Search results

I disagree. If you can continue to get topped off every year and faded 70% is actually quite a conservative play.

But that is why they are odds, probabilities and not certainties. We are talking about how often they fail and how lucrative this bet is when the huge overlay holds up. In case you are in doubt it will hold up over 83% of the time.

If I lose most or all of it does he top me off in year two with another $500,000 in year two and again in year three? If that is the case I bet $350,000 the first year so I can live reasonably well for the 12 months between my first play and my second.

There are numerous posts here on ET on this subject. Use the search function, read a few and if you still have questions post those.

While it is certainly possible that nothing spectacular will hapen that will not be a function of many thinking it will. The mindset that you can predict the market always to run counter to various opinions is not realistic.

We are pretty much all of the same opinion -- the next collapse will be a big bang event. Anyone guess when that will be and/or what the catalyst will be. I choose the word guess because that's what these things amount to.

Yup!

I think if we think about it we all know why. The powers that be always pumped enough cash into the system so that we had faux recessions. Unemployment spiked and weaker business, to some degree folded, but the real prunning that recessions are meant to accomplish never happened. We had a...

WOW ... and WOW again. The last graph is no surprise; even the magnitude is well know but what I hadn't quite realized was that debt never went down at all in prior recessions. I believed it had simply retreated much more this time. It was always clear this recession was different but these...

Dalio has been elequent on this subject (and many others) and is clearly one of the smartest of the bunch. The deleveraging is real, its massive and is a counterbalancing force against rising prices.

If the money supply grows to accomadate trade and real growth in an economy there is, as a general rule, no deliterious effect. There are also times when a policy decision is appropriate that increases money supply since inflation (and its by products which can include rising prices) are less...

Then how do you account for the 1949 remake? Hardly a gilded age or a market top. What social factors and prevailing attitudes do you think made the studio think that was the time to move on it. Maybe they thought they would have a box office success and maybe that is the prime factor in...

You give them a great deal of social credit.

Those that favor doublespeak have a vested interest in not sticking with the real definition of inflation. Price increases are a consequence of inflation yet the actual inflation is the increase in money supply. They only want you to notice it as it gets too late. Note my language was sloppy...

Common wisdom aside, vicirek is technically correct; simply incresing the money supply inflates regardless of how prices react in the short term to that inflation. Keep in mind that while consumer prices have risen only modestly there has been significant asset inflation -- gold, et al. If...

+1

I was told at the time that Chernobyl was the worst. True or was Continental just as bad? Hard to believe in the day a big bank like that could exist without a branch network!

Of course I agree with this post (hard not to!) with one proviso. Most small traders are at least somewhat under capitalized. Rather than continue along that dangerous path (let's save the conversation about whether they should be trading at for another time -- THEY ARE TRADING!) use your...

Does anyone in this thread actually think that advising a two lot trader on how he might increase size is giving up valuable proprietary information?

Hogwash.