Search results

Your argument is essentially that stocks have no value unless they pay dividends. The logical conclusion of that argument is that a stock that is not paying all of its earnings in dividends is not worthy of investing. If you can't see that is the logical conclusion of your argument, then look at...

With your line of reasoning, then in a perfect world every stock price would be $0. Because as soon as a company made money, a dividend would be paid, resetting the stock price to $0. This might be slightly off topic, but this discussion reminds me of Jim Cramer who always talks about getting...

That's because most antivirus programs themselves are viruses, starving your computer of precious CPU cycles.

I vote for publicly funded campaigns, everyone gets the same amount.

Yes, but the weakening of a currency never translates into prosperity for that country.

Seriously flytiger, you need to reread truehawk's post again. He was complaining about naked short selling, not saying it was good. You should probably stop speed reading so you can comprehend what people are saying. I'm just telling you this for your own good because he agrees with you. Why...

I'm pretty sure truehawk is on your side but if you want to be a jackass to all comers, then go ahead.

Did you answer my question at all? If naked shorting is the cause of the financial collapse, why did financial companies get absolutely hammered when it was illegal to short?

Again, a letter which implies that naked shorting was the cause of stocks going down during the financial crisis. Now tell me, what happened when they outlawed *all shorting* on financial companies? Did the stocks go up or down? Anyone want to wager a guess?

If you have trader status then your income is not earned income and you do not pay self-employment tax on it on Schedule C. And as long as you document each account that you have as either MTM or not, you should have no problems separating your trading accounts versus investing accounts.

They went under because they were a company idiotically using way too much leverage on very bad bets.

I'm sure you feel that way. I feel that you are delusional and you can't answer simple questions without resorting to vulgarity.

And you are a shill for Patrick Byrne.

As I've stated before, the SEC should enforce the laws on naked shorting. But to claim that the markets don't work because of naked shorting is false or at least a gross exaggeration. To claim that Bear Stearns is out of business because of naked shorting is delusional.

I'm all for a national sales tax as long as they abolish the income tax. If they try to institute a VAT like Pelosi wants, we are all doubly-taxed-hosed.

Nice name calling again. You really know how to prove my point for me, don't you? And by the way, when the viability of companies are put into question, the outcome is NEVER orderly. Maybe you wish it was, but it will never be that way. Sorry.

Instead of the government telling us to go out and shop, how about it telling us to save up for when things are bad? Or how about financial survival courses all through the schooling process?

As usual you resort to name calling when you can't even answer a simple question. Can you really tell me with a straight face that any of the financials at that time were not sickly? Do you have any credibility left? For as long as you've been bringing this topic up, has anything really changed?

Yes, I do understand. The market might not function with rampant naked short selling, but in reality there is not rampant naked short selling. You know why? Because it is a dangerous game to play unless you know for sure you are shorting a dying company. No it isn't. And the reason I know it...

Sorry, no I'm not. Sure he mentions it, but it is not his focus. The general impression that I get when reading this article is that the author is commiserating that these companies are out of business which I have a *fundamental* problem with. And yet as I recall GS stock went into a...