it will never go to 20,000?  Or are you just rolling on the floor puking blood because you shorted the market?

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]

[quote=mikebutler222]

Why change the subject to a strawman of your own creation, Putsy? No one ever said forget the downside.

[/quote]

Do you agree with the kid, that the Dow will NEVER decline 50%?

[/quote]

"Will"? No, it won't. "Can't"? Of course it can.

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]

[quote=mikebutler222]

Why change the subject to a strawman of your own creation, Putsy? No one ever said forget the downside.

[/quote]

Do you agree with the kid, that the Dow will NEVER decline 50%?

[/quote]

Putsy, stop trying to change the subject and give the kid his due, you dried up out corner office maggot 

Soon 2 B Back,

You were the one that said the DOW would hit 6,000 before it would hit 12,000.  Give the man credit, his prediction was more accurate than yours.

Even if the DOW hits 6000 by year end, it achieved 12,000 (albeit briefly) first. 

I don't think the DOW will hit 6000 although it certainly is possible. 

out = old

[quote=dude]

Soon 2 B Back,

You were the one that said the DOW would hit 6,000 before it would hit 12,000.  Give the man credit, his prediction was more accurate than yours.

Even if the DOW hits 6000 by year end, it achieved 12,000 (albeit briefly) first. 

I don't think the DOW will hit 6000 although it certainly is possible. 

[/quote]

I believe what I was saying was that the Dow would hit 7,500 before it hit 12,000.  It has yet to close at 12,000 so I am not yet wrong, although I admit that it is closer to 12,000 than to 7,500.

The child put up the smiley face icon and declared that the Dow would hit 12,000 because earnings never go down--therefore prices never go down.  Why his average account is worth $67,000 and he's been in the business for a great many hours.

Why wouldn't everybody have faith in that prediction.

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone][quote=dude]

Soon 2 B Back,

You were the one that said the DOW would hit 6,000 before it would hit 12,000.  Give the man credit, his prediction was more accurate than yours.

Even if the DOW hits 6000 by year end, it achieved 12,000 (albeit briefly) first. 

I don't think the DOW will hit 6000 although it certainly is possible. 

[/quote]

I believe what I was saying was that the Dow would hit 7,500 before it hit 12,000.  It has yet to close at 12,000 so I am not yet wrong, although I admit that it is closer to 12,000 than to 7,500.

The child put up the smiley face icon and declared that the Dow would hit 12,000 because earnings never go down--therefore prices never go down.  Why his average account is worth $67,000 and he's been in the business for a great many hours.

Why wouldn't everybody have faith in that prediction.

[/quote]

You never said that here, and he never said that here.

From where do you get these preposterous notions, or won't the voices tell you who they are? 

I'm not "big" on technical analysis, but a guy on CNBC just said that the pit traders add the previous trading range--10,900 to 11,700, or 800 points--to the previous high to determine the new range.

So, according to them the support zone is now 11,700 and resistance is at 12,500.

The Money Honey is talking about the Dow's history and they're pointing out that 11,000 Dow first occured in May, 1999--so it took seven years to gain 1,000 points.  Less than 10% over 7 years is hardly anything to write home about.

Anybody figure we'll see Dow 13,000 this year?  Next year?

Newbie I hate to tell you I told you so, but…



I need a new tagline now.

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]The Money Honey is talking about the Dow's history and they're pointing out that 11,000 Dow first occured in May, 1999--so it took seven years to gain 1,000 points.  Less than 10% over 7 years is hardly anything to write home about.[/quote]

The fact that it took seven years to move less than 10%, while earnings moved 75% is a pretty good argument against a collapse.  A pullback...maybe, but I don't see any near-term collapse to 6,000.  Stocks are certainly cheaper, even now, than they were in the late 90's.

[quote=Indyone]

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]The Money Honey is talking about the Dow's history and they're pointing out that 11,000 Dow first occured in May, 1999--so it took seven years to gain 1,000 points.  Less than 10% over 7 years is hardly anything to write home about.[/quote]

The fact that it took seven years to move less than 10%, while earnings moved 75% is a pretty good argument against a collapse.  A pullback...maybe, but I don't see any near-term collapse to 6,000.  Stocks are certainly cheaper, even now, than they were in the late 90's.

[/quote]

Say what?  From where I sit if a 75% gain in earnings only results in a 10% gain in valuations one must ask what will happen if there is only a 50% gain in earnings, or a 25% gain, or a 15% decline in earnings.

Oh wait, I forgot. Earnings cannot decline.  My bad.

[quote=Soon 2 B Gone]The Money Honey is talking about the Dow’s history and they’re pointing out that 11,000 Dow first occured in May, 1999–so it took seven years to gain 1,000 points.  Less than 10% over 7 years is hardly anything to write home about.[/quote]

That would be true only for those people who bought the high 7 years ago.  Buying at any other point during those 7 years would have resulted in a heck of a lot more than 10%.

Wonder if people on wall street were to say negative things about the market… Would they be fired?



Even now when the Fed chair accidently says what he means there is a ripple of concern and he is blasted.



I remember a time when the .com… Everyone on Wall Street had a buy, but at the same time in the back rooms they were all sell. In the end I think most weathered the storm, but something like integrity is missing. GO PFE up from 20.

BankRep,

Congrats for putting your cojones on the line and making a bold statement.  No matter how some on here squirm over symantics, you were right.

Cheers!

Yaaaaaaayyy!  Newbie is officially wrong!!!  Dow close...12,011.73.

S2BG...give the banker his due!!!

Tell me Indy, if you had some serious money would you turn it over to the young man who declared that the Dow would hit 12,000 because earnings never go down so the Dow has to go up?

Tomorrow you will be fielding calls from clients who are asking if they should sell, to take their profits while they have them.

What are you going to tell them?

I'm already advising them to take some profits off the table.

...and I invest my own "serious money"...

(btw...he was still right about 12,000...)

This old man is pathetic… Lets just visualize for a moment… This guy sitting in his one bedroom apartment in NYC, bound to a laptop to receive his only source of joy in life… Addicted to several websites related to this industry, spouting off knowledge on 100% of the topics, while truly making intelligent comments on about 6% of them…

[quote=Indyone]

I'm already advising them to take some profits off the table.

...and I invest my own "serious money"...

[/quote]

If you tell them to take their profits and the market continues to soar how will you explain why you didn't know that it would continue to soar?

That’s why you tell them to take SOME profits, dummy!

[quote=Indyone]That's why you tell them to take SOME profits, dummy![/quote]

So you're admiting that your advice is a hedge--that you really don't have a clue to what the market is going to do.

