DIAMONDS Trust, Series 1 (DIA)

All Comments on DIA

  • commenter
    balsamo001
    Oct 14 11:44 AM
    The Dangers of Timing the Market [view article]
    What i meant is that there are simplistic ways to time the market. When the PE are high and if your in, be prepared to sell...if the PE are low, and you're not in the market, then be prepared to buy...there are cycle long term...if you get in the market at the wrong time, it could take years to recover...So no, the one who bought the SP500 in 1966 lost money all his live and eventually his son or grandson broke even in 1984 (or 1991 if included inflation)...

    All those buy a     Reply
  • commenter
    stonebluff
    Oct 14 11:38 AM
    Stocks for the Long Run? [view article]
    I bought my first stock,GM, right after the Korean War started and the market tumbled. I made about $400 in a few months and I was hooked. I have always been a long term holder, but willing to sell if a stock looked hopeless or hopelessly overpriced. Taxes and commissions used to be so high that it was tough to make any money getting in and out. I kept at it through good times and bad, my goal being to get dividend income to the point that if I couldn't or didn't want to work, I could quit and still live decently. After raising 4 children and putting them through college (and private schools) I quit work and have lived off my dividend income for 24 years. My wife and I did not live extravagantly, but we lived well, and consistently saved. Watch income, with stocks as cheap as they now are, I expect that my income will actually rise for at least a while. The trick in this program is to keep income and capital rising at least at the rate of inflation. It can be done with common stocks (and an occasional convertible). As Scott Burns points out, mutual funds are a tough go because of costs, other peoples bad management, etc.

    If you want to get rich, buy income producing real estate. Real estate has the advantage of leverage to jack up the returns. But you've got to be willing to deal with tenants and even occasionally get your hands dirty, or have a spouse who'll do those unpleasant tasks. I have a friend who followed that route for 45 years and he now spends half his time cruising with his girl friend. (he's a widower) and his son looks after his properties, about l50 now. Right now is probably a better time to buy residential real estate than stocks.

    Reply
  • commenter
    audi2008
    Oct 14 11:34 AM
    Stocks for the Long Run? [view article]
    Cramer is an idiot. Do not listen to him. Take a look at the Fox TV advertisement about this fool. Also see the Barron's piece on Cramer's miserable track record. Reply
  • commenter
    hoover
    Oct 14 11:33 AM
    Why Cramer Should Be Suspended [view article]
    While Cramer is known to everyone, I don't believe his credibility is high enough to influence a massive number of investors. Regardless, he may turn out to be right with his call to sell everything. In October, 1929, the Dow hit its peak of 381.17. It dropped to 198.69 over the next several weeks -- a drop of 48%. If a fictitious Cramer had said sell everything at that time it would have been good advice. After several major bear market rallies along the way, the Dow eventually dropped to 41.22 three years later in 1932. Getting out after the first major drop would have saved much more agony later on. While cycles never repeat the same way, I merely present this as food for thought. Reply
  • commenter
    mbs pro
    Oct 14 11:32 AM
    Private Investment Capital Needed for Bailout to Achieve Stated Goals [view article]
    WIth the $250BN preferred stock purphase and the gov't guarantee of senior unsecured debt, the Treasury significantly aletered the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). There should be less distressed sales but we will see. The urgency still exists for some of the smaller players. I agree, private capital is needed at the end of the day. Reply
  • commenter
    bulrun100
    Oct 14 11:27 AM
    My Website
    Why Cramer Should Be Suspended [view article]
    CRAMER IS A CLOWN HE CHANGES HIS VIEWS MORE THEN MOST AMERICANS CHANGE THERE UNDERWEAR.OR LIKE US IN NEW ENGLAND LIKE TO SAY FASTER THEN THE WEATHER.THEIR ARE SO MANY SMARTER PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO GIVE SOUND ADVICE AND DON'T HAVE TO ACT LIKE A CLOWN DOING IT.SOMETIME I THINK HE MAKES SO MANY CALLS AND CHANGES OF OPINION BECAUSE AT SOME POINT HE WOULD BE RIGHT. Reply
  • commenter
    Luckyplayer3
    Oct 14 11:20 AM
    Why Cramer Should Be Suspended [view article]
    Jim Cramer should not be suspended, he made me decent money from time to time just preaching some ridiculous nonsense to the general public and I just sit and wait until the idiots that listen to his show go out and buy the stock, so I can short it for a nice profit. Two examples if you watch his show he call the market bottom back I think it was around August and them he felt a little more daring and told his viewers to go out and buy Wachovia nice job there champ keep up the bad work. Reply
  • commenter
    User 245083
    Oct 14 11:16 AM
    Why Cramer Should Be Suspended [view article]
    i think this guy pumped long ideas such as wachovia lehman and bear. now he wants us to listen to him to sell? he must be a shill for someone. Reply
  • commenter
    Dividend
    Growth
    Investor
    Oct 14 11:10 AM
    My Website
    Why the Price Dividend Ratio Is Better Than the P/E Ratio [view article]
    An interesting article. Actually most investors have been using a different kind of Price/Dividend Ratio called "dividend yield".

    Any look at historical dividend yields however should also be looked from the perspective of interest rates as well.

    Reply
  • commenter
    suburban
    blues
    Oct 14 10:53 AM
    Why Cramer Should Be Suspended [view article]
    Who the hell is Jason Schwarz? I have made money with Cramer, doing my own homework (as he preaches religiously) , and using his stock picks only as a starting point. But he has alerted me to some opportunities that I probably would have missed. Which is a great deal more than Schwarz or any of his ilk have even done for me or most everyone else. I'll stick with Cramer, the rest of you bozos go trade options in the casino with Schwarz. Reply
  • commenter
    Indexor
    Oct 14 10:49 AM
    The Dangers of Timing the Market [view article]
    David, I simply grin when these same old stale statistics, created by the mutual fund industry, who only earn fees as long as investors REMAIN FULLY INVESTED in their funds (no conflict of interest there), show that "It's time IN the market, not timing the market."

    Or DALBAR (who make their living consulting to the mutual fund industry) updates their "If you only miss the 40 best days" argument. Punk_Ash already gave you a perfect answer. Why look at only HALF the equation? Instead of only missing the 40 BIGGEST UP days, also add to that missing the 40 BIGGEST DOWN days as well. The numbers will surprise you.

    Both DALBAR and the mutual fund industry have misled the general investing public on this topic for a very long time. Even after yesterdays largest ever one-day gain of 936-points, wouldn't you (and your clients) be better off if you had sold your mutual funds in early January, as the market began selling off? Yes you both would be SUBSTANTIALLY better off.

    I suggest you look up the name Mebane Faber. Find an article he published here within the last six months in which he provides a link to a study he conducted that was titled: "A Quatitative Approach to Tactical Asset Allocation." Using a very similar methodolgy, our real world experience allowed us to sidestep the carnage beginning in October of 2000 and got us back in during March of 2003. Again, we exited early in January of 2008 and remain on the sidelines until the markets tell us to return.

    Please take a another step forward and get beyond the boiler plate mutual fund "educational research" that is so widely available. Think for YOURSELF and do your OWN research and you may find there really are better and safer returns available to you and your clients than from the "Buy-and-Hold&quo... methodology that only guarantees profits to the mutual fund, in good markets AND bad. As Mebane stated in his article, it is possible to achieve "equity-like returns with bond-like volatility and drawdown" which is what most mutual fund/ETF investors strive to achieve.



    Reply
  • commenter
    petyaczar
    Oct 14 10:45 AM
    My Website
    Stocks for the Long Run? [view article]
    IMO, and with all due respect, your comment (below) is a specious and statistically false assertion, representing a wonderful example of the "dumbing down" of logic and analytical thought through out this country.

    "I think we have entered into a particularly difficult moment for equities. They have made us no money as an asset class for a decade. They have become, on a daily basis, simply impossible to game. The notion of "buy and hold" has been decimated by the action as buying and holding even the most blue of "blue-chips" has become a total loser's game."

    A decade has 3650 sets of data points. And so within a decade there are 3650 sets of start/end point combinations. That means to choose only one such set out of 3650 possible combinations means there merely a .03% chance. (probability) of your global decade long investment conclusion regarding buy and hold.

    You should avoid making such meaningless statements -as should Kramer - as they negatively affect your credibility.

    Instead I suggest you run a series of comparisons. Run the data on ALL 3650 such start/stop data points and then see how many of these resulted in Gains/No movement/Losses. This will provide a basis for a reasonable statistical assertion as to the expected outcome of a "buy and hold" investment strategy.

    IMO, from someone who wentto school before the educational system was "dumbed down" and destroyed by the NEA.

    Reply
  • commenter
    Smarty_Pants
    Oct 14 10:38 AM
    My Website
    Can the Market Go to Zero? [view article]
    Two comments:

    1) Banning short selling for market makers will result in great increases in spreads on options, which is the equity equivalent of increasing the cost of insuring debts. Prices on put options would be especially impacted as the market makers offset any short put positions with delta neutral short equity positions until they can buy those puts back on the other side of the spread. This may not affect your portfolio, but it introduces extra costs/risks in the market for a great many. Next time you wanted to use puts to 'insure' your long positions you would find out it costs a lot more than you expected.

    2) Why do people always insist that driving a stock's price down is injurious to the company? If IBM were suddenly repriced to $1/share does the company suddenly earn less? Is their property worth less? Do their sales plummet? NO! They have already received the money from selling those shares and the price after that has zero impact on their operations other than to provide a wonderful opportunity to buy stock back and improve returns to shareholders. Don't blame poor company performance on falling share prices. To do so is to put the cart before the horse.     Reply
  • commenter
    Roy P.
    Oct 14 10:28 AM
    Stocks for the Long Run? [view article]
    The key is stock picking. Investing in mutual/hedge funds are fools' game.

    As the market start to recover, some will recover 50%, some will recover 100% and some will recover 1000% depending on future growth potential.

    Not all stocks will recover equally, now it's the time to look for the next growth leader of each sector...it's always a stock-picking game after each correction.

    My pick: Thermogenesis(KOOL) ... The early CSCO of stem cell therapy/regenerative medicine.     Reply
  • commenter
    irondoor91
    Oct 14 10:10 AM
    The Dangers of Timing the Market [view article]
    Most general equity mutual funds (approx 85%) cannot beat the market even when they are supposed to be more or less fully invested.

    Statistically, half of the top quartile funds in one year or five year period will fall into the bottom quartile over the next measurement period. And, of course, the inverse is true that half of the bottom quartile funds will end up in the top half over the future period. Investors tend to be in active funds rather than the index funds, since those are the ones that their advisors recommend, they are always chasing the top performers, which are naturally going to be underperformers in the future.

    Active mutual funds investors' returns are approximately half the market returns because of this chasing plus the layers of fees inbedded in the funds and the overlay of advisory fees.     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: