Magic numbers: retirement/investment coffers

At least all the bars are black... :)

But seriously I am about the same, no worse off than I was 12-15 months ago. All in all not as bad as I feared. Sure it would be nice to have everything in Apple and be headed toward an early retirement, but I diversified and will be slaving away for another couple of decades. Eh... I buy an occasional lotto ticket, much as the philosophical underpinnings of it appall me.

Lotto Ticket?

Read this.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,582119,00.html?test=latestnews

Hmmm... because I merged two portfolios it's hard to estimate anything further than about 14 months ago. For the last year I've recovered about 15% (ie - I'm 15% ahead). Mind you - that doesn't make up for losing about 35% in the previous year before that.

As for all this stock-picking "what-ifery" like "I should have put it all in Apple" - what if Steve Jobs had died? You'd be screwed. As well as Apple is doing (and will continue to do) - when Herr Jobs kicks it (which I hope doesn't happen for a long time) - I pity the fools who've bought the farm on AAPL (sorry to mix metaphors). Warren Buffet aside, "stock picking" is for mugs.

On a tangent, I read "Meltdown" by Ben Elton over Christmas - lighthearted read but food for thought...

Hmph!

Quote

Citigroup is expected to pay out $5.5 billion in bonuses to its investment banking arm, despite preparing to report losses of $9.2 billion this week, according to The Sunday Times.

I'd be really pissed if I was a shareholder - hang on, my global index fund probably has shares with these clowns - I am really pissed!

I cannot agree with practices like that.

The frightening thing, to me, is that this is happening in a still-struggling economy, in the face of almost universal public condemnation, strong indicators of government displeasure and threats of intervention. I think that it is clear that these companies are either so insular that they do not truly understand the magnitude of the populist wrath they are stoking, or believe that they are above the matter; too important for trivial things like the rage of the 300 million people they fleeced to be relevant. Either way, I don't think that they are serving the long term interest of their stockholders.

They truly must consider themselves to be above us in class. And what else do they get away with behind our backs if they do this openly?

Well, the trrrsm measures have made sure that a revolution is more or less impossible now, but it looks like the conditions for one are developing quite nicely.

Yes. They ripened on or about 1/19

Quote
El Jeffe
Yes. They ripened on or about 1/19

Yep - banks never paid themselves obscene bonuses on dubya's watch. No, never. And the whole Global financial crisis wasn't the result of bad or no regulatory oversight on dubya's watch - it was a setup by a vast left-wing conspiracy to get Obama elected...

And Enron was... Clinton's fault! (somehow - I'm sure Anne Coulter could explain...)

An interesting proposal by a economics professor of Tilburg University. We don't have large investment banks, but the Netherlands has the largest investment institutions in the world for our pension system. He's claiming that these institutions deliver the the gunpowder for the Wall Street fireworks and proposes to just take it away. In that sense he's right; the Wall Street banks have proven to be very unreliable. They're the used car sales men who sell cars with broken brakes and take out life insurance policies on the buyers. Stop buying these broken cars and they'll have to change their ways.

It's so obvious, it's probably the reason why it's never been said before. After all, this is the financial market we're talking about.

I'll withhold judgement till I read the whole thing but I really disagree with the characterization.

I know there are "bad apples" that tend to make it seem that hawking inappropriate investments is commonplace, yet in my experience on the inside of several very large firms that exist in the financial realm there are many more people involved in not just separating fools from their money but in doing best they can for the largest number of clients.

Sure there is plenty of room for improvement and there is appalling little disclosure required for the newest / riskiest offerings, but the lawmakers (here and abroad) make it awfully hard to accept that they are really "looking out for the most vlunerable" so much as theyare grandstanding / axe grinding as ploy to secure the votes of the "most gullible" abd thereby remain secure in their comfy posts...

Well, that few bad apples is at least one very big, sour apple.

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/goldman-admits-frontrunning-clients-through-its-prop-desk

Without getting too technical, or stepping outside the constraints that I am pretty sure I am bound by with regards to my current employer ( who is not GS or a direct competitor following our divestment) the fact is that GS has basically no "regular" customers.

Anyone that uses GS ought to know that ALL of their strategic plans are going to reviewed by the folks inside GS. that want to give their properitary traders an edge...

The financial planner I currently have has a son who has worked at the Australian branch of GS the last few years to build up some experience. He said he's witnessed firsthand some of the shadiest unethical business practices he's ever seen...

"Used car sales men". These billions come from somewhere. I'm susprised people don't connect the dots, stop giving this scum your money and the problem goes away.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/26/2010 08:59PM by tliet.

DPBD

Stan, I hear what you're saying, but it's not limited to GS. And people themselves can invest in schemes that don't use GS or other Wall Street type of banks. It's hard, my fund for example is from a large bank that almost collapsed 18 months ago and is now owned by the Dutch government. The only way the taxman is chipping in, is by having a pension paid for by my company at a finacial institution of their choice.

But I'm going to be asking the guy who manages this to dig into this as I'm no longer willing to participate in this criminal behaviour.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=afbSjYv3v814

Hey all -- just checking in for iPad reactions, been busy.

My portfolios: 1 I manage is 90% back to peak but peak was wild, this is much safer. AAPL is good but a little down post earnings. AMZN is good but I locked in a decent profit and got out. Shoulda re-bought at 118 but it's tomfoolery to try that, esp. considering the near 80 p/e the stock trades at. They may buy out NFLX rumor says... I don't see NFLX as a 20 year company myself but wtheck, Blockbuster is still here, sort of.

Retirement fund #2 is doing fine as Fidelity investments are considered.

Portfolio #3 is managed from away and while they protected a lot of it by selling they didn't get on the 2009 lift so we are down from peak.

I'm not complaining, and am definitely being cautious.

WELL at least until today!