American Budget Cuts

Err, yes. Given that you quoted me, I would have thought you might have noticed... As to why... well, I guess I'll have to wait till the end of my basic economics class and hopefully by then I'll know.

I'm sorry, but you are simply being too stupid to teach here. And what would those perceptions be if shares never paid dividends???Jesus, this is so fucking painful. So why do all the pension and mutual funds invest in equities? Are they just hoping that their fund is going to be a winner, yet summed across all funds, there will be no net gain. So 100 funds invest $100 billion in a closed equity market, and at the end those funds will still be worth $100 billion, only with a different and random distribution across the 100 funds? Is that how you think these funds work?Another question... why do these funds invest in equities, but (typically) not FX?I really can't be arsed trying to explain further to an idiot who's accusing me of lying. If anyone else is actually interested in this, we can start a thread and I can explain properly. Just to be clear, I have little to zero interest in attacking or defending this capitalist structure. I just like facts. And I don't like idiotic bullshit being spread by people who should know better. You do realise that your link is about making gains *over and above* those made by *the market*, not above zero? Yeah, amazing isn't it Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Crash, you really need to know about these things to be able to talk about them. Barclays was viewed as sufficiently sound that investors (whomever they may be) were willing to risk the investment. That is the crucial matter. The Fed and Treasury were not investing in the banks they were bailing out because they thought it was a good investment risk And cut out the accusations of lying, you {don't let him get to you, breath, breath, and relax...ahhh}Edited by cavediver, : expletive removed

Where do we stand on decommissioning costs? Long term storage costs? Final waste disposal costs? These very long term issues are what have always caused the most rational concern.

Shit Crash, with your 30secs googling capability, you already can make far better investment decisions than the top banks.Again, I'm not going to waste time discussing this at length with someone who thinks that soundbites gleaned from a quick google in some way constitute meaningful discourse. No, you wouldn't, because the historic share price of Barclays over the entire crisis period isn't available for general scrutiny. Oh, wait... No shit. You're a genius at those googling skills. What, did you think that the bailout was made in the expectation that the banks would fail?And can you tell the difference between "made money" and...

quote:

---

The government could make a profit of as much as 27 billion from the bailed out banks Lloyds and RBS over the next five years, according to new analysis.

---

"could make a profit"...? For fuck's sake Crash, why would I use google? I didn't get paid $200k by DB so I could look up answers on the fucking internet.Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

you're right - there's no one out there making an income from the dividends on their equity investments. Stupid of me to think otherwise. I guess I should go back on all my old analyses and excise the impact of dividends on valuations, 'cos as you say, they are nothing more than an irritant.You're fucking clueless, Crash. Irrelevant. The value of the Google share is based on the future value of the dividends. At present, Google is viewed as having far better return by reinvesting its dividends back into the company, owing to growth potential. Should that view change, and Google still did not pay a dividend, the share price would plummet. As we saw with all the dot coms that did not make it. If Google announced that their shares will never pay a dividend, then the furture value of the dividends is zero and the value of the shares would drop to zero, except that what would actually happen is that the shareholders would simply dismiss the board...So, again, if stocks never pay dividends, then their value is zero. It is the view of future dividend stream that determines the price of the share. No, Crash. There are those of us who understand this stuff, and there those of you who seem to think that googling and dictionaries suddenly makes you an expert on a subject - no, it just makes you a moron. Sorry.Look, I have no interest in debating this. You want to learn something from me, great, ask a question. But if you just want to prove me wrong from your amateur perspective, I have no interest. Let's just say you are completely correct in all that you say, and I have no clue. I'm more than happy with that. My time is precious enough...Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

Well, AZPaul3 beat me to it, and put it perfectly Sure, this is the popular view of share trading. You have to remember that there are trades (the action of buying or selling) and there are positions (the actual size of trades). Trades are dominated by high-frequency computerised trades - these are formed up of trading strategies and hedging strategies (often to balance derivative positions). Positions are dominated by the long term funds (mutual, pension,etc). The conventional wheeler dealer traders form a tiny fraction of what is actually going on. Don't fall for the bullshit spin. As a shareholder, those profits are yours, whether they are retained or paid out as a dividend. It doesn't matter if you hold 1 share or 100% of the shares.The amount to pay out as dividend is a complicated choice, and has to be carfeully balanced against the market view of the company. You have invested your money in your shares because you view that the company can produce for you a better return than investing elsewhere. If they return too much of that money to you as dividend, they can be viewed as essentially saying that they don't trust their own ability to make a good return on the profits earned! If they pay too little or nothing, with no clear presentation of their growth plan, then investors will again complain. Yes, but that value needs to be returned to the shareholder (i.e owner) at some point, even if that point is perpetually being moved forwards in time.

yep, keep believing it Crash - as long as you're convinced... Ooh, he's accusing me of lying again. Does that make you feel good, Crash? Does it?

It's strange, isn't it Crash, who people come to to ask the questions? You'd think that people long ago would have realised that I just enjoy making shit up and talking bollocks. Yet they keep coming back and asking me questions. Strange. Do you think they are perhaps capable of realising where the content lies?

Keep believing it Crash - it's keeping you happy in your ignornace, and that's what counts. Anyway, back to your computer games now. As I said, I'm happy to be completely wrong and you to be correct. Well done

I am hoping that most readers are not as stupidly dense as Crash as to think that this is what has been suggested by either myself or AZPaul3. And just because the dividend is not received does not automatically mean a trade is gambling. A large percentage of trades are actually hedge positions which are actually reducing (and in some cases almost eliminating) risk, and as such are the exact opposite to gambling.Many other trades are for developing balanced portfolios that are designed to generate a return over that paid by bonds and other debt instruments, whilst maintaining a low risk profile. This is the behaviour of the funds which are the investment vehicles behind people's pensions and investment trusts. Whilst these are certainly more risky than savings bonds, it is not we would refer to as "gambling".

No, Crash. I'm just done with you I thought that was obvious...

I know, but I am just so irresistibly attracted to your stupidity. Any advice?