cre8tiff Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 And dangit, I shoulda spent that $100.00 on Citibank @ 1.00/share... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 woo, let's party like it's 1997 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikesVikes Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Earlier this week I was down a couple grand from a co-worker. Now I'm even and tomorrow I'll be up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 (edited) woo, let's party like it's 1997 1997 was a pretty good year for me. Up 600 points in three days IS positive, right? Edited March 12, 2009 by cre8tiff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 how long before it poops again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 12, 2009 Author Share Posted March 12, 2009 how long before it poops again? We need to watch Cramer this afternoon to know for sure... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Up 600 points in three days IS positive, right? lol....I guess. Down 6000 in 6 months is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muck Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 We need to watch Cramer this afternoon to know for sure... Why do you say that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Why do you say that? sarcasm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 Why do you say that? because he gets his news from jon stewart? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Mucca Posted March 12, 2009 Share Posted March 12, 2009 how long before it poops again? Not till after Obamas next fear speech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avernus Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Not till after Obamas next fear speech I'm through with stocks and all of this crap anyways.... anyone notice this cash4gold craze lately?....selling gold for green paper sounds like the perfect trade-off, doesn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Not till after Obamas next fear speech this has to be an alias Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atlanta Cracker Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 1997 was a pretty good year for me. Up 600 points in three days IS positive, right? 100% return from here and we're back where we started! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 This is the reason you don't panic and take all your money out of the market. Missed almost 10% in 3 days. Sure it may go back down (which wouldn't surprise me in the least), however what if this is the start of a long-term rebound. It takes 3 years instead of days to get that 10% in a CD or other 'safe' investment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 This is the reason you don't panic and take all your money out of the market. Missed almost 10% in 3 days. Sure it may go back down (which wouldn't surprise me in the least), however what if this is the start of a long-term rebound. It takes 3 years instead of days to get that 10% in a CD or other 'safe' investment. You only made 10% if your basis was at the absolute bottom. If you buy a stock at $10, it drops to $2, then goes to $4, you'd be hard-pressed to beleive you "made" 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Puddy Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 You only made 10% if your basis was at the absolute bottom. If you buy a stock at $10, it drops to $2, then goes to $4, you'd be hard-pressed to beleive you "made" 100%. Unless you left the market because you got skeered when it hit $2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 You only made 10% if your basis was at the absolute bottom. If you buy a stock at $10, it drops to $2, then goes to $4, you'd be hard-pressed to beleive you "made" 100%. But the ones you bought for $2 have indeed risen 100%. And that's the point of staying in - the ones I bought yesterday have already appreciated and, critically, I bought more of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Up again for the 4th day in a row. I watched the business roundtable with Obama yesterday and it seems his plan is to try and partner with business, not like Bush did with zero oversight, but to help them while conducting legal oversight. It seems he wants business but also workers and the public to mutually succeed. So often in this country it seems business and workers and government are at odds with each other. If all 3 could sacrifice at times so they could all benefit long term we could be entering a new era of mutual cooperation in this country. I'm hopeful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 But the ones you bought for $2 have indeed risen 100%. And that's the point of staying in - the ones I bought yesterday have already appreciated and, critically, I bought more of them. Understood, but I doubt many timed the bottom exactly to get their shares at $2. Conversely, had they dumped the shares they bought at $10, and all the others they bought at $9, $8, $7, $6, $5 & $4 somewhere along the way, they'd be much better off. Which makes Puddy's statement of "This is why you don't panic and stay in the market" a little misrepresented. Those in the know that saw this devastation coming and got out when every indicator told you to do so are much better off than those that continued to program-buy all the way down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted March 13, 2009 Author Share Posted March 13, 2009 Understood, but I doubt many timed the bottom exactly to get their shares at $2. Conversely, had they dumped the shares they bought at $10, and all the others they bought at $9, $8, $7, $6, $5 & $4 somewhere along the way, they'd be much better off. Which makes Puddy's statement of "This is why you don't panic and stay in the market" a little misrepresented. Those in the know that saw this devastation coming and got out when every indicator told you to do so are much better off than those that continued to program-buy all the way down. I only wish I had plunked some cash down last week when citi hit penny stock range. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Understood, but I doubt many timed the bottom exactly to get their shares at $2. Conversely, had they dumped the shares they bought at $10, and all the others they bought at $9, $8, $7, $6, $5 & $4 somewhere along the way, they'd be much better off. Which makes Puddy's statement of "This is why you don't panic and stay in the market" a little misrepresented. Those in the know that saw this devastation coming and got out when every indicator told you to do so are much better off than those that continued to program-buy all the way down. OK, I get that but with a 401k you pay tax and penalties if you pull the money out, exacerbating the problem. Certainly you could just stop contributing but you'd lose the company match if you have one. Perhaps you could only contribute up to the company match. The problem many of us have is that we could not possibly move back into the market fast enough. Most of us would have to have our payroll departments jack up our contributions again, thus locking in weeks of delay before purchases were made. That is tens of thousands in gains down the tube and also no shares bought at the bottom. The bottom line is that most of us have no idea how to time the market sufficiently well to get out and back in at the right time, plus we are in it for the long haul, which historically pays off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 It seems he wants business but also workers and the public to mutually succeed. So often in this country it seems business and workers and government are at odds with each other. If all 3 could sacrifice at times so they could all benefit long term we could be entering a new era of mutual cooperation in this country. I'm hopeful. That would be nice but business/government will always be screwing the little man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
i_am_the_swammi Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 (edited) OK, I get that but with a 401k you pay tax and penalties if you pull the money out, exacerbating the problem. Couldn't you just shift the allocation of your contributions to non-stock related investments? This way, you could still contribute, still get your employer match, and not be tied to market performance. I get what you are saying about history, but history has a funny way of being re-written. While the stock market has produced great returns when looking at a 40-60 year horizon, there have been periods where if you invested during a down-cycle, you likley will never see the same "historical" returns. Look at the last 11 years....if you invested regularlay via your 401K from January 1997 thru today, you are in some tough shape. You bought all the way up, at or near the peak for a couple years, and all the way down. Much of your holdings are in funds tied to stock performance when the market was 12,000-13,000. It will likely take years and years for those investments to even just break even. And on buys you made at 10,000-12,000 levels, your IRR will likely be in the low single-digits when you cash them in in 20-30 years. Point is, I get the perceived value of continuing to buy at reduced-levels to offset higher-buys....but what if the market has gone thru a long-term correction, and values have premanently been reset? I think we have likely seen such an event. ETA: I don't mean to sound condecending, nor a know it all...I too suffered some ugly losses before moving my money out of stocks in November. And it certainly is easier for me to tout this position after-the-fact....kind of like playing Monday AM quarterback. Edited March 13, 2009 by i_am_the_swammi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaterMan Posted March 13, 2009 Share Posted March 13, 2009 Point is, I get the perceived value of continuing to buy at reduced-levels to offset higher-buys....but what if the market has gone thru a long-term correction, and values have premanently been reset? I think we have likely seen such an event. I agree. Unless Obama and crew pull something out of a magic hat, then we are looking at a long term correction. We could only keep borrowing money, policing the world, and having wars against the Middle East for so long. Some people growing up in American have never seen us at peace. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.