Would that be wrong?

[quote=Indyone]That’s why you tell them to take SOME profits, dummy!

So you're admiting that your advice is a hedge--that you really don't have a clue to what the market is going to do.

Would that be wrong?[/quote]

Not in my book.  Yes, I'm hedging and while I feel like I have a clue, I don't have any absolute conviction about where things are going short-term.  I'm on the record with my conviction that a Democratic sweep of both houses next month would probably be bad for the market in the short-term, but other than that, my only conviction is that long-term, the stock market will rise.

[quote=Indyone]

but other than that, my only conviction is that long-term, the stock market will rise.[/quote]

That would be because earnings always go up?

What if a guy is 63 years old.  In order to reach a goal he has set for his portfolio he must average 20% return for three years.

What should he do?

What would you say the odds are that somebody could entrust you with $100,000 and walk away after twenty years having done no better than they would have done in a pass book savings account?

[quote=Indyone]but other than that, my only conviction is that long-term, the stock market will rise.

That would be because earnings always go up?  Ummmmm...no...that's not my statement.

What if a guy is 63 years old.  In order to reach a goal he has set for his portfolio he must average 20% return for three years.

What should he do?  Find another advisor...I'm not interested.[/quote]

[quote=Devil'sAdvocate]What would you say the odds are that somebody could entrust you with $100,000 and walk away after twenty years having done no better than they would have done in a pass book savings account?[/quote]

Those odds would be pretty damn small...

[quote=Indyone]

[quote=Devil'sAdvocate]What would you say the odds are that somebody could entrust you with $100,000 and walk away after twenty years having done no better than they would have done in a pass book savings account?[/quote]

Those odds would be pretty damn small...

[/quote]

So, you're not confident enough to say that you definitely can beat a pass book savings account?

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Indyone]

but other than that, my only conviction is that long-term, the stock market will rise.[/quote]

That would be because earnings always go up?

What if a guy is 63 years old.  In order to reach a goal he has set for his portfolio he must average 20% return for three years.

What should he do?

[/quote]

He needs to get a reality check and revise his goals.

[quote=Indyone] [quote=Devil’sAdvocate]What would you say the odds are that somebody could entrust you with $100,000 and walk away after twenty years having done no better than they would have done in a pass book savings account?

Those odds would be pretty damn small...[/quote]

So, you're not confident enough to say that you definitely can beat a pass book savings account?[/quote]

No, just not stupid enough to guarantee it.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=Indyone] [quote=Devil’sAdvocate]What would you say the odds are that somebody could entrust you with $100,000 and walk away after twenty years having done no better than they would have done in a pass book savings account?

Those odds would be pretty damn small...[/quote]

So, you're not confident enough to say that you definitely can beat a pass book savings account?[/quote]

No, just not stupid enough to guarantee it.

[/quote]

Why should somebody hire an advisor with so little confidence?

[quote=Indyone][quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=Indyone] [quote=Devil’sAdvocate]What would you say the odds are that somebody could entrust you with $100,000 and walk away after twenty years having done no better than they would have done in a pass book savings account?

Those odds would be pretty damn small...[/quote]

So, you're not confident enough to say that you definitely can beat a pass book savings account?[/quote]

No, just not stupid enough to guarantee it.

[/quote]

Why should somebody hire an advisor with so little confidence?

[/quote]

You're trying to hard.

Hard is not a verb.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Indyone]

but other than that, my only conviction is that long-term, the stock market will rise.[/quote]

That would be because earnings always go up?

What if a guy is 63 years old.  In order to reach a goal he has set for his portfolio he must average 20% return for three years.

What should he do?

That 63 year old guy wanting a 20% average return for 3 years needs to be told he has unreasonable expectations.  No reputable financial advisor would even touch this guy.

Also, you could easily beat a passbook savings account by something as simple as a money market.  Wouldn't give him his 20% return, but would be more than a passbook.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=Indyone]

but other than that, my only conviction is that long-term, the stock market will rise.[/quote]

That would be because earnings always go up?

What if a guy is 63 years old.  In order to reach a goal he has set for his portfolio he must average 20% return for three years.

What should he do?

[/quote]

pray
[/quote]

Is that the best you can come up with?

Lol, Newbie is posting at 5:14 AM!!!!!

Let me ask you, how bad does it feel to know you are so completely addicted to an internet forum?

I'm sure you can relate to those addicted to porn, or chatting online with 12 year olds, who time after time just can't seem to look away or turn the computer off.

It is sad indeed to be you.

[quote=Devil'sAdvocate] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[What if a guy is 63 years old.  In order to reach a goal he has set for his portfolio he must average 20% return for three years.

What should he do?

[/quote]

He should hire an adviser who will tell him his expectations are outlandish and would ask him if he’s considered the risk he’d have to take to make anywhere near that sort of return (assuming the markets would even be cooperative).

[quote=BankFC]

Lol, Newbie is posting at 5:14 AM!!!!!

[/quote]

The board's time is central time.  6:15 in New York is hardly early for those with ambition and an interest in what is going on in the world.

Today is options expiration and I have some fairly significant positions to unwind--took a hit this time.  One can't hit a winner everytime--but October has screwed me over for two years now.

I'm surprised that a producing broker is not on line earlier than 6 AM every day just to see what is going on in the world.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

What would you say the odds are that somebody could entrust you with $100,000 and walk away after twenty years having done no better than they would have done in a pass book savings account?

[/quote]

Eleventykabillion to 1. 

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

What would you say the odds are that somebody could entrust you with $100,000 and walk away after twenty years having done no better than they would have done in a pass book savings account?

[/quote]

Eleventykabillion to 1. 

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=BankFC]

Lol, Newbie is posting at 5:14 AM!!!!!

[/quote]

The board's time is central time.  6:15 in New York is hardly early for those with ambition and an interest in what is going on in the world.

Today is options expiration and I have some fairly significant positions to unwind--took a hit this time.  One can't hit a winner everytime--but October has screwed me over for two years now.

I'm surprised that a producing broker is not on line earlier than 6 AM every day just to see what is going on in the world.

[/quote]

You weren't on CNN.com or Foxnews.com, you were here.  You were posting on an internet forum from which you cannot make yourself break away.  You are sadly addicted, and denial of your addiction is predictable.

[quote=BankFC]

You weren't on CNN.com or Foxnews.com, you were here.  You were posting on an internet forum from which you cannot make yourself break away.  You are sadly addicted, and denial of your addiction is predictable.[/quote]

Actually I had been up since about five--read all my usual websites, checked the status of my account, read all the news items about the stocks I follow, and had Bloomberg TV going.

