# Why The Stock Market Is Rising



## AdvancingTime

*Forces are converging to create a false loop further distorting and disconnecting Wall Street from the American economy.* The market has been all a twitter as we continue in a "greed and stupidity loop" that can best be explained as follows, stocks are rising so why get out, not getting out is causing the stocks to rise. We are experiencing a double down and let it ride mentality that has been ratcheted higher by media hype, but more is behind the stock market move.

*Just as important it must be noted that as the dollar gains strength cross border money flows have become a massive factor.* *While these cross border flows have been good for the market I caution it does not fundamentally change the economy.* Most analysts agree that money from countries with weakening currencies is flowing out of the troubled areas and into America. The article below delves into why this should not be considered a good thing as much as a signal of global instability.

*http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-american-equities-are-rising.html*


----------



## JoeMoma

Seems to me that we are in a bubble cycle.


----------



## william the wie

JoeMoma said:


> Seems to me that we are in a bubble cycle.


 yeah since at least 1987.


----------



## Mr. H.

When you print $58 billion/month and drive bank rates to zero, where the fuck else would any sane investor put their money BUT in the stock market.


----------



## william the wie

Mr. H. said:


> When you print $58 billion/month and drive bank rates to zero, where the fuck else would any sane investor put their money BUT in the stock market.


If it were that easy we'd all be rich.


----------



## Mr. H.

william the wie said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you print $58 billion/month and drive bank rates to zero, where the fuck else would any sane investor put their money BUT in the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that easy we'd all be rich.
Click to expand...

Open a Scottrade account with $5. It's a start. Do something or do nothing, the choice is yours.


----------



## william the wie

Mr. H. said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you print $58 billion/month and drive bank rates to zero, where the fuck else would any sane investor put their money BUT in the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that easy we'd all be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Open a Scottrade account with $5. It's a start. Do something or do nothing, the choice is yours.
Click to expand...

 I am doing something, getting positive carry on my hedges.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

william the wie said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you print $58 billion/month and drive bank rates to zero, where the fuck else would any sane investor put their money BUT in the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that easy we'd all be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Open a Scottrade account with $5. It's a start. Do something or do nothing, the choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am doing something, getting positive carry on my hedges.
Click to expand...

 
Don't leave us hanging........


----------



## william the wie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you print $58 billion/month and drive bank rates to zero, where the fuck else would any sane investor put their money BUT in the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that easy we'd all be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Open a Scottrade account with $5. It's a start. Do something or do nothing, the choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am doing something, getting positive carry on my hedges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't leave us hanging........
Click to expand...


Other than losing potential and actual profits I see no point in telling what I do. However if and when I hit diseconiomies of scale on this tactic be assured that I will spill my guts to you for all the good it will do you then.


----------



## HenryBHough

Mr. H. said:


> When you print $58 billion/month and drive bank rates to zero, where the fuck else would any sane investor put their money BUT in the stock market.



Until about a week ago, Swiss Francs.

Experience has taught me to buy foreign currency months in advance of trips to certain countries.  CERTAIN countries.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

william the wie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you print $58 billion/month and drive bank rates to zero, where the fuck else would any sane investor put their money BUT in the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> If it were that easy we'd all be rich.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Open a Scottrade account with $5. It's a start. Do something or do nothing, the choice is yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am doing something, getting positive carry on my hedges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't leave us hanging........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than losing potential and actual profits I see no point in telling what I do. However if and when I hit diseconiomies of scale on this tactic be assured that I will spill my guts to you for all the good it will do you then.
Click to expand...

 
What are you trying to hedge?


----------



## SteadyMercury

AdvancingTime said:


> *http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/11/why-american-equities-are-rising.html*


Going thru older posts on that blog seems like this guy has been singing the same gloomy tune for years.

There should be a rule where financial pundits are required to post their holdings with annual updates to portfolio gains/losses, so we can see if they really walk the walk that they talk and if so how much it actually cost them in losses or missed opportunity.


----------



## AdvancingTime

*Singing "the same gloomy tune for years" means that while I have been wrong until now, at least I'm consistent. *

Because of the business I'm in I have the advantage of seeing the economy from its foundation. I see the numbers and understand "real money" the kind that is used on Main Street not Wall street.

*Much of what I have written is a call for caution. Most people only have to "lose big once" to see all you have worked for destroyed. *


----------



## Jacob Adom

The rise and fall of your success in the stock market is directly related to how well you understand the market trends. For complete analysis of stock market trends, visit OTC Bully.


----------



## SteadyMercury

AdvancingTime said:


> Singing "the same gloomy tune for years" means that while I have been wrong until now, at least I'm consistent.


Being consistently wrong isn't something I'd want to hang my hat on. I think that blog even referenced Peter Schiff, the biggest joke of a doom-and-gloomer pundit out there who somehow manages to stay relevant despite being wrong every year about stocks, gold, inflation, etc.



AdvancingTime said:


> Because of the business I'm in I have the advantage of seeing the economy from its foundation. I see the numbers and understand "real money" the kind that is used on Main Street not Wall street.


Come on man an appeal to authority carries no weight here, you put ten people with your experience and specializations in a room you'd probably get ten different opinions on the economy. 




AdvancingTime said:


> Much of what I have written is a call for caution. Most people only have to "lose big once" to see all you have worked for destroyed.


Caution is always good, I think we can all agree on that but warning for years about the impending "Big One" doesn't really help. How much lost investment opportunity in the stock market would there over the last few years if one was living in fear of investing because of self-professed experts who spend years warning of the house of cards collapsing?


----------



## Templicon

QE goes to? The central bank members. They do not dole it out to the average Joe, they buy gold and equities. At a scale double the whole US economy since incept, in the trillions, the whole stock market is a virtual reality as point 3 of the QE.

The central banks want to:

1. Buy up all they can at the best dollar value as long as it lasts.

2. But up things at distressed prices as long as they can.

3. Exit the US Dollar after it has been used to fully milk the nation-state wealth coffers by mere "monopoly money" leveraged buy out.

That world government of finance then owns the whole nation-state system by debt to recovery, and they implement the final fictional monetary system and deploy world government so people cannot "buy or sell" without 100% world government allegiance at truly global scale, backed by Global NATO as a truly global military monopoly that will include Russia and China, whose central banks are running the same scam, who have been in on it since day one of WW1, the first cycle to start to forge the world government foundation.

Including the WW2 and Cold WW cycles, this is the fourth phase to bear world government after the proper financial and military global stressing cycle runs its course to bring every nation-state system on earth to its knees before almighty world government.

We are in the GWOT global positioning and US and London financial positioning prior to that fourth cycle going full blown, not with "the end" as the goal, but just its impression, but with world government as the objective over say 7 to 14 years of that "sword-stroke" to global "healing" mega-phase which "healer" is world government.

Its not "the end", it is the 4th cycle getting ready to BEGIN. Financial domination by nation-state dysfunction and default is the largest sector of the development of global domination, even more so than global military. Expect a financial downfall and eventual recovery to be the true nucleus of world government acceptability and presentation.

I'm just trying to cut through the mega volumes of minutia and detail to explain the core formula at work in the financial dimension of the phasing out of the "world reserve currency" and what ti leads to, whether abrupt or gradual, that si where it is going: the world government sector of wealth and finance complete.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Templicon said:


> QE goes to? The central bank members. They do not dole it out to the average Joe, they buy gold and equities. At a scale double the whole US economy since incept, in the trillions, the whole stock market is a virtual reality as point 3 of the QE.
> 
> The central banks want to:
> 
> 1. Buy up all they can at the best dollar value as long as it lasts.
> 
> 2. But up things at distressed prices as long as they can.
> 
> 3. Exit the US Dollar after it has been used to fully milk the nation-state wealth coffers by mere "monopoly money" leveraged buy out.
> 
> That world government of finance then owns the whole nation-state system by debt to recovery, and they implement the final fictional monetary system and deploy world government so people cannot "buy or sell" without 100% world government allegiance at truly global scale, backed by Global NATO as a truly global military monopoly that will include Russia and China, whose central banks are running the same scam, who have been in on it since day one of WW1, the first cycle to start to forge the world government foundation.
> 
> Including the WW2 and Cold WW cycles, this is the fourth phase to bear world government after the proper financial and military global stressing cycle runs its course to bring every nation-state system on earth to its knees before almighty world government.
> 
> We are in the GWOT global positioning and US and London financial positioning prior to that fourth cycle going full blown, not with "the end" as the goal, but just its impression, but with world government as the objective over say 7 to 14 years of that "sword-stroke" to global "healing" mega-phase which "healer" is world government.
> 
> Its not "the end", it is the 4th cycle getting ready to BEGIN. Financial domination by nation-state dysfunction and default is the largest sector of the development of global domination, even more so than global military. Expect a financial downfall and eventual recovery to be the true nucleus of world government acceptability and presentation.
> 
> I'm just trying to cut through the mega volumes of minutia and detail to explain the core formula at work in the financial dimension of the phasing out of the "world reserve currency" and what ti leads to, whether abrupt or gradual, that si where it is going: the world government sector of wealth and finance complete.


