Global Meltdown is Over. Now is time to make Money., page 6
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 16 times


reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 01:23 AM by rattan1
Originally posted by johnny2127
reply to
post by rattan1



Citi posted a OPERATIONAL PROFIT. What that means is revenue versus expenses. But it doesn't include taxes, toxic asset write downs, and normal asset declines. It also includes many one time profits.

In other words they still lost a boat load of money and are essentially an insolvent zombie bank..


The write down are mentioning are just book values and does not involve any cash outflows. Asset values will go up and down and what is more important to analyse is the actual profit made.


reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 01:31 AM by johnny2127
Originally posted by Jacob08
My biggest concern is with the rate of growth in the past 20 years before this crash, which in my opinion is far from over. In 1988 the DOW was at 2000, only 20 years later it was at 12 000 in 2008. That's a lot faster growth then the previous 20 years, in 1968 it was at 900 and grew to 2000 by 1988. In short 1968-1988 saw 122% growth (average of 6.1% a year), 1988-2008 saw 500% growth (average of 25% per year).

How much of those gains will have be returned until we are at realistic levels of growth over the 20 year period? I think the credit bubble was responsible for much of that huge growth and now it has burst much of it will be returned. If growth was at 122% for the last 20 years (the same as the previous 20) the market would have been about 4400 in 2008. That's not to say the past 20 years growth wasn't based on anything real or sustainable but it's worth thinking about.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by Jacob08]


No offense but your math is soooo off its pathetic. Here is the equation for how to find compounded annual growth rate(CAGR) is:

CAGR = (Ending Value/Beginning Value) to the power of (1/number of years)

So in the example you gave from 1988 we will use 2,000 as the Dow value in 1988, and 14000 as the Dow value in 2008.

CAGR = (14,000/2,000) to the power of (1/20) = 10.22%

Your calculation was 250% off. lol.

From 1965 to 1982 the market was in a complete dead era. Essentially flat. So that era isn't one to compare all others to. Although, we could be entering a similar time in which market indexes are essentially flat for an extended period of time. If thats the case, buy and hold won't make money, although active management will


reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 01:33 AM by rattan1
I did mention that city group was just the beginning and more good news will come:

Wall Street up as Dimon's remarks buoy banks

Stocks rose for a second day on Wednesday after JP Morgan Chase's (JPM.N) chief executive said his bank was profitable in January and February, echoing comments by Citigroup's CEO a day earlier.


Jamie Dimon's comments to CNBC television, which reversed a broad decline, came after a speech where he said the bank's bond department had just had its two busiest months ever. His comments followed similar remarks on profits from Citigroup's Vikram Pandit that on Tuesday spurred Wall Street's biggest rally in nearly four months. JPMorgan shares rose 4.6 percent to $20.40, while an index of bank stocks .BKX climbed 3.1 percent. Dimon "calmed the markets down. He was the voice of reason," said Angel Mata, managing director of listed equity trading at Stifel Nicolaus Capital Markets in Baltimore.


For all those who has been criticizing my post I really hope that I will not come back to you and say I TOLD YOU SO



reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 02:08 AM by Jacob08
reply to post by johnny2127



True. I added my per year % as an after thought,a poorly thought out after thought but my other numbers are correct and it's all relative anyway.



[edit on 12-3-2009 by Jacob08]


reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 02:13 AM by johnny2127
Originally posted by Jacob08
reply to
post by johnny2127



True. I added my per year % as an after thought,a poorly thought out after thought but my other numbers are correct and it's all relative anyway.



[edit on 12-3-2009 by Jacob08]


No problem. You point is still valid. In my opinion, over the course of time an index should return in the 6-8% range if its healthy. More than that and its prone for bubbles. Of course short periods of time can greatly outperform


reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 08:24 AM by mkiii
reply to post by rattan1



Haha, watch the markets close low today.

No, it is not over.
We're not at the 2 minute warning, more like end of 1st quarter. Plenty more to go my friends.

And stocking up on ammo and food...what's it hurt? You can still eat the food and still shoot the ammo, even if we get through without needing it for emergency. FIFO. First in First out. Just rotate your stocks and your preparations will continue to benefit you for years to come as prices rise, as well as keep you prepared for the unexpected.


reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 12:57 PM by Blackmarketeer
I could care less about the stock market. It doesn't dictate my ability to earn money. I've bought three homes in as many months, the most expensive for 7,000, the least for 1,200. Now is the time to buy homes or property, especially these bargain-basement fixer-uppers., I don't think you will see prices like these for a long time. Rental units are in big demand. You don't get wealthy by working, you get wealthy by owning.

Just an example of whats selling:
www.cleveland.com.../base/business-11/1236673812178760.xml&coll=2

The biggest damage to our economy in the US is from job loss, caused by a freeze in the credit market. Companies can't get credit so have to reduce spending. What the government is doing now is what is needed to resolve that. All this "run for the hills" talk is only making it that much easier to capitalize on depressed housing prices. IMO "run for the hills" is right up there with all these 2012 doomsday cults.


reply posted on 12-3-2009 @ 04:29 PM by pavil
reply to post by johnny2127



I would agree those would be signs.

I love the spin they do on the markets, take this sample:

GE rose 13 percent to $9.57. The shares have surged 36 percent since March 6 in what may prove to be the biggest weekly gain since at least 1980. It “does not anticipate any significant operational or funding impacts” from the credit downgrade, according to a statement. The long-term debt rating was cut one level to AA+ with a “stable” outlook. GE is down 41 percent in 2009.


So GE gets it's rating cut from AAA to AA and the stock zooms 13%, sounds great right? Trouble is, GE Stock was at 33.96 a year ago, and their quarterly dividend just was chopped from 31 cents a share to 10 cents a share, thus the rating decline.

Don't get me wrong, GE is a good buy at it's current price. I just find it funny how "hey I am only down 71.6% in value and my dividend was cut down 66% from where I was last year", is somehow good news to a longtime GE Stockholder.

The people on Wall Street are the masters of making Lemonade.................
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7    8    9  >>    ^^TOP^^



USDA Forces Whole Foods To Accept Monsanto
  Posted 10 days ago with 99 member flags
Greece wipes out Citizens Debt!! Tells Bankers to suck it
  Posted 11 days ago with 78 member flags
The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation
  Posted 18 days ago with 53 member flags
Obama on the verge of a deal with the banks
  Posted 16 days ago with 23 member flags
EU financial dictatorship agreed to by EU ministers last night
  Posted 18 days ago with 17 member flags
Bankers requesting that Greece become their debt slaves
  Posted 14 days ago with 15 member flags