Lest You Think

The trap has passed.  6/15-7/4.  A BS rally back up on no volume.

Now we broke support on the 500 and the Q's just broke support.

A wonderful time for technicians.  Look at some of the semis bouncing right off October lows with nice relative strength.  I'm having a good time over hear.      

Thank you o wise one. Your insight and thoughts are greatly welcomed...

Its amusing to see how you believe yourself to be the patriarch and all-knowing figure on this forum...

Gives me a chuckle as I go through the day...

And by the way, this is going to be a beauty of a recession.  The public can’t spend more than they earn any more because their artifically inflated homes have been tapped out with refi money spent on jet skis and other crap.  The working class can’t afford to drive to WMT to buy junk because gas is too expensive.  This will be interesting to watch as it plays out.

18 straight quarters of positive growth - I doubt we'll see negative growth, let alone a recession.  1,000 point trading ranges - yes.  The only thing worse than a down market is a flat market (remember the 70's, and I'm not talking about your white polyester disco suit)? 

However, nothing can be as bad as the 1999 - 2000 collapse after 8 years of record performance.  I remember thinking that my clients would complain if they got less than 30% returns on their stock portfolios.  Rule #3:  Regression is law.

I think we should “buy & hold”.

[quote=Malcolm]And by the way, this is going to be a beauty of a recession.  The public can't spend more than they earn any more because their artifically inflated homes have been tapped out with refi money spent on jet skis and other crap.  The working class can't afford to drive to WMT to buy junk because gas is too expensive.  This will be interesting to watch as it plays out.[/quote]

Oil above $76 bbl, gasoline averaging $3.30 nationwide.  How about the cost of getting things delivered--the trucking industry is not going to go broke getting your groceries to the store.

The Dow Jones could drop to 3,000--clients with $200,000 portfolios could watch them drop below $100,000.

Real Estate--especially in distant suburbs--could be cut in half.

Interest rates could hit double digits by Christmas.

Investors will want to be in cash and will see no reason to pay management fees to be in cash.

In the 1970s about 80% of the brokers who had been registered in 1970 had quit by 1980--they did not retire, they quit.  People with their money in cash need a financial advisor like they need a root canal.

I think that's right NASD.  Especially on the interest rates.  I think you are also right on the management fees especially for 3rd party managers where the broker sits on his duff and does nothing but collect fees while the brilliant manager tanks. 

I think we are headed toward some difficult times.  Brokers who learn how to really manage money will see their businesses grow through referrals and the rest are going to see their businesses shrink. 

I kon't know much about the trucking industry but I'll take your word on that.  

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=Malcolm]And by the way, this is going to be a beauty of a recession.  The public can't spend more than they earn any more because their artifically inflated homes have been tapped out with refi money spent on jet skis and other crap.  The working class can't afford to drive to WMT to buy junk because gas is too expensive.  This will be interesting to watch as it plays out.[/quote]

Oil above $76 bbl, gasoline averaging $3.30 nationwide.  How about the cost of getting things delivered--the trucking industry is not going to go broke getting your groceries to the store.

The Dow Jones could drop to 3,000--clients with $200,000 portfolios could watch them drop below $100,000.

Real Estate--especially in distant suburbs--could be cut in half.

Interest rates could hit double digits by Christmas.

Investors will want to be in cash and will see no reason to pay management fees to be in cash.

In the 1970s about 80% of the brokers who had been registered in 1970 had quit by 1980--they did not retire, they quit.  People with their money in cash need a financial advisor like they need a root canal.[/quote]

Let's revisit this doom & gloom at the end of the year.  The Dow could drop to 3,000 and the sky could fall too.  Your real estate prediction is plausible, but the rest of your predictions look a little overdone.

Sounds like you need an advisor NASD, to tell you what happens in the short term doesn’t matter never has never will. Go play golf, enjoy life. Get off of these boards where you spend 10 hours a day correcting people and telling us the sky will fall.



How about this DOW will break 12,000 by the end of the year!    I’m a bull!

[quote=bankrep1]

How about this DOW will break 12,000 by the end of the year!    I'm a bull![/quote]

What do you see to drive the market higher?  Gasoline at $4 per gallon, is that it?

A protracted war in the Middle East?  Is that it?

What if Israel destroys the Iranian oil fields, is that Dow 13,000?

A smart guy like you must have all sorts of reasons to substantiate your point of view. What are they?

[quote=bankrep1]

Sounds like you need an advisor NASD, to tell you what happens in the short term doesn't matter never has never will.

[/quote]

Is that right?  Is it possible that the short term can linger and become long term?

What do you tell your client who is 55 years old about being patient?  If a client is sitting on $500,00, down from $1,000,000 what are you going to tell him?  How long should he wait?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=bankrep1]

Sounds like you need an advisor NASD, to tell you what happens in the short term doesn't matter never has never will.

[/quote]

Is that right?  Is it possible that the short term can linger and become long term?

What do you tell your client who is 55 years old about being patient?  If a client is sitting on $500,00, down from $1,000,000 what are you going to tell him?  How long should he wait?

[quote=Revealer]

If Israel gets adventuresome, grab ahold of your cajones!!

[/quote]

Other things too--GOP loses the House in November could result in a protracted sell off that consumes the next two years.

China's insatiable demand for oil results in $100 bbl prices--there is almost no way the market can crawl up that wall  of worry.  Too many industries are negatively affected by $5 per gallon gasoline.

[quote=Revealer] [quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=bankrep1]

Sounds like you need an advisor NASD, to tell you what happens in the short term doesn’t matter never has never will.

[/quote]

Is that right? Is it possible that the short term can linger and become long term?

What do you tell your client who is 55 years old about being patient? If a client is sitting on $500,00, down from $1,000,000 what are you going to tell him? How long should he wait?

By the way:



$4 gas means Exxon is going to the moon, a war means the defense sector is going higher and if the Oil field’s are destroyed…well Halliburton is a to quote Jim buy buy buy!



DOW 13,000

[quote=bankrep1]

Again this is why I advocate the VA with a living benefit for those who are scared of the market. Mr. or Mrs. Jones I am not asking you to trust me, read here the word is insured. How can you argue with that?

[/quote]

Are you saying that you believe that a VA will provide enough growth to fund the retirement of a 55 year old engineer?

How many years of 7% growth does it take to return to where you were if you lose 50% in a massive slide?

Do you realize how ignorant you sound when you say that 2001-03 was ugly?  Try Dow at 5,000, or lower for ugly.

Again, suppose your 55 year old client with $700,000 watches it erode to $400,000 while you sit there with your Alfred E Neuman "What Me Worry" routine going.  What kind of a return does he need to achieve get back to his $700,000 in, say, seven years?

Do you think they'll ring a bell telling you that the bull is out of the gates?

[quote=bankrep1]By the way:

$4 gas means Exxon is going to the moon, a war means the defense sector is going higher and if the Oil field's are destroyed...well Halliburton is a to quote Jim buy buy buy!

DOW 13,000[/quote]

Why will Exxon go to the moon?  Oil hit a historic high today--XOM was up a dime a share.  What are the economics of companies like XOM--how much do their costs go up with the price of gasoline?

Don't you figure that war is already built into the defense sector--and Haliburton too for that matter.

Buy the rumor, sell the news.

Whatever you do, don't talk to your clients with the awe inspiriing ignorance of reality you are displaying on this forum.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=bankrep1]Again this is why I advocate the VA with a living benefit for those who are scared of the market. Mr. or Mrs. Jones I am not asking you to trust me, read here the word is insured. How can you argue with that? [/quote]

Are you saying that you believe that a VA will provide enough growth to fund the retirement of a 55 year old engineer?

How many years of 7% growth does it take to return to where you were if you lose 50% in a massive slide?

Do you realize how ignorant you sound when you say that 2001-03 was ugly? Try Dow at 5,000, or lower for ugly.

Again, suppose your 55 year old client with $700,000 watches it erode to $400,000 while you sit there with your Alfred E Neuman “What Me Worry” routine going. What kind of a return does he need to achieve get back to his $700,000 in, say, seven years?

Do you think they’ll ring a bell telling you that the bull is out of the gates?

oops ignore the last paragraph in my post

[quote=bankrep1] [quote=NASD Newbie]

Are you saying that you believe that a VA will provide enough growth to fund the retirement of a 55 year old engineer?

[/quote]

At 55 the objective is no longer growth in most cases the objetive is guaranteed retirement income. The only tool that can guarantee a 5% withdraw for the clients entire life and their spouses life is a VA with a living benefit rider GWB, if the client still needed growth at 55, my advice would be not to retire they need to save more money


[/quote]

At 55 the guy is five to ten years away from retirment--and you're going to put him in a VA designed to give him a 5% withdrawal?

He has ten years to go before he wants to withdraw anything--where do you have him now?

How about a VA with a GMIB, that allows him to lock in th GWB at 60 or 65 and also lock in any gains between now and 65.   He can choose 5% guaranteed GMIB year over year, or his account value. When your ready to retire, we’ll look at what is worth more and base your income off that.



I only answered your original question that way because most engineers I meet with do retire around 55.

[quote=bankrep1]How about a VA with a GMIB, that allows him to lock in th GWB at 60 or 65 and also lock in any gains between now and 65.   He can choose 5% guaranteed GMIB year over year, or his account value. When your ready to retire, we'll look at what is worth more and base your income off that.

I only answered your original question that way because most engineers I meet with do retire around 55.[/quote]

What happens to him if he buys what you're suggesting and we experience 20% inflation?

Earlier you said the market will not suffere a 50% correction--while talking about a 35% correction in 2001-03.  Are you saying that that was the last major correction?  How do you know?  Do you have a secret ring you got in a box of Cracker Jack?

