weekender

you have a point. its based on your dislike of the profession and manipulation of the English language, though. hah i feel we do create great wealth. we provide the capital to people with good ideas. And where did that capital come from? Did you create it out of thin air, or skim it from a real creator of wealth? some of it is ours and others is outside investors. i have mostly worked for privately held banks, partnerships with alot of their own capital at risk. including my current job. we are paid for our services. its not abnormal. i understand you feel it is shameful. im not bothered. i am proud of my job. we recently financed a water facility. we took some of the profits from the deal to hire a disabled veteran. the rest will be used to finance another deal. i feel its creating wealth and important. not to mention people appreciate clean drinking water. edited to add: i am aware municipal water facilities do not create wealth even though needed. hiring new people does. that was my point. also, i am aware my post was a bit dramatic. it was meant to be since most of you think i am an evil man. wanted to show you all a softer side. . One thing that concerns me is when referees begin to think of themselves as players. Congress would appear to suffer from the delusion that they can create affluence by means of appropriate legislation. Similarly, banks fancy themselves as prime movers of the economy. You are either the house, a player, a shill or a tout. You incur risk when you seek to blur those distinctions. BSBD, Winsor i would agree with alot of what you said. my industry has an over inflated feeling of self importance. that is evidenced by the banker who said we were doing God's work. I think it was Blankfein, not sure though. i firmly believe he was meaning to imply he was doing meaningful work and worded it poorly. i do feel that he believes his work is very important, though. i dont think we are to blame for nearly as much of the worlds problems either. we might not be doing God's work but we are essential to a civil prosperous society. i truly wish we were as powerful as people believe. then i could smite my enemies. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you have a point. its based on your dislike of the profession and manipulation of the English language, though. hah i feel we do create great wealth. we provide the capital to people with good ideas. And where did that capital come from? Did you create it out of thin air, or skim it from a real creator of wealth? some of it is ours and others is outside investors. i have mostly worked for privately held banks, partnerships with alot of their own capital at risk. including my current job. we are paid for our services. its not abnormal. i understand you feel it is shameful. im not bothered. i am proud of my job. we recently financed a water facility. we took some of the profits from the deal to hire a disabled veteran. the rest will be used to finance another deal. i feel its creating wealth and important. not to mention people appreciate clean drinking water. edited to add: i am aware municipal water facilities do not create wealth even though needed. hiring new people does. that was my point. also, i am aware my post was a bit dramatic. it was meant to be since most of you think i am an evil man. wanted to show you all a softer side. . "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

So you don't like Wall Street bankers either. we cannot all be glorified babysitters. someone has to actually leave campus. someone has to create the revenue required for the tuition that gives you a place to go 12 hours a week. you really should be more grateful for revenue generating people. Without them you might have to find a job where you had to actually create something of measurable value. your welcome. Most of what you think you know about me is incorrect, including your complete lack of knowledge of my work history. You're welcome. actually i know it because you stated it many times. I get you. and i am also confident you got my post. i Really? Then tell me how many companies, federal agencies, and branches of the military I have worked for. to be clear i know you have alot of experience away from education as you have stated many times. that was my point. it was meant as a compliment and not an insult. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you have a point. its based on your dislike of the profession and manipulation of the English language, though. hah i feel we do create great wealth. we provide the capital to people with good ideas. that enables them to expand their business, hire more people and pay more taxes. All, except the taxes we take a cut of. i feel that is creation. i know how you feel. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

So you don't like Wall Street bankers either. we cannot all be glorified babysitters. someone has to actually leave campus. someone has to create the revenue required for the tuition that gives you a place to go 12 hours a week. you really should be more grateful for revenue generating people. Without them you might have to find a job where you had to actually create something of measurable value. your welcome. Most of what you think you know about me is incorrect, including your complete lack of knowledge of my work history. You're welcome. actually i know it because you stated it many times. I get you. and i am also confident you got my post. i too can stereotype an entire group. others here might not as evidenced by how upset they seem. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Not in the slightest. Your selective attack on a certain segment of the education profession, cherry-picked specifically because you think it represents one particular regular poster here, is ignorant and juvenile. it was a bit mean, as was my intent. it was a broad insult stereotyping an entire industry. as was his comment and why i chose my wording. my post was no more ignorant and juvenile than his. i am willing to bet he will be less offended then others. probably because he will understand clearly why i said it. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Whatever your personal opinions of Kallend my be, I certainly hope you don't actually feed this way about educators i feel this way about many, maybe most. For most, true research people excluded, its an easy non competitive job. one that affords them ample time to criticize those who do things they are not confident enough to do themselves. I firmly believe they lack the skills to survive away from their jobs. I know many part time college instructors, including my wife and some of my friends and work colleagues. i admire them for spending their free time educating. My high school teachers were very dedicated and excellent at their job. I am not shy about thanking them when i can. so hopefully that clears up my post a bit. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

