Here's your bill for $3,333 -

[Cuda]

The Market is at 2005 levels and it hasn't crashed?

No, it hasn't

Fucking windbag

[KC Scott]

No, it hasn't

You rival Diogenes, Nick and Pikkkle in terms of stupidity and truly add nothing of value to any discussion at any time.

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




For those with a modicum of intelligence the S&P 500 sits today at approximate dollar value same as May 2005 -
Obviously this also does not take inflation into account as gas / food / Commodities

[KC Scott]

What's next Scott ?

I'm being serious. You seem to know your shit enough to provide some insight to all this shit - which sounds greek to me - so I'm hoping you can dumb it down for me. It's a bit late to be making a foot hike to the Plains of Abraham as the winter is approaching. I need to know.

Tom - Go check out the financial fourm - lots of stuff in there.

It's a tard free zone - hell, even derron's asking intelligent questions

[Cuda]

the S&P 500 sits today at approximate dollar value same as May 2005 -
Obviously this also does not take inflation into account as gas / food / Commodities

So

Fucking

What?

You'd come off less like a hysterical dumbfuck if you'd just argue that the stock market is down.

But even if it's down significantly- that's a far fucking cry from a market crash.

[Cuda]

I'm sure KC Biden believes FDR went on TV to explain the stock market crash in 1929 too

[KC Scott]

I wasn't wrong, dumbfuck. You said the market would crash within six weeks. I said you were full of shit. And I was right.

Yes - and was 8 months off on my timing - Hmmmm I said other things too.........

The difference between you and scott is that he's got some proven investment success backing up his theories.

The only thing he has proven is that he doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Want my proof?

There's a lot more to it than just this - the collapse of housing market, and now the drop in oil and commodities.
That's a lot of wealth disappearing everyday.
Add the rising interest rate, the declining economy and people are not going to continue to buy stocks at higher prices.

After I first read this, I was actually momentarily stunned by it's sheer, untrammeled stupidity. It is, quite simply wrong in every particular.

A. The housing market is not "collapsing" or even close to it.

B. Lower energy costs actually stimulates the market and does not depress it.

C. The economy is growing and growing at a fairly respectable clip taking into consideration the high energy costs earlier in the year.

D. Wealth is not "disappearing". We now have a 13 trillion dollar economy and corporate earnings were at a 40 year high after Q1.

E. Interest rates are not rising.

A. I said the housing market would collapse - Guess I did OK on that call
B. Commodities spiked - Missed on that as speculation drove them to stratosphere
C. Economy was growing - now in recession now pending 3Q numbers - But at the time I'll call it a miss
D. Wealth has disappeared - From the equity in housing to the losses in retirement accounts - Spot on
E. And this is what disapoints me the most - The Fed could have staved off the commodities by raising rates they didn't. Miss

So two of my "reasons" for the crash call happened - the others didn't.
But does it matter?
Not really - Since it did crash - or for simpler minds "went down a lot"

But I guess the Bottom line is the Math - I made my call to get out the S&P 500 (represented by SPY in this graph) was $144 - today SPY is $120.



I missed out on 9% at the Top ($157) but preserved 17% from the time I left.

Spin, argue or call me some more names, it doesn't change fact.

[Cuda]

Spin, argue or call me some more names, it doesn't change fact.

It sure doesn't change the fact that you're a fucking dildo

[KC Scott]

Are you insane? It's been two years, dipshit.

Post subject: The Coming Market CrashPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:09 pm

Numbers confuse and scare you don't they?

The first market top was June 2007 (8 Months) - The second Market Top Oct. 2007 ( 1 year)

Gee ..... I put up a graph - Was that too confusing for you?



Your pissing into the wind......... but look on the bright side, you still have Cuda. :paul:

[Cuda]

You really have some issues admitting you're full of shit, don't you Scott?

[KC Scott]

MVS Quixote and the Windmills of KCScott........

Priceless.

Market collapse.
That's what I said - that's what happened.

Again, it doesn't matter if the Nasdaq led it down or S&P.
It doesn't matter if I was 8 months off.

It does matter that I was right -

I've already quoted some of your comments at the time - but I wouldn't expect you to acknowledge them.
You'll keep flailing away -

I'll finish off with one of your final quotes from that thread Dated July 27,2007

Unemployment fell to 4.5% and we had a strong Q2. Our overall economy is quite healthy.

