[garysears]

davelj,

Yeah, that is how I should have phrased it “CAPABLE”. I like your analogy of the balloon payment.

In any case, my point about the amount of fraud and deceit remains. Who would be investing in this environment, knowing that there there is no transparency, especially with the continuing massive bailouts and BK risk?

It doesn’t seem to be the best environment for the common guy with little fundamental understanding (ie. me).

[garysears]

I’ve never really understood why the “buy and hold” investment crowd invests in stocks that don’t pay a dividend, or have a realistic expectation of paying one in the future.

I’m probably not smart enough to get it but it seems to me the only reason you would own a company would be to make money. So if you are a buy and hold person, you will get paid while holding the stock through dividend.

The only reason you would buy a stock that doesn’t pay a dividend is on the assumption that some day IT WILL. So companies that are rapidly expanding market share (earnings)…I can see owning, at a price related to profits. But I don’t trust any corporate disclosures, so even the P/E ratios to me are suspect.

I have no faith in the system. There are too many Enrons and Countrywides and Citibanks, and Bank of Americas, and Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers, etc. out there. And too many companies growing from a guy in a trailer to billions in only a few years by cooking the books. Seems like the insiders do what they need to do to pump up the price and mislead investors so they can cash out their options.

It doesn’t seem likely that companies can expand infinitely. So there is no reason for a comany to continuously recycle profits into further investment. At some point a company has to reach market maturity. But most of the stock market seems to be full of rosy outlooks and assumptions of continual expansion of market share. And people bid up the P/E on speculation.

I understand that a share in a company is owning a small portion of the net asset value plus the current income stream and discounted future income stream. I think if stocks were traded based only on the assumption that price should be share of overall net assets plus current income, they would in general be trading much lower. If you could even trust the disclosures regarding true asset value and current earnings.

To my simple mind the game seems to mostly be about future income speculation.

[garysears]

I’ve never really understood why the “buy and hold” investment crowd invests in stocks that don’t pay a dividend, or have a realistic expectation of paying one in the future.

I’m probably not smart enough to get it but it seems to me the only reason you would own a company would be to make money. So if you are a buy and hold person, you will get paid while holding the stock through dividend.

The only reason you would buy a stock that doesn’t pay a dividend is on the assumption that some day IT WILL. So companies that are rapidly expanding market share (earnings)…I can see owning, at a price related to profits. But I don’t trust any corporate disclosures, so even the P/E ratios to me are suspect.

I have no faith in the system. There are too many Enrons and Countrywides and Citibanks, and Bank of Americas, and Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers, etc. out there. And too many companies growing from a guy in a trailer to billions in only a few years by cooking the books. Seems like the insiders do what they need to do to pump up the price and mislead investors so they can cash out their options.

It doesn’t seem likely that companies can expand infinitely. So there is no reason for a comany to continuously recycle profits into further investment. At some point a company has to reach market maturity. But most of the stock market seems to be full of rosy outlooks and assumptions of continual expansion of market share. And people bid up the P/E on speculation.

I understand that a share in a company is owning a small portion of the net asset value plus the current income stream and discounted future income stream. I think if stocks were traded based only on the assumption that price should be share of overall net assets plus current income, they would in general be trading much lower. If you could even trust the disclosures regarding true asset value and current earnings.

To my simple mind the game seems to mostly be about future income speculation.

[garysears]

I’ve never really understood why the “buy and hold” investment crowd invests in stocks that don’t pay a dividend, or have a realistic expectation of paying one in the future.

I’m probably not smart enough to get it but it seems to me the only reason you would own a company would be to make money. So if you are a buy and hold person, you will get paid while holding the stock through dividend.

The only reason you would buy a stock that doesn’t pay a dividend is on the assumption that some day IT WILL. So companies that are rapidly expanding market share (earnings)…I can see owning, at a price related to profits. But I don’t trust any corporate disclosures, so even the P/E ratios to me are suspect.

I have no faith in the system. There are too many Enrons and Countrywides and Citibanks, and Bank of Americas, and Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers, etc. out there. And too many companies growing from a guy in a trailer to billions in only a few years by cooking the books. Seems like the insiders do what they need to do to pump up the price and mislead investors so they can cash out their options.

It doesn’t seem likely that companies can expand infinitely. So there is no reason for a comany to continuously recycle profits into further investment. At some point a company has to reach market maturity. But most of the stock market seems to be full of rosy outlooks and assumptions of continual expansion of market share. And people bid up the P/E on speculation.

I understand that a share in a company is owning a small portion of the net asset value plus the current income stream and discounted future income stream. I think if stocks were traded based only on the assumption that price should be share of overall net assets plus current income, they would in general be trading much lower. If you could even trust the disclosures regarding true asset value and current earnings.

To my simple mind the game seems to mostly be about future income speculation.

[garysears]

I’ve never really understood why the “buy and hold” investment crowd invests in stocks that don’t pay a dividend, or have a realistic expectation of paying one in the future.

I’m probably not smart enough to get it but it seems to me the only reason you would own a company would be to make money. So if you are a buy and hold person, you will get paid while holding the stock through dividend.

The only reason you would buy a stock that doesn’t pay a dividend is on the assumption that some day IT WILL. So companies that are rapidly expanding market share (earnings)…I can see owning, at a price related to profits. But I don’t trust any corporate disclosures, so even the P/E ratios to me are suspect.

I have no faith in the system. There are too many Enrons and Countrywides and Citibanks, and Bank of Americas, and Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers, etc. out there. And too many companies growing from a guy in a trailer to billions in only a few years by cooking the books. Seems like the insiders do what they need to do to pump up the price and mislead investors so they can cash out their options.

It doesn’t seem likely that companies can expand infinitely. So there is no reason for a comany to continuously recycle profits into further investment. At some point a company has to reach market maturity. But most of the stock market seems to be full of rosy outlooks and assumptions of continual expansion of market share. And people bid up the P/E on speculation.

I understand that a share in a company is owning a small portion of the net asset value plus the current income stream and discounted future income stream. I think if stocks were traded based only on the assumption that price should be share of overall net assets plus current income, they would in general be trading much lower. If you could even trust the disclosures regarding true asset value and current earnings.

To my simple mind the game seems to mostly be about future income speculation.

[garysears]

I’ve never really understood why the “buy and hold” investment crowd invests in stocks that don’t pay a dividend, or have a realistic expectation of paying one in the future.

I’m probably not smart enough to get it but it seems to me the only reason you would own a company would be to make money. So if you are a buy and hold person, you will get paid while holding the stock through dividend.

The only reason you would buy a stock that doesn’t pay a dividend is on the assumption that some day IT WILL. So companies that are rapidly expanding market share (earnings)…I can see owning, at a price related to profits. But I don’t trust any corporate disclosures, so even the P/E ratios to me are suspect.

I have no faith in the system. There are too many Enrons and Countrywides and Citibanks, and Bank of Americas, and Goldman Sachs, and Lehman Brothers, etc. out there. And too many companies growing from a guy in a trailer to billions in only a few years by cooking the books. Seems like the insiders do what they need to do to pump up the price and mislead investors so they can cash out their options.

It doesn’t seem likely that companies can expand infinitely. So there is no reason for a comany to continuously recycle profits into further investment. At some point a company has to reach market maturity. But most of the stock market seems to be full of rosy outlooks and assumptions of continual expansion of market share. And people bid up the P/E on speculation.

I understand that a share in a company is owning a small portion of the net asset value plus the current income stream and discounted future income stream. I think if stocks were traded based only on the assumption that price should be share of overall net assets plus current income, they would in general be trading much lower. If you could even trust the disclosures regarding true asset value and current earnings.

To my simple mind the game seems to mostly be about future income speculation.

[garysears]

Yesterday I was bored at work and frequently visited finance.yahoo.com to read the headlines. It kind of irritates me how often they update the stock market “news”. They were determined all day to relate the swine flu to the market action.

It started out something like “Market shakes off swine flu scare and rallies”

Then a few minutes later it was “Trading mixed as swine flu weighs on market”

Then a few minutes later it was “Market falls on swine flu worries”

Of course the market was hardly moving at all one way or another, considering the recent volatility. I’m so sick of the need to relate every up or down of the DOW Index to some media report, especially when it is far more likely the market is moving due to day trading speculators, insiders, large hedge funds, or the PPT for reasons and purposes not disclosed.

All the mid day updates are completely useless as each new headline seems to contradict the previous. It seems like the only news possibly worth reading would be the summary after the market closes. Of course, no matter what happened yesterday and what happens today with the DOW, it will be related to the flu scare.

[garysears]

Yesterday I was bored at work and frequently visited finance.yahoo.com to read the headlines. It kind of irritates me how often they update the stock market “news”. They were determined all day to relate the swine flu to the market action.

It started out something like “Market shakes off swine flu scare and rallies”

Then a few minutes later it was “Trading mixed as swine flu weighs on market”

Then a few minutes later it was “Market falls on swine flu worries”

Of course the market was hardly moving at all one way or another, considering the recent volatility. I’m so sick of the need to relate every up or down of the DOW Index to some media report, especially when it is far more likely the market is moving due to day trading speculators, insiders, large hedge funds, or the PPT for reasons and purposes not disclosed.