So you don't like Wall Street bankers either. we cannot all be glorified babysitters. someone has to actually leave campus. someone has to create the revenue required for the tuition that gives you a place to go 12 hours a week. you really should be more grateful for revenue generating people. Without them you might have to find a job where you had to actually create something of measurable value. your welcome. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

More attention needs to be devoted to small business as they are the job creators. Instead there's soooo much support for the multi-national corps as wall street needs to continue selling stock. They want to end non-stock firms and have all profits go to stock companies and what few employees there are, will work for stock firms. If you've noticed even the worst urban areas are being revitalized by stock firms. Mom, pop firms, are going away. They can't compete. Look at farming--they all sold out to ADM. Just look at walmart check out.... so few people there, that took so many jobs away from the local economy. An economy based on people buying stuff, where the distribution model changed. Dist via many people, to just a few. Internet sales haven't helped. Stock firms and wall street rule the roost. It's up to them to solve the problem and I suspect that when people can no longer buy stocks or refuse to do so, we might return to entranpraneurship and small business. if that is even possible with the current distribution and buying trends. Selling stock is a tiny part of where a bank makes their money. it is an after thought. The money is made in banking ie making loans and building companies up to go public. Bankers love small companies because they are the one's who need loans to become medium companies, who then want to go public. There are countless stories of small companies growing into giant public ones. Walmart is a perfect example. Every banker in the world is looking for the next Walmart. Small commercial banks create small business. Then Inv Bankers loan money to create medium and large companies. Bankers love small companies, it is the blood of the business. Commissions on stocks trades in the retail sector, what you are speaking of, is tiny. So small that the most profitable Inv banks dont even have retail. GSCO for example. At the institutional level, research and trading exist solely to get more banking business. I know, because i do it for a living. the bankers run the show, stock trading is a side show. Equity traders are the blue collar of the business. Retail stock sales, which is different and what you described, is tiny and not a focus of any brokerage or bank. Its not 1970. there is no revenue is it. stock commissions are fraction of a cent. .0045 per share, is a fair rate. What is a "stock firm". you really should stop making up your own terms. do your "admen" work there and are they in charge of pushing "front end paper"? There are plenty of ways to describe a bank or brokerage, which are different fyi. you are hard to take serious when you make up your own names for already existing entities. Here comes the banker Weekender: We're not talking about banks. We're talking about the Gov't spending more money on Welfare than what people earn. But since you've said selling stocks is only a tiny portion of what Banks do I just wonder what most important to banks.... OH I KNOW... Laundering Cartel Drug money UNABAITED. FREE PASS to do what they want. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/elizabeth-warren-bust-banks-that-launder-drug-money-88565.html With with the banks steal and what the poor cost us, no wonder middle class is so squeezed. we are talking about banks because that was exactly what your post addressed. perhaps you should read your own posts. you called them "stock firms", an imaginary term that you created for the banks and brokerages but clear to all what you meant. i addressed your post that clearly implied that banks do not care about small business and only want to make secondary stock sales. i do not agree and explained plainly why, based on common economic sense and my 20 years experience as an equity trader for banks. your most recent post has nothing to do with yours or my last post. you can attack me all you want but it does not change the fact you do not know what your talking about. My goal is to point out how little you understand of the topic your discussing so others do not repeat it and look as foolish as you. thank you for making it easy "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Then the justice dept should have a discussion with the other departments in the gov't that approve all the mergers. Gov't regulators approved all the mergers that allowed them to get to their current size. Now they are upset they are too large. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