What time do you get up to stay on top of things?

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=mikebutler222][quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

What would you say the odds are that somebody could entrust you with $100,000 and walk away after twenty years having done no better than they would have done in a pass book savings account?

[/quote]

Eleventykabillion to 1. 

[/quote]

oh mike do you think that is funny to use the term "eleventy kabillion"?

(I do!)
[/quote]

I do, and your check for what you're due as copyright owner is in the mail...

Let me ask you a few questions.

If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately?

Is my job to regurgatate what the talking heads say each morning to my clients?  Is it to make a baseless prediction on which way one index or another is going to move?

Or is it to guide my clients to prudent long term investments based on what THEY TELL ME is what they want to accomplish as well as how much risk they wish to take in getting those things accomplished?

Should I change my means and methods everytime foreign country poses a threat?  How about every time there is a spinach or lettuce recall, should I make a change to something? 

I keep up with the news, but I has little to do with how I help people manage their own money. (Read this sentence carefully).

As if there is any doubt, this above question is aimed at DA, although obviously anyone is free to respond.

[quote=BankFC]

If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately?

[/quote]

No I do not think you could perform your duties adequately.

I think the best thing about this career is how it is constantly changing.  Why do you think traders pay moment to moment attention to what is going on?  The other day, when Corey Litle flew his plane into the building, the market sold off 70 points in a matter of minutes.  That is because the traders have one eye on what they're trading and the other eye on the news.

I understand the difference between short term trading and investing--however, your clients will assume you're very well informed and you'll have zero credibility if you can't talk to them about current events.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=BankFC]

If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately?

[/quote]

No I do not think you could perform your duties adequately.

I think the best thing about this career is how it is constantly changing.  Why do you think traders pay moment to moment attention to what is going on?  The other day, when Corey Litle flew his plane into the building, the market sold off 70 points in a matter of minutes.  That is because the traders have one eye on what they're trading and the other eye on the news.

[/quote]

Do you think what a retail broker in Atlanta does and what a floor trader on Wall Street does is the same job?  Do you think it should be performed the same way?

[quote=BankFC]

Do you think what a retail broker in Atlanta does and what a floor trader on Wall Street does is the same job?  Do you think it should be performed the same way?[/quote]

Of course the two jobs cannot be performed the same way--however, both damn well better be staying on top of what is going on.

Are you trying to justify not being bright enough to pay attention?

No, I am simply reinforcing the incorrectness of your assertion that being up at 5:00 am every looking at internet websites in beneficial in performing the duties of a retail financial advisor.

A general knowledge of world events is a good thing, and can easily be attained in 15 to 20 minutes a day, any time of day. 

You are losing this discussion (and losing it badly) so now you will stoop to insults...it is and always has been your final line of defense in debates on this board you cannot win.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

Are you trying to justify not being bright enough to pay attention?

[/quote]

Are you trying to justify not being bright enough to use your time wisely?

I would suggest you not debate me on this one either, considering the amount of time you send on this board, the discussion would be over before it even would begin.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

[quote=BankFC]

Do you think what a retail broker in Atlanta does and what a floor trader on Wall Street does is the same job?  Do you think it should be performed the same way?[/quote]

Of course the two jobs cannot be performed the same way--however, both damn well better be staying on top of what is going on.

Are you trying to justify not being bright enough to pay attention?

[quote=BankFC]

Let me ask you a few questions.

If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately? [/quote]

No.

[quote=BankFC]

Is my job to regurgatate what the talking heads say each morning to my clients?  Is it to make a baseless prediction on which way one index or another is going to move? [/quote]

No.

[quote=BankFC]Or is it to guide my clients to prudent long term investments based on what THEY TELL ME is what they want to accomplish as well as how much risk they wish to take in getting those things accomplished? [/quote]

The "or" in your question makes it a non-sequitar.

[quote=BankFC]

Should I change my means and methods everytime foreign country poses a threat?  How about every time there is a spinach or lettuce recall, should I make a change to something?  [/quote]

No. OTOH, part of your "means and methods" should consider the possibility of taking advantage of opportunities.

[quote=BankFC]

I keep up with the news, but I has little to do with how I help people manage their own money. (Read this sentence carefully).

[/quote]

You seem to believe that world events and the market have zero effects on your client's plans and/or their confidence in the ability of your plan to achieve intended goals. You also seem to think there's no room to adjust positions and take tactical advantage of situations.

Could it be because your business model forces you to ignore those things, since working with most accounts "once a year" as you told us, makes it impossible to take advantage of shorter term shifts and tactical opportunities?

He truly doesn't...when he loses a discussion like this he won't admit defeat.  He will simply fade off into inumerable other threads.

He is a sad sack indeed.

[quote=BankFC][quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

Are you trying to justify not being bright enough to pay attention?

[/quote]

Are you trying to justify not being bright enough to use your time wisely?

I would suggest you not debate me on this one either, considering the amount of time you send on this board, the discussion would be over before it even would begin.

[/quote]

I am retired on a pension that throws off about $20,000 per month and have more other assets than I could spend in two lifetimes.  I've been there and done that already.

Who am I short changing by spending my time flipping back and forth between this forum and the flickering numbers?

[quote=BankFC]

He truly doesn't...when he loses a discussion like this he won't admit defeat.  He will simply fade off into inumerable other threads.

He is a sad sack indeed.

[/quote]

Who does't what?

Just yourself and the few unseasoned folks who come here seeking information (that those of us who COULD answer might), and yet their topic is hijacked by your dribble and rhetoric.

[quote=BankFC]

Just yourself and the few unseasoned folks who come here seeking information (that those of us who COULD answer might), and yet their topic is hijacked by your dribble and rhetoric.

[/quote]

Poor baby, somebody points out that your wrong and you consider the thread to have been hijacked?

If one of the adults says something that hurts your feelings why not dispute the statement rather than whining about it?

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=BankFC]

Let me ask you a few questions.

If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately? [/quote]

No.

[quote=BankFC]

Is my job to regurgatate what the talking heads say each morning to my clients?  Is it to make a baseless prediction on which way one index or another is going to move? [/quote]

No.

[quote=BankFC]Or is it to guide my clients to prudent long term investments based on what THEY TELL ME is what they want to accomplish as well as how much risk they wish to take in getting those things accomplished? [/quote]

The "or" in your question makes it a non-sequitar.

[quote=BankFC]

Should I change my means and methods everytime foreign country poses a threat?  How about every time there is a spinach or lettuce recall, should I make a change to something?  [/quote]

No. OTOH, part of your "means and methods" should consider the possibility of taking advantage of opportunities.