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070727/economy.html?.v=14

So there you are buying at the top of our nice healthy economy.

Congrats, and please let us all know how well that's worked out for you.

[Cuda]

Priceless.

Market collapse.
That's what I said - that's what happened.:

Oh, now it's collapse... what happened to crash?

nevermind- it hasn't fucking collapsed either you goddam dipshit.

[Goober McTuber]

Black and white? You might want to invest in a color monitor. The graphs are really pretty.

[PSUFAN]

A few more ad hominems on KC Scott and this will be sorted out right quick.

[Mister Bushice]

WTF? There was nothing in that law that allowed credit institutions to go all George Jefferson on the citizenry. They were supposed to operate within specified guidelines, and NOT write high risk loans but provide low and moderate income borrowers with home loans.

The revisions certainly set that ball rolling, but it was lack of oversight that turned it into an avalanche.

Here you go, Corky. Why don't you suck on this for a while, you farging dimwit.

Assault on the mortgage lenders: in the name of racial justice, the Clintonites want the power to decide who gets a home of his own - efforts to impose regulations on banks to make loans even if applicants are not creditworthy
National Review, Dec 27, 1993 by Robert Stowe England

QUIETLY, behind the scenes, the Clinton Administration is preparing for the biggest regulatory crackdown of recent years. Attorney General Janet Reno is linking up with banking regulators and with HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to end the supposed epidemic of discrimination against minorities in making home loans. The implications for society at large are ominous.

Here, as in affirmative-action efforts in hiring, college admissions, and the drawing of voting districts, the Washington establishment is obsessed with "disparate impact," which it equates with racism. In the mortgage-lending area, there is ample evidence of disparate impact to feed this obsession. Data collected by the Federal Government reveal that in 1992, while 16 per cent of white applicants for mortgage loans were rejected, 36 per cent of black applicants were rejected.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_14779796

Just in case you were wondering (and you probably were because you're that stupid), "imposing regulations" is pretty much the exact opposite of "lack of oversight."

An Op Ed Commentary piece from the Right? You ARE dredging.

And missing as well. The intent of the law was to give everyone a fair chance at getting a house. The problems began when black unemployed ex walmart worker magically qualified for and was allowed to acquire a $500,000 McMansion.

Had he been given a Bsmack-ish house, We don't have the problems we do today.

[Tom In VA]

A few more ad hominems on KC Scott and this will be sorted out right quick.

That was funny. For some reason it just sounded Cleesey.

[KC Scott]

Oh, now it's collapse... what happened to crash?

nevermind- it hasn't fucking collapsed either you goddam dipshit.

[Mister Bushice]

An Op Ed Commentary piece from the Right? You ARE dredging.

Do you plan on disputing any of the facts as presented, or are you just going to stand there in a puddle of piss looking stupid?

Me? Ha. Here's the end of his OP ED piece:

The crackdown is, therefore, not a boon but a roadblock to racial progress. If it succeeds in driving banks to make bad loans in order to improve their minority-approval rates, this will eventually lead to more foreclosures in troubled inner-city communities.

No it didn't. It led to foreclosures in newly built housing developments outside of the city. That had NOTHING to do with the inner city. Those "troubled inner city communites" will remain troubled, and that has nothing to do with the mortgage crisis.

It will also reduce the available capital to credit-worthy borrowers, forcing more Americans to settle for a less attractive home than they had expected.

No, what will happen is those who ARE credit worthy and who waited can now go bargain hunting in what were once higher priced new homes they previously could not afford. THAT is happening everywhere. The only change is now full docs and a higher DP are required, but the houses are well within their reach, thanks to the banks extreme foreclosure practices.

Some whites who formerly would have qualified at the margins for a mortgage will be denied their chance at the American dream.

True, but then again - CRA was supposed to address that, right?

The reality is most are too scared to buy right now because everything is so fucked up.

And mortgage rates will rise for everyone to cover the losses from bad loans.

Wrong. Bush the giver will just pass out more of our tax money to "fix" the problem. Mortgage rates won't go up because they have too many houses to unload.

But really, it Depends on which article of Mister Englands you want to use. Like, for example, this one from this month, in the Mortgage Banker magazine.

In it, England has a whole new set of villains lined up, and Reno and Clinton aren't listed anywhere among them:

MORTGAGE B A N K I N G / S E P T E M B E R 2 0 0 8

"If you look for villains, there are lots of them," Lyle
Gramley, former Fed governor and senior economic adviser at
the Stanford Group,Washington, D.C. says.

He then runs down a list, including “economists like me who didn’t understand what
was going on; borrower s, lenders, credit-rating agencies, financial
investors here and abroad; the Federal Reserve and other
federal agencies for not using the regulatory powers they had,”
he says.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at West Chester, Pennsylvania–based Moody ’s
Economy.com. “We should all recognize that we are all a party
to this mess,”
"The lenders are also to blame, says Zandi. “They were complicit
in the borrowers ’ sleight of hand,” he says. “In many
cases they were aggressive fly-by-night lenders, finance companies
that were lightly regulated,” he says. Wall Street is also to blame, Zandi says. “The investment
banks [that] took the loans and packaged them” ran their operations
like a machine “set on autopilot,” he says. “ They didn’t
think about the risks involved and who was taking [them].
They didn’t do due diligence on loans put into securities. They
thought that by tranching it up, it would all work out,” he says.
“Securitization broadly”must also be faulted, says Zandi. “It
has lots of pluses,” he says, “but the big negative is that it left
e veryone off the hook. No one at the end of the day had
responsibility for credit risk.”

The credit-rating agencies also played a contributing
role, Zandi says. “I don’t think anything nefarious
was going on,” he adds. While people have
been saying that the dealers who put together
the securitizations were engaged in “ratings
shopping,” Zandi does not think that
is the problem.

The rating agencies “did what they ’ve
always done,” he say s. “ They took data
they were given, made judgments [based]
on that on the bonds being issued,” h e
says. “Models were based on short pieces
of history and didn’t have data on subprime
and alt-A—at least not in a down period.”
To make a proper rating and to determine
credit quality, one “needs data from all types of
environments”—the good and the bad times, he say s.
The rating agencies underestimated the stresses the mortgage
bonds would come under, and made faulty assumptions
about how many loans would prepay before rates were to reset
on adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs). They did not consider
the impact on the bonds if the mortgages did not prepay and
refinance before reset, he adds. And finally, “They didn’t count
on the fact that house prices would stop rising and credit
would stop flowing,” Zandi says.

Then there were the regulators, Zandi says—“Where were
they? Indeed, virtually all observers have identified the deci-
sion of the Fed under former Chairman Alan Greenspan to
lower interest rates to 1 percent in 2003 and keep them there
until June 2004 as a cause--and for some, the overarching
cause--of the housing finance bubble.

That's just part of it. Go look the rest up for yourself.

But in the meantime - STFU. :D

[poptart]

Scott, you got out of the market many months before the ... DROP ... that you called, or didn't call -- depending on who we want to listen to.

You sound pleased that you got out.
BUT ... if someone had stayed IN much longer than you did, they would have made significant earnings, which you missed out on, as the market went up pretty strongly before this year-long drop.

This theoretical person could also have gotten out of the market totally (as you did) a couple/few months INTO the drop and he would still be well ahead of you.

[War Wagon]

BUT ... if someone had stayed IN much longer than you did, they would have made significant earnings, which you missed out on, as the market went up pretty strongly before this year-long drop.

Nope.

I've stayed IN, and would have been better off going the coffee can route.

I put 5% of my paycheck before taxes into a 401k account every week and have for 20 years, matched 50% by my company, and it's done nothing but tread water, or worse, for about the past 18 months.

They say to diversify, so I diversify... get fucked.

So I go with what did well last qtr.... get fucked.

I move that somewhere else... get fucked.

I'm throwing money down the drain, and there's no relief in sight.

The alternative? I'd dig up that coffee can and at least go have a good time. Quit worrying about the future. Live now, die later.

I'm pretty sure there's a Foghat song that covers this.

[Mister Bushice]

No it didn't. It led to foreclosures in newly built housing developments outside of the city. That had NOTHING to do with the inner city. Those "troubled inner city communites" will remain troubled, and that has nothing to do with the mortgage crisis.

WRONG.

Unlike some parts of the country, however, Milwaukee’s mortgage crisis hit primarily in low-income, predominantly African-American neighborhoods.

Oh Good!! you found one neighborhood! You made your point.

Time after time, borrowers — some with spotty financial or even criminal records — received loans to buy property or refinance their mortgages. About 7.5% of the homes in these neighborhoods were headed for sheriff’s sales last year, the final step in the foreclosure process.

No shit? You don't suppose that has something to do with a LACK of oversight? You know, like I've mentioned over and over?

For Christ Sakes, mvscal. You try and make points with 15 year old articles that everyone today with a degree in economics isn't even mentioning, and then you dig out one small fucking inner city neighborhood that failed?

For every one of those nog villages no one would want to move into if they got the place for free there are a dozen new outlying new neighborhood areas that are ghost towns.

And if you don't think that those inner city shitholes would not still be inner city shitholes no matter what the housing market was doing, You aren't the mvscal hater we've come to know.

Try dropping into Compton, or the black neighborhoods of oakland, or east palo alto. See if ANYTHING is different there from 15 years ago.

The answer is NO.

[PSUFAN]

[KC Scott]

Scott, you got out of the market many months before the ... DROP ... that you called, or didn't call -- depending on who we want to listen to.

You sound pleased that you got out.
BUT ... if someone had stayed IN much longer than you did, they would have made significant earnings, which you missed out on, as the market went up pretty strongly before this year-long drop.

This theoretical person could also have gotten out of the market totally (as you did) a couple/few months INTO the drop and he would still be well ahead of you.

And If anyone hit those spots they made more money than me.

OK - I'm good with that

You did not.

We've been posting together and, unlike mvs, You are typically honest when dealing with reality.

You are a "buy and hold" investor - nothing wrong with that, but I tend to think bigger gains are achieved by trading in and out based on bigger picture trends. You are hurting now and will continue seeing the paper value of your holdings decline into the eventual bottom of this morass. That is now predicted to happen next spring.

In the interim though, we are vastly oversold, and should have a rally staring soon (Soon meaning a couple days to a couple weeks) that will take us through mid-late December.

I've actually learned a lot more since I wrote the market was poised for this crash (collapse, big drop, major decline, bearmarket, total flaciddity) - At the time I was reading someone who'd called the tech bubble and he was a year ahead of his call. The big difference was instead of just going cash and preserving capital, he went all in on shorts and got scorched badly. A big Part of the last 8 months of gains (that I missed out on) wasn't new money or investment - it was short covering. The irony of course is now they want to ban short sales and puts. They don't realize that shorts also feed the market as is capital in the system.

No matter how right you think you are, you can't argue with the market, you can only hope to ride the waves in the right direction.

[poptart]

BUT ... if someone had stayed IN much longer than you did, they would have made significant earnings, which you missed out on, as the market went up pretty strongly before this year-long drop.

Nope.

lol

YES, and it is not even up for debate.

The hypothetical person's which I described has made out better than Scott.


In YOUR case, you should have stayed the course and not dropped anything, Wagon.
If you had done that you would not have 'lost' anything -- other than what everybody will lose eventually due to inflation.
It's just a matter of waiting things out until some time down the road when the market has jacked way up again ... which it will.

Jerking in and out of the market is a recipe for failure, IMO, unless you're as brilliant as Scott ... or as brilliant as he thinks he is.

Scott, you're not immune to inflation any more than the rest of the world is.

[KC Scott]

Scott, you're not immune to inflation any more than the rest of the world is.

Correct David.

And that's what makes the losses of the "Buy and Hold" investor that much worse.

I can buy shares of the S&P 500 today for what they cost in 2005.

But I sure as fuck can't buy a gallon of gas for $2 or a loaf of bread for a buck.

It why preservation of capital is so important - Cash is King

[poptart]

Yes, but of course this is based on the idea that you are going to be RIGHT, and being RIGHT on time, most of the time.

I just don't think there are many folks out there who can REALLY lay claim to being able to do that.

If you can, more power to ya, bro'.

[KC Scott]

Yes, but of course this is based on the idea that you are going to be RIGHT, and being RIGHT on time, most of the time.

I just don't think there are many folks out there who can REALLY lay claim to being able to do that.

If you can, more power to ya, bro'.

See, that's the deal Dave - I wasn't right and got out early - I was being conservative, ultra conservative.
Mainly beacuse I was really busy with my job and didn't have the time to put in studying it.

I'm also not an "all in" kind of guy.

If you go read the fourm you know I operate on the rule of 100
(100 - your age = Amount of portfolio invested in equities)
So I've got a substantial amount thats just sets in a bond market fund drawing interest -
and it's why I get pissed when I see the Fed giving away free money.

But that's really not what we're talking about - I made some decisions, shared them here and now we're all just throwing shit around.

Maybe one of these days...........

