Search results

But he did help out Goldman Sachs in its time of need. That would be helping the system (and himself).

Jim Cramer has been saying to buy since $2/share. I trust Jim Cramer so I'm holding!!! http://wallstcheatsheet.com/breaking-news/cramer-buy-recommendation-cit-goes-bankrupt/?p=3228/

How many people did he bury with his "$80 stocks go to $120!" call and his "buy XLF July 2008" call? Did you ever hear of those calls again? I didn't and I watch the show every day.

Oh please do tell your sources! You sound very knowledgeable!

The housing credit is a joke. The only purpose is to save the over-leveraged banks who have foreclosed homes on the books. Just another ploy to take money away from the taxpayer and transfer it to financial companies that should already be bankrupt.

Maybe you should watch this: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

When I heard the "Mom and Pop" line it reminded me of flytiger's ineffective methods of presenting his arguments.

So how do you explain the fact that the lack of regulations led to the almost total collapse of the financial system?

If you mean "lack of regulations", then you may be correct.

Yes, because as we all know the non-regulation of the financial industry worked out really well! Thanks Gramm-Leach-Bliley!

You can't be a trader if you hold positions for a long time? Your definition makes no sense.

So you are 100% sure that the dividend will be paid next time?

But even you admit that there is no clear definition of investing versus trading. Even you admit that investors will flip stocks based on personal heuristics. Isn't that trading? This whole distinction between trading and investing that you are making is pretty much meaningless. By this...

I don't consider your case to be logical either so there you go.

If your argument boils down to trading versus investing (I think there is no difference), then I don't think it has much merit.

So there is no difference between trading and investing then?

Aren't all investors traders? You yourself said that you would have sold WAG because its dividend is now too low.

So let me ask you, suppose a company with no previous dividend decides to pay a $0.01 dividend. Does that suddenly make them investable?

You're not getting my point. Substitute a symbol in for WAG that you currently think is paying a "good" dividend. Ok, hopefully you have a symbol in mind... Why aren't they paying a bigger dividend? Certainly that would be better according to your argument. Why invest in them? What's left of...

Please read your argument again. You are saying that a company with solid earnings that does not pay a dividend is just a ponzi scheme. Implying that it is not investable. However, you say WAG is a great company because it has a record of paying solid dividends. However, it certainly would be...