[quote=BankFC]

I keep up with the news, but I has little to do with how I help people manage their own money. (Read this sentence carefully).

[/quote]

You seem to believe that world events and the market have zero effects on your client's plans and/or their confidence in the ability of your plan to achieve intended goals. You also seem to think there's no room to adjust positions and take tactical advantage of situations.

Could it be because your business model forces you to ignore those things, since working with most accounts "once a year" as you told us, makes it impossible to take advantage of shorter term shifts and tactical opportunities?

[/quote]

Your "no" responses are baseless as you back them up with nothing, but since they support my point I really don't care.

As far as "taking advantage of opportunities," that's just a nice way of saying speculation.  Any speculation that will occur in my client's portfolios will occur within the mutual fund, VA sub-account, SMA, or other vehicle that has been allocated for such growth oriented goals.

I would greatly appreciate you to quote me where I have contended that I feel "world events or the market have no effect on your (my) client's plans..." 

I never said that, however I did debate the effectiveness of getting up at 5:00 am to read the news in order to be an effective advisor.  Care to debate that also?

My business model does not "force" me to ignore these things, rather it ELLIVIATES me from being FORCED to constantly watch these things. 

Also, please quote me as to where I told you I work with most accounts once a year.

If you are going to debate me, fine.  But to make FALSE statements is cowardly and childish.  If you can back the aforementioned statements up with quotes, I will agree with you. 

Otherwise I am calling your bluff.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=BankFC]

Just yourself and the few unseasoned folks who come here seeking information (that those of us who COULD answer might), and yet their topic is hijacked by your dribble and rhetoric.

[/quote]

Poor baby, somebody points out that your wrong and you consider the thread to have been hijacked?

If one of the adults says something that hurts your feelings why not dispute the statement rather than whining about it?

[/quote]

See my previous quote about insults.  You just declared me superior to you, and your admiration is...cute, in a pathetic kind of way.

Typical Gen X slacker--grasping for reasons to excuse profound ignorance.

Do you know who the Secretary of the Treasury is?

According to Google, it is John W. Snow.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

Typical Gen X slacker--grasping for reasons to excuse profound ignorance.

Do you know who the Secretary of the Treasury is?

[/quote]

Typical geriatric old geezer...complaining for the sake of complaining, with no base to back his claims. 

Do you think the image of the Gen X slacker is made of whole cloth?  There are tens of millions of you, out there not even knowing what you don't know.

It would be fun to see if you can get a participant on this forum who is over age 40 who believes that one can be an effective financial advisor without being aware of what is going on around them?

There is more to life than your iPod and Xbox.

Devil, if you're not articulate enough to know the difference between "your" and "you're", you must be too stupid to have any valid opinions.

You may now slink away in shame.

[quote=BankFC][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BankFC] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

Let me ask you a few questions.

If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately? [/quote]

No.

[quote=BankFC]

Is my job to regurgatate what the talking heads say each morning to my clients?  Is it to make a baseless prediction on which way one index or another is going to move? [/quote]

No.

[quote=BankFC]Or is it to guide my clients to prudent long term investments based on what THEY TELL ME is what they want to accomplish as well as how much risk they wish to take in getting those things accomplished? [/quote]

The "or" in your question makes it a non-sequitar.

[quote=BankFC]

Should I change my means and methods everytime foreign country poses a threat?  How about every time there is a spinach or lettuce recall, should I make a change to something?  [/quote]

No. OTOH, part of your "means and methods" should consider the possibility of taking advantage of opportunities.

[quote=BankFC]

I keep up with the news, but I has little to do with how I help people manage their own money. (Read this sentence carefully).

[/quote]

You seem to believe that world events and the market have zero effects on your client's plans and/or their confidence in the ability of your plan to achieve intended goals. You also seem to think there's no room to adjust positions and take tactical advantage of situations.

Could it be because your business model forces you to ignore those things, since working with most accounts "once a year" as you told us, makes it impossible to take advantage of shorter term shifts and tactical opportunities?

[/quote]

Your "no" responses are baseless as you back them up with nothing, but since they support my point I really don't care. [/quote]

You asked, I answered. You didn't ask for details.

[quote=BankFC]As far as "taking advantage of opportunities," that's just a nice way of saying speculation. [/quote]

No, it isn't. It's the professional’s way of making the point that, for example, when interest rates are in a rapid climb, you just don't buy long term bonds. When internet stocks are selling at tulip fever levels, you don’t buy a Janus fund that specializes in them. Don't confuse tactical moves for "speculation".

Another example; for the past 5 years I’ve underweighted large cap growth SMAs in my client’s accounts in favor of LC value. That’s not “speculation” that’s taking advantage of a trend anyone even marginally informed could spot.

[quote=BankFC]

I would greatly appreciate you to quote me where I have contended that I feel "world events or the market have no effect on your (my) client's plans..."   [/quote]

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "You seem to believe". Don't be foolish, I didn't "quote" you,and it’s childish to assert otherwise. You do understand the common rules of punctuation, right?  I gave you the implications of your "If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately?" question, and I stand by it.

[quote=BankFC]I never said that,…[/quote]

And I never “quoted” you.

[quote=BankFC]My business model does not "force" me to ignore these things, rather it ELLIVIATES me from being FORCED to constantly watch these things.  [/quote]

You really think your business model puts you in a position where world and market events don’t mean anything as to how you handle client’s assets and how you deal with their concerns? Really?

[quote=BankFC]Also, please quote me as to where I told you I work with most accounts once a year. [/quote]

For this one you have a valid point. I was quoting bankrep1;

[quote=bankrep1]I service all accounts under 100K a year, one time per year when they are dropping off a check usually.[/quote]

You have my apologies on that one, now, could one of you change your friggin’ names? They’re far too close.

[quote=bankrep1]If you are going to debate me, fine.  But to make FALSE statements is cowardly and childish.  If you can back the aforementioned statements up with quotes, I will agree with you. 

Otherwise I am calling your bluff.

[/quote]

Call whatever you like, Bank. I’ve apologized for confusing you with bankrep on the one comment, the other was not a quote, no matter how you want to twist it. Don’t work yourself into such a hole that you find many people here have to grudgingly agree with Putzy against you.

I’m happy to say it again, if you like, anyone who asks this question; “If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately?” is either joking or doesn’t understand his role.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]I think the best thing about this career is how it is constantly changing.  Why do you think traders pay moment to moment attention to what is going on?  The other day, when Corey Litle flew his plane into the building, the market sold off 70 points in a matter of minutes.  That is because the traders have one eye on what they’re trading and the other eye on the news.[/quote]

Actually, since the S&P futures are the tail that wags the dog, you are referring to S&P traders…most of whom are systems traders that rely solely on technical data.  They never watch the news. The news is meaningless. They let the movements of the market tell them what’s going on in the world.

[quote=mktsystms]

Actually, since the S&P futures are the tail that wags the dog, you are referring to S&P traders...most of whom are systems traders that rely solely on technical data.  They never watch the news. The news is meaningless. They let the movements of the market tell them what's going on in the world.
[/quote]

So you're saying that if at noon on a Wednesday an atom bomb went off in Dallas the S&P traders would not know about it, they would simply allow the market to tell them something must have happened and go from there?

It is my experience that pit traders wear ear pieces so that they can be in constant touch with what is happening--voices are telling them second by second what is going on in the world, in other pits, and so forth.

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]So you’re saying that if at noon on a Wednesday an atom bomb went off in Dallas the S&P traders would not know about it, they would simply allow the market to tell them something must have happened and go from there?[/quote]

I’m telling you that from a trader’s prospective, what goes on in the world is meaningless to their trades.  The only thing that matters are the price movements of the market. The big guns all trade systems.  Systems are developed from many decades of market data (tick by tick.)  News and current events are not part of the data, and are not part of the systems.

[quote=Devil'sAdvocate]

It is my experience that pit traders wear ear pieces so that they can be in constant touch with what is happening--voices are telling them second by second what is going on in the world, in other pits, and so forth.[/quote]

I'm curious why you feel the futures are the tail that wags the dog.

I can't imagine that the futures traders, even with exceptionally favorable margin requirements, can execute enough volume in the 500 stocks to cause the index to move favorably.

I know that on expiration day--today for example--individual equities can behave very strangely and end up closing at strike prices in far too many occassions than the law of averages would justify.

But 500 issues, every day?  Nah, not for me.

If your idea of systems used by the big traders is so fool proof why would anybody attempt to trade without it?

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]I’m curious why you feel the futures are the tail that wags the dog.

I can't imagine that the futures traders, even with exceptionally favorable margin requirements, can execute enough volume in the 500 stocks to cause the index to move favorably.[/quote]

[quote=Devil'sAdvocate]

But 500 issues, every day?  Nah, not for me.[/quote]

[quote=Devil'sAdvocate]

If your idea of systems used by the big traders is so fool proof why would anybody attempt to trade without it?[/quote]

[quote=mktsystms]

Huh?  You obviously have no clue about this topic.

Futures traders don't trade stocks. The S&P futures are traded in Chicago at the Merc.  The futures market doesn't have the restrictions of movement that the cash market has. (for example, like only being able to short on an up tick.)  The futures market is ALWAYS ahead of the cash market. (well, almost always...like 99.9% of the time.) What happens in the S&P futures is then transferred into cash market by way of arbitrage (have you never heard of buy and/or sell programs?,) and that is why the S&P futures are the tail that wags the dog.  When you sit and watch your TV, and you see the DOW and the SPX move, what you don't realize is that the futures market has already made that move, about 30 seconds beforehand.  Just go into a brokerage firm sometime, and put up a real time tick chart of the S&P futures next to a real time tick chart of the SPX (the cash market)  The charts will be identical, except the cash will be following what the futures have already done.

[/quote]

You said the tail wags the dog--what that means is that the S&P goes up BECAUSE THE FUTURES went up.

Is that what you're saying.  That stocks follow the futures--that the buy/sell programs are slaves to the S&P index traders?

If so, are you saying that the S&P traders can control the stock market--that if a couple of dozen major pit traders decide to run the the SPX to 1,400 all they  have to do is bid up the futures and the stocks will follow?

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]You said the tail wags the dog–what that means is that the S&P goes up BECAUSE THE FUTURES went up.

Is that what you're saying.  That stocks follow the futures--that the buy/sell programs are slaves to the S&P index traders?[/quote]

[quote=Devil'sAdvocate]

If so, are you saying that the S&P traders can control the stock market--that if a couple of dozen major pit traders decide to run the the SPX to 1,400 all they  have to do is bid up the futures and the stocks will follow?[/quote]

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

I am retired on a pension that throws off about $20,000 per month and have more other assets than I could spend in two lifetimes.

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

I am retired on a pension that throws off about $20,000 per month and have more other assets than I could spend in two lifetimes.

[/quote]

And people wonder why the payout at wirehouses is soooo low......
[/quote]

You don't believe people who work for years at the same place should be given pensions?

[quote=Devil’sAdvocate][quote=joedabrkr] [quote=Devil’sAdvocate]

I am retired on a pension that throws off about $20,000 per month and have more other assets than I could spend in two lifetimes.

[/quote]

And people wonder why the payout at wirehouses is soooo low......
[/quote]

You don't believe people who work for years at the same place should be given pensions?

[/quote]

You didn't have sense enough to provide for your retirement while you were employed, so now you feel it's the responsibility of your former employer to finance your 'golden years'?

You make me sick, Putsy.  You were a drag on your firm's budget for 24 years, effectively degrading the bottom line, and now you're a drag on the firm's earnings with your perceived 'entitlement'.

I believe in making my own pension.

[quote=Indyone]I believe in making my own pension.[/quote]

Me too, which is why I ended up with a seven figure 401(k) and a seven figure margin account.

Oh and a high six figure IRA--actually two of them.

Then there's my wife and her eight figure trust fund.

You have to choose your wife well and then work like a Trojan just in case.

Is there something wrong with accepting a pension to supplement your own efforts?

I repeat…why do you think you’re ‘entitled’ to be a drain on your former firm’s resources?  You’ve clearly admitted (no, bragged) that haven’t produced a dime in nearly 30 years.

The funny thing is about 3-5 months ago he bragged and said he had a $30,000/ month pension... Now its $20K per month... And the massive trust fund the wife has is a new development...

If this hack was truly this wealthy- do you think he would spend 9 hours a day on THIS website?????

He is a loser who trades options in his E trade account hoping to make enough money to develop pictures of his ugly dog

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BankFC][quote=mikebutler222][quote=BankFC] <o:p></o:p>

Let me ask you a few questions.

If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately? [/quote]

No.

[quote=BankFC]

Is my job to regurgatate what the talking heads say each morning to my clients?  Is it to make a baseless prediction on which way one index or another is going to move? [/quote]

No.

[quote=BankFC]Or is it to guide my clients to prudent long term investments based on what THEY TELL ME is what they want to accomplish as well as how much risk they wish to take in getting those things accomplished? [/quote]

The "or" in your question makes it a non-sequitar.