 
*QE goes to? The central bank members. They do not dole it out to the average Joe, they buy gold and equities.*

So the Fed buys $1 billion in 10 year Treasuries yielding 2% from Goldman Sachs.
In return, Goldman gets reserves at the Fed yielding 0.25%.
You feel Goldman takes the cash and buys gold and equities?
Why doesn't Goldman just sell their bond and buy gold and equities, without waiting for the Fed?
What stops me from taking my cash and buying gold and equities with it?
Your claim appears ridiculous.


----------



## Templicon

> So the Fed buys $1 billion in 10 year Treasuries yielding 2% from Goldman Sachs.
> In return, Goldman gets reserves at the Fed yielding 0.25%.
> You feel Goldman takes the cash and buys gold and equities?
> Why doesn't Goldman just sell their bond and buy gold and equities, without waiting for the Fed?
> What stops me from taking my cash and buying gold and equities with it?
> Your claim appears ridiculous.



Its just the "appearance", it is fundamentally accurate.

Goldman, etc, and the Fed, etc, are all the same thing in essence, that's why it "appears" illogical, but that is what is functioning in essence, all the big banks are in one basket, the derivatives "alternative investment" platform is where that will work out as designed. Its a BIG SLEIGHT OF HAND trick in the global-corporate house of mirrors.

I do not know the design, I know the US and the rest will all lose the gold they do not really possess anyways, but their gold and their national assets will be couped. He who runs the majority of the global gold and silver, will make the final global sovereign recovery policies. The goal is to "bankrupt" the "corporation of the United States" (the epitome of the nation-state system nucleus)and make them all subservient to the final master wealth system.

By people thinking they are all separate and competing entities, in a market that is actually "free", all total fictions controlled by super-computers that generate ALL the digits of global wealth "monetization", totally virtual symbolics, people are smokescreened by ILLUSIONS, well accepted illusions. Those illusions help create the national central delusion complex.

The background engine is actually very very simple, and so is their end goal: the final OWNERSHIP of the US and EU, etc, lock, stock, and barrel—LEGALLY. Its actual simplicity is why it is smokescreened with complex and multi-faceted illusions and mythical ideas.

Obviously he who owns the US debt, is the "master creditor" who already owns America. And the truth is that "Master Creditor" is as much one as is the "Master Debtor", the smokescreen is in the corporate matrix that administers _*BOTH*_ of those "master" systems, nation-state debtor and globalist creditor. Its called a set-up, engineered by nationalism and globalism tiers of legal architecture. It is all "legal", defined by governments, defined by corporate power ultimately.

_(Thus understanding the hidden simplicity of the base formula, the basic concept (financial=wealth control= sovereignty) and the end goal (world government), removes much of the guess work exacerbated by the many features of the illusion, an illusion people have invested their "American Dream" lives into, thus a powerfully persistent illusion.) _

It all boils down, in the end, to the "Master Corporation of World Government"—it is ALREADY there in the corporate framework that helps absorb the nation-state fallout when it really hits. And though that will have a regional pyramidal distribution of massive complexity, it is at the same time a _*single global corporation*_.

In the end, the minutia and complexity of details, all "legally defined" and to be "redefined" to fit, all concealed the very simple con actually at work, because its simplicity is what must be concealed as long as possible.

The doler of debt (global central bank matrix) is the doler of currency, plain and simple, and that doler is the nexus of central control by that debt, the smokescreen is in the complexity and ideologies, all they "risked" is digital monetary magnitudes, of NO VALUE to them that print it all from thin air.

What they want is the hard assets, the whole nation, the whole world. And that is exactly what they have "bought" by this kind of freewheel debt and monetary creation all overseen by them alone, all "monopoly money", for real. They just shed the snakeskin of national currency, when it is done, and the "Anaconda of World Government" will have swallowed the real world—for real, all "legally". It was a con from day one of the London and US central banker cabals because wealth control, and financial system design control, is 80% of world power, military is just a tool in that "immortal corporation" box.


----------



## OnePercenter

*Why The Stock Market Is Rising* 

Because the commodities Market is decreasing.


----------



## Treeshepherd

AdvancingTime said:


> Most analysts agree that money from countries with weakening currencies is flowing out of the troubled areas and into America.



Yep. It's all relative. If the rest of the world is thrashed, capital flows to the US.

QE and other stimuli have already been mentioned.

Why else do markets keep rising?

Failed public corporations are removed from stock exchanges. Kraft Foods, Bank of America and Hewlett Packard have been replaced by other companies on the Dow Jones. That's sort of like a baseball player caluculating his averages after throwing out his worst statistical years.

And, public corporations continue to displace smaller businesses. Your local mom and pop video store likely got put out of business by Netflix. Your local pet shop may have been replaced by PetSmart. Chipoltle and Buffalo Wild Wings replaced some of your local restaurants. As America is transformed into a corporate wasteland, errrr, as American corporations take market share from non-listed companies, the stock exchanges benefit. 

and other factors I'll save for later...


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Templicon said:


> So the Fed buys $1 billion in 10 year Treasuries yielding 2% from Goldman Sachs.
> In return, Goldman gets reserves at the Fed yielding 0.25%.
> You feel Goldman takes the cash and buys gold and equities?
> Why doesn't Goldman just sell their bond and buy gold and equities, without waiting for the Fed?
> What stops me from taking my cash and buying gold and equities with it?
> Your claim appears ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its just the "appearance", it is fundamentally accurate.
> 
> Goldman, etc, and the Fed, etc, are all the same thing in essence, that's why it "appears" illogical, but that is what is functioning in essence, all the big banks are in one basket, the derivatives "alternative investment" platform is where that will work out as designed. Its a BIG SLEIGHT OF HAND trick in the global-corporate house of mirrors.
> 
> I do not know the design, I know the US and the rest will all lose the gold they do not really possess anyways, but their gold and their national assets will be couped. He who runs the majority of the global gold and silver, will make the final global sovereign recovery policies. The goal is to "bankrupt" the "corporation of the United States" (the epitome of the nation-state system nucleus)and make them all subservient to the final master wealth system.
> 
> By people thinking they are all separate and competing entities, in a market that is actually "free", all total fictions controlled by super-computers that generate ALL the digits of global wealth "monetization", totally virtual symbolics, people are smokescreened by ILLUSIONS, well accepted illusions. Those illusions help create the national central delusion complex.
> 
> The background engine is actually very very simple, and so is their end goal: the final OWNERSHIP of the US and EU, etc, lock, stock, and barrel—LEGALLY. Its actual simplicity is why it is smokescreened with complex and multi-faceted illusions and mythical ideas.
> 
> Obviously he who owns the US debt, is the "master creditor" who already owns America. And the truth is that "Master Creditor" is as much one as is the "Master Debtor", the smokescreen is in the corporate matrix that administers _*BOTH*_ of those "master" systems, nation-state debtor and globalist creditor. Its called a set-up, engineered by nationalism and globalism tiers of legal architecture. It is all "legal", defined by governments, defined by corporate power ultimately.
> 
> _(Thus understanding the hidden simplicity of the base formula, the basic concept (financial=wealth control= sovereignty) and the end goal (world government), removes much of the guess work exacerbated by the many features of the illusion, an illusion people have invested their "American Dream" lives into, thus a powerfully persistent illusion.) _
> 
> It all boils down, in the end, to the "Master Corporation of World Government"—it is ALREADY there in the corporate framework that helps absorb the nation-state fallout when it really hits. And though that will have a regional pyramidal distribution of massive complexity, it is at the same time a _*single global corporation*_.
> 
> In the end, the minutia and complexity of details, all "legally defined" and to be "redefined" to fit, all concealed the very simple con actually at work, because its simplicity is what must be concealed as long as possible.
> 
> The doler of debt (global central bank matrix) is the doler of currency, plain and simple, and that doler is the nexus of central control by that debt, the smokescreen is in the complexity and ideologies, all they "risked" is digital monetary magnitudes, of NO VALUE to them that print it all from thin air.
> 
> What they want is the hard assets, the whole nation, the whole world. And that is exactly what they have "bought" by this kind of freewheel debt and monetary creation all overseen by them alone, all "monopoly money", for real. They just shed the snakeskin of national currency, when it is done, and the "Anaconda of World Government" will have swallowed the real world—for real, all "legally". It was a con from day one of the London and US central banker cabals because wealth control, and financial system design control, is 80% of world power, military is just a tool in that "immortal corporation" box.
Click to expand...

 
*Goldman, etc, and the Fed, etc, are all the same thing in essence*

No they aren't.

*I do not know the design,*

What do you know?

*I know the US and the rest will all lose the gold they do not really possess anyways*

And?

*and make them all subservient to the final master wealth system.*

You're making no sense.


----------



## fmdog44

AdvancingTime said:


> *Forces are converging to create a false loop further distorting and disconnecting Wall Street from the American economy.* The market has been all a twitter as we continue in a "greed and stupidity loop" that can best be explained as follows, stocks are rising so why get out, not getting out is causing the stocks to rise. We are experiencing a double down and let it ride mentality that has been ratcheted higher by media hype, but more is behind the stock market move.
> 
> *Just as important it must be noted that as the dollar gains strength cross border money flows have become a massive factor.* *While these cross border flows have been good for the market I caution it does not fundamentally change the economy.* Most analysts agree that money from countries with weakening currencies is flowing out of the troubled areas and into America. The article below delves into why this should not be considered a good thing as much as a signal of global instability.
> 
> The answer to the point "Why  the stock market is rising". The  only word is "earnings". Despite several attempts at a 5 and 10% correction the market has consistently rebounded every time  because of earnings.


----------



## OnePercenter

Commodities is fast money to invest when the stock market decreases value. No more, no less.


----------



## william the wie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Templicon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So the Fed buys $1 billion in 10 year Treasuries yielding 2% from Goldman Sachs.
> In return, Goldman gets reserves at the Fed yielding 0.25%.
> You feel Goldman takes the cash and buys gold and equities?
> Why doesn't Goldman just sell their bond and buy gold and equities, without waiting for the Fed?
> What stops me from taking my cash and buying gold and equities with it?
> Your claim appears ridiculous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its just the "appearance", it is fundamentally accurate.
> 
> Goldman, etc, and the Fed, etc, are all the same thing in essence, that's why it "appears" illogical, but that is what is functioning in essence, all the big banks are in one basket, the derivatives "alternative investment" platform is where that will work out as designed. Its a BIG SLEIGHT OF HAND trick in the global-corporate house of mirrors.
> 
> I do not know the design, I know the US and the rest will all lose the gold they do not really possess anyways, but their gold and their national assets will be couped. He who runs the majority of the global gold and silver, will make the final global sovereign recovery policies. The goal is to "bankrupt" the "corporation of the United States" (the epitome of the nation-state system nucleus)and make them all subservient to the final master wealth system.
> 
> By people thinking they are all separate and competing entities, in a market that is actually "free", all total fictions controlled by super-computers that generate ALL the digits of global wealth "monetization", totally virtual symbolics, people are smokescreened by ILLUSIONS, well accepted illusions. Those illusions help create the national central delusion complex.
> 
> The background engine is actually very very simple, and so is their end goal: the final OWNERSHIP of the US and EU, etc, lock, stock, and barrel—LEGALLY. Its actual simplicity is why it is smokescreened with complex and multi-faceted illusions and mythical ideas.
> 
> Obviously he who owns the US debt, is the "master creditor" who already owns America. And the truth is that "Master Creditor" is as much one as is the "Master Debtor", the smokescreen is in the corporate matrix that administers _*BOTH*_ of those "master" systems, nation-state debtor and globalist creditor. Its called a set-up, engineered by nationalism and globalism tiers of legal architecture. It is all "legal", defined by governments, defined by corporate power ultimately.
> 
> _(Thus understanding the hidden simplicity of the base formula, the basic concept (financial=wealth control= sovereignty) and the end goal (world government), removes much of the guess work exacerbated by the many features of the illusion, an illusion people have invested their "American Dream" lives into, thus a powerfully persistent illusion.) _
> 
> It all boils down, in the end, to the "Master Corporation of World Government"—it is ALREADY there in the corporate framework that helps absorb the nation-state fallout when it really hits. And though that will have a regional pyramidal distribution of massive complexity, it is at the same time a _*single global corporation*_.
> 
> In the end, the minutia and complexity of details, all "legally defined" and to be "redefined" to fit, all concealed the very simple con actually at work, because its simplicity is what must be concealed as long as possible.
> 
> The doler of debt (global central bank matrix) is the doler of currency, plain and simple, and that doler is the nexus of central control by that debt, the smokescreen is in the complexity and ideologies, all they "risked" is digital monetary magnitudes, of NO VALUE to them that print it all from thin air.
> 
> What they want is the hard assets, the whole nation, the whole world. And that is exactly what they have "bought" by this kind of freewheel debt and monetary creation all overseen by them alone, all "monopoly money", for real. They just shed the snakeskin of national currency, when it is done, and the "Anaconda of World Government" will have swallowed the real world—for real, all "legally". It was a con from day one of the London and US central banker cabals because wealth control, and financial system design control, is 80% of world power, military is just a tool in that "immortal corporation" box.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Goldman, etc, and the Fed, etc, are all the same thing in essence*
> 
> No they aren't.
> 
> *I do not know the design,*
> 
> What do you know?
> 
> *I know the US and the rest will all lose the gold they do not really possess anyways*
> 
> And?
> 
> *and make them all subservient to the final master wealth system.*
> 
> You're making no sense.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but the Democratic party and Wall St. have been the same thing going back to at least WWI when in 1915 JP Morgan and the Wilson Administration started illegally financing the Entente with agricultural credits. ("House of Morgan" is  great read and the only easily accessible source of this information I am aware of.)


----------



## OnePercenter

william the wie said:


> Sorry, but the Democratic party and Wall St. have been the same thing going back to at least WWI when in 1915 JP Morgan and the Wilson Administration started illegally financing the Entente with agricultural credits. ("House of Morgan" is  great read and the only easily accessible source of this information I am aware of.)



You're forgetting the philosophical change of Democrats in the 60's. Democrats of 1915 are Republicans of today.

Case in point; The best economic times of the American worker was 1956 when the PRO-UNION REPUBLICANS were in-charge.  

PRO-UNION REPUBLICAN:  OMG!


----------



## william the wie

Do you have any idea how many current or former D office holders like Corzine are also current or former high-ranking Wall St. Bankers?


----------



## OnePercenter

william the wie said:


> Do you have any idea how many current or former D office holders like Corzine are also current or former high-ranking Wall St. Bankers?



Quite a few, but it wasn't 1915.


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any idea how many current or former D office holders like Corzine are also current or former high-ranking Wall St. Bankers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a few, but it wasn't 1915.
Click to expand...

How much do you earn a year? What is your net worth?


----------



## william the wie

Well millionaires are top 0.1% and that will only generate a roughly average yearly income if invested. So, even the legitimately top 1% in wealth or income are not much of a much.


----------



## The Rabbi

The reason the market is going up is TINA.  Pretty simple really.


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> How much do you earn a year? What is your net worth?



In 2014, $30M+

As of yesterday my portfolio is worth $321M with a net of just over $100M.


----------



## OnePercenter

The Rabbi said:


> The reason the market is going up is TINA.  Pretty simple really.



Congrats, after 52,834 posts you've gotten one thing correct. There-Is-No-Alternative.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How much do you earn a year? What is your net worth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 2014, $30M+
> 
> As of yesterday my portfolio is worth $321M with a net of just over $100M.
Click to expand...

 
You're carrying $221M in debt?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You're carrying $221M in debt?



No, net is cash, $221M is invested.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're carrying $221M in debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, net is cash, $221M is invested.
Click to expand...

 
Who calls cash, "net"?


----------



## The Rabbi

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're carrying $221M in debt?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, net is cash, $221M is invested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who calls cash, "net"?
Click to expand...

People who have no idea what the fuck they're talking about.
I told you, OnePlacenta is the biggest poseur on this site. What he just posted makes no sense in the real world.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Who calls cash, "net"?



Net profit isn't cash you dumb Canadian?


----------



## william the wie

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who calls cash, "net"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net profit isn't cash you dumb Canadian?
Click to expand...

Since you don't know basic bookkeeping who are you to run your ignorant mouth?

Free cash flow is just that.

Profit is revenues from operations minus expenses before taxes.

net profit is what is left after taxes

Except for dividends, interest and rents there are no revenues from a financial asset portfolio which are then a net minus transaction and management expenses. For example if you rent out the family farm the rent is revenue. The rental agent's cut is an expense as is maintenance.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who calls cash, "net"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net profit isn't cash you dumb Canadian?
Click to expand...

 
Who talks about net profit when they're lying about their portfolio?
Stupid liar.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

william the wie said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who calls cash, "net"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net profit isn't cash you dumb Canadian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since you don't know basic bookkeeping who are you to run your ignorant mouth?
> 
> Free cash flow is just that.
> 
> Profit is revenues from operations minus expenses before taxes.
> 
> net profit is what is left after taxes
> 
> Except for dividends, interest and rents there are no revenues from a financial asset portfolio which are then a net minus transaction and management expenses. For example if you rent out the family farm the rent is revenue. The rental agent's cut is an expense as is maintenance.
Click to expand...

 
Every time he opens his mouth, he makes it clear he still lives in Mom's basement.
He's lucky if his net worth breaks $1000.


----------



## Moonglow

HenryBHough said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you print $58 billion/month and drive bank rates to zero, where the fuck else would any sane investor put their money BUT in the stock market.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until about a week ago, Swiss Francs.
> 
> Experience has taught me to buy foreign currency months in advance of trips to certain countries.  CERTAIN countries.
Click to expand...

They took off the controls on the Swiss Franc...


----------



## william the wie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who calls cash, "net"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net profit isn't cash you dumb Canadian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who talks about net profit when they're lying about their portfolio?
> Stupid liar.
Click to expand...

Amen


----------



## OnePercenter

william the wie said:


> [
> Since you don't know basic bookkeeping who are you to run your ignorant mouth?
> 
> Free cash flow is just that.
> 
> Profit is revenues from operations minus expenses before taxes.
> 
> net profit is what is left after taxes
> 
> Except for dividends, interest and rents there are no revenues from a financial asset portfolio which are then a net minus transaction and management expenses. For example if you rent out the family farm the rent is revenue. The rental agent's cut is an expense as is maintenance.



Net worth is cash.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who calls cash, "net"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net profit isn't cash you dumb Canadian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who talks about net profit when they're lying about their portfolio?
> Stupid liar.
Click to expand...


I don't lie.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Since you don't know basic bookkeeping who are you to run your ignorant mouth?
> 
> Free cash flow is just that.
> 
> Profit is revenues from operations minus expenses before taxes.
> 
> net profit is what is left after taxes
> 
> Except for dividends, interest and rents there are no revenues from a financial asset portfolio which are then a net minus transaction and management expenses. For example if you rent out the family farm the rent is revenue. The rental agent's cut is an expense as is maintenance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net worth is cash.
Click to expand...

 
*Net worth is cash.*


No it isn't. Not even close. Idiot.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who calls cash, "net"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net profit isn't cash you dumb Canadian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who talks about net profit when they're lying about their portfolio?
> Stupid liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't lie.
Click to expand...

 
LOL!


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *Net worth is cash.*
> 
> 
> No it isn't. Not even close. Idiot.



Care to explain it?


----------



## william the wie

net worth is assets minus liabilities.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Net worth is cash.*
> 
> 
> No it isn't. Not even close. Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to explain it?
Click to expand...

 
I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and a debit cash balance of $500,000 in my portfolio.
By your idiotic definition, the net worth of my account is -$500,000.


----------



## william the wie

I bet he doesn't know that there are two types of leverage, much less what they are.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

william the wie said:


> I bet he doesn't know that there are two types of leverage, much less what they are.


 
He is shockingly uninformed.


----------



## william the wie

The dude would be lost if he ever read Rostow's "Stages of Growth", Arthur's "Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy" much less Mandelbrot's  "The (Mis)behavior of Markets"


----------



## OnePercenter

william the wie said:


> net worth is assets minus liabilities.



A persons only asset is a house she/he owns (no mortgage, no liens). The house is valued at $1M. Is this person a millionaire or a person with assets of $1M?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and a debit cash balance of $500,000 in my portfolio.
> By your idiotic definition, the net worth of my account is -$500,000.



True. You have $2M in assets with a net worth of $500k. Assets are what you have, Net is what you can spend.


----------



## OnePercenter

william the wie said:


> I bet he doesn't know that there are two types of leverage, much less what they are.



In business, operating and financial.

Operating: I own a business AND I own the leasing company that leases all of my equipment. I make money on lease payments, plus the profit the company makes. 

Since my competitors don't know I own a leasing company, I lease equipment to them. Even if I loose a contract bid, I still make money from the lost contract bid.

Financial: Cash is king! Two properties I own I came in on already contracted property and won.


----------



## OnePercenter

william the wie said:


> The dude would be lost if he ever read Rostow's "Stages of Growth", Arthur's "Increasing Returns and Path Dependence in the Economy" much less Mandelbrot's  "The (Mis)behavior of Markets"



Bullshit theory. 

The market is a big bubble that can collapse at any time. There are a small number of people that make sure that don't happen. 

The stock market is to make long term money, commodities is to make fast cash to invest in the market. 

That's it!


----------



## Uncensored2008

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who calls cash, "net"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net profit isn't cash you dumb Canadian?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who talks about net profit when they're lying about their portfolio?
> Stupid liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!
Click to expand...


It's possible that he really is as ignorant as he presents himself...


----------



## Uncensored2008

william the wie said:


> net worth is assets minus liabilities.



I think 1P has never been exposed to the basic accounting equation.


----------



## Uncensored2008

OnePercenter said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bet he doesn't know that there are two types of leverage, much less what they are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In business, operating and financial.
> 
> Operating: I own a business AND I own the leasing company that leases all of my equipment. I make money on lease payments, plus the profit the company makes.
> 
> Since my competitors don't know I own a leasing company, I lease equipment to them. Even if I loose a contract bid, I still make money from the lost contract bid.
> 
> Financial: Cash is king! Two properties I own I came in on already contracted property and won.
Click to expand...


You should cite your source, fraud.

Leverage and Types of Leverages eFinanceManagement


----------



## OnePercenter

Uncensored2008 said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> net worth is assets minus liabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think 1P has never been exposed to the basic accounting equation.
Click to expand...


Except we're debating individuals, NOT corporations.


----------



## OnePercenter

Uncensored2008 said:


> You should cite your source, fraud.
> 
> Leverage and Types of Leverages eFinanceManagement



My source was general knowledge. Anyone that went to college know the answer.


----------



## Uncensored2008

OnePercenter said:


> My source was general knowledge. Anyone that went to college know the answer.



You know how I got that link? I cut and pasted the 1st line of your post.

It was verbatim..  Don't compound your plagiarism.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and a debit cash balance of $500,000 in my portfolio.
> By your idiotic definition, the net worth of my account is -$500,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. You have $2M in assets with a net worth of $500k. Assets are what you have, Net is what you can spend.
Click to expand...

 
*You have $2M in assets with a net worth of $500k*

You should double check your math.

*Net is what you can spend.*

You don't think I can spend money out of my portfolio?
Despite my balance?


----------



## OnePercenter

Uncensored2008 said:


> You know how I got that link? I cut and pasted the 1st line of your post.
> 
> It was verbatim..  Don't compound your plagiarism.



I'm surprised that you know how to cut-and-paste!

I already know the terms and the answers because I went to college, not collage.


----------



## Uncensored2008

OnePercenter said:


> I'm surprised that you know how to cut-and-paste!
> 
> I already know the terms and the answers because I went to college, not collage.



And you just happened to phrase it word by word the same as the top link from google..




ROFL

What a ridiculous fool.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and a debit cash balance of $500,000 in my portfolio.
> By your idiotic definition, the net worth of my account is -$500,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. You have $2M in assets with a net worth of $500k. Assets are what you have, Net is what you can spend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You have $2M in assets with a net worth of $500k*
> 
> You should double check your math.
> 
> *Net is what you can spend.*
> 
> You don't think I can spend money out of my portfolio?
> Despite my balance?
Click to expand...


I was answering your post

"I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and a debit cash balance of $500,000 in my portfolio.
By your idiotic definition, the net worth of my account is -$500,000".

You can spend out of your portfolio as long as it's cash. Assets have to be sold or you have to borrow against.


----------



## OnePercenter

Uncensored2008 said:


> And you just happened to phrase it word by word the same as the top link from google..
> 
> ROFL
> 
> What a ridiculous fool.



That was the answer to your question.

Google also writes 'the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west' I'm sure you think that's plagiarizing also.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and a debit cash balance of $500,000 in my portfolio.
> By your idiotic definition, the net worth of my account is -$500,000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True. You have $2M in assets with a net worth of $500k. Assets are what you have, Net is what you can spend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *You have $2M in assets with a net worth of $500k*
> 
> You should double check your math.
> 
> *Net is what you can spend.*
> 
> You don't think I can spend money out of my portfolio?
> Despite my balance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was answering your post
> 
> "I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and a debit cash balance of $500,000 in my portfolio.
> By your idiotic definition, the net worth of my account is -$500,000".
> 
> You can spend out of your portfolio as long as it's cash. Assets have to be sold or you have to borrow against.
Click to expand...

 
You said my net worth was $500,000. How'd you calculate that one?

I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and *a debit cash balance of $500,000* in my portfolio.

*You can spend out of your portfolio as long as it's cash.*

You said net was cash. You said net was what I could spend.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> You said my net worth was $500,000. How'd you calculate that one?
> 
> I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and *a debit cash balance of $500,000* in my portfolio.
> 
> *You can spend out of your portfolio as long as it's cash.*
> 
> You said net was cash. You said net was what I could spend.



Spin away Canadian.


----------



## Steinlight

Lol. OnePercenter what do you do for a living?


----------



## william the wie

Steinlight said:


> Lol. OnePercenter what do you do for a living?


Hopefully nothing to do with any company that affects me.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said my net worth was $500,000. How'd you calculate that one?
> 
> I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and *a debit cash balance of $500,000* in my portfolio.
> 
> *You can spend out of your portfolio as long as it's cash.*
> 
> You said net was cash. You said net was what I could spend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spin away Canadian.
Click to expand...

 
I'm from Chicago. And you can't add. LOL!


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> Lol. OnePercenter what do you do for a living?



I'm an Angel Investor. You?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> I'm from Chicago. And you can't add. LOL!



Sure you are.


----------



## OnePercenter

william the wie said:


> Hopefully nothing to do with any company that affects me.



It's all about you.


----------



## william the wie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said my net worth was $500,000. How'd you calculate that one?
> 
> I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and *a debit cash balance of $500,000* in my portfolio.
> 
> *You can spend out of your portfolio as long as it's cash.*
> 
> You said net was cash. You said net was what I could spend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spin away Canadian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from Chicago. And you can't add. LOL!
Click to expand...


What I want to know is if he's this rich why is he in these markets? He could lock in profits with contango in the oil futures market and he ain't doing it? Is that a variant spelling of stupid?


----------



## OnePercenter

william the wie said:


> What I want to know is if he's this rich why is he in these markets? He could lock in profits with contango in the oil futures market and he ain't doing it? Is that a variant spelling of stupid?



Why don't you ask me?


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. OnePercenter what do you do for a living?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an Angel Investor. You?
Click to expand...

How do you find the time for work in between your posting? How did you accumulate your fortune?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

william the wie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said my net worth was $500,000. How'd you calculate that one?
> 
> I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and *a debit cash balance of $500,000* in my portfolio.
> 
> *You can spend out of your portfolio as long as it's cash.*
> 
> You said net was cash. You said net was what I could spend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spin away Canadian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from Chicago. And you can't add. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I want to know is if he's this rich why is he in these markets? He could lock in profits with contango in the oil futures market and he ain't doing it? Is that a variant spelling of stupid?
Click to expand...

 
He can't add and you want him to trade oil?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

Steinlight said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. OnePercenter what do you do for a living?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an Angel Investor. You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you find the time for work in between your posting? How did you accumulate your fortune?
Click to expand...

 
His imaginary wealth leaves him plenty of time to post.
Unless his Mom calls him out of the basement.


----------



## william the wie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said my net worth was $500,000. How'd you calculate that one?
> 
> I have $1 million in stock, $1 million in bonds and *a debit cash balance of $500,000* in my portfolio.
> 
> *You can spend out of your portfolio as long as it's cash.*
> 
> You said net was cash. You said net was what I could spend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spin away Canadian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm from Chicago. And you can't add. LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I want to know is if he's this rich why is he in these markets? He could lock in profits with contango in the oil futures market and he ain't doing it? Is that a variant spelling of stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can't add and you want him to trade oil?
Click to expand...


That does look my bad doesn't it?


----------



## william the wie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. OnePercenter what do you do for a living?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an Angel Investor. You?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you find the time for work in between your posting? How did you accumulate your fortune?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His imaginary wealth leaves him plenty of time to post.
> Unless his Mom calls him out of the basement.
Click to expand...


That however is your bad.


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> How do you find the time for work in between your posting?



The wealthier you are, the less hours you work. 



> How did you accumulate your fortune?



Business and investments.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> He can't add and you want him to trade oil?



I don't trade commodities because commodities market traders do nothing but screw consumers. It's my belief that commodities traders should be made to take delivery of what they win.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> His imaginary wealth leaves him plenty of time to post.
> Unless his Mom calls him out of the basement.



Or is it I work SMART, not HARD.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> He can't add and you want him to trade oil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't trade commodities because commodities market traders do nothing but screw consumers. It's my belief that commodities traders should be made to take delivery of what they win.
Click to expand...

 
* It's my belief that commodities traders should be made to take delivery of what they win.*

What they win? LOL!
Based on your ignorance of what Southwest Airlines does, no one should listen to your stupid recommendations about the futures markets.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> His imaginary wealth leaves him plenty of time to post.
> Unless his Mom calls him out of the basement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or is it I work SMART, not HARD.
Click to expand...

 
I'm sure you're smartly sweeping that floor at the local McDs.
Tell me again about the value of my investment account. LOL!


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you find the time for work in between your posting?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The wealthier you are, the less hours you work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How did you accumulate your fortune?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Business and investments.
Click to expand...

Cool. What kind businesses and what kind of investments? Shoot me your email in the pm I have an investment opportunity I think you would be interested in.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What they win? LOL!
> Based on your ignorance of what Southwest Airlines does, no one should listen to your stupid recommendations about the futures markets.



All investment is either win or lose. 

SWA is a commercial airline.


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> Cool. What kind businesses and what kind of investments? Shoot me your email in the pm I have an investment opportunity I think you would be interested in.



You'll have to do your homework first. Here's a link to help you.

Ten Tips to Appeal to Angel Investors


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. What kind businesses and what kind of investments? Shoot me your email in the pm I have an investment opportunity I think you would be interested in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll have to do your homework first. Here's a link to help you.
> 
> Ten Tips to Appeal to Angel Investors
Click to expand...

Cool shoot me a pm with you contact info so I can send you my proposal


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What they win? LOL!
> Based on your ignorance of what Southwest Airlines does, no one should listen to your stupid recommendations about the futures markets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All investment is either win or lose.
> 
> SWA is a commercial airline.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, your ignorance of their hedging was comical.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Yes, your ignorance of their hedging was comical.



How SWA used lower fuel costs to undercut their competitors on ticket prices?


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> Cool shoot me a pm with you contact info so I can send you my proposal



I don't take internet proposals. Also, if it were good you'd already be funded.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your ignorance of their hedging was comical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How SWA used lower fuel costs to undercut their competitors on ticket prices?
Click to expand...

 
No, your idiotic claim of how they did it.


----------



## william the wie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your ignorance of their hedging was comical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How SWA used lower fuel costs to undercut their competitors on ticket prices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your idiotic claim of how they did it.
Click to expand...


Some lurker's going to report you to the SPCA/SPCC.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> No, your idiotic claim of how they did it.



Derivatives Southwest Airlines Fuel Hedging with Futures Contract Name Nguyen Thi Viet Chinh Nguyen Viet Chinh - Academia.edu


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, your idiotic claim of how they did it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Derivatives Southwest Airlines Fuel Hedging with Futures Contract Name Nguyen Thi Viet Chinh Nguyen Viet Chinh - Academia.edu
Click to expand...

 
Does a link to some paper somehow excuse your idiotic claims?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

william the wie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, your ignorance of their hedging was comical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How SWA used lower fuel costs to undercut their competitors on ticket prices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, your idiotic claim of how they did it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some lurker's going to report you to the SPCA/SPCC.
Click to expand...

 
LOL!


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cool shoot me a pm with you contact info so I can send you my proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also, if it were good you'd already be funded.
Click to expand...

Than why do angel investors exist?


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Does a link to some paper somehow excuse your idiotic claims?



The fact that you can't challenge 'some paper' is quite telling.


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> Than why do angel investors exist?



For people to seek capital. 

If your idea was so good you'd already be a millionaire.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does a link to some paper somehow excuse your idiotic claims?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you can't challenge 'some paper' is quite telling.
Click to expand...

 
Why would I challenge some paper?
I'm merely mocking your misunderstanding of Southwest's activity.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> Why would I challenge some paper?




It would disprove your point. 



> I'm merely mocking your misunderstanding of Southwest's activity.



To what point? You're lack of intelligence?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I challenge some paper?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would disprove your point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm merely mocking your misunderstanding of Southwest's activity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To what point? You're lack of intelligence?
Click to expand...

 
*It would disprove your point.*

If you read, and understood, this paper, you wouldn't have made your ignorant claim about Southwest.
Do you realize your mistake yet? Maybe linking to another paper you didn't read will help?

*To what point?*

I enjoy pointing out your idiocy.


----------



## OnePercenter

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *It would disprove your point.*
> 
> If you read, and understood, this paper, you wouldn't have made your ignorant claim about Southwest.
> Do you realize your mistake yet? Maybe linking to another paper you didn't read will help?
> 
> *To what point?*
> 
> I enjoy pointing out your idiocy.



If you read and understood, why haven't you made a point yet. FYI: Bloviating ISN'T making a point.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

OnePercenter said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It would disprove your point.*
> 
> If you read, and understood, this paper, you wouldn't have made your ignorant claim about Southwest.
> Do you realize your mistake yet? Maybe linking to another paper you didn't read will help?
> 
> *To what point?*
> 
> I enjoy pointing out your idiocy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you read and understood, why haven't you made a point yet. FYI: Bloviating ISN'T making a point.
Click to expand...

 
If you read it and understood, why haven't you corrected your previous error?


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than why do angel investors exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For people to seek capital.
> 
> If your idea was so good you'd already be a millionaire.
Click to expand...

 than why do angel investors if good ideas already have money?


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than why do angel investors exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For people to seek capital.
> 
> If your idea was so good you'd already be a millionaire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> than why do angel investors if good ideas already have money?
Click to expand...


What?


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> Than why do angel investors exist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For people to seek capital.
> 
> If your idea was so good you'd already be a millionaire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> than why do angel investors if good ideas already have money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What?
Click to expand...

than why are there angel investors if good ideas already have money?


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> than why are there angel investors if good ideas already have money?



There might be more good ideas.


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> than why are there angel investors if good ideas already have money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There might be more good ideas.
Click to expand...

If they were good ideas they would have money, and thus wouldn't need angel investors according to you.


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> than why are there angel investors if good ideas already have money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There might be more good ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they were good ideas they would have money, and thus wouldn't need angel investors according to you.
Click to expand...


I wrote 'might.'


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> than why are there angel investors if good ideas already have money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There might be more good ideas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If they were good ideas they would have money, and thus wouldn't need angel investors according to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wrote 'might.'
Click to expand...

if they were good idea, they wouldn't need money, thus they don't need you.


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> if they were good idea, they wouldn't need money, thus they don't need you.



How would 'they' finance their project?


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> if they were good idea, they wouldn't need money, thus they don't need you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would 'they' finance their project?
Click to expand...

With their own money since it is a good idea.


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> With their own money since it is a good idea.



Why would one use their own money?


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> With their own money since it is a good idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would one use their own money?
Click to expand...

you tell me.


----------



## OnePercenter

Steinlight said:


> you tell me.



Because it's your money.


----------



## Steinlight

OnePercenter said:


> Steinlight said:
> 
> 
> 
> you tell me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's your money.
Click to expand...

If you had a good idea you would already have money


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## ralfy

...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:

Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog


----------



## Darkwind

Toddsterpatriot said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> Since you don't know basic bookkeeping who are you to run your ignorant mouth?
> 
> Free cash flow is just that.
> 
> Profit is revenues from operations minus expenses before taxes.
> 
> net profit is what is left after taxes
> 
> Except for dividends, interest and rents there are no revenues from a financial asset portfolio which are then a net minus transaction and management expenses. For example if you rent out the family farm the rent is revenue. The rental agent's cut is an expense as is maintenance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Net worth is cash.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Net worth is cash.*
> 
> 
> No it isn't. Not even close. Idiot.
Click to expand...

Wow....


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ralfy said:


> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog


 
What?


----------



## william the wie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
Click to expand...




Toddsterpatriot said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What?
Click to expand...


If all derivatives are counted as separate even when they are two sides of the same trade, hedging strategies are ignored and even the plainest vanilla derivatives are also considered it is possibly correct in the sense that your credit/debit card is a derivative, which it most certainly is.


----------



## Zander

Good economic news? Stocks rise. 

Bad economic news? Stocks rise.  

What could go wrong?


----------



## william the wie

Zander said:


> Good economic news? Stocks rise.
> 
> Bad economic news? Stocks rise.
> 
> What could go wrong?


exactly right.


----------



## ralfy

Toddsterpatriot said:


> What?



Credit has been easy to create, and the stock markets are part of it.


----------



## ralfy

william the wie said:


> If all derivatives are counted as separate even when they are two sides of the same trade, hedging strategies are ignored and even the plainest vanilla derivatives are also considered it is possibly correct in the sense that your credit/debit card is a derivative, which it most certainly is.



Even money is part of it.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ralfy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credit has been easy to create, and the stock markets are part of it.
Click to expand...

 
That hasn't changed in a long time. So what?


----------



## william the wie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credit has been easy to create, and the stock markets are part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That hasn't changed in a long time. So what?
Click to expand...

money has to go somewhere including the market


----------



## AdvancingTime

ralfy said:


> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog



The more and more I study derivatives it now appears the main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. QE has up to now stopped an implosion of derivatives and the resulting contagion and shock that would have spread throughout the financial system.

A great deal of the shadow banking world falls into and overlaps into the grey world of derivatives. There is no single commonly adopted definition of derivative or derivative contract in the European Union. This plays havoc with what and when reporting rules apply. It also highlights divisions in how national regulators view reporting rules for the $693 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.

Remember this is only part of a much larger market that includes hundreds of trillions of dollars in non-reported agreements and private contracts. The  article below explores some of the ins and outs including the risk derivatives pose and why they could collapse the economic system.
*http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html*


----------



## william the wie

AdvancingTime said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more and more I study derivatives it now appears the main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. QE has up to now stopped an implosion of derivatives and the resulting contagion and shock that would have spread throughout the financial system.
> 
> A great deal of the shadow banking world falls into and overlaps into the grey world of derivatives. There is no single commonly adopted definition of derivative or derivative contract in the European Union. This plays havoc with what and when reporting rules apply. It also highlights divisions in how national regulators view reporting rules for the $693 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.
> 
> Remember this is only part of a much larger market that includes hundreds of trillions of dollars in non-reported agreements and private contracts. The  article below explores some of the ins and outs including the risk derivatives pose and why they could collapse the economic system.
> *[URL='http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html[/QUOTE']http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html*[/URL]
Click to expand...

Since the majority of the money supply even when narrowly defined is in the form of derivatives I find it quite likely that the 693 T is quite minimal. At a risk adjusted interest rate of 3% it would take 2.5 Quadrillion in derivatives to support a world economy of 70T. For example each piece of rental property generally has at least three derivatives with four or more not at all uncommon. Similar results are found in transportation, utilities and even to some extent in retail. So, first derivatives have to be defined in  way that separates plain vanilla stuff like your debit card from Forex options.


----------



## ralfy

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credit has been easy to create, and the stock markets are part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That hasn't changed in a long time. So what?
Click to expand...


It started changing during the early 1980s.


----------



## ralfy

william the wie said:


> AdvancingTime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more and more I study derivatives it now appears the main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. QE has up to now stopped an implosion of derivatives and the resulting contagion and shock that would have spread throughout the financial system.
> 
> A great deal of the shadow banking world falls into and overlaps into the grey world of derivatives. There is no single commonly adopted definition of derivative or derivative contract in the European Union. This plays havoc with what and when reporting rules apply. It also highlights divisions in how national regulators view reporting rules for the $693 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.
> 
> Remember this is only part of a much larger market that includes hundreds of trillions of dollars in non-reported agreements and private contracts. The  article below explores some of the ins and outs including the risk derivatives pose and why they could collapse the economic system.
> *http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the majority of the money supply even when narrowly defined is in the form of derivatives I find it quite likely that the 693 T is quite minimal. At a risk adjusted interest rate of 3% it would take 2.5 Quadrillion in derivatives to support a world economy of 70T. For example each piece of rental property generally has at least three derivatives with four or more not at all uncommon. Similar results are found in transportation, utilities and even to some extent in retail. So, first derivatives have to be defined in  way that separates plain vanilla stuff like your debit card from Forex options.
Click to expand...


From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T.


----------



## william the wie

ralfy said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AdvancingTime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more and more I study derivatives it now appears the main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. QE has up to now stopped an implosion of derivatives and the resulting contagion and shock that would have spread throughout the financial system.
> 
> A great deal of the shadow banking world falls into and overlaps into the grey world of derivatives. There is no single commonly adopted definition of derivative or derivative contract in the European Union. This plays havoc with what and when reporting rules apply. It also highlights divisions in how national regulators view reporting rules for the $693 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.
> 
> Remember this is only part of a much larger market that includes hundreds of trillions of dollars in non-reported agreements and private contracts. The  article below explores some of the ins and outs including the risk derivatives pose and why they could collapse the economic system.
> *http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the majority of the money supply even when narrowly defined is in the form of derivatives I find it quite likely that the 693 T is quite minimal. At a risk adjusted interest rate of 3% it would take 2.5 Quadrillion in derivatives to support a world economy of 70T. For example each piece of rental property generally has at least three derivatives with four or more not at all uncommon. Similar results are found in transportation, utilities and even to some extent in retail. So, first derivatives have to be defined in  way that separates plain vanilla stuff like your debit card from Forex options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T.
Click to expand...

Again that is lowball. GDP is return on investment. Divide GDP by the discounting rate usually the 10 year treasury and multiply by the average number of counterparties which is always two or greater. I this case the minimum number of derivative contract claims would be 1.5-2 quad. For every buyer there must be a seller and except in some cases of currency purchase a rwo or more party derivative is created.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ralfy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credit has been easy to create, and the stock markets are part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That hasn't changed in a long time. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It started changing during the early 1980s.
Click to expand...

 
*It started changing during the early 1980s.*

How do you feel it changed? Be specific.
Why does it matter?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ralfy said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AdvancingTime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more and more I study derivatives it now appears the main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. QE has up to now stopped an implosion of derivatives and the resulting contagion and shock that would have spread throughout the financial system.
> 
> A great deal of the shadow banking world falls into and overlaps into the grey world of derivatives. There is no single commonly adopted definition of derivative or derivative contract in the European Union. This plays havoc with what and when reporting rules apply. It also highlights divisions in how national regulators view reporting rules for the $693 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.
> 
> Remember this is only part of a much larger market that includes hundreds of trillions of dollars in non-reported agreements and private contracts. The  article below explores some of the ins and outs including the risk derivatives pose and why they could collapse the economic system.
> *http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the majority of the money supply even when narrowly defined is in the form of derivatives I find it quite likely that the 693 T is quite minimal. At a risk adjusted interest rate of 3% it would take 2.5 Quadrillion in derivatives to support a world economy of 70T. For example each piece of rental property generally has at least three derivatives with four or more not at all uncommon. Similar results are found in transportation, utilities and even to some extent in retail. So, first derivatives have to be defined in  way that separates plain vanilla stuff like your debit card from Forex options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T.
Click to expand...

 
*From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T*

I made a $5 bet on a hockey game. 
My derivative was based on hundreds of millions in value, which is much more than my personal GDP. 
If I lose, do I have to default on anything?


----------



## william the wie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AdvancingTime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more and more I study derivatives it now appears the main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. QE has up to now stopped an implosion of derivatives and the resulting contagion and shock that would have spread throughout the financial system.
> 
> A great deal of the shadow banking world falls into and overlaps into the grey world of derivatives. There is no single commonly adopted definition of derivative or derivative contract in the European Union. This plays havoc with what and when reporting rules apply. It also highlights divisions in how national regulators view reporting rules for the $693 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.
> 
> Remember this is only part of a much larger market that includes hundreds of trillions of dollars in non-reported agreements and private contracts. The  article below explores some of the ins and outs including the risk derivatives pose and why they could collapse the economic system.
> *http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the majority of the money supply even when narrowly defined is in the form of derivatives I find it quite likely that the 693 T is quite minimal. At a risk adjusted interest rate of 3% it would take 2.5 Quadrillion in derivatives to support a world economy of 70T. For example each piece of rental property generally has at least three derivatives with four or more not at all uncommon. Similar results are found in transportation, utilities and even to some extent in retail. So, first derivatives have to be defined in  way that separates plain vanilla stuff like your debit card from Forex options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T*
> 
> I made a $5 bet on a hockey game.
> My derivative was based on hundreds of millions in value, which is much more than my personal GDP.
> If I lose, do I have to default on anything?
Click to expand...


Reread your sig.


----------



## ralfy

william the wie said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AdvancingTime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more and more I study derivatives it now appears the main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. QE has up to now stopped an implosion of derivatives and the resulting contagion and shock that would have spread throughout the financial system.
> 
> A great deal of the shadow banking world falls into and overlaps into the grey world of derivatives. There is no single commonly adopted definition of derivative or derivative contract in the European Union. This plays havoc with what and when reporting rules apply. It also highlights divisions in how national regulators view reporting rules for the $693 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.
> 
> Remember this is only part of a much larger market that includes hundreds of trillions of dollars in non-reported agreements and private contracts. The  article below explores some of the ins and outs including the risk derivatives pose and why they could collapse the economic system.
> *http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the majority of the money supply even when narrowly defined is in the form of derivatives I find it quite likely that the 693 T is quite minimal. At a risk adjusted interest rate of 3% it would take 2.5 Quadrillion in derivatives to support a world economy of 70T. For example each piece of rental property generally has at least three derivatives with four or more not at all uncommon. Similar results are found in transportation, utilities and even to some extent in retail. So, first derivatives have to be defined in  way that separates plain vanilla stuff like your debit card from Forex options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again that is lowball. GDP is return on investment. Divide GDP by the discounting rate usually the 10 year treasury and multiply by the average number of counterparties which is always two or greater. I this case the minimum number of derivative contract claims would be 1.5-2 quad. For every buyer there must be a seller and except in some cases of currency purchase a rwo or more party derivative is created.
Click to expand...


It is highly unlikely that GDP is ROI of unregulated derivatives, which explains why global GDP was around 30T in 2000 with derivative levels at 100T, and now GDP at around 70T but derivative levels at 600T to 1.2Q.

Given that, it is more likely that derivatives operate independently of GDP.

More important is the point that fallout from only a fraction of that financial speculation was enough to bring the world to its knees.


----------



## ralfy

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Credit has been easy to create, and the stock markets are part of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That hasn't changed in a long time. So what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It started changing during the early 1980s.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It started changing during the early 1980s.*
> 
> How do you feel it changed? Be specific.
> Why does it matter?
Click to expand...


It changed due to deregulation starting in the 1980s, with significant amounts created only during the last fifteen years or so. It matters because only a trillion dollars of that from subprime lending was enough to cause cascading crashes worldwide from 2008 to only recently.


----------



## william the wie

All income streams are returns on investment because they are defined as such.


----------



## ralfy

Toddsterpatriot said:


> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AdvancingTime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more and more I study derivatives it now appears the main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. QE has up to now stopped an implosion of derivatives and the resulting contagion and shock that would have spread throughout the financial system.
> 
> A great deal of the shadow banking world falls into and overlaps into the grey world of derivatives. There is no single commonly adopted definition of derivative or derivative contract in the European Union. This plays havoc with what and when reporting rules apply. It also highlights divisions in how national regulators view reporting rules for the $693 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.
> 
> Remember this is only part of a much larger market that includes hundreds of trillions of dollars in non-reported agreements and private contracts. The  article below explores some of the ins and outs including the risk derivatives pose and why they could collapse the economic system.
> *http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the majority of the money supply even when narrowly defined is in the form of derivatives I find it quite likely that the 693 T is quite minimal. At a risk adjusted interest rate of 3% it would take 2.5 Quadrillion in derivatives to support a world economy of 70T. For example each piece of rental property generally has at least three derivatives with four or more not at all uncommon. Similar results are found in transportation, utilities and even to some extent in retail. So, first derivatives have to be defined in  way that separates plain vanilla stuff like your debit card from Forex options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T*
> 
> I made a $5 bet on a hockey game.
> My derivative was based on hundreds of millions in value, which is much more than my personal GDP.
> If I lose, do I have to default on anything?
Click to expand...


Derivatives go beyond small bets.


----------



## ralfy

william the wie said:


> All income streams are returns on investment because they are defined as such.



But derivatives involve going beyond income streams.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ralfy said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AdvancingTime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more and more I study derivatives it now appears the main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. QE has up to now stopped an implosion of derivatives and the resulting contagion and shock that would have spread throughout the financial system.
> 
> A great deal of the shadow banking world falls into and overlaps into the grey world of derivatives. There is no single commonly adopted definition of derivative or derivative contract in the European Union. This plays havoc with what and when reporting rules apply. It also highlights divisions in how national regulators view reporting rules for the $693 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.
> 
> Remember this is only part of a much larger market that includes hundreds of trillions of dollars in non-reported agreements and private contracts. The  article below explores some of the ins and outs including the risk derivatives pose and why they could collapse the economic system.
> *http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the majority of the money supply even when narrowly defined is in the form of derivatives I find it quite likely that the 693 T is quite minimal. At a risk adjusted interest rate of 3% it would take 2.5 Quadrillion in derivatives to support a world economy of 70T. For example each piece of rental property generally has at least three derivatives with four or more not at all uncommon. Similar results are found in transportation, utilities and even to some extent in retail. So, first derivatives have to be defined in  way that separates plain vanilla stuff like your debit card from Forex options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T*
> 
> I made a $5 bet on a hockey game.
> My derivative was based on hundreds of millions in value, which is much more than my personal GDP.
> If I lose, do I have to default on anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Derivatives go beyond small bets.
Click to expand...

 
My small bet is a derivative.
Many derivatives have much much less at risk than the notional value.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

william the wie said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AdvancingTime said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...because much of credit is commercially created and not regulated, including derivatives:
> 
> Top Derivatives Expert Estimates Size of the Global Derivatives Market at 1 200 Trillion Dollars ... 20 Times Larger than the Global Economy Washington s Blog
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more and more I study derivatives it now appears the main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. QE has up to now stopped an implosion of derivatives and the resulting contagion and shock that would have spread throughout the financial system.
> 
> A great deal of the shadow banking world falls into and overlaps into the grey world of derivatives. There is no single commonly adopted definition of derivative or derivative contract in the European Union. This plays havoc with what and when reporting rules apply. It also highlights divisions in how national regulators view reporting rules for the $693 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.
> 
> Remember this is only part of a much larger market that includes hundreds of trillions of dollars in non-reported agreements and private contracts. The  article below explores some of the ins and outs including the risk derivatives pose and why they could collapse the economic system.
> *http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the majority of the money supply even when narrowly defined is in the form of derivatives I find it quite likely that the 693 T is quite minimal. At a risk adjusted interest rate of 3% it would take 2.5 Quadrillion in derivatives to support a world economy of 70T. For example each piece of rental property generally has at least three derivatives with four or more not at all uncommon. Similar results are found in transportation, utilities and even to some extent in retail. So, first derivatives have to be defined in  way that separates plain vanilla stuff like your debit card from Forex options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T*
> 
> I made a $5 bet on a hockey game.
> My derivative was based on hundreds of millions in value, which is much more than my personal GDP.
> If I lose, do I have to default on anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reread your sig.
Click to expand...

 
Not everyone confused about derivatives is an idiot.
Most idiots are confused about derivatives.
I'm trying to help the confused.


----------



## william the wie

Toddsterpatriot said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ralfy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AdvancingTime said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more and more I study derivatives it now appears the main goal of QE may have been to hold up the underlying value of assets that feed into and support the massive derivative market more than help the economy. QE has up to now stopped an implosion of derivatives and the resulting contagion and shock that would have spread throughout the financial system.
> 
> A great deal of the shadow banking world falls into and overlaps into the grey world of derivatives. There is no single commonly adopted definition of derivative or derivative contract in the European Union. This plays havoc with what and when reporting rules apply. It also highlights divisions in how national regulators view reporting rules for the $693 trillion over-the-counter derivatives market.
> 
> Remember this is only part of a much larger market that includes hundreds of trillions of dollars in non-reported agreements and private contracts. The  article below explores some of the ins and outs including the risk derivatives pose and why they could collapse the economic system.
> *http://brucewilds.blogspot.com/2014/03/derivatives-house-of-cards.html*
> 
> 
> 
> Since the majority of the money supply even when narrowly defined is in the form of derivatives I find it quite likely that the 693 T is quite minimal. At a risk adjusted interest rate of 3% it would take 2.5 Quadrillion in derivatives to support a world economy of 70T. For example each piece of rental property generally has at least three derivatives with four or more not at all uncommon. Similar results are found in transportation, utilities and even to some extent in retail. So, first derivatives have to be defined in  way that separates plain vanilla stuff like your debit card from Forex options.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *From what I remember, in 2000, global GDP was around 30T but derivative levels were around 100T*
> 
> I made a $5 bet on a hockey game.
> My derivative was based on hundreds of millions in value, which is much more than my personal GDP.
> If I lose, do I have to default on anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reread your sig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not everyone confused about derivatives is an idiot.
> Most idiots are confused about derivatives.
> I'm trying to help the confused.
Click to expand...

Good enough.

Let's get simple and concrete

Bonds are currently paying little interest therefore derivatives, put and call options, are less risky that the underlying bonds and bond ETFs at least if they are covered by the bonds in case of calls and cash in the case of puts. The one exception are uncollateralized municipal bonds. The courts are denying primacy of uncollateralized debts in municipal bankruptcies. This is why the state of CA has to mortgage state buildings. Those mortgages are protected by the 4th amendment.

The Dow is a  notorious counter indicator so buy AT&T and puts on Apple. Then issue calls against your AT&T position. if you lose you will lose small. If you win you will win big.

The purpose of using derivatives is to reduce risk. If you don't know what will happen and none of us do then derivatives if used properly will reduce risk.


----------