Are you saying we will have 20% inflation and down markets for a 10 year period? That cannot exist as the earnings growth from inflation alone will drive stock prices higher

The 35% correction lasted all of two weeks. The value investors quickly jumped in, this was also shortly after 9/11.



Of course we will have more corrections. I know we will experience several corrections over the years as the market makes it’s upward path.

[quote=bankrep1]Are you saying we will have 20% inflation and down markets for a 10 year period? That cannot exist as the earnings growth from inflation alone will drive stock prices higher[/quote]

Oh, you believe that EPS are a hedge against inflation--are you sure?

You also believe that the market will reward higher earnings with higher prices to retain the PE ratio.

Do you believe that PE ratios cannot be lower?  Is it possible that a company could be earning $5 per share and be trading at only two or three times earnings?  Is that possible?

Of course. I am using your stupid scenarios. If something costs $1 and now costs $1.20 cents the company made more money than it did in the past and so did every other company that supplied the goods. Hence the stock price would rise.



This would be true even if stocks trade at a PE of 1 times earnings

Why all the doom and gloom? The summer is often shaky, I think we are going to have a fantastic 3rd quarter!

[quote=bankrep1]Of course. I am using your stupid scenarios. If something costs $1 and now costs $1.20 cents the company made more money than it did in the past and so did every other company that supplied the goods. Hence the stock price would rise.

This would be true even if stocks trade at a PE of 1 times earnings[/quote]

Stocks rise because the earnings rise--it's that easy?

There has never been a time when stocks fell even though earning rose?  Has that ever happened?

Has the business cycle been repealed?

[quote=bankrep1]
Why all the doom and gloom? The summer is often shaky, I think we are going to have a fantastic 3rd quarter![/quote]

How many shaky summers have you witnessed in order to have such certainty--do you suppose legends like Peter Lynch would think you're naive?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=bankrep1]
Why all the doom and gloom? The summer is often shaky, I think we are going to have a fantastic 3rd quarter![/quote]

How many shaky summers have you witnessed in order to have such certainty--do you suppose legends like Peter Lynch would think you're naive?

[/quote]

Let me ask one more thing.  Do you believe that people who are naive can possibly be good advisors?

Is it ever appropriate for an advisor to tell their client to sell everything and go into cash--to roll CDs at a bank for serveral years?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=bankrep1] Why all the doom and gloom? The summer is often shaky, I think we are going to have a fantastic 3rd quarter![/quote]

How many shaky summers have you witnessed in order to have such certainty–do you suppose legends like Peter Lynch would think you’re naive?

[quote=NASD Newbie] [quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=bankrep1] Why all the doom and gloom? The summer is often shaky, I think we are going to have a fantastic 3rd quarter![/quote]

How many shaky summers have you witnessed in order to have such certainty–do you suppose legends like Peter Lynch would think you’re naive?

[/quote]

Let me ask one more thing. Do you believe that people who are naive can possibly be good advisors?

Is it ever appropriate for an advisor to tell their client to sell everything and go into cash–to roll CDs at a bank for serveral years?

One last thing:



You state someone’s IRA portfolio could fall from 700K to 300K,then what? but you see no value in using a VA inside of an IRA, you clearly stated it is a bad idea, could you please explain your rationale. I have been kind enough to answer your questions, now answer that one?

[quote=bankrep1] [quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=bankrep1] Why all the doom and gloom? The summer is often shaky, I think we are going to have a fantastic 3rd quarter![/quote]

How many shaky summers have you witnessed in order to have such certainty--do you suppose legends like Peter Lynch would think you're naive?

[/quote]

I am not trying to maximize returns, I would never compare what I do with a money manager, i was just stating i am bullish[/quote]

And all I am doing is asking you to make a case for being bullish--other than knowing that if you're not what you are doing is malpractice.

[quote=bankrep1]

Your either in or out, trying to time the market is impossible. I am a firm believer of that and can show you countless supporters much smarter than I who agree. Check out the folks at DFA for opinions of some of the smartest minds in finance, I am sure though NASD that your knowledge, your tenure will prove to be wiser than some of the greatest minds in finance. Your probably ignorant enough to believe that your in that group or should be. The truth is your a failed broker, you didn't make it so you took a job that is safe and secure nothing wrong with it, just don't stand on your soapbox thinking you know everything.

[/quote]

You cannot imagine how it saddens intelligent people to see writing such as that.

Count the times the you're mistake was made.

Stupidity has no room in this business, yet there it is in the banks selling a VA regardless of what the client wants or needs.

[quote=NASD Newbie] [quote=bankrep1] [quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=bankrep1] Why all the doom and gloom? The summer is often shaky, I think we are going to have a fantastic 3rd quarter![/quote]

How many shaky summers have you witnessed in order to have such certainty–do you suppose legends like Peter Lynch would think you’re naive?

[/quote] I am not trying to maximize returns, I would never compare what I do with a money manager, i was just stating i am bullish[/quote]

And all I am doing is asking you to make a case for being bullish–other than knowing that if you’re not what you are doing is malpractice.

[quote=bankrep1]

Your either in or out, trying to time the market is impossible. I am a firm believer of that and can show you countless supporters much smarter than I who agree. 

[/quote]

So, do you believe that the people who subscribe to expensive timing services are simply not as smart as you?

Is it market timing to sell your entire position and stay in cash for several years?  I always thought that market timing was a scheme to attempt to take advantage of short term moves--not an attempt to sit out a market crash.  Am I wrong?

Have you ever heard the phrase, "Cash is King?"

Is it ever appropriate to recommend that a client be 100% in cash?

Somewhere you said that you do not try to maximize returns--does that sound like a good reason to hire you?

read this smartie pants



One last thing:



You state someone’s IRA portfolio could fall from 700K to 300K,then what?

but you see no value in using a VA inside of an IRA, you clearly stated it is a

bad idea, could you please explain your rationale. I have been kind enough

to answer your questions, now answer that one?

[quote=bankrep1]

Earnings are what drive the market, it's all about earnings

[/quote]

So you're a pure fundamentalist.  Have you ever heard of earnings going down?  How about not being as good as expected?

What do you suppose would happen to a stock with a PE ratio of, say, 60 if earnings are reported at, say, $2 and the street was anticipating $2.02?

How about the adage, "The market cannot climb a wall of worry," does that mean anything to you?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

How many shaky summers have you witnessed in order to have such certainty--do you suppose legends like Peter Lynch would think you're naive?

[/quote]

What was Peter Lynch doing on the board of Morrison Knudsen "back in the day" as the company sunk into the hellhole of bankruptcy and eventual extinction while making cute TV ads for Fidelity?

Answer: Keeping busy with his rubber stamp!  What a poser.

[quote=Soothsayer][quote=NASD Newbie]

How many shaky summers have you witnessed in order to have such certainty--do you suppose legends like Peter Lynch would think you're naive?

[/quote]

What was Peter Lynch doing on the board of Morrison Knudsen "back in the day" as the company sunk into the hellhole of bankruptcy and eventual extinction while making cute TV ads for Fidelity?

Answer: Keeping busy with his rubber stamp!  What a poser.

[/quote]

Poor Soothsayer, reading your posts seems like a bad trip down memory road.  Baldwin United, Morrison Knudsen--got  some Polaroid to whine about?  How about Itel?

In case you missed it the last three times you avoided responded to it



You state someone’s IRA portfolio could fall from 700K to 300K,then what? but you see no value in using a VA inside of an IRA, you clearly stated it is a bad idea, could you please explain your rationale. I have been kind enough to answer your questions, now answer that one?

No sour grapes here.  I wasn’t in the business when MK went tits.  But I do know who was the premier name on their board of directors when they went tits.  Fact or fiction, Newbie?  I just don"t think Peter Lynch was ever all that he was cracked up to be.

[quote=Soothsayer]No sour grapes here.  I wasn't in the business when MK went tits.  But I do know who was the premier name on their board of directors when they went tits.  Fact or fiction, Newbie?  I just don"t think Peter Lynch was ever all that he was cracked up to be.[/quote]

Also Peter Uberoth.

There is a vast difference between being a good stock picker and being one of a several on a corporate board of directors.

I have no doubt that he was chosen for name recognition, but it's nonsensical to argue that he was somehow responsible for the demise of the company.

I am not inclinded to defend Peter Lynch, however I suspect that an impartial review of his record as stock picker would be spectacular.

In case you missed it the last 4 times you avoided responded to it



You state someone’s IRA portfolio could fall from 700K to 300K,then what? but you see no value in using a VA inside of an IRA, you clearly stated it is a bad idea, could you please explain your rationale. I have been kind enough to answer your questions, now answer that one?

You can all tell me to go to hell on this one.  I don't care.  I am totally with nasd on this one.  All the points he makes are relevent.

I think the vast majority of you are naive and uninformed. Bankrep for you to say the market cannot be timed shows you are absolutely ignorant.  Are you also telling me technical analysis does not work?That's is god awful ignorance.  Fundamental analysis is the biggest pile of crap that was ever invented.  If anything, it is a LAGGING INDICATOR.  The crap your firms feed you that you have been indoctrinated with is all over Wall Street.  It has turned most of your minds to mush.

This economy and country are so screwed up right now that just about anything could happen.  Will the economy collapse?  Probably not.  The rest of the world has too much to loose to let that happen.   

I have to get to work now.  I have so much more to say but I am busy doing technical analysis making money for my clients. 

Who was it "Indy" I think that told me a couple months ago I was crazy for being mostly short and cash with only around 30% long.     

The market tells us what to do if we learn how to read it. 

[quote=bankrep1]Of course. I am using your stupid scenarios. If something costs $1 and now costs $1.20 cents the company made more money than it did in the past and so did every other company that supplied the goods. Hence the stock price would rise.