[quote=BankFC]

Should I change my means and methods everytime foreign country poses a threat?  How about every time there is a spinach or lettuce recall, should I make a change to something?  [/quote]

No. OTOH, part of your "means and methods" should consider the possibility of taking advantage of opportunities.

[quote=BankFC]

I keep up with the news, but I has little to do with how I help people manage their own money. (Read this sentence carefully).

[/quote]

You seem to believe that world events and the market have zero effects on your client's plans and/or their confidence in the ability of your plan to achieve intended goals. You also seem to think there's no room to adjust positions and take tactical advantage of situations.

Could it be because your business model forces you to ignore those things, since working with most accounts "once a year" as you told us, makes it impossible to take advantage of shorter term shifts and tactical opportunities?

[/quote]

Your "no" responses are baseless as you back them up with nothing, but since they support my point I really don't care. [/quote]

You asked, I answered. You didn't ask for details.

[quote=BankFC]As far as "taking advantage of opportunities," that's just a nice way of saying speculation. [/quote]

No, it isn't. It's the professional�s way of making the point that, for example, when interest rates are in a rapid climb, you just don't buy long term bonds. When internet stocks are selling at tulip fever levels, you don�t buy a Janus fund that specializes in them. Don't confuse tactical moves for "speculation".

Another example; for the past 5 years I�ve underweighted large cap growth SMAs in my client�s accounts in favor of LC value. That�s not �speculation� that�s taking advantage of a trend anyone even marginally informed could spot.

[quote=BankFC]

I would greatly appreciate you to quote me where I have contended that I feel "world events or the market have no effect on your (my) client's plans..."   [/quote]

Perhaps you missed the part where I said "You seem to believe". Don't be foolish, I didn't "quote" you,and it�s childish to assert otherwise. You do understand the common rules of punctuation, right?  I gave you the implications of your "If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately?" question, and I stand by it.

[quote=BankFC]I never said that,�[/quote]

And I never �quoted� you.

[quote=BankFC]My business model does not "force" me to ignore these things, rather it ELLIVIATES me from being FORCED to constantly watch these things.  [/quote]

You really think your business model puts you in a position where world and market events don�t mean anything as to how you handle client�s assets and how you deal with their concerns? Really?

[quote=BankFC]Also, please quote me as to where I told you I work with most accounts once a year. [/quote]

For this one you have a valid point. I was quoting bankrep1;

[quote=bankrep1]I service all accounts under 100K a year, one time per year when they are dropping off a check usually.[/quote]

You have my apologies on that one, now, could one of you change your friggin� names? They�re far too close.

[quote=bankrep1]If you are going to debate me, fine.  But to make FALSE statements is cowardly and childish.  If you can back the aforementioned statements up with quotes, I will agree with you. 

Otherwise I am calling your bluff.

[/quote]

Call whatever you like, Bank. I�ve apologized for confusing you with bankrep on the one comment, the other was not a quote, no matter how you want to twist it. Don�t work yourself into such a hole that you find many people here have to grudgingly agree with Putzy against you.

I�m happy to say it again, if you like, anyone who asks this question; �If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately?� is either joking or doesn�t understand his role.

[quote=BankFC]
I write, as well as speak, very clearly about whatever subject I am writing or speaking about.  So when I say I do not believe it is neccessary to get up at 5:00 am to check the news, it does not mean I do not follow the news, it means I do not follow the news at 5:00 am.[/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

No, sorry, Bank. If you had simply said the above, no one with have taken issue with you (aside from nutjob Putsy). I certainly don't think you need to get up to watch the news at 5AM Eastern Time.

 It’s when you said this; If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately? . That’s when I responded and said “No”.

[quote=BankFC]
So again, I stand by my statement.  Could I not see a TV for a week and still be a good advisor...ABSOLUTELY.[/quote]

Fair enough and I stand by mine, namely; “Anyone who asks this question….is either joking or doesn’t understand his role".

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BankFC]
I write, as well as speak, very clearly about whatever subject I am writing or speaking about.  So when I say I do not believe it is neccessary to get up at 5:00 am to check the news, it does not mean I do not follow the news, it means I do not follow the news at 5:00 am.[/quote]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

No, sorry, Bank. If you had simply said the above, no one with have taken issue with you (aside from nutjob Putsy). I certainly don't think you need to get up to watch the news at 5AM Eastern Time.

Mike, it's not my fault that things have to be stated and restated in order for you to understand them.

 It’s when you said this; If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately? . That’s when I responded and said “No”.

I do stand by this, and I understand my role all too well.  My role IS NOT A MONEY MANAGER.  If it was, I would be agreeing with you.  My role is to help people choose their own investments, be it short term debt, mutual funds, annuities, whatever. 

I disagree that one should make/change long term investment choices based on short term events. 

I incorporate core/satallite in many of my folks portfolios, but again, I WOULD NOT make a change based on an average day's worth of news, or even a week's worth.  OBVIOUSLY there are extreme examples, but I am speaking in general terms. 

[quote=BankFC]
So again, I stand by my statement.  Could I not see a TV for a week and still be a good advisor...ABSOLUTELY.[/quote]

Fair enough and I stand by mine, namely; “Anyone who asks this question….is either joking or doesn’t understand his role".

The fact is I don't believe YOU understand MY role.  Perhaps we conduct business differently.  All I know is I have happy clients that I have educated and empowered to make decisions for themselves with my guidance.

From where I'm sitting, if that means I don't know my role, hopefully I never will.

Could I not see a TV for a week and still be a good advisor...ABSOLUTELY.

Only if you spend a great deal of time reading professional publications, news related blogs and websites, the Wall Street Journal, your local newspaper and various radio news programs.  Otherwise....NOT.

I don't believe that we need to regurgitate the pap that is presented on television, but we do need to be aware of economic trends, political winds and events in the world that affect our client's investments.  When clients ask you about the Alcatel/Lucent merger, for instance, you'd better have something to say about it and not have a blank look on your face. If they question you on the fluctuation in oil prices, you need to have an understanding of world events and how they affect oil and be able to pontificate on those.  It's also nice to have an understanding of historical trends and be able to make comparisons to things that have affected the markets in the past to events happening today.  Your clients will have memories of these times. You should be able to discuss the 1970's oil crunch/shortage and make relevant observations on today's situations, whether you were around or just in diapers at the time.

If I were a client and my advisor appeared unaware or clueless,  I would soon cease to do business with him or her.

Client's don't care how much you know nearly as much as knowing how much you care.