More attention needs to be devoted to small business as they are the job creators. Instead there's soooo much support for the multi-national corps as wall street needs to continue selling stock. They want to end non-stock firms and have all profits go to stock companies and what few employees there are, will work for stock firms. If you've noticed even the worst urban areas are being revitalized by stock firms. Mom, pop firms, are going away. They can't compete. Look at farming--they all sold out to ADM. Just look at walmart check out.... so few people there, that took so many jobs away from the local economy. An economy based on people buying stuff, where the distribution model changed. Dist via many people, to just a few. Internet sales haven't helped. Stock firms and wall street rule the roost. It's up to them to solve the problem and I suspect that when people can no longer buy stocks or refuse to do so, we might return to entranpraneurship and small business. if that is even possible with the current distribution and buying trends. Selling stock is a tiny part of where a bank makes their money. it is an after thought. The money is made in banking ie making loans and building companies up to go public. Bankers love small companies because they are the one's who need loans to become medium companies, who then want to go public. There are countless stories of small companies growing into giant public ones. Walmart is a perfect example. Every banker in the world is looking for the next Walmart. Small commercial banks create small business. Then Inv Bankers loan money to create medium and large companies. Bankers love small companies, it is the blood of the business. Commissions on stocks trades in the retail sector, what you are speaking of, is tiny. So small that the most profitable Inv banks dont even have retail. GSCO for example. At the institutional level, research and trading exist solely to get more banking business. I know, because i do it for a living. the bankers run the show, stock trading is a side show. Equity traders are the blue collar of the business. Retail stock sales, which is different and what you described, is tiny and not a focus of any brokerage or bank. Its not 1970. there is no revenue is it. stock commissions are fraction of a cent. .0045 per share, is a fair rate. What is a "stock firm". you really should stop making up your own terms. do your "admen" work there and are they in charge of pushing "front end paper"? There are plenty of ways to describe a bank or brokerage, which are different fyi. you are hard to take serious when you make up your own names for already existing entities. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm glad your position is working out. you completely missed my point. Not at all. Buying stocks based on past performance is not a good strategy. no, you missed my point completely and still dont get it. i am fully aware of your point, fyi. the stock is up since you bought it therefore YHOO is not doing poorly. good for you, as i stated before i am glad the position is working out for you. however, you are not the only metric by which most would judge the company. if i'm only permitted to use your stock performance to evaluate YHOO's performance, than we would agree, they are fine. However, i am not bound by that so we will not agree. My point is more broad and complex than you are either willing to discuss or possibly understand. i dont know you so cant say which. it is possible you are just being humorous also, if so, i get it. i could tell you a ton of humorous stories how i had great months trading from the long side of companies that went under. ICGI and CMRC come to mind. they went up a lot too. you should google them. (notice i didnt say yahoo them) im not trying to be rude, fyi. we are not discussing the same thing and that is my main point. i fully understand that stocks go up and down. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm glad your position is working out. you completely missed my point. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

at first i thought you were agreeing with me. then it dawned on me what i did. im a dolt and deserved to be mocked. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Bring that chart back 10 years a then overlay it to GOOG, its main comp. Then tell me you think the company is doing fine. of course, if your a shareholder and happy, then my point in moot but id bet you would be in the minority. they are not happy as evidenced by the stock performance long term and the hiring of Marissa in the first place. Your chart shows a tiny pop based on her hiring. it has a long way to go to catch up to GOOG. i edited to correct spelling of MOOT. I swear i know the difference between mute and moot. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

No one is really hiding the fact that this is a house cleaning exercise. Does anyone want to pretend that Yahoo is doing well? The reality is that its been floundering for years and the vast majority of good talent left. Now it's full of people collecting paychecks, and a large number of those telecommuters aren't doing shit, aren't being held accountable. This a their failing, and their managers' failing. If she is going to turn around Yahoo, it's going to happen with people who care enough to show up and fight for success. They'll lose a very small number of worthwhile people. (and more likely, they will tell them to stick it out for a year and then the home work will be restored) I'm with you. She is getting people she wants gone to quit. now she doesnt have to pay them a severance or part of any bonuses they were promised. Seems very normal for a competitive job. In my business we just cut your payout or bonus till you get angry and quit. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/02/27-5 please show me where they said its imperative to cut social programs for the elderly and disabled. for those rational enough to care, Lloyd B is a registered Democrat and supporter of the party. He is open about this and his support of the Clintons. Jamie is a long time Dem supporter and was once considered a replacement for Geitner. he is openly critical of Obama but that does not make him a Republican. I cannot say for sure but assume he too is a Clinton fan. She is quite popular with bankers for many reason i could discuss if anyone cared. I know this goes against all that is holy but alot of bankers are Dem's. They live in one of the most Blue area's in the country. Most people are Dem's in the NY area. anyone care to guess the only party my wife and I have ever been a member of? i know the crazies will not believe me but i hope the more reasonable people understand the world is not so black and white. You can work in finance and be very socially liberal. so much so that you cannot affiliate with the party that seems more fiscally conservative. SEEMS is the key word. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i read the article and it seems that the teleco companies are the ones who pushed to expand this program to line their pockets. no surprise to me nor am i offended but its not just the politicians buying votes. not even close. Well that's the chicken or the egg now isn't it. Wanna bet the lawyers would have been crying racist if the carriers had been denying access en masse. Sorry Wendy, it's true... Whose votes are they buying? Not the poor, because they are eligible anyway. Wealthy people scamming the system are usually GOP supporters sorry my post was not clear. i was not implying the telco's are buying votes. i meant to imply there is far more to the story than pol's buying votes. it seems its more about the telco's using a gov't program to line their pockets. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Why? People either have lost money or made money. What math are you using that other peoples math is a novelty? There have been many votes. Look up there: you're posts display lack of knowledge. In fact you even bailed from this discussion very early because you said you didn't know enough about the topic. In addition, you back tracked in another thread because you realized what an idiot you were about money and finance. You are a broker dealer banker and of course you'd recommend buying stocks, even if long haul stock ownership is a failed concept: WHY? because stock brokers get paid no matter if their clients win or lose. i am not a broker. i have mentioned this many times. you are too clueless on finance to understand what a broker is. also, as you have been told over and over. a 401k is not a stock portfolio. your ability to not understand this is comical. you have once again bested me. yes, as everyone who can read your threads, i am the idiot, with no knowledge of finance. i stopped posted not because i tired of you, or because i completed my goal of exposing you as clueless. i stopped because you bested me. i am truly ashamed. I'm done posting again,fyi. my mission here is complete. you can continue to call me names and post all the falsehoods and inaccuracies you like. everyone knows what you are. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i read the article and it seems that the teleco companies are the ones who pushed to expand this program to line their pockets. no surprise to me nor am i offended but its not just the politicians buying votes. not even close. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