All the mid day updates are completely useless as each new headline seems to contradict the previous. It seems like the only news possibly worth reading would be the summary after the market closes. Of course, no matter what happened yesterday and what happens today with the DOW, it will be related to the flu scare.

[garysears]

Yesterday I was bored at work and frequently visited finance.yahoo.com to read the headlines. It kind of irritates me how often they update the stock market “news”. They were determined all day to relate the swine flu to the market action.

It started out something like “Market shakes off swine flu scare and rallies”

Then a few minutes later it was “Trading mixed as swine flu weighs on market”

Then a few minutes later it was “Market falls on swine flu worries”

Of course the market was hardly moving at all one way or another, considering the recent volatility. I’m so sick of the need to relate every up or down of the DOW Index to some media report, especially when it is far more likely the market is moving due to day trading speculators, insiders, large hedge funds, or the PPT for reasons and purposes not disclosed.

All the mid day updates are completely useless as each new headline seems to contradict the previous. It seems like the only news possibly worth reading would be the summary after the market closes. Of course, no matter what happened yesterday and what happens today with the DOW, it will be related to the flu scare.

[garysears]

Yesterday I was bored at work and frequently visited finance.yahoo.com to read the headlines. It kind of irritates me how often they update the stock market “news”. They were determined all day to relate the swine flu to the market action.

It started out something like “Market shakes off swine flu scare and rallies”

Then a few minutes later it was “Trading mixed as swine flu weighs on market”

Then a few minutes later it was “Market falls on swine flu worries”

Of course the market was hardly moving at all one way or another, considering the recent volatility. I’m so sick of the need to relate every up or down of the DOW Index to some media report, especially when it is far more likely the market is moving due to day trading speculators, insiders, large hedge funds, or the PPT for reasons and purposes not disclosed.

All the mid day updates are completely useless as each new headline seems to contradict the previous. It seems like the only news possibly worth reading would be the summary after the market closes. Of course, no matter what happened yesterday and what happens today with the DOW, it will be related to the flu scare.

[garysears]

Yesterday I was bored at work and frequently visited finance.yahoo.com to read the headlines. It kind of irritates me how often they update the stock market “news”. They were determined all day to relate the swine flu to the market action.

It started out something like “Market shakes off swine flu scare and rallies”

Then a few minutes later it was “Trading mixed as swine flu weighs on market”

Then a few minutes later it was “Market falls on swine flu worries”

Of course the market was hardly moving at all one way or another, considering the recent volatility. I’m so sick of the need to relate every up or down of the DOW Index to some media report, especially when it is far more likely the market is moving due to day trading speculators, insiders, large hedge funds, or the PPT for reasons and purposes not disclosed.

All the mid day updates are completely useless as each new headline seems to contradict the previous. It seems like the only news possibly worth reading would be the summary after the market closes. Of course, no matter what happened yesterday and what happens today with the DOW, it will be related to the flu scare.

[garysears]

Craigslist is full of scammers. I’ve seen the same one. Made me feel stupid for even emailing when I got that reply. Should have recognized the offer was too good to be true from the start.

I’m currently renting a place found on craigslist. At first I was concerned whether I was even renting from the rightful owner. There are scammers out there who will pose as the owner of a place, take your first month’s rent and security deposit and be gone.

[garysears]

Craigslist is full of scammers. I’ve seen the same one. Made me feel stupid for even emailing when I got that reply. Should have recognized the offer was too good to be true from the start.

I’m currently renting a place found on craigslist. At first I was concerned whether I was even renting from the rightful owner. There are scammers out there who will pose as the owner of a place, take your first month’s rent and security deposit and be gone.

[garysears]

Craigslist is full of scammers. I’ve seen the same one. Made me feel stupid for even emailing when I got that reply. Should have recognized the offer was too good to be true from the start.

I’m currently renting a place found on craigslist. At first I was concerned whether I was even renting from the rightful owner. There are scammers out there who will pose as the owner of a place, take your first month’s rent and security deposit and be gone.

[garysears]

Craigslist is full of scammers. I’ve seen the same one. Made me feel stupid for even emailing when I got that reply. Should have recognized the offer was too good to be true from the start.

I’m currently renting a place found on craigslist. At first I was concerned whether I was even renting from the rightful owner. There are scammers out there who will pose as the owner of a place, take your first month’s rent and security deposit and be gone.

[Author]

Posts