On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


It seems Mr. Bpuharic would be pleased if Geithner and Summers would
pump up his 401k to the level it was before the crash.
And ignore that that reliance on Wall Street is what led to our current
economic ills.

uh no. i'm not rush limballs. im not a right wing devotee of the 'free
market'. you have me confused with someone else or, more likely, you
dont know what part the 'chicago school' played in the meltdown

i favor the french approach. ban CDO's and CDS. tie them to assets.
make the banks keep higher assets to cover losses. divorce proprietary
trading from banking.

of course, the right wing opposes this. a senator from new hampshire
said last week he's worried that CDO's would go to singapore if the US
regulated them

so you support his view of reality?


Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.
Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:03:08 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.

I just see the irony in someone who has all of his future dreams and
aspirations tied to wall street and then demonizes it as much as he
does.

ROFLMAO!! hey genius

what choice did i have. the 'chicago school' of reagan and friedman
told the middle class that if we unregulated the free market, our
401k's would be safe. we wouldnt need pensions because the rich needed
our pension money, and our 401k'd would be fine

or, i guess you're too stupid to realize george bush proposed to to do
for social security what was done to 401k's.

I would think a guy like that would be 100% invested in government
guaranteed paper.

i love it. the right wing ignores the fact 100,000,000 middle class
wage earners got raped by wall street. after all, wall street NEVER
makes mistakes. it's infallible because it's free market

another measure of how much the right HATES the middle class and
worships wall street

In article ,
says...

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 11:24:55 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:


It seems Mr. Bpuharic would be pleased if Geithner and Summers would
pump up his 401k to the level it was before the crash.
And ignore that that reliance on Wall Street is what led to our current
economic ills.

uh no. i'm not rush limballs. im not a right wing devotee of the 'free
market'. you have me confused with someone else or, more likely, you
dont know what part the 'chicago school' played in the meltdown

Yes, I know it well enough.
Please don't misunderstand. I actually am in agreement with many of
your views.
I too am not happy with the 401k system, as it designed to benefit Wall
Street, not retirees. I see it as a form of socialism for the wealthy.
But I choose not to benefit from it to any great degree as a matter of
principle. Yes, I contribute to the extent of matching contributions,
but my contributions all go into a very low return money market fund.
My salary does not justify putting more in for the tax savings.
Since I don't feed the beast we both seem to abhor, I am not concerned
with it.
That is the only issue of real disagreement I have with you.
Your 401k protestations calls to mind "I have seen the enemy, and he is
us."
I am a frugal person, and avoid debt and save what I can.
I am not expecting a rich environment in retirement, but nor have I in
my working life.
Selling shoes in a way that keeps my customers happy is fine with me.


i favor the french approach. ban CDO's and CDS. tie them to assets.
make the banks keep higher assets to cover losses. divorce proprietary
trading from banking.

of course, the right wing opposes this. a senator from new hampshire
said last week he's worried that CDO's would go to singapore if the US
regulated them

so you support his view of reality?


Of course not.

Though Mr. Bpuharic has made some points I agree with, his harping on
his 401k is not one of them.
Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Actually, many are. It is my understanding that those who consistently
contributed to 401k equity funds starting +20 years ago are well ahead
of the game even now.
I suspect they held on during the recent dive, and didn't move their
equity investments into other funds.
But I never get into that sort of detail with a customer.
Out of curiosity, and I don't mean to pry, doesn't your 401k show a
hefty profit over contributions?
I think much of it is a matter of timing, and those who entered in more
recently got "screwed." Does Ponzi come to mind here?

Peter

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:29:35 -0500, "Peter (Yes, that one)"
wrote:

In article ,
says...



uh no. i'm not rush limballs. im not a right wing devotee of the 'free
market'. you have me confused with someone else or, more likely, you
dont know what part the 'chicago school' played in the meltdown

Yes, I know it well enough.
Please don't misunderstand. I actually am in agreement with many of
your views.
I too am not happy with the 401k system, as it designed to benefit Wall
Street, not retirees.

now THAT is true. proof of this is how george bush lusted after social
security to turn it into another 401K type program. unfortunately
it's the only game in town
r.

On 4/18/10 4:40 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:26:13 -0400,
wrote:

That's why I don't worry too much about my union pension. It's a fixed
benefit pension, and to date, there never has been a period when there
have been unfunded liabilities.

Good thing you weren't a steel worker. They defaulted on their pension
plan. (before the PBGC)



What? The Steelworkers Union trust has assets of more than two billion
dollars. Are you talking about a pension fund administered and
controlled by corporate management?




--
The Tea Party's teabaggers are just the Republican base by another name.

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 16:46:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 13:37:10 -0400, bpuharic wrote:

Most of my customers who mention their 401k are happy that they have
recovered as much as they have.

betcha few of them are close to retirement

Bubba I have been retired for 14 years. My 401k has recovered nicely.

that accounts for your love of being lazy and shiftless

On 18/04/2010 10:54 AM, Eisboch wrote:

"Canuck57" wrote in message
...

On 18/04/2010 10:06 AM, Eisboch wrote:

The only "new" stock I bought recently was Ford and did so when they
were at
about $1.46 a share and GM and Chrysler were just about goners. (well,
actually, they *were* goners).

I was impressed by the determination of Ford to forego government
bailout
money and attempt to make it on their own. So far they have.




Owned Ford too, didn't do as well as you. Bought in at $2.25 and out
at $6.90 but a good ride and never got burned taking a profit. Watch
Ford carefully, it could go to $20 but there is a hype factor in it at
the moment. To manage debt, they diluted the shares and under current
valuation on a equity base, Ford is in definitive high end of
valuation for at least a decade, the question is are they over valued
or can they continue?


I bought as much as I dared risk right after they announced they would
not seek a bailout.
Sold half at about the same as you ($6.60) and half again at ($11.60). I
am well ahead of the game now, so the remainder will stay for the longer
haul, unless something blows up like a Pinto.

Eisboch

Yep, average in and out. Good tactic I regularily use too.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?

On 18/04/2010 11:09 AM, wrote:
On Sun, 18 Apr 2010 10:47:11 -0600,
wrote:

Owned Ford too, didn't do as well as you. Bought in at $2.25 and out at
$6.90 but a good ride and never got burned taking a profit. Watch Ford
carefully, it could go to $20 but there is a hype factor in it at the
moment.

I took too much time believing Ford was real but I am still sitting on
a double.


After the 2009 windfall, I am back to a large percentage of cash. I am
certain this depression cycle is not over. The basic problems still
exist, just a whole lot more debt.

I am still sitting on my equities but I have stop loss orders in on
most of them

Stop loss orders are a good practice. I also have a sell target I set
when I buy stocks, and sell if they cross the high or low if it.

I agree that if the commercial real estate market doesn't find new
financing soon that is the next crash.

Commercial real-estate, I am not sure I would add to my very limited
position. About the closest to real estate investments I have is an old
folks home deal. Real estate has 2 challenges going forward. Deflation
of inventory value and interest rates. While interest rates are low
now, they will one way or another go up in time. Neither is good for
real estate. I expect it to be a dead sector unless inflation exceeds
20%. Too much inexpensive potentially recessive inventory still exists.

It will not have near the impact on the overall economy as the last
crash but it will still depress the market.
As I said, the market is 30% fundamentals, 70% emotion.

Emotion always catches up with fundimentals in time. I would not buy a
stock purely on emotional fundimentals. I still look towards the bottom
line, as if the bottom line is good and improving, time for emotions to
come around is in your favor. But a hype dog today could loose its
momentum pretty quick like musical chairs.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?

On 18/04/2010 11:30 AM, bpuharic wrote:

notice how the right tells us the middle class DESERVES to get ****ed
because they're not rich BUT that that wall street is composed of
upstanding citizens

****, even alan greenspan doesn't believe THAT bull**** anymore. but
the right does!

Alan Greenspan even admited he is part of why this whole debt mess
f---ed the economy. I would rather pick Ron Paul who predicted it 5
years in advance as congressional debt management was not sustainable.

Want to be rich? Change your thinking. It is all about attitude.
Think like a loser, be a loser. Think like a rich winner, get off your
ass and make it happen. All about attitude.

Here is a hint:

Debtors think about how to welsh on debt.
Rich think about managing money.

So:

To have money, means you don't want debt.

--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?

On 18/04/2010 11:26 AM, hk wrote:
On 4/18/10 1:07 PM, Canuck57 wrote:
On 18/04/2010 9:49 AM, hk wrote:

It's best to have available a variety of pensions and pension saving
devices.

Maybe. But always good to keep any eye on them and take them with you.


There are a long list of companies that messed up pensions, Enron,
NorTel, GM, Chrysler, Delco...


That's why I don't worry too much about my union pension. It's a fixed
benefit pension, and to date, there never has been a period when there
have been unfunded liabilities. Further, we through our elected officers
control the fund, not the employers, and our fund officers select our
qpams. The employers do have "represenation" on the fund board, but they
are in the minority.

The fund's contributions are comprised entirely of the money the members
have put into it, and it is portable, so long as the member is working
for a signatory contractor. Now, there have been occasions when a
contractor has failed to forward the funds for the previous week's
contributions, but he is quickly convinced *that* is not a good idea.

This method of operations is fairly typical for building trades unions.
Our predecessors learned early on not to trust management when it is
holding your money.

Then you are one of the very few in that spot. Most either don't have
one or are bamboozeled by companies and even unions. GMers for example.
By luck and not by design I suspect then you are better off.

The most secure penions are government. If the screw up, they just
create more debt onto future taxpayers to pay the bills, in at least up
to this date. Nice inflation indexing too. Like inflation 70's that
screwed many a retired that pensions were not indexed.

But for most, it is a carrot they will never see.
--
Time to ask, is our government serving us or are we serving the government?