This would be true even if stocks trade at a PE of 1 times earnings[/quote] Bank: I actually purchased a stock @ 1.2X earn. way back in 1974. Avco. Paid 3.60/sh and their running 12 was 3.00. One caveat…the earnings were not fully taxed due to tax carry fwd., so I actually pd. 2.4X fully taxed earnings. (corp rates were 50% back then.) I get somewhat amused/bemused when I read about “cheap stocks/low mkt. PE”. I’m here to tell y’all that stocks can sell for ANY PE that the “market” deems appropriate. 

Cool! Post # 300. (Now 301)

[quote=Malcolm]You can all tell me to go to hell on this one.  I don’t care.  I am totally with nasd on this one.  All the points he makes are relevent.

I think the vast majority of you are naive and uninformed. Bankrep for you to say the market cannot be timed shows you are absolutely ignorant.  Are you also telling me technical analysis does not work?That's is god awful ignorance.  Fundamental analysis is the biggest pile of crap that was ever invented.  If anything, it is a LAGGING INDICATOR.  The crap your firms feed you that you have been indoctrinated with is all over Wall Street.  It has turned most of your minds to mush.

This economy and country are so screwed up right now that just about anything could happen.  Will the economy collapse?  Probably not.  The rest of the world has too much to loose to let that happen.   

I have to get to work now.  I have so much more to say but I am busy doing technical analysis making money for my clients. 

Who was it "Indy" I think that told me a couple months ago I was crazy for being mostly short and cash with only around 30% long.     

The market tells us what to do if we learn how to read it.[/quote]

Don't know if it was me or not, but yes, I'll admit that I'm not a big believer in technical analysis.  I think it is, at best, a short-term self-fulfilling prophecy.   Show me someone with real, long-term results using technicals as the primary investment strategy (none of that 20/20 hindsight backtested crap) and I'll be happy to reconsider my view.  If it works for you, fine, but I see it as a short-term solution at best.  I've seen too many folks miss 40% of the run-up waiting for technicals to "confirm a breakout".  Now if you avoid the last half of the decline, but miss the first half of the recovery, what have you really gained?  I don't always stay 100% invested, but I've seen enough to know that a lot of people much smarter than you and me have tried and failed to consistently time the market, so, generally, I'm at least 80% invested, and I tend to go to 95% when a bunch of chicken littles are screaming doom & gloom, and back down some when everyone agrees that the sky is the limit.

Charts may rule the day on a temporary basis, but fundamentals always win over the long haul.  If you remember nothing else from this post, keep this in mind...many stocks are at the same level they were at in the late 90's, and yet, these same companies have 75% higher earnings...hmmmmmmm...

"many stocks are at the same level they were in the late 90's, and yet, these same companies have 75% higer earning

YOU JUST MADE MY POINT BETTER THAN I EVER COULD HAVE.  FUNDAMENTAL ANALYSIS DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE IF IT DID, THESE COMPANIES STOCK PRICES WOULD BE HIGHER...RIGHT??

THEIR EARNING ARE UP SO THE PRICE SHOULD BE UP. 

When I have the time Indy, i will get you a list of long term successful traders.  There are many many to name..

[quote=Indyone]

I don't always stay 100% invested, but I've seen enough to know that a lot of people much smarter than you and me have tried and failed to consistently time the market, so, generally, I'm at least 80% invested, and I tend to go to 95% when a bunch of chicken littles are screaming doom & gloom, and back down some when everyone agrees that the sky is the limit.

[/quote]

Is it ever appropriate to be 100% in cash and cash equivalents?

One of the major complaints about commission or fee driven advisors is that they rarely conclude that the appropriate place to be is on the sidelines.

Seeing as you earn your income from advising clients to be "In" can you ever imagine telling them to get "out," even though it would mean that your income would disappear?

In other words, are you truly putting your clent ahead of yourself?

At least one major wire now has a fee based account in which the advisor gets paid to be in cash.  Just an fyi

It's called an Advisory Account.

How about this market.  There you go.  We broker the 200 day on the S&P and what happens?  It's tanking.  

When will brokers learn how to short?   I just don't understand why this arrow is not added to everyones quiver.     

[quote=Malcolm] 

When will brokers learn how to short?   I just don't understand why this arrow is not added to everyones quiver.     

[/quote]

When you can't write a coherent sentence your brain overheats if you try to understand it.

I hear the Dow is off another 120 right now--but not to worry the bank reps is bullish and has proclaimed that the market will go up because it's driven by corporate earnings which, as we all know, never go down.

Seriously, I think most advisors have a difficult time keeping their enthusiasm if they're shorting.  When I was in production--which admittedly was long ago--I had a major client who loved to short.

He'd call me and whisper things like, "I phucking love wars."  But that goes against our better angels, or something else Father O'Malley might say.

[quote=Malcolm]

"many stocks are at the same level they were in the late 90's, and yet, these same companies have 75% higer earning

YOU JUST MADE MY POINT BETTER THAN I EVER COULD HAVE.  FUNDAMENTAL ANALYSIS DOESN'T WORK BECAUSE IF IT DID, THESE COMPANIES STOCK PRICES WOULD BE HIGHER...RIGHT??

THEIR EARNING ARE UP SO THE PRICE SHOULD BE UP. 

When I have the time Indy, i will get you a list of long term successful traders.  There are many many to name..[/quote]

The only point I made is that relatively speaking, stocks are undervalued campared to the late 90's (when they were apparently overvalued).  Your charts may be right temporarily, but eventually improving fundamentals mean better stock prices.

When you put up your list of successful traders, just realize that there are many more successful traders who don't use technicals as their primary strategy.  We can go back and forth ad nauseum, and I truly am not interested in that (especially since it's slow going with one good hand).  I know what's worked for me over the years, and it's not studying charts.  It's paying attention to what's going on in the world around us (which admittedly is a mixed bag at the moment), buying good companies at good prices (and knowing when to take a profit-I base it on the fundamental trends of the company), and hiring fund managers when I realize that they are better at buying and selling than almost any advisor out there (myself included).  I mostly make decisions on where and to a small degree, when to buy...and then let the real professionals decide what and for the most part, when to buy.  I know that I would be hard pressed to provide quality service to a growing client base if I spent a large part of my day studying charts.  If it works for you, I'm glad for you...I just can't help having my doubts and two months of lackluster market performance is no surprise to me and doesn't change my long view of where clients should be invested.

[quote=Indyone]

The only point I made is that relatively speaking, stocks are undervalued campared to the late 90's (when they were apparently overvalued).  Your charts may be right temporarily, but eventually improving fundamentals mean better stock prices.

[/quote]

How long is "eventually?"  Can Mr. Jones--the 58 year old client whose $1 million is now at $600,000 wait that long?

When you sit there and tell him, "Bill, the market will eventually come back" do you think he finds that to be reassuring?

[quote=Indyone]

I base it on the fundamental trends of the company), and hiring fund managers when I realize that they are better at buying and selling than almost any advisor out there (myself included).

[/quote]

How many managers have been in the business long enough to have ever met "The Bear?"

Don't tell me about what a horrible time it was when the Nasdaq crashed in 2002, or the terrible week or two in October of 1987 and October 1989.  Wonder how those happened in October, didn't BankRep tell us that the summers are often terrible but the third quarters are a bull's dream?

There are a whole lot of sixtyish brokerage vets--active and retired--who look at anybody who has come into the business since 1980 as the proverbial babe in the woods.

It is possible to have hundreds of weeks in a row where the Friday Night talking heads say, "Wall Street lost ground again this week.  It has now been eight months since we had an up week....."

Meanwhile, kids who don't know how to conjugate verbs are telling their clients, "Hold on, the market is driven by earnings and earnings never go down."  Never being in their frame of reference.

Those who do not recognize the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them.

As I discuss this stuff it occurs to me that the emotions of the aging Baby Boomers may have a signficantly negative affect on the market's psycholgoy.

There are zillions of us, and most are facing retirement very undercapitalized.  We are the children of the inflationary years--where we bought what we could not afford for fear that we could definitely not afford it later.  Consequently most of the boomer generation does not really have enough liquidity to retire.

Add that a great many of us know damn well the market can lose huge portions of its value--which makes us less trusting than the kids who make innane statements like "Earning always go up."

Prices can fall, and fall, and fall, for no reason other than nobody is interested in buying shares of that company.

Part of the challenge is to keep people from losing faith in making investments in stocks--either directly or by paying a "manager" a fee to do it for them.

I dissagree nasd on keeping ones enthusiasm when shorting.

There is nothing more exciting for me at least than growing clients accounts with shorts especially when the market is going down as a whole.  At least for me, it is a very satisfying thing to see my portfolios go up on big down days.  Clients love it also.  And just like any long position, you can put your stop losses in and protect yourself if you are wrong.  "up and down gaps excluded."  

The banks and wirehouses hate when you short and we have been brainwashed into thinking it is something exotic, speculative, etc. 

Not so. Brokers need to get off the Wall Street band wagon and learn how to protect clients money.  Shorting is one way of many to do that.  And by the way, most of the big banks and brokerage firms employ traders for their own accounts. 

No hard feelings I hope Indy.  Nothing wrong with not agreeing all the time.  Now I have to get off this site and get some work done.

I wish a good weekend to everyone.  I'm out.    

[quote=Malcolm]

I dissagree nasd on keeping ones enthusiasm when shorting.

[/quote]

I am in complete accord with the idea of being very enthusiastic when your client's accounts are growing on days when the market tanks.

And I also understand that clients love it.

However, the reality is that selling short is a "dark side" activity--you're betting things are going to be bad and get worse.

That goes against the grain of most people.

Look at the ridiculous "emoticons"--they're all variations of that smile face.  Everybody likes the bright yellow smile face--it's good for our mental health and all that.

Selling short is telling the smile face to phuck off--it's just not what most folks are going to want to do.

So to appeal to them, brokers have to have their smile face on--and when they do it's difficult to sell short.