There will always be someone more up to date, smarter, more agressive, etc.  I have NEVER lost a client due to lack of knowledge.

[quote=BankFC][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BankFC]
I write, as well as speak, very clearly about whatever subject I am writing or speaking about.  So when I say I do not believe it is neccessary to get up at 5:00 am to check the news, it does not mean I do not follow the news, it means I do not follow the news at 5:00 am.[/quote]

No, sorry, Bank. If you had simply said the above, no one with have taken issue with you (aside from nutjob Putsy). I certainly don't think you need to get up to watch the news at 5AM Eastern Time.

Mike, it's not my fault that things have to be stated and restated in order for you to understand them.

That's a pretty pathetic response, Bank. You didn't need to restate anything. The fact is you tried to move my response (the “no”) from the question you asked (“If I didn’t ….) to another (Do I have to get up and watch the news at 5AM). That’s dishonest.

 It’s when you said this; If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately? . That’s when I responded and said “No”.

I do stand by this, and I understand my role all too well.  My role IS NOT A MONEY MANAGER.  If it was, I would be agreeing with you.  My role is to help people choose their own investments, be it short term debt, mutual funds, annuities, whatever. 

Good, stand by it, I still think you’re wrong. It isn’t the money manager’s job to tailor asset allocation to tactical opportunities (and I gave you a personal example) it’s yours. If you think otherwise, fine, I think you’re wrong. Clear enough?

I disagree that one should make/change long term investment choices based on short term events. 

Well, had someone in this discussion suggested that, you might have a point. You still don’t seem to understand what a tactical opportunity is, so let it go.

I incorporate core/satallite in many of my folks portfolios, but again, I WOULD NOT make a change based on an average day's worth of news, or even a week's worth.  OBVIOUSLY there are extreme examples, but I am speaking in general terms. 

You’re speaking in CYA, pal. Bottomline, for me at least, advisors have to be informed, daily, to advise.

[quote=BankFC]
So again, I stand by my statement.  Could I not see a TV for a week and still be a good advisor...ABSOLUTELY.[/quote]

Fair enough and I stand by mine, namely; “Anyone who asks this question….is either joking or doesn’t understand his role".

The fact is I don't believe YOU understand MY role. 

No Bank, perhaps I don’t. Clearly you and your role are unique in the entirety of the investment world.

 Perhaps we conduct business differently.  All I know is I have happy clients that I have educated and empowered to make decisions for themselves with my guidance.

Then ask them if they think you could do your job if you didn’t keep up with current events. In fact, how about leaving this forum and ask THEM the question you asked me, the one I said “NO” to, and see how they feel about it.

Better still, give me their names and let me ask them.

 [/quote] [/quote]

[quote=BankFC]

Client's don't care how much you know nearly as much as knowing how much you care.

[/quote]

You keep on believing that, Bank....someday your clients will find someone who's capable of both.

[quote=babbling looney]

Only if you spend a great deal of time reading professional publications, news related blogs and websites, the Wall Street Journal, your local newspaper and various radio news programs.  Otherwise....NOT.

[/quote]

Wow, BL, how dare you suggest that people in our business need to be professional and informed.....

There will always be someone more up to date, smarter, more agressive, etc.  I have NEVER lost a client due to lack of knowledge.

That you know of, anyway

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=BankFC][quote=mikebutler222] <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

[quote=BankFC]
I write, as well as speak, very clearly about whatever subject I am writing or speaking about.  So when I say I do not believe it is neccessary to get up at 5:00 am to check the news, it does not mean I do not follow the news, it means I do not follow the news at 5:00 am.[/quote]

No, sorry, Bank. If you had simply said the above, no one with have taken issue with you (aside from nutjob Putsy). I certainly don't think you need to get up to watch the news at 5AM Eastern Time.

Mike, it's not my fault that things have to be stated and restated in order for you to understand them.

That's a pretty pathetic response, Bank. You didn't need to restate anything. The fact is you tried to move my response (the “no”) from the question you asked (“If I didn’t ….) to another (Do I have to get up and watch the news at 5AM). That’s dishonest.

 It’s when you said this; If I didn't look at a TV or a news website for an entire day, or even a week, do you think I could still perform my job adequately? . That’s when I responded and said “No”.

I do stand by this, and I understand my role all too well.  My role IS NOT A MONEY MANAGER.  If it was, I would be agreeing with you.  My role is to help people choose their own investments, be it short term debt, mutual funds, annuities, whatever. 

Good, stand by it, I still think you’re wrong. It isn’t the money manager’s job to tailor asset allocation to tactical opportunities (and I gave you a personal example) it’s yours. If you think otherwise, fine, I think you’re wrong. Clear enough?

I disagree that one should make/change long term investment choices based on short term events. 

Well, had someone in this discussion suggested that, you might have a point. You still don’t seem to understand what a tactical opportunity is, so let it go.

I incorporate core/satallite in many of my folks portfolios, but again, I WOULD NOT make a change based on an average day's worth of news, or even a week's worth.  OBVIOUSLY there are extreme examples, but I am speaking in general terms. 

You’re speaking in CYA, pal. Bottomline, for me at least, advisors have to be informed, daily, to advise.

[quote=BankFC]
So again, I stand by my statement.  Could I not see a TV for a week and still be a good advisor...ABSOLUTELY.[/quote]

Fair enough and I stand by mine, namely; “Anyone who asks this question….is either joking or doesn’t understand his role".

The fact is I don't believe YOU understand MY role. 

No Bank, perhaps I don’t. Clearly you and your role are unique in the entirety of the investment world.

 Perhaps we conduct business differently.  All I know is I have happy clients that I have educated and empowered to make decisions for themselves with my guidance.

Then ask them if they think you could do your job if you didn’t keep up with current events. In fact, how about leaving this forum and ask THEM the question you asked me, the one I said “NO” to, and see how they feel about it.

Better still, give me their names and let me ask them.

 [/quote] [/quote]

[/quote]

I'll send you my client list after you change B/D's again...no sense in them doing ACAT paperwork twice.

[quote=BankFC] [quote=mikebutler222] [quote=BankFC]<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

 Perhaps we conduct business differently.  All I know is I have happy clients that I have educated and empowered to make decisions for themselves with my guidance. [/quote]

Then ask them if they think you could do your job if you didn’t keep up with current events. In fact, how about leaving this forum and ask THEM the question you asked me, the one I said “NO” to, and see how they feel about it.

Better still, give me their names and let me ask them.

 [/quote]

I'll send you my client list after you change B/D's again...no sense in them doing ACAT paperwork twice.

[/quote]

Hey, when you have nothing else to defend yourself, you can always try that empty well again, eh?

The challenge stands, call your clients and ask them if they think you can do your job well enough to keep their business is you don't bother to stay informed.

is = if

[quote=Indyone]If the Dow doesn't hit 12K before the election, I don't think you'll see it this year.  New polls show the Dems likely getting both the house and senate, and I don't see Nancy Pelosi and Ted Kennedy being good for the market.[/quote]

The Dem sweep looks like a reality as of this post, assuming Virginia stays blue.  At least we got 12K before the election...

Time to move to bonds, and start to hide cash in the freezer!!!

At least no more adds. Maybe this is a down for the econemy. I mean the adds pumped so much life into everything.

[quote=apprentice]Time to move to bonds, and start to hide cash in the freezer!!![/quote]

I know of a couple who did that when Clinton was elected.

Have fun Mr. Money Savvy

No more adds. Ahh, for sure we are in a down turn now. I think the adds stimulated the economy. How many billions were spent, how many snacks and drinks in the campaign HQ’s?

Yes - Clinton was awesome!  Straight up - Straight down (and then some).  In fact - the Clinton recession was the most memorible.  Praise the Lord that the Bush administration repaired the damage from those years.

I never said Clinton was awesome.  If you read the post, it concerned the wisom of making broad financial decisions based on faulty premises. 

Repaired the damage? To me it looks like he is causing exponentially more damage, figuratively and literally than Clinton ever did.

Praise the Lord.

Dude - I know it's tough for you (libs) to understand economics.  But moving the largest economy in the world to a 'socialistic' system will cause grave damage.  In fact - President Clinton (Hillary) is already salivating with the Dem victory saying today that Hillary-care is once again coming around.  High taxes, Hillary-care, terror appeasing dems - it's definitely cash in the freezer times.  However, for us capitalist - it should create some good tax strategy and life insurance conversations.

[quote=dude]

[quote=apprentice]Time to move to bonds, and start to hide cash in the freezer!!![/quote]

I know of a couple who did that when Clinton was elected.

Have fun Mr. Money Savvy

[/quote]

Just for the sake of accuracy (and not because I either believe the end is upon us OR that I think we should cash out based on who was elected, BUT) the couple that sold when Clinton was elected did very well, assuming they bought back in when the GOP Congress was elected.  

Since this is a prediction thread, I'll go ahead and throw in my 2008 predictions...

1.  Republicans maintain the presidency, although probably with a more centrist candidate like McCain or Giuliani.

2.  Republicans win back the senate by a +3 majority

3.  Dems maintain the house by +12.

4.  Pelosi gets thrown out as speaker and one of the blue dogs literally throws her under the bus.

5.  Joe Lieberman finally comes out of the closet and caucuses with the Republicans.

6.  Hillary slaps Bill in public after seeing him fondling a campaign worker and subsequently loses the nomination.

7.  Doberman gets elected as a Georgia state representative on a blue dog democrat platform and pushes through a tax credit for replacing the underpinning on his trailer.

Don't forget where you heard it first.

Indyone:

7.  Doberman gets elected as a Georgia state representative on a blue dog democrat platform and pushes through a tax credit for replacing the underpinning on his trailer.

Don't forget where you heard it first.

------------------------------------------

Wheeeeeeeeeewdoggie, love dem tax credits! If'in I didn't have dem undapinnings, I'd haf to put rollbars on the 'ole homestead!

Oh, I misunderstood you, Indy.  I thought you meant “a Doberman gets elected”…

[quote=apprentice]

Dude - I know it’s tough for you (libs) to understand economics. 

[quote=apprentice]However, for us capitalist…[/quote]

Um… “Dude”!

Why is it that some people assume that everybody to the left of Rush Limbaugh is a liberal socialist traitorous linguine-coward?  (And they look French, too!)

You’re forgetting that this is a Wall Street forum.  I think we can assume that the vast majority of us are capitalists.

I also suspect that we know more about economics than the average citizen.  (Although I’ll grant that’s still not much.)

Last week was a victory for centrists, period.  If the Democrats take their victory and run to the left, then we’ll have a centrist Republican in the White House next term.  If they manage to defend the middle, then they have a shot at controlling Congress and the White House.

And before you flame me: centrists are not flip-floppers.  Personally, I have strong and long-standing feelings on many issues.  It’s just that my beliefs on individual issues sometimes align with the Democrats and sometimes with the Republicans.  I vote that way, too, on a candidate by candidate basis.

I resent the idea that departing from the herd makes me a liberal socialist traitorous linguine-coward.  (Although I am French, bien sur!)

[quote=FreedomLvr]Oh, I misunderstood you, Indy.  I thought you meant "a Doberman gets elected"...[/quote]

...no, that was just a salute to an old Doberman post describing his office set-up that I found particularly funny.

Sorry JCadieux - The 'Lib' remarks were in response to 'DUDE' who is actually a contributor to this forum.  He's (or she) a senior member, you can check it out for yourself if you go back a few pages in this post.

I will also educate you on the fact that all you 'centrists' who voted democrat - now have given power to the extreme left leadership of Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Wrangle, Schumer, Conyers, Durbin, Byrd, Murtha, Boxer, Kennedy, and Leahy.  Congratulations dem centrist - you've been punked!!

[quote=apprentice]

Sorry JCadieux - The 'Lib' remarks were in response to 'DUDE' who is actually a contributor to this forum.  He's (or she) a senior member, you can check it out for yourself if you go back a few pages in this post.

I will also educate you on the fact that all you 'centrists' who voted democrat - now have given power to the extreme left leadership of Reid, Pelosi, Clinton, Wrangle, Schumer, Conyers, Durbin, Byrd, Murtha, Boxer, Kennedy, and Leahy.  Congratulations dem centrist - you've been punked!!

[/quote]

Apprentice...you really should develop an understanding of politics before you start 'branding' others.  There is a far broader political spectrum than black/white.

On some issues I support 'left' leaning views on others I'm very 'right'.

My political spectrum actually labels me as a VERY strong libertarian with moderate left tendencies...if you think libertarian attitudes are 'liberal' than you need some help.

[quote=bankrep1] Hmmm “fuzzy math?”, the Dow was at 10,854 when I made the call. Also, if you remember the reason I made the call is old NEWBIE was painting a doom and gloom picture, I am by no means a genius, however, my opinion would have held up, you’ll see when we pass the old 12K, I see alot of guys on TV with stupid opinions and the folks on CNBC bring them back time and time again for more stupid opinions when the last thing they said crashed and burned.



[/quote]



What a bull market who would of thunk it? SELL SELL SELL