2012: The Battle for Survival

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote from neke:

Like I said the updates will be every two weeks, as long as the account stays above 100K, so an update should have been made last week-end but the account is once more below 100K.
More...

This is like watching someone drowning coming and up and gasping desperately for air before going down again.

The thread title needs to change, or a new thread perhaps for the new year.
 
Thanks neke for the reminder and honesty. A question and an idea:

1. We are interested/intrigued so it would be nice to keep the updates even under 100K, unless it interferes with your psyche.

2. Assuming the downspiral continues, at what point do you call it quits? 80K, 60K, 40K, when?
 
Quote from nkhoi:

From page 1 his own money was 5K, so even if it went down to 6K he is still playing with OPM.
More...

He was in the hole for 54K before that 5K investment.

Doesnt matter anyway as he says he taken 100's of K out of the market so he could lose it all and still be up.
But he would be out of business until he gets together another stake.
 
Quote from Pekelo:

Thanks neke for the reminder and honesty. A question and an idea:

1. We are interested/intrigued so it would be nice to keep the updates even under 100K, unless it interferes with your psyche.

2. Assuming the downspiral continues, at what point do you call it quits? 80K, 60K, 40K, when?
More...

Will not keep posting below 100K because of the psychological torture. As for calling it quits, probably not until I pull out the last monthly 5K.
 
Quote from nkhoi:

From page 1 his own money was 5K, so even if it went down to 6K he is still playing with OPM.
More...

That is a rather ignorant way to look at it. After all, he was in it as a business, not as a hobby. It is like saying about a restaurant owner who just declared bankruptcy after 5 years: "He had nothing before he opened up this place, and he has nothing now. So nothing was lost."
 
Quote from Pekelo:

That is a rather ignorant way to look at it. After all, he was in it as a business, not as a hobby. It is like saying about a restaurant owner who just declared bankruptcy after 5 years: "He had nothing before he opened up this place, and he has nothing now. So nothing was lost."
More...

the analogy makes no sense whatsoever, neke also has a real job.
 
Quote from nkhoi:

the analogy makes no sense whatsoever, neke also has a real job.
More...

Because one person can not have 2 jobs at the same time? OK, I will break the analogy down for you:

Let's say I take out a bank loan and open up a restaurant. The business is good for 3 years, I live on the profits while paying back the mortgage. After 3 years the business suddenly goes sour and I am losing money month after month, although I still take out money for living. 2 more years and I have to call it quit, giving back the building to the bank. At the end of the 5 years I don't have money left, but I did live on the profits for 5 years.

Exactly what happened to neke. For the first few years while he was making money his lifestyle went up and he used the gains for living. Now he is losing and he can get down to zero, nevertheless he did use some of the profits for his living in the past few years. Not to mention he used lots of energy and time to trade, just like a person running a restaurant.

It is really a perfect analogy....It would only be a bad analogy if neke loses ALL of his gains, but that won't happen.

So are we clear now?
 
Your analogy is terrible. Trading on the side while working full time is nothing compared to running a restaurant. Trading is basically a higher form of gambling for most people, there are huge entertainment returns even if trading eventually results in monetary loss. There is no such entertainment value in running a restaurant which is more like real work than a hobby.

Even if neke were to lose back all his excess profits over the years, he'll have great stories to tell and a lot of free entertainment to boot.

Quote from Pekelo:

Because one person can not have 2 jobs at the same time? OK, I will break the analogy down for you:

Let's say I take out a bank loan and open up a restaurant. The business is good for 3 years, I live on the profits while paying back the mortgage. After 3 years the business suddenly goes sour and I am losing money month after month, although I still take out money for living. 2 more years and I have to call it quit, giving back the building to the bank. At the end of the 5 years I don't have money left, but I did live on the profits for 5 years.

Exactly what happened to neke. For the first few years while he was making money his lifestyle went up and he used the gains for living. Now he is losing and he can get down to zero, nevertheless he did use some of the profits for his living in the past few years. Not to mention he used lots of energy and time to trade, just like a person running a restaurant.

It is really a perfect analogy....It would only be a bad analogy if neke loses ALL of his gains, but that won't happen.

So are we clear now?
More...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top