Best Regards,

Frasier Crane

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=Indyone]

I don't always stay 100% invested, but I've seen enough to know that a lot of people much smarter than you and me have tried and failed to consistently time the market, so, generally, I'm at least 80% invested, and I tend to go to 95% when a bunch of chicken littles are screaming doom & gloom, and back down some when everyone agrees that the sky is the limit.

[/quote]

Is it ever appropriate to be 100% in cash and cash equivalents?

Last week might have been a good time. 

I have moved some of my clients into mmkt mutual funds from their more agressive mutual funds. I have been selling long bonds out and switching to mmkt or short term income investments (3 to 5 yr maturities).  For my much older clients who hold long bonds with the death put, we are holding fast although I am very worried about inflation if they are (lets be frank here) not going to die before inflation eats away at their income. For the much younger and aggressive clients we are looking to invest sytematically into the market.

I see deja vu all over again....the 1970's.  Hold on to your knickers.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

There are zillions of us, and most are facing retirement very undercapitalized.  We are the children of the inflationary years--where we bought what we could not afford for fear that we could definitely not afford it later.  Consequently most of the boomer generation does not really have enough liquidity to retire.

[/quote]

At least you bought with a thought for the future. Most (I say most not all) people in my age bracket buy, buy, buy with NO thought for the future.

I see too many younger people with big trucks, with boats, jet skis, dirt bikes, too much house for the income. Cash out re-fi's for maxed out home remodels, flat-screen tvs etc.

I always wonder....are those edible jet skis? You might need to eat them some day.

[quote=NASD Newbie]Is it ever appropriate to be 100% in cash and cash equivalents?

One of the major complaints about commission or fee driven advisors is that they rarely conclude that the appropriate place to be is on the sidelines.

Seeing as you earn your income from advising clients to be "In" can you ever imagine telling them to get "out," even though it would mean that your income would disappear?

In other words, are you truly putting your client ahead of yourself?[/quote]

As far as I know, I could go to 100% cash and still be compensated, at least for awhile.  My assumption is that eventually, compliance would want to see some trading activity to justify my fee.  That being said, I haven't seen a scenario yet where I would be comfortable going to 100% cash for long-term accounts.  There are just too many unknowns on when, which direction and how much the market will move.  By remaining mostly invested, my clients participate in the market, and with the right investments, consistently beat the market.  Thus far this year, my accounts are beating the S&P, the Lehman bros bond index, the EAFE, and all but one Russell index.  I'm satisfied with that and so are my clients.  If another advisor has the conviction to go 100% cash, he/she should.  My crystall ball is just a bit cloudy to make a drastic move like that...

[quote=Malcolm]I dissagree nasd on keeping ones enthusiasm when shorting.

There is nothing more exciting for me at least than growing clients accounts with shorts especially when the market is going down as a whole.  At least for me, it is a very satisfying thing to see my portfolios go up on big down days.  Clients love it also.  And just like any long position, you can put your stop losses in and protect yourself if you are wrong.  "up and down gaps excluded."  

The banks and wirehouses hate when you short and we have been brainwashed into thinking it is something exotic, speculative, etc. 

Not so. Brokers need to get off the Wall Street band wagon and learn how to protect clients money.  Shorting is one way of many to do that.  And by the way, most of the big banks and brokerage firms employ traders for their own accounts. 

No hard feelings I hope Indy.  Nothing wrong with not agreeing all the time.  Now I have to get off this site and get some work done.

I wish a good weekend to everyone.  I'm out.[/quote]

Absolutely no hard feelings.  It's not that hard to disagree as adults, is it?  I'm getting better at it all the time...now back to work!

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=Indyone]

The only point I made is that relatively speaking, stocks are undervalued campared to the late 90's (when they were apparently overvalued).  Your charts may be right temporarily, but eventually improving fundamentals mean better stock prices.

[/quote]

How long is "eventually?"  Can Mr. Jones--the 58 year old client whose $1 million is now at $600,000 wait that long?

When you sit there and tell him, "Bill, the market will eventually come back" do you think he finds that to be reassuring?[/quote]

He's reassured for one of the following reasons:

1. VA with guaranteed income and principal protection.

2.  The bond/cash part of his portfolio.  Virtually none of my clients, even nearing retirement are 100% equities.  I always keep enough set aside to live on for years, if necessary while the market gets healthier.

3.  He's not relying on the money I've invested for retirement income.

[quote=Indyone]

He's reassured for one of the following reasons:

1. VA with guaranteed income and principal protection.

2.  The bond/cash part of his portfolio.  Virtually none of my clients, even nearing retirement are 100% equities.  I always keep enough set aside to live on for years, if necessary while the market gets healthier.

3.  He's not relying on the money I've invested for retirement income.

[/quote]

Tell me, do you think that a VA with guarantees is going to be managed agressively enough to end up with a meaningful gain?

From where I sit far too many advisors are so focused on guarantees that they have put their clients into situations with very little potential reward.

Or has the risk reward ratio been repealled?

Is such a conservatively invested vehicle appropriate for achieving the goals of a retirement account?

Why not fund the qualified plans with aggressive growth funds and use VAs for an additional source of tax deferred investing, but only after already funding the qualified opportunities?

With VA’s, I go at it quite the opposite.  If I have a guarantee to fall back on, I invest fairly aggressively, usually about 80/20.  There’s nothing wrong with using a VA guarantee in conjunction with aggresive investments in qualified plans…that’s just another way to skin the horse and depending on the client, would certainly be something I’d consider.

[quote=Indyone]With VA's, I go at it quite the opposite.  If I have a guarantee to fall back on, I invest fairly aggressively, usually about 80/20.  There's nothing wrong with using a VA guarantee in conjunction with aggresive investments in qualified plans...that's just another way to skin the horse and depending on the client, would certainly be something I'd consider.[/quote]

Are you saying that you have vehicles that allow you, Indyone, to make the decisions--and there is a guarantee if you're wrong?

That's exactly what I'm saying.  Pretty neat, huh?  The insurance company is banking on the market going up over time and skims about 2% off the top for their charges/guarantees.  My decisions are, of course limited to which managers (on the company's approved list of managers) I park the funds with at any given time.

Unlike what Suze Orman says, variable annuities are not of the devil.  Many of the newer ones come with some very reassuring guarantees.

[quote=bankrep1] [quote=NASD Newbie] [quote=bankrep1] [quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=bankrep1] Why all the doom and gloom? The summer is often shaky, I think we are going to have a fantastic 3rd quarter![/quote]

How many shaky summers have you witnessed in order to have such certainty--do you suppose legends like Peter Lynch would think you're naive?

[/quote] I am not trying to maximize returns, I would never compare what I do with a money manager, i was just stating i am bullish[/quote]

And all I am doing is asking you to make a case for being bullish--other than knowing that if you're not what you are doing is malpractice.

[/quote]

Earnings are what drive the market, it's all about earnings[/quote]

Try again Bankrep.  Maybe you haven't heard of fear and greed.  How do you explain the tech bubble?  Earnings are only ONE factor in a much more complex game. 

[quote=Indyone]

That's exactly what I'm saying.  Pretty neat, huh?  The insurance company is banking on the market going up over time and skims about 2% off the top for their charges/guarantees.  My decisions are, of course limited to which managers (on the company's approved list of managers) I park the funds with at any given time.

Unlike what Suze Orman says, variable annuities are not of the devil.  Many of the newer ones come with some very reassuring guarantees.

[/quote]

And the commissions are the most compelling reason to shove them down unsuspecting client's throats?

I thought it was compelling for the client to have protection if his account dropped from 1m to 600k.  Obviously, that wouldn't be attractive to your former clients. 

I definitely don't think that VA's are the fix all for everyone like some, but when you are talking about that type of environment with retirees, it may not be such a crazy idea. 

NASD, you are a moron as usual.  Forget the commission for a moment...which is more attractive?

Take a 55 year old with $600,000 IRA rollover and of moderate risk tolerance.

If given the choice between being invested in a diversified portfolio of mutual funds in a wrap account (A share at NAV say around 1% plus 1.5% wrap fee) with NO GUARANTEE,

or

in a diversified portfolio of subaccounts inside a VA (say at 1.25% for the subaccounts, and 2% for the M&E) WITH AN INCOME AND PRINCIPLE PROTECTION GUARANTEE

"So Mr. Prospect, we can build very similar portfolios in each...so all things equal, your return inside the VA will be about 3/4ths of a percent less than outside."

"Is 3/4ths of a percent WORTH principle protection and guaranteed income for life????"

For most, it is.

[quote=BankFC]

NASD, you are a moron as usual.  Forget the commission for a moment...which is more attractive?

Take a 55 year old with $600,000 IRA rollover and of moderate risk tolerance.

If given the choice between being invested in a diversified portfolio of mutual funds in a wrap account (A share at NAV say around 1% plus 1.5% wrap fee) with NO GUARANTEE,

or

in a diversified portfolio of subaccounts inside a VA (say at 1.25% for the subaccounts, and 2% for the M&E) WITH AN INCOME AND PRINCIPLE PROTECTION GUARANTEE

"So Mr. Prospect, we can build very similar portfolios in each...so all things equal, your return inside the VA will be about 3/4ths of a percent less than outside."

"Is 3/4ths of a percent WORTH principle protection and guaranteed income for life????"

For most, it is.

[/quote]

If this client is going to retire in ten years and he can earn an average of 7% outside the VA and 6.25% inside the VA that guarantee will cost him $80,000.  Do you ever put it in real dollars for them?  Over 20 years it will cost around $304,000.  If you put it in those terms do you think most would think it's worth it?  I am sincerely asking.

I know earnings don’t drive a stocks short term price. FOr example MSFT might trade at 20X and then trade at 10X even though earning rose the stock price can be less I get that.



What I am saying is that there is no way that all stocks will tarde lower in 10 or 20 years. Why because earnings rise with inflation. Is anyone gonna make the argument that we won’t have inflation?



VA’s will become more and more common. I think the fees and commissions will come down. Guess what I will still use them, they are a great risk management tool.

[quote=Maxstud][quote=BankFC]

NASD, you are a moron as usual.  Forget the commission for a moment...which is more attractive?

Take a 55 year old with $600,000 IRA rollover and of moderate risk tolerance.

If given the choice between being invested in a diversified portfolio of mutual funds in a wrap account (A share at NAV say around 1% plus 1.5% wrap fee) with NO GUARANTEE,

or

in a diversified portfolio of subaccounts inside a VA (say at 1.25% for the subaccounts, and 2% for the M&E) WITH AN INCOME AND PRINCIPLE PROTECTION GUARANTEE

"So Mr. Prospect, we can build very similar portfolios in each...so all things equal, your return inside the VA will be about 3/4ths of a percent less than outside."

"Is 3/4ths of a percent WORTH principle protection and guaranteed income for life????"

For most, it is.

[/quote]

If this client is going to retire in ten years and he can earn an average of 7% outside the VA and 6.25% inside the VA that guarantee will cost him $80,000.  Do you ever put it in real dollars for them?  Over 20 years it will cost around $304,000.  If you put it in those terms do you think most would think it's worth it?  I am sincerely asking.

[/quote]

Max-

I had a couple who had put $180,000 into a VA in late 1998. When they transferred their account to me in 2001, the value was $120,000.

They didn't need the money but were MOST distressed at the value and often asked if they should just "dump it". I advised them not to.

The husband died in November 2002 and the value was $110,000- but we then were able to cash out the full premium amount of $180,000.

In this case, the client was most happy for the death benefit. And if a person were retiring in a "Correction Year" and the VA had the GMIB in place, they could be assured a steady amount of money without taking less because the Market Value had dropped.

VA's with Income riders are great tools for the some cases.

Muny,

Thanks for the info, I do understand what your saying and I think that is a very valid concern.  I just find that quoting percentages to people is just like quoting the cost of something by saying it will only cost $2 a day.  What's wrong with giving them the real numbers and facts so they can make an informed decision.  A decision that is the most important one in their lives.

Does BankFC really know what that 3/4 of a percent really costs?

[quote=BankFC]

NASD, you are a moron as usual.  Forget the commission for a moment...which is more attractive?

Take a 55 year old with $600,000 IRA rollover and of moderate risk tolerance.

If given the choice between being invested in a diversified portfolio of mutual funds in a wrap account (A share at NAV say around 1% plus 1.5% wrap fee) with NO GUARANTEE,

or

in a diversified portfolio of subaccounts inside a VA (say at 1.25% for the subaccounts, and 2% for the M&E) WITH AN INCOME AND PRINCIPLE PROTECTION GUARANTEE

"So Mr. Prospect, we can build very similar portfolios in each...so all things equal, your return inside the VA will be about 3/4ths of a percent less than outside."

"Is 3/4ths of a percent WORTH principle protection and guaranteed income for life????"

For most, it is.

[/quote]

You're too stupid to know how to spell, why in the world would I listen to you?

[quote=bankrep1]I know earnings don't drive a stocks short term price. FOr example MSFT might trade at 20X and then trade at 10X even though earning rose the stock price can be less I get that.

What I am saying is that there is no way that all stocks will tarde lower in 10 or 20 years. Why because earnings rise with inflation. Is anyone gonna make the argument that we won't have inflation?

VA's will become more and more common. I think the fees and commissions will come down. Guess what I will still use them, they are a great risk management tool.[/quote]

If there's a God in heaven an officer of your bank will look over your shoulder and realize what a moron you are and make you into a security guard instead of a financial advisor.

You are so dangerous that it is amazing you were able to con somebody into hiring you.

[quote=Maxstud]

Muny,

Thanks for the info, I do understand what your saying and I think that is a very valid concern.  I just find that quoting percentages to people is just like quoting the cost of something by saying it will only cost $2 a day.  What's wrong with giving them the real numbers and facts so they can make an informed decision.  A decision that is the most important one in their lives.

Does BankFC really know what that 3/4 of a percent really costs?

[/quote]

Max,

ABSOLUTELY agree with you there. In fact, since going INDY and getting the 24 I make certain we go over all options. AND then have the client sign acknowledgement of same. Regardless, no client has 100% of assets locked into an annuity. 

And on another note, how was Summer Regional? Did you have that free drink on me?

[quote=bankrep1]I know earnings don't drive a stocks short term price. FOr example MSFT might trade at 20X and then trade at 10X even though earning rose the stock price can be less I get that.

What I am saying is that there is no way that all stocks will tarde lower in 10 or 20 years. Why because earnings rise with inflation. Is anyone gonna make the argument that we won't have inflation?

VA's will become more and more common. I think the fees and commissions will come down. Guess what I will still use them, they are a great risk management tool.[/quote]

I disagree with the statement: there is no way that all stocks will tarde lower in 10 or 20 years.

No way huh?  There are no stockmarkets in the entire world in all of history (last couple hundred years or so) that have ever traded lower over a 10 OR 20 year time horizon?  I know of a few periods here in the US and one in particular in Japan.  Hell the Nasdaq is on track to be trading lower for a 10 year cycle......if not longer.  What about Japan?  C'mon now.

I hate to agree with NASD but you are wearing your ignorance on your shirt sleeve with the above statement.

In addition you definitely shouldn't be selling VA's with a guarantee if you believe that: "there is no way that all stocks will tarde lower in 10 or 20 years."

Pretty much makes the guarantee useless if that's the truth.

[quote=munytalks][quote=Maxstud]

Muny,

Thanks for the info, I do understand what your saying and I think that is a very valid concern.  I just find that quoting percentages to people is just like quoting the cost of something by saying it will only cost $2 a day.  What's wrong with giving them the real numbers and facts so they can make an informed decision.  A decision that is the most important one in their lives.

Does BankFC really know what that 3/4 of a percent really costs?

[/quote]

Max,

ABSOLUTELY agree with you there. In fact, since going INDY and getting the 24 I make certain we go over all options. AND then have the client sign acknowledgement of same. Regardless, no client has 100% of assets locked into an annuity. 

And on another note, how was Summer Regional? Did you have that free drink on me?

[/quote]

It was OK, I'm not real big on group activities but the kids loved hanging out at the pool and we did get away from everyone in the afternoons.  I did pop into the hotel bar to get that free drink on you and got into a very weird conversation with a lady from MI who was there for an insulation convention.  My wife bailed on me early in the conversation and it took a bit of effort to remove myself.  The downside to being Maxstud I guess. 

Theory and reality often collide.  I love all the pawns that put their faith in the Nobel prize winning GODS of finance. 

Yeah, did you give your money to LTCM too?  Oops, did I just get down to brass tacks or what?  

Wake up people, it's HUMAN BEINGS who drive the market with all their complex issues.  If the market was as easy to quantify and serve up as all the theory pundits would have you believe, the market wouldn't exist since all risk and therefore opportunity would be squeezed out.  Makes for great marketing and establishing a paradigm to try and understand specific aspects of the market, but still far from REALITY.

Truly understanding the market is like truly understanding women......an excercise in madness.  It's fine for technicaly oriented subjects like math and physics, but as we all know as sales people; EMOTION is the dominant driving factor in the world (and therefore all things of the world including financial markets).  If human beings were as motivated by logic as emotion, we would live in a much different world.

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=Indyone]That’s exactly what I’m saying.  Pretty neat, huh?  The insurance company is banking on the market going up over time and skims about 2% off the top for their charges/guarantees.  My decisions are, of course limited to which managers (on the company’s approved list of managers) I park the funds with at any given time.

Unlike what Suze Orman says, variable annuities are not of the devil.  Many of the newer ones come with some very reassuring guarantees.[/quote]

And the commissions are the most compelling reason to shove them down unsuspecting client's throats?[/quote]

If that were the case, they would certainly make up more than 4% of my book, wouldn't they?  They pay a little better, but I don't sell any that pay more than 4% up front/1% trail.  The thing that will blow you away is that when asked, I tell them exactly what I will make...and I've never lost a sale over it yet.

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=Indyone]

That's exactly what I'm saying.  Pretty neat, huh?  The insurance company is banking on the market going up over time and skims about 2% off the top for their charges/guarantees.  My decisions are, of course limited to which managers (on the company's approved list of managers) I park the funds with at any given time.

Unlike what Suze Orman says, variable annuities are not of the devil.  Many of the newer ones come with some very reassuring guarantees.

[/quote]

And the commissions are the most compelling reason to shove them down unsuspecting client's throats?

[/quote]

How do you assume that they are unsuspecting?  When I discuss (and I'm pretty sure that Indyone does the same) annuities we talk about the holding period, surrender charges, the unfavorable converson of capital gains into ordinary income, the additional costs for the benefits and the internal charges for the mutual fund subaccounts.  There is no shoving down the throat. The client is fully informed and makes a decision to buy or not to buy.

And yes, there are guarantees where if the market goes to hell in a handbasket the client has a guaranteed income or return.  If my client has a VA we also do more agressive investing than they would otherwise since the annuity guarantee is a safety net

[quote=babbling looney]

And yes, there are guarantees where if the market goes to hell in a handbasket the client has a guaranteed income or return.  If my client has a VA we also do more agressive investing than they would otherwise since the annuity guarantee is a safety net

[/quote]

Pardon my cynicism, but when an insurance comany is guaranteeing the principal the choice of investments is not going to include "aggressive."

The risk reward ratio has not been repealed by the insurance industry.

I think a logical question is the same that is faced when recommending that a client buy a put to protect their stock--if it's not going to go up why should I buy it in the first place?

I hate to do this again but I'm going to have to SOMEWHAT agree with NASD.  I must also concede that NASD has a demonstrated understanding of the types of vehicles that insurance companies use to 'manufacture' these VA's: derivatives.  Most Advisors do not REALLY understand derivatives in the least, which I believe is very unfortunate and would help them evaluate these products from a more 'holistic' perspective.

My take on VA's is that it is often very difficult to get clients to understand the risk/reward relationship on an EMOTIONAL level and in some circumstances it is a way to help with good investing habits (keeps them from making drastic changes during market volatility), but only where the costs of the annuity and guarantees is VERY low and the client (or broker) is not savvy enough to dive into options.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=babbling looney]

And yes, there are guarantees where if the market goes to hell in a handbasket the client has a guaranteed income or return.  If my client has a VA we also do more agressive investing than they would otherwise since the annuity guarantee is a safety net

[/quote]

Pardon my cynicism, but when an insurance comany is guaranteeing the principal the choice of investments is not going to include "aggressive."  Well, guess what? It does.  I can use growth and even emerging markets if I want to.

The risk reward ratio has not been repealed by the insurance industry.  No, but the insurance industry assumes that over time, the markets will make money, thus they assume the safety net will rarely come into play.

I think a logical question is the same that is faced when recommending that a client buy a put to protect their stock--if it's not going to go up why should I buy it in the first place?[/quote]

That is a valid comparison.  Puts are in some ways, very similar to VA guarantees.  It wouldn't surprise me at all that the insurance industry might use options to cover their guarantee risk.  Perhaps someone closer to the industry would know if this is done.

[quote=Indyone][quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=babbling looney]

And yes, there are guarantees where if the market goes to hell in a handbasket the client has a guaranteed income or return.  If my client has a VA we also do more agressive investing than they would otherwise since the annuity guarantee is a safety net

[/quote]

Pardon my cynicism, but when an insurance comany is guaranteeing the principal the choice of investments is not going to include "aggressive."  Well, guess what? It does.  I can use growth and even emerging markets if I want to.

The risk reward ratio has not been repealed by the insurance industry.  No, but the insurance industry assumes that over time, the markets will make money, thus they assume the safety net will rarely come into play.

I think a logical question is the same that is faced when recommending that a client buy a put to protect their stock--if it's not going to go up why should I buy it in the first place?[/quote]

That is a valid comparison.  Puts are in some ways, very similar to VA guarantees.  It wouldn't surprise me at all that the insurance industry might use options to cover their guarantee risk.  Perhaps someone closer to the industry would know if this is done.

[/quote]

This and exotic 'private' derivatives are used extensively to manufacture these products.  How else could they afford the risk?

This = Call and put options.

NASD, maybe you could verify or villify my following logic:

The VA riders and guarantees are in essence an expensive way to  participate in an options like strategy and that better results could very well be obtained by cutting out the middle man?

What do you think?

That’s probably true, but cost-effectively running this strategy probably takes more money than most of my VA clients have.  VAs may just be a poor man’s option package.

You are echoing my suspicions Indyone.

The fees being discussed for the guarantees do not seem high enough to afford continuing coverage with puts.

Plus, in order to squeeze the water out of the puts they would have to be very deep in the money.

If they are, and if the market moves higher as it should in order to benefit the investors the insurance company would be taking huge losses in puts that were expiring.

No doubt there is a cushion if the guarantee is, say, 5% if the market appreciates more than that in good years.

It's all buried in that actuarial crap that I didn't study which is why I ended up a peddler instead of a scientist.

What I don't believe is that the average person could possibly afford to continue to buy puts in order to eliminate the risk of holding positions--not on his individual issues or on an index, which would be a form of overkill for most folks.

I'm not saying buying puts on the whole position.

I'm talking about partial position coverage.  Multiple option strategies and the like to manage risk.  There are many ways to achieve the hedging necessary to reduce the insurance companies exposure.

Also, I'm sure that it's not nearly as expensive for insurance companies to trade options as say you or I.  In addition I am suspecting that there are privately drafted exotic derivatives that achieve similar results to a put/call strategy to manage risk that these insurance companies use maybe at a lower overall cost than actually trading options.

Any thoughts?

[quote=dude]

I'm not saying buying puts on the whole position.

I'm talking about partial position coverage.  Multiple option strategies and the like to manage risk.  There are many ways to achieve the hedging necessary to reduce the insurance companies exposure.

[/quote]

One of the holy grails of investing is "the pure hedge."  A strategy that completely eliminates risk while affording reasonable profit potential.

You can come close with hedge wrapper strategies--collars, whatever.  Buy a put for protection and pay for it by writiing a call.  Such strategies are available all day long--yes you can reduce the risk to zero, but the gain is no more than t-bills would be paying at the time so the argument is why bother?

HOWEVER, if you charge the client a premium for the guarantee you could buy a call option with a strike price right above the one you sold to pay for the put.  Because they are out of the money they will be cheap--about what the client is paying for the insurance?

If the market crashes a gain in the put will equal the loss in the portfolio's value--net change zero, no gain no loss.

If the market rises the gain will accrue to the benefit of the investor until it reaches the strike price of the short call which was written to pay for the put.  As stated earlier, the gain at that point should approximate T-Bills and other riskless vehicles with a similar time horizon.

Should the market soar well beyond the short call in the step above, the long call--bought with the annuity owner's additional premium--will catch and the gain in that call will offset the lost gain in the portfolio due to the call that was shorted to pay for the put.

The secret is that the client is buying the out of the money call with their additional payment--as always, there is no free lunch.

Without giving it more thought than I want to on this particula occasion I think it sounds like a very viable thing that anybody could do--even with Google or some other steppers--I'll try to work up an example with today's closing prices and see what the percentages look like.

Best Regards,

Stephen Hawking
or maybe not

[quote=dude]

Also, I'm sure that it's not nearly as expensive for insurance companies to trade options as say you or I.  In addition I am suspecting that there are privately drafted exotic derivatives that achieve similar results to a put/call strategy to manage risk that these insurance companies use maybe at a lower overall cost than actually trading options.

Any thoughts?

[/quote]

I am old enough to remember the old put and call houses.  There was no listed exchange so you had to go to investors an make offers, "Wanna sell ten calls on IBM--328 7/8ths to expire in 48 days?  The guy will pay 2 1/8th each,"

No doubt there would be speculators who would be happy to take the other side of an insurance company's hedge--hey, I bet a hedge fund might do that .

Thanks NASD, I think it would be very interesting to see how a similar result could be achived using options instead of a VA and what the cost differences would be.  Even though I don't use options for clients (haven't figured out how to make it scalable and efficient) I am very intrigued by the possibilities.

I guess I may have been wrong about your contributions to this board.  Although you can be a little bit of a hard ass, you definitely bring an expertise that is rarely seen on these boards and is certainly valuable. 

Again.....thanks.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=babbling looney]

And yes, there are guarantees where if the market goes to hell in a handbasket the client has a guaranteed income or return. If my client has a VA we also do more agressive investing than they would otherwise since the annuity guarantee is a safety net

[/quote]

Pardon my cynicism, but when an insurance comany is guaranteeing the principal the choice of investments is not going to include "aggressive."

The risk reward ratio has not been repealed by the insurance industry.

I think a logical question is the same that is faced when recommending that a client buy a put to protect their stock–if it’s not going to go up why should I buy it in the first place?

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=BankFC]

NASD, you are a moron as usual.  Forget the commission for a moment...which is more attractive?

Take a 55 year old with $600,000 IRA rollover and of moderate risk tolerance.

If given the choice between being invested in a diversified portfolio of mutual funds in a wrap account (A share at NAV say around 1% plus 1.5% wrap fee) with NO GUARANTEE,

or

in a diversified portfolio of subaccounts inside a VA (say at 1.25% for the subaccounts, and 2% for the M&E) WITH AN INCOME AND PRINCIPLE PROTECTION GUARANTEE

"So Mr. Prospect, we can build very similar portfolios in each...so all things equal, your return inside the VA will be about 3/4ths of a percent less than outside."

"Is 3/4ths of a percent WORTH principle protection and guaranteed income for life????"

For most, it is.

[/quote]

You're too stupid to know how to spell, why in the world would I listen to you?

[/quote]

NASD, please point out the word or words I misspelled. 

You are an idiot.

[quote=Maxstud]

Muny,

Thanks for the info, I do understand what your saying and I think that is a very valid concern.  I just find that quoting percentages to people is just like quoting the cost of something by saying it will only cost $2 a day.  What's wrong with giving them the real numbers and facts so they can make an informed decision.  A decision that is the most important one in their lives.

Does BankFC really know what that 3/4 of a percent really costs?

[/quote]

Yes, I do.  In reality though (which is where most of us live) the VA provides the comfort level for the client that NEEDS to be in the market but is fearful to participate. 

So the opportunity cost in that situation is really what the investment returns (including expenses) versus being in cash.  

What is the cost of staying in cash over 10 years?

Also, what is the cost of the piece of mind to "stay the course" during very bad times?  How much does a given client have to lose IN REALITY before they tell you thanks for nothing, sell out, and go to cash?

There is more than one type of cost, and some are easier to measure than others.

Good response,Bank FC.

Someone wrote, "In addition you definitely shouldn't be selling VA's with a guarantee if you believe that: "there is no way that all stocks will tarde lower in 10 or 20 years." Pretty much makes the guarantee useless if that's the truth."

It's not the belief of the advisor that matters.  It is the risk tolerance level of the client that matters.  VA's with guarantees allow an investor to invest in a way that is more aggressive than their risk tolerance would allow.  Here is a typical real life example.  Please let me know of a choice better than a VA with a guarantee for this client:

60 year old with a 300k IRA rollover.  Your calculations determine that this needs to grow to about $650,000 for the client to achieve their goal of retiring at age 70.  The client's risk tolerance will not allow any investments where they could lose money. 

Just doing that in my head that is about a 7% to 8% return (don't have the motivation to calculate right now ).

A VA with a GMIB rider might be a great choice, or if they wanted access to their money (take their money and "walk" so to speak), a VA with a lum sum benefit might be good too.  

Allianz High Five L share comes to mind.

Someone wrote to me:



n addition you definitely shouldn’t be selling VA’s with a guarantee if you believe that: "there is no way that all stocks will tarde lower in 10 or 20 years."



Pretty much makes the guarantee useless if that’s the truth.



I know the markets/my portfolios (Using a plural for all you homegamers) will be higher, however I cannot control behavior if we have a 40% swing that lasts 3 years, whose to say Joe client won’t cash out and walk. What good did I do him by creating a portfolio that would achieved the returns we needed, but didn’t factor in his patience level and behavioral traits. If all clients exuded rational behavior I probably wouldn’t use VA’s, but since that is not how people function I think they will become more and more common in retirement income plans.

Since I left for my vacation to my place in Punta Gorda in July I see you have been doing some good work here NASD.  It seems to me that you are no longer just stirring up the ant mound.  You are expressing intelligent thought.  I still see you as the giant standing above the mound with the stick stirring things up but now when the ants scurry out of the ground you are at least pointing them in the right direction.   

The brokers on this forum are so pitiful though.  They are beyond your help.  Children who play on the internet all day long instead of prospecting or doing some other activity that produces gross revenue.  How their managers tolerate them I do not know.  Our industry work force is such a joke.

Somone actually telling us technical analysis does not work.  How uninformed...how stupid...how lost have we become?  I would like to teach you all about technical analysis but of course I cant do that. 

You dont know a thing about what drives the markets...what goes on on the trading floor, what the truth is about our country and our economy and what could happen to this stock market.  Your all so dang stupid! 

It rained on our sailing trip a few days but that did not dampen the fun.  BBQing on the grill on the back of the boat under a canapy and sipping beer with family as we bobbed in harbor at Virgin Gorda. Sometimes I think I should retire.  Virgin Gorda, what a place.

Keep up the shorting who ever was talking about that.  You are a smart man.  About four months ago I said short the home builders on this forum.  Anyone take me up on that?  Working out pretty good isnt it. 

I gotta go shovel that manure now.  NASD never took me up on the offer to help me out with it.  

[quote=Greenhills]

I gotta go shovel that manure now.  NASD never took me up on the offer to help me out with it.  

[/quote]

You never said the manure was in Virgin Gorda.

[quote=BankFC][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=BankFC]

NASD, you are a moron as usual.  Forget the commission for a moment...which is more attractive?

Take a 55 year old with $600,000 IRA rollover and of moderate risk tolerance.

If given the choice between being invested in a diversified portfolio of mutual funds in a wrap account (A share at NAV say around 1% plus 1.5% wrap fee) with NO GUARANTEE,

or

in a diversified portfolio of subaccounts inside a VA (say at 1.25% for the subaccounts, and 2% for the M&E) WITH AN INCOME AND PRINCIPLE PROTECTION GUARANTEE

"So Mr. Prospect, we can build very similar portfolios in each...so all things equal, your return inside the VA will be about 3/4ths of a percent less than outside."

"Is 3/4ths of a percent WORTH principle protection and guaranteed income for life????"

For most, it is.

[/quote]

You're too stupid to know how to spell, why in the world would I listen to you?

[/quote]

NASD, please point out the word or words I misspelled. 

You are an idiot.

[/quote]

I see you made it back to the forum, but didn't have the guts to respond. 

[quote=Greenhills]

Since I left for my vacation to my place in Punta Gorda in July I see you have been doing some good work here NASD.  It seems to me that you are no longer just stirring up the ant mound.  You are expressing intelligent thought.  I still see you as the giant standing above the mound with the stick stirring things up but now when the ants scurry out of the ground you are at least pointing them in the right direction.   

The brokers on this forum are so pitiful though.  They are beyond your help.  Children who play on the internet all day long instead of prospecting or doing some other activity that produces gross revenue.  How their managers tolerate them I do not know.  Our industry work force is such a joke.

Somone actually telling us technical analysis does not work.  How uninformed...how stupid...how lost have we become?  I would like to teach you all about technical analysis but of course I cant do that. 

You dont know a thing about what drives the markets...what goes on on the trading floor, what the truth is about our country and our economy and what could happen to this stock market.  Your all so dang stupid! 

It rained on our sailing trip a few days but that did not dampen the fun.  BBQing on the grill on the back of the boat under a canapy and sipping beer with family as we bobbed in harbor at Virgin Gorda. Sometimes I think I should retire.  Virgin Gorda, what a place.

Keep up the shorting who ever was talking about that.  You are a smart man.  About four months ago I said short the home builders on this forum.  Anyone take me up on that?  Working out pretty good isnt it. 

I gotta go shovel that manure now.  NASD never took me up on the offer to help me out with it.  

[/quote]

As NASD has pointed out, you need to learn the difference between "your" and "you're" before your opinion has any validity here.

[quote=BankFC]

As NASD has pointed out, you need to learn the difference between "your" and "you're" before your opinion has any validity here.

[/quote]

There is a difference between the occasional lapse in paying attention to what you're doing and your making the error again and again and again in the same posting.

You're an idiot, kid,  Face reality.  You're actually very very dangerous as an advisor and I predict you will become very familiar with the cheek tightening that occurs when the paperwork is served and you end up stuttering, "I pppppromise to ttttteeell the truth the whole truth and nnnnnothing but the truth."

[quote=BankFC][quote=Greenhills]

Since I left for my vacation to my place in Punta Gorda in July I see you have been doing some good work here NASD.  It seems to me that you are no longer just stirring up the ant mound.  You are expressing intelligent thought.  I still see you as the giant standing above the mound with the stick stirring things up but now when the ants scurry out of the ground you are at least pointing them in the right direction.   

The brokers on this forum are so pitiful though.  They are beyond your help.  Children who play on the internet all day long instead of prospecting or doing some other activity that produces gross revenue.  How their managers tolerate them I do not know.  Our industry work force is such a joke.

Somone actually telling us technical analysis does not work.  How uninformed...how stupid...how lost have we become?  I would like to teach you all about technical analysis but of course I can't do that. 

You don't know a thing about what drives the markets...what goes on on the trading floor, what the truth is about our country and our economy and what could happen to this stock market.  Your all so dang stupid! 

It rained on our sailing trip a few days but that did not dampen the fun.  BBQing on the grill on the back of the boat under a canapy and sipping beer with family as we bobbed in harbor at Virgin Gorda. Sometimes I think I should retire.  Virgin Gorda, what a place.

Keep up the shorting who ever was talking about that.  You are a smart man.  About four months ago I said short the home builders on this forum.  Anyone take me up on that?  Working out pretty good isnt it. 

I gotta go shovel that manure now.  NASD never took me up on the offer to help me out with it.  

[/quote]

As NASD has pointed out, you need to learn the difference between "your" and "you're" before your opinion has any validity here.

[/quote]

By the way, you idiot- try using correct punctuation too!

Did you ever read malkiels book " A random walk down Wall Street"?

[quote=BankFC][quote=BankFC][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=BankFC]

NASD, you are a moron as usual.  Forget the commission for a moment...which is more attractive?

Take a 55 year old with $600,000 IRA rollover and of moderate risk tolerance.

If given the choice between being invested in a diversified portfolio of mutual funds in a wrap account (A share at NAV say around 1% plus 1.5% wrap fee) with NO GUARANTEE,

or

in a diversified portfolio of subaccounts inside a VA (say at 1.25% for the subaccounts, and 2% for the M&E) WITH AN INCOME AND PRINCIPLE PROTECTION GUARANTEE

"So Mr. Prospect, we can build very similar portfolios in each...so all things equal, your return inside the VA will be about 3/4ths of a percent less than outside."

"Is 3/4ths of a percent WORTH principle protection and guaranteed income for life????"

For most, it is.

[/quote]

You're too stupid to know how to spell, why in the world would I listen to you?

[/quote]

NASD, please point out the word or words I misspelled. 

You are an idiot.

[/quote]

I see you made it back to the forum, but didn't have the guts to respond. 

[/quote]

AGAIN, point out the mistake that i did "again and again."  You have no leg to stand on, so you don't respond.

i = I

Why does BankFC refer to things written by BankRep1 as if he had written them?

Oh WAIT, I know.  That way he can say something as one character and then come along as the second character and verify it.

BankRep1  "Those who work for banks are not stupid."

BankFC  "your exactly write on that  we are as smart as anybody else."

Well now this guy will admit he is careless and poor at punctuation.  Also spelling don't forget.  I frequently type 2's instead of s's also and b's instead of d's.  It is the way my mind reads things.  It was a time in college until I figured out how my mind learns. But there you go.  It is what it is.  I got over it now you all need to also.

So now I'm gonna give you all a hard time for some of your shortcomings.  These are the things that really matter on this forum.

Do you all know why I manage more than a 200 million dollars and you don't?  Simple.  It's because I know how to run money and you don't.

Now how about that? Isn't that just a funny thing.  It is also because I am wiser than most of you and that comes out when talking to wealthy people.  You see, I can call a spade a spade and understand the world around me better than you uninformed dolts.  That is what you all for the most part are.  Uninformed dolts.

It's the reason money comes to me so fast because you all are my competition!  I kick your asses every day.  Now isn't that a funny one?  Thing is, I know plenty of guys and women far bigger than me. 

I'm sure willing to learn from them.  Hell, I had a large deal I ran accross a couple months ago.  I needed somone with better contacts with some bankers in NY than me.  So I got involved a women with almost ONE BILLION under management.  Think I shut my mouth and learned from her?  You bet I did.  Now that's what you all need to do.  Shut up and learn and get humble.      

You got somone one here I havent always agreed with but when you here someone telling you to not rule out economy calamity and you poo poo him well you know who the fool is.   

I know more about managing stocks than I'll bet 100% of the big mouths on here.  Yet you pass up an oportunity to learn because even on anonimos forum you can't control your egos. 

That's fine.  Tomarrow I will go back to work and kick some more of you little asses like I always do.  I eat your lunches every day and you don't even know it because you never even get a chance to get to the batters box with the people I have as prospects. 

You don't loose prospects to me because you never see the prospects I deal with.  Now that's a funny thing.     

That’s fine. Tomarrow will go back to work and kick some more of you little asses like I always do. I eat your lunches every day and you don’t even know it because you never even get a chance to get to the batters box with the people I have as prospects.



You don’t looseprospects to me because you never see the prospects I deal with. Now that’s a funny thing.   



The words are tommorrow & lose. Does it give you a boner to act like someone your not?

[quote=NASD Newbie]

Why does BankFC refer to things written by BankRep1 as if he had written them?

Oh WAIT, I know. That way he can say something as one character and then come along as the second character and verify it.

BankRep1 "Those who work for banks are not stupid."

BankFC “your exactly write on that we are as smart as anybody else.”

Don't foget that finely spelled word "anonimos" Greenhills. 

The fact is, I really don't care if someone misspells a word here and there, or uses "your" when they should use "you're." 

But what I cannot stand is hypocrites (aka NASD) who state their opinions as gospel truth, yet when questioned in the least, revert to childish grammer insults (sometimes even when no grammer mistakes exist as seen above).

He is a hyporcite in the highest order, and I love to watch him sqiurm under the very standards he tries to hold others on this forum.

It is an amusing diversion for me to make that old geriatric NASD back up again and again.

hypocrite = hypocrite

see, we all make mistakes 

ahh, too many cocktails on the boat this afternoon.

hyporcite = hypocrite  lol

Greenhills and NASD’s approach may be a little abrasive, but from my humble assesment they definitley have made some of the most valuable contributions I have read on this board.  Bankrep and BankFC, if you can get past the thorns there are some roses to smell and insights to be had.

[quote=Greenhills]

How their managers tolerate them I do not know.  Our industry work force is such a joke.

[/quote]

Pssst Greenhills.....independent advisors DON'T have managers. Shhh don't tell anyone else though ok?

But he manages 200 Million

AND has a place in Punta Gorda, I know.

It's his super ee-ville lair in the shape of a bull in a hollowed out volcano where he's plotting to take over Wall St.

[quote=Greenhills]

Well now this guy will admit he is careless and poor at punctuation.  Also spelling don't forget.  I frequently type 2's instead of s's also and b's instead of d's.  It is the way my mind reads things.  It was a time in college until I figured out how my mind learns. But there you go.  It is what it is.  I got over it now you all need to also.

So now I'm gonna give you all a hard time for some of your shortcomings.  These are the things that really matter on this forum.

Do you all know why I manage more than a 200 million dollars and you don't?  Simple.  It's because I know how to run money and you don't.

Now how about that? Isn't that just a funny thing.  It is also because I am wiser than most of you and that comes out when talking to wealthy people.  You see, I can call a spade a spade and understand the world around me better than you uninformed dolts.  That is what you all for the most part are.  Uninformed dolts.

It's the reason money comes to me so fast because you all are my competition!  I kick your asses every day.  Now isn't that a funny one?  Thing is, I know plenty of guys and women far bigger than me. 

I'm sure willing to learn from them.  Hell, I had a large deal I ran accross a couple months ago.  I needed somone with better contacts with some bankers in NY than me.  So I got involved a women with almost ONE BILLION under management.  Think I shut my mouth and learned from her?  You bet I did.  Now that's what you all need to do.  Shut up and learn and get humble.      

You got somone one here I havent always agreed with but when you here someone telling you to not rule out economy calamity and you poo poo him well you know who the fool is.   

I know more about managing stocks than I'll bet 100% of the big mouths on here.  Yet you pass up an oportunity to learn because even on anonimos forum you can't control your egos. 

That's fine.  Tomarrow I will go back to work and kick some more of you little asses like I always do.  I eat your lunches every day and you don't even know it because you never even get a chance to get to the batters box with the people I have as prospects. 

You don't loose prospects to me because you never see the prospects I deal with.  Now that's a funny thing.     

[/quote]

that's great....but even better is the fact that you are the absolute anti-christ to all that NASD preaches-

guys like you (according to NASD) :

1. are punks who'll never make it
2. are too lazy to put your best foot forward, your clients will hate you
3. too dumb to spell, ergo..too dumb to make it as a Pro like him
4. ect, ect, ect........

if you really have a $200 million book (heck, if you even have a $2 million book) you repudiate just about all that NASD knows about successes in this biz-

if you were not real, some one would have to make you up and frankly, i'm surprised some one had'nt by now--

So NASD--

How do explain Greenhills?
he doesn't give a hoot about punctuation, their/there/they're, your/you're, ect...

is his $200 million book the exception to every one of you're rules or is you're gospel full of heresies?

GREENHILLS:  where did you get you're degree?

[quote=TexasRep]

So NASD--

How do explain Greenhills?
he doesn't give a hoot about punctuation, their/there/they're, your/you're, ect...

is his $200 million book the exception to every one of you're rules or is you're gospel full of heresies?

GREENHILLS:  where did you get you're degree?

[/quote]

The Internet is a wonderful place.  Have I told you that when I left production for the fast track that I distributed a $300 million book to the guys in my office?

The internet IS a wonderful place.  Have I told you that I was upper middle management for the biggest wirehouse in the world and that I’m better and smarter than anyone else?

[quote=Philo Kvetch]The internet IS a wonderful place.  Have I told you that I was upper middle management for the biggest wirehouse in the world and that I'm better and smarter than anyone else?[/quote]

No, but that's great. We probably have a lot of mutual friends.

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=TexasRep]

So NASD--

How do explain Greenhills?
he doesn't give a hoot about punctuation, their/there/they're, your/you're, ect...

is his $200 million book the exception to every one of you're rules or is you're gospel full of heresies?

GREENHILLS:  where did you get you're degree?

[/quote]

The Internet is a wonderful place.  Have I told you that when I left production for the fast track that I distributed a $300 million book to the guys in my office?

[/quote]

a rather genteel way of calling a fan of yours a liar.....

do you really believe him to be so, or are you assassinating him in a crusade to protect your point-of-view?

[quote=TexasRep][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=TexasRep]

So NASD--

How do explain Greenhills?
he doesn't give a hoot about punctuation, their/there/they're, your/you're, ect...

is his $200 million book the exception to every one of you're rules or is you're gospel full of heresies?

GREENHILLS:  where did you get you're degree?

[/quote]

The Internet is a wonderful place.  Have I told you that when I left production for the fast track that I distributed a $300 million book to the guys in my office?

[/quote]

a rather genteel way of calling a fan of yours a liar.....

do you really believe him to be so, or are you assassinating him in a crusade to protect your point-of-view?

[/quote]

It doesn't matter one way or the other.  There will always be exceptions to the rule--why it even rains in Timbuktu once or twice every decade.

I'm sure he is not a fan of mine just because we share some points of view--there are others who do too.

Not to mention this fact.  A person offering opinions doesn't care if what he is saying is appreciated, just that it's heard.  If you're reading what I have to say I'm doing good, if you disagree with me that's fine but if I can get you thinking that's what matters.

[quote=bankrep1]But he manages 200 Million[/quote]

Which is up from $160 million just last Thanksgiving....

[quote=NASD Newbie][quote=TexasRep][quote=NASD Newbie][quote=TexasRep]

So NASD--

How do explain Greenhills?
he doesn't give a hoot about punctuation, their/there/they're, your/you're, ect...

is his $200 million book the exception to every one of you're rules or is you're gospel full of heresies?

GREENHILLS:  where did you get you're degree?

[/quote]

The Internet is a wonderful place.  Have I told you that when I left production for the fast track that I distributed a $300 million book to the guys in my office?

[/quote]

a rather genteel way of calling a fan of yours a liar.....

do you really believe him to be so, or are you assassinating him in a crusade to protect your point-of-view?

[/quote]

It doesn't matter one way or the other.  There will always be exceptions to the rule--why it even rains in Timbuktu once or twice every decade.

I'm sure he is not a fan of mine just because we share some points of view--there are others who do too.

Not to mention this fact.  A person offering opinions doesn't care if what he is saying is appreciated, just that it's heard.  If you're reading what I have to say I'm doing good, if you disagree with me that's fine but if I can get you thinking that's what matters.

[/quote]

ok- i'll take that as an admission that not every misspelling rep on these boards is an imbecile destined for failure in the industry...

why, i saw snow on a texas beach just over a year ago.....

[quote=TexasRep]

ok- i'll take that as an admission that not every misspelling rep on these boards is an imbecile destined for failure in the industry...

why, i saw snow on a texas beach just over a year ago.....

[/quote]

Don't read more into what I'm saying that I mean.  You're an imbecile, there is no doubt in my mind about that--but you may be a high grade imbecile and as such you might be lucky enough to end up in the right place at the right time.

However, if somebody pressed me, or offered to buy me a mansion in Palm Springs, if I could guess correctly I'd say you're gone by 2009.

wow- you think i might make it all the way to 2009?

that's a freakin' ringing endorsement coming from you--- think i'll fix that drink now.

[quote=NASD Newbie]

[quote=Philo Kvetch]The internet IS a wonderful place.  Have I told you that I was upper middle management for the biggest wirehouse in the world and that I'm better and smarter than anyone else?[/quote]

No, but that's great. We probably have a lot of mutual friends.

[/quote]

I doubt it.

My friends are intelligent, erudite, cultured and polite.  They wouldn't admit to being friendly with something like you.