It'd be funny if you weren't serious. I don't know why you guys continue to respond to him. I thought this was an obvious troll. Either way he already has his mind made up, I saw that from the first few replies. I almost took the bait but I decided I would rather stick my hand on the hot stove, versus trying to talk finances with him! i respond to him and people like him because i feel they spread falsehoods. i guess it just bothers me so i set out to expose they do not understand what they are discussing. this way no one repeats it back to me over the weekend. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>"The poll, if trusted, shows most people lost money over the long haul in 401 as of this post." it should be obvious to anyone who can do math that your poll is a novelty. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Adding money was a given. Unless of course you get laid off or decide not to save money for retirement. I think you are missing something. most people not only put additional money in but also dollar cost average, due to the nature of the plans. most, in my experience, are employer based and deposit money monthly. this will deeply blunt the effect of a sell off. there are entire books and papers written on it. im sure you can find a more detailed explanation than mine, if you are inclined to learn. Dollar cost averaging only works when buying stocks at low prices. If you are making monthly deposits you might not being buying when it is low over the long haul when buying stocks and may not "deeply blunt the effect of withdrawing lump sum from retirment 401. Again money held by wall street is subject to wall street market influences. The poll, if trusted, shows most people lost money over the long haul in 401 as of this post. It would seem actual experiences trump any equation or talk about how much money one can make for retirement allowing wall street to hold your money. Lets see how the next 30 years will do for you. See you in 2043

Adding money was a given. Unless of course you get laid off or decide not to save money for retirement. I think you are missing something. most people not only put additional money in but also dollar cost average, due to the nature of the plans. most, in my experience, are employer based and deposit money monthly. this will deeply blunt the effect of a sell off. there are entire books and papers written on it. im sure you can find a more detailed explanation than mine, if you are inclined to learn. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I'm not seeking a formula. All varibles have been excluded including interest earned and inflation. So It should be pretty simple. If you put $300K in a cookie jar. How much will be there when you want to take the money. If you put $300K in an account with a broker that fluctuates how much will be there when you want to put your hands on it. If you can't tell me, then obviously it could be less than $300,000 Right? Do you want piece of mind, or do you want risk? Here's a delema: A check is coming and the person is going to owe nearly $350,000 in TAXES which wipes out completely the interest earned over 25 years including some of the principal invested. All I know is, I'd rather make money not lose money. i agree with you, it is very simple if you remove all factors including inflation and interest earned. but that right there is the problem with your entire post and why your not getting the answer you want. you have removed all realistic factors from your situation making your entire question impractical and of no real value to anyone but yourself. not to mention you have changed your point several times in this thread. it was originally about 401k's vs non tax deferred accounts. now i dont know what its about. the fact of the matter is that currencies always fluctuate. so you only have two real world options. you can park your money and accept that it will most likely erode in value or look for some yield and accept risk. normally i accuse you of being clueless and factually inaccurate. in this case, i am just confused as to what your point is. at some point, you have to realize that you are the only person here who understands what you are trying to explain. maybe it isnt all of us. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante