The top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
market authors
selected for publication in the last week
You are currently following Jimmy Lathrop
Stop FollowingYou are no longer following Jimmy Lathrop
-
99
)
Sort by:
Latest | Highest ratedEcuador's Idiotic Default [View article]
Why AIG Gets Billions While GM Gets Scorn [View article]
I have also seen a lot of posts about the defense industry. So far, in the two conflicts we've had in Iraq, we never lost ONE tank, and those tanks were manufactured by General Dynamics. And in case you haven't noticed, the Big 3, outside of trucks and Cadillacs, have not survived through the dealerships but the bond markets. Its the same business model as Amway, but Amway isn't asking for a bailout.
Why AIG Gets Billions While GM Gets Scorn [View article]
More Fun with Levered ETFs [View article]
And Alan, don't denigrate Paul's numbers. The fact that the market continues to move around a lot makes your entire counterpoint meaningless. And why is it moving around a lot? Because institutions, funds, and traders are using TOO MUCH LEVERAGE. You are either in the market or out. If you want to do side bets, Vegas has plenty of football prop bets that you can hedge or lever yourself into a hole without disrupting the market through levered volatility.
On Dec 13 08:24 AM Alan Brochstein wrote:
> The reason both lose money is that they were "whipsawed". The market
> moved around a lot, but ended up roughly unchanged. Allow me to
> tell you how you will have your ass handed to you if you simply short
> them both (without rebalancing):
>
> Day 1 +5%: 1x -105, 2x -110, -2X 90
> Day 2 +7%: 1x - 112.35, 2X - 125.4, -2X - 83.70
> Day 3 +3%: 1X - 115.72, 2X - 132.94, -2X - 78.68
>
> It's just math. If you shorted both, you would be out 11.6% of the
> nominal amount of your investment. The same thing would work in
> a downward trending market. As Paul, who seems to be a little slow
> on the uptake regarding how volatility and leverage work, properly
> notes, these things are dogs when the market moves around a lot and
> ends up right where it started.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 12 08:17 PM Hmmmm... wrote:
Fund Management Fraud: Canadians Get In on the Action [View article]
Bernie Madoff Comes Out of the Closet [View article]
More Fun with Levered ETFs [View article]
More Fun with Levered ETFs [View article]
It's a Mad, Mad, Mad Madoff World [View article]
Own Gold? Time to Fold [View article]
Dollar vs. Gold - Can We Trust This Change? [View article]
On Dec 11 10:54 PM Robert Nabloid wrote:
> Lathrop, you wrongly treat curbs in like he's a nutcase. What if
> he was merely saying that buying canned food, ammunitions, firearms
> and water is a good store of money - a hedge against further price
> increases.
>
> Historically, go look at the price of ammo 20 years ago... and you
> would see it was a brilliant investment had someone bought a bunch
> to store and sell today - or if you think the price will go up higher
> - sell later on. Same goes for food prices, guns, water, etc, etc...
> The dollar is going down in value each decade and almost any real
> asset you can buy is worth more today than it was in the past - at
> least in dollar terms. The same can be said for gold.
>
> On Dec 11 07:42 PM Jimmy Lathrop wrote:
Why AIG Gets Billions While GM Gets Scorn [View article]
Analyzing Bill Miller's Fall [View article]
Three Inconvenient Energy Policy Truths [View article]
Dollar vs. Gold - Can We Trust This Change? [View article]
Okay, okay, sorry for being so harsh. TV will still be bad in 2028.
On Dec 11 07:32 PM curbs-in wrote:
> Buy canned food, ammunition, firearms and bottled water. They'll
> hold their value -- really.