[Cuda]

I'm also not an "all in" kind of guy.

I am a "all in" kind of guy- especially with your mom

[Dinsdale]

Of course -- it's all because we don't have enough laws that people decided to sign their name to ridiculous loans... yeah, that's it.


Listen to you fucking liberals...


You're blaming the federal government for NOT PASSING LAWS AGAINST STUPIDITY.

That's the bottom line, regardless how you try and spin it.

Someone remind me again -- at what point in human history did any law at any level against being stupid actually work?

I'll help you out -- the answer is "never."

So, since thousands of years of historic precedent is once again correct -- maybe you fucking liberals (which is just about everyone in this thread) should shut the fuck up with your "The fed is suppose to do my thinking for me" (which is all just about everyone here has said, just used a lot more words for it), and put the emphasis back on...


ready for it?


PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.


I know, you people HATE that. Under the personal responsibility system, you can't blame someone else hundreds of miles away for your own stupidity... but conversely, you'd be much less tempted to NOT THINK.



Less laws, you fucking tards... not more. Don't even get me started on abolishing the Federal Reserve (biggest scam in American history), and the SEC (although the football conference can stay... if they start playing some road games).


Money belongs in pockets, not on paper. And all these laws and government involvement allowing fictional money to exist only on paper are hurting the American People.


The Revolution is coming, People -- and it can't get here soon enough.

[Felix]

I like the way this woman thinks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S27yitK32ds

[Tom In VA]

Sounds like she's more pissed that the issue might impede her vacation. Didn't they just get back from a vacation ?

[RadioFan]

Bush is going to address the nation tonight.

That should clear things up.

[Mikey]

Bush is going to address the nation tonight.

That should clear things up.

Why do you hate America?

[Tom In VA]

Bush is going to address the nation tonight.

That should clear things up.

Why do you hate America?

They had some pretty solid tunes in the 70's and 80's

[Mikey]

Bush is going to address the nation tonight.

That should clear things up.

Why do you hate America?

They had some pretty solid tunes in the 70's and 80's

That's no reason to hate them.

"The ocean is a desert with its life underground..."

Now that right there is enough to hate them.

[Tom In VA]

Alligator lizards in the air.


WHOA PSYCHEDELIC MAN

[KC Scott]

No, you're just a dumb, sackless cunt desperately attempting to convince anonymous strangers that you have a clue and when exposed you do nothing but lie, distort and spin unsuccessfully of course

Hmmmm....... sounds like someone......

Nice sig, pussy. I see your still smarting TWO YEARS later, twat bitch.

Funny how at the time I wrote the housing market was starting collapse you didn't agree.

I think it's sig worthy

[Mister Bushice]

At the time the market was not collapsing and didn't collapse until nearly a year later.

What's not close about that?

15 year old articles? That's not close at all.

[Mister Bushice]

What part of "starting to collapse" morphed magically into "collapsing"?

Don't go all grammarsdale on us. One is enough.



A full two years ago the real estate market in my neighborhood "started to slow down" It came to a screeching halt 6 months ago.

A year ago, prices around here "started to decline". They have now officially plummeted.


In both cases, you could see it coming.


Neither had anything to do with proper use of verb tenses, but you get the general idea.

[KC Scott]

A full two years ago the real estate market in my neighborhood "started to slow down" It came to a screeching halt 6 months ago.

A year ago, prices around here "started to decline". They have now officially plummeted.


In both cases, you could see it coming.

And a full 2+ years ago the real estate bubble was being called...... well.... a Bubble.

And when you point out things like "The market can't support the increases in price" then you get the cats like mvscal telling you how in some pretzel logic kind of way that they can. And then they call you a conspiracy nut or all kinds of other bad things.

Then later, when you remind them of these things, they say they didn't mean what they wrote, then call you some more bad names.

It's a Good thing T1B doesn't purge threads :P

[KC Scott]

You're blaming the federal government for NOT PASSING LAWS AGAINST STUPIDITY.

I'm blaming the Federal Government for Bailing out the companies that enabled stupid people to buy houses they couldn't afford.

I'm blaming those companies for not managing risk and then allowing their boards and chairmen to walk away with golden parachutes.

And yea, I'll blame those stupid enough to sign the papers for reverse amortization loans or ARMs with huge ass balloons for fucking up the system.

But really, when someone is waving money under the noses of those who don't have it, how surprised are you when they can't pay it back?