DC Tom Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 And then you got married. Pretty much, yeah. I made up for it the next day: Established a position, phone rang, got up to answer it, it was some telemarketer calling from Dehli. By the time I got back to my desk, the position moved against me. I lost about $10k in ninety seconds. That was...amazing. Really. I could only laugh, and take a certain perverse pride at losing that much money in less than two minutes (you have to have it to lose it). Didn't stop me from giving the guy on the phone a large measure of ****: "You just cost me ten thousand dollars, and you can't even pronounce my !@#$ing name!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 And Mitt's IRA is worth between $20 million and a hundred million??? How can that be? I tossed $5000 a year in mine--the limit, don't think that's ever going to reach into the millions it's a good question and one i don't see a serious answer to. the other question i have is: how during a time where many serious investors went into t-bills and cash just to hold onto their monet, did mitt make 10% a year? i know the market is just a big poker game with winners and losers, but why do the ultra rich always seem to do so much better than everyone else in the game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 And Mitt's IRA is worth between $20 million and a hundred million??? How can that be? I tossed $5000 a year in mine--the limit, don't think that's ever going to reach into the millions First, $5k is the limit for certain kinds of IRAs. It's not the limit for SEP-IRAs, for example. That limit is $49k annually. Second, there are various types of accounts that could be rolled into an IRA. The contribution and matching limits on those accounts are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than $5k annually. Third, it's quite likely that someone with his money has access to slightly better than average investment advice at the top firms in the world. You probably don't. Fourth, his best investment earning years were during the top days of Wall Street. He very likely began cycling back his risk during the late 90s because he was getting closer to retirement age - he was born in 1947. That means the significant downturn in the market likely didn't affect his principle. Fifth, you're an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 it's a good question and one i don't see a serious answer to. the other question i have is: how during a time where many serious investors went into t-bills and cash just to hold onto their monet, did mitt make 10% a year? i know the market is just a big poker game with winners and losers, but why do the ultra rich always seem to do so much better than everyone else in the game? Envy on display. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 it's a good question and one i don't see a serious answer to. the other question i have is: how during a time where many serious investors went into t-bills and cash just to hold onto their monet, did mitt make 10% a year? i know the market is just a big poker game with winners and losers, but why do the ultra rich always seem to do so much better than everyone else in the game? Wow! I see that your true colors are on full display for everyone to see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Wow! I see that your true colors are on full display for everyone to see so you are ready to unashamedly tell me that the game is not rigged? that big investors are favored over small? geez, if you guys had your way things like union pension fund investors wouldn't even exist and the real income redistribution could occur even faster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 so you are ready to unashamedly tell me that the game is not rigged? that big investors are favored over small? geez, if you guys had your way things like union pension fund investors wouldn't even exist and the real income redistribution could occur even faster. There's yet another douche baggy leap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 First, $5k is the limit for certain kinds of IRAs. It's not the limit for SEP-IRAs, for example. That limit is $49k annually. Second, there are various types of accounts that could be rolled into an IRA. The contribution and matching limits on those accounts are SIGNIFICANTLY higher than $5k annually. Third, it's quite likely that someone with his money has access to slightly better than average investment advice at the top firms in the world. You probably don't. Fourth, his best investment earning years were during the top days of Wall Street. He very likely began cycling back his risk during the late 90s because he was getting closer to retirement age - he was born in 1947. That means the significant downturn in the market likely didn't affect his principle. Fifth, you're an idiot. First SEP IRA max contributions are 50k this year (sorry it's my job) secondly Mitt does not only have access to top advisors but his wealth offers him access to strategies that most don't have. Thirdly assets offered to him in his IRA can be way under valued at time of contribution (which is legal) and lastly he uses magic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 so you are ready to unashamedly tell me that the game is not rigged? that big investors are favored over small? geez, if you guys had your way things like union pension fund investors wouldn't even exist and the real income redistribution could occur even faster. Big investors favored over small? No stojan, sherlock. The game is not rigged towards the big guys, it's how the market operates. Put in a high school football team in the superbowl next week and see how they fare against Giants or Pats. Just because you opened up an eTrade account because a cute baby commercial inspired you, doesn't mean you have access to the same data, information and speed that professionals spend $ billions to obtain. And where do you think union pension funds put their money, numbskull? How do they get returns that are higher than T-bills? I wonder if they co-invest with the Bain Capital thieves? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) I guess since the "15%" thread was merged into this one, I'll put this Tax Fairness? article here. Investors Business Daily 36 Obama aides owe $833,000 in back taxes How embarrassing this must be for President Obama, whose major speech theme so far this campaign season has been that every single American, no matter how rich, should pay their "fair share" of taxes. Because how unfair -- indeed, un-American -- it is for an office worker like, say, Warren Buffet's secretary to dutifully pay her taxes, while some well-to-do people with better educations and higher incomes end up paying a much smaller tax rate. Or, worse, skipping their taxes altogether. A new report just out from the Internal Revenue Service reveals that 36 of President Obama's executive office staff owe the country $833,970 in back taxes. These people working for Mr. Fair Share apparently haven't paid any share, let alone their fair share. Previous reports have shown how well-paid Obama's White House staff is, with 457 aides pulling down more than $37 million last year. That's up seven workers and nearly $4 million from the Bush administration's last year. Nearly one-third of Obama's aides make more than $100,000 with 21 being paid the top White House salary of $172,200, each. The IRS' 2010 delinquent tax revelations come as part of a required annual agency report on federal employees' tax compliance. Turns out, an awful lot of folks being paid by taxpayers are not paying their own income taxes. The report finds that thousands of federal employees owe the country more than $3.4 billion in back taxes. That's up 3% in the past year. That scale of delinquency could annoy voters, hard-pressed by their own costs, fears and stubbornly high unemployment despite Joe Biden's many promises OOPS. . Edited January 26, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 so you are ready to unashamedly tell me that the game is not rigged? that big investors are favored over small? geez, if you guys had your way things like union pension fund investors wouldn't even exist and the real income redistribution could occur even faster. You do realize that unless you're picking your own stocks (and if you are..... ) your money is being invested by the "big investors" don't you? Many of these funds hold tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 (edited) You do realize that unless you're picking your own stocks (and if you are..... ) your money is being invested by the "big investors" don't you? Many of these funds hold tens or hundreds of billions of dollars. What is so amusing about an individual picking their own stocks? Edited January 26, 2012 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 What is so amusing about an individual picking their own stocks? Not all individuals....certain individuals like birdog. I'm not sure if you know what I do for a living but I review people's portfolios all the time and the majority of them are clueless. Met one person just this week who had over 20% of her portfolio in one stock. Another who has over $300k in a bank savings account and another $700k in a static account with Merrill Lynch. Your typical do it yourself investor way underperforms the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 And where do you think union pension funds put their money, numbskull? How do they get returns that are higher than T-bills? I wonder if they co-invest with the Bain Capital thieves? Evil Pension funds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 What is so amusing about an individual picking their own stocks? Everything. The SEC regulations are backwards. Individual investors are the ones who need to pass a test before they're allowed to invest. It's not that the game is rigged, it's that the odds are heavily stocked against individual investors who do not have the capacity to have the same information & react in the same way as professionals. What % of individual investors actually take time to research an investment, let alone read a prospectus cover to cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Can we change the title of this thread to: Mitt Romney is the Son of Satan Likes to Drink Babies Blood Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 What % of individual investors actually take time to research an investment, let alone read a prospectus cover to cover? I thought it was easier for individual investors because they get those cool online charts and graphs that show real-time market movement just like the pros have. Or are you somehow suggesting that Sam Waterston would lie to me? Because you should know Law and Order is one of my favorite shows and Sam Waterston would never lie to me. (Angie Harmon, maybe, but that was usually role play.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Everything. The SEC regulations are backwards. Individual investors are the ones who need to pass a test before they're allowed to invest. It's not that the game is rigged, it's that the odds are heavily stocked against individual investors who do not have the capacity to have the same information & react in the same way as professionals. What % of individual investors actually take time to research an investment, let alone read a prospectus cover to cover? I read a prospectus in full once. Once. I do read 10K's in full not infrequently. Mostly, I just look for idiots doing stupid things in the market, and when I find them, do the opposite (because even the professionals are idiots sometimes...usually because they have managers). If I can't identify the idiot in the market, I assume I'm the idiot. It's a pretty conservative, successful strategy that leads to infrequent but largely positive trades. Can we change the title of this thread to: Mitt Romney is the Son of Satan Likes to Drink Babies Blood Romney/Donahoe in 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 Big investors favored over small? No stojan, sherlock. The game is not rigged towards the big guys, it's how the market operates. Put in a high school football team in the superbowl next week and see how they fare against Giants or Pats. Just because you opened up an eTrade account because a cute baby commercial inspired you, doesn't mean you have access to the same data, information and speed that professionals spend $ billions to obtain. And where do you think union pension funds put their money, numbskull? How do they get returns that are higher than T-bills? I wonder if they co-invest with the Bain Capital thieves? so you can't imagine any changes that might level the playing field? think maybe a method could be found to stop the gaming around the mandated time to buy positions for mutual funds invested in by us plebs? to stop super fast trades that profit not on knowledge but gamesmanship and better computers? i'm sure there are many other examples where the system could be tweaked to make it more fair. but there not gonna happen cuz the people that run the system are the ones winning big. btw, i currently own no individual stocks inside or outside my 401k and have done better than average but 10% over the last 2 years is much better than average. maybe it's a one of, but i doubt it. it doesn't matter the mechanism for the unfairness in the system ("it's how the market operates"- no stojan, sherlock) and the really significant redistribution of wealth it causes, it's the fact that it is inherently unfair. and lets not even get into insider trading and illegal activities that happen way too often (i know, mitt's investments are in blind trusts so this doesn't directly relate to him but who knows about the guys behind the curtain). finally, you entirely missed my point about pension funds. it's the size of them that lets them compete with the romney's and buffets. without unions these workers be totally outmatched as are so many small investors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted January 26, 2012 Share Posted January 26, 2012 so you can't imagine any changes that might level the playing field? Knowledge costs money or do you want free financial advice to go with health care? to stop super fast trades that profit not on knowledge but gamesmanship and better computers? i'm sure there are many other examples where the system could be tweaked to make it more fair. Super fast trades profit on arbitrage unless you'd like to program black box that finds the increasingly small difference in price of JPY/AUD between London and NY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts