weekender

No, that friend misinformed you. There are Roth 401ks becoming more widely available - they do not have the income limits of the Roth Ira. And long before I've seen 401ks that allow post tax contributions, though I always questioned the point of doing so. You'd be better off put that money into a traditional ira and converting it into a Roth. OHCHUTE made numerous errors in his arguments in this thread (starting with, when's the last time you could get 3% on a savings account - roughly 5 years ago.) But the main one he makes that is necessary to make his argument is when he says that the 300k in the 401k is diminished to 217k, but he ignored the fact that the pretax contributions were discounted by that same amount in taxes in the first place. Unless you're presuming higher blended tax rates in retirement than your marginal tax rate when making the contributions (which is not likely), then the 401k will destroy the savings account at the same 3% return since the later only earns 2.2% annually due to the yearly taxes. The moral is this - don't bother arguing retirement finances when people want to prove that 401ks don't work. They have no idea what they're talking about. They just want to rationalize their lack of retirement savings. thanks for stepping in. i took the 7 about 20 years ago. funny though, my new assistant passed it a few weeks ago and that is where i got my info. usually the young kids are the best at this stuff. i am not a financial adviser and people are quite surprised to find out i pay a few to help me. if they were witness to this thread, they would not be anymore. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

wait, i have just been informed by a friend that a 401k is always pretax. only a roth ira can be after tax. so my previous post is a weak answer at best bottom line, your post has to many variables for me to answer. i believe you are not fully understanding the benefits of tax deferment nor the negative implications of inflation. But i am doing a bad job of explaining why. i am not a retail broker or financial adviser so why i am confident i understand why your wrong i am not able to explain it. i respectfully remove myself from this conversation in hopes someone smarter than me can contribute. i also deleted a previous post because it was factually inaccurate base on my lack of knowledge on basic series 7 material. i am showing my age. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

At the rates figured you could put after tax $300,000 earning NO INTEREST and be ahead of a $300K 401K that earned a few points. I'm not sure too many have looked that this comparison as trillions are collected in 401K waiting tax treatment. 300k earning nothing will earn you nothing. 300k earning a few points will earn you a few points compounded annually. Your math does not make any sense. a 401k compounds interest no different than any other account. the only difference being you do not pay taxes annually. you pay only ordinary income when you withdraw at retirement. whether earn interest in a 401k or in a checking account or anything doesnt matter. the laws of math are all the same. please explain to me how i am wrong. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

i am not messing with you. That makes no sense to me. can you please reread it and perhaps rephrase it? A 401k earning 3% and a checking account earning 3% will come out with the same number for the same amount of years less the taxes you must pay yearly on the checking account. so apples to apples after 30yrs you will have more in a 401k than a checking account since you dont pay taxes. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

call me a socialist. i love the USPS. for a few cents i can put a letter on my door and in a few days it will be anywhere in the country. i think it is amazing. their customer service could improve but overall the mail service is great. No i do not use them as often so i understand them dropping saturdays. i also understand if they raise the price a little. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I dont get it. i guess this guy is just jealous of bankers. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

id like to suggest you and i stop. it has become boring for me and i assume everyone. its just tit for tat. i firmly believe you are clueless on fiance but that does not imply i think you are dumb financial derivativives and the industry in general are very complex. i fault no one for not fully understanding them. it is complex for people in the industry. i admit, as a equity person i am not very knowledgeable on fixed income. i do however, know far more than a lay person. That does not make me smart just makes me a person who works in finance. If you would just stop stating your opinion as FACT i will stop posting. That is what i always do. you can say anything you want as opinion. i will always dispute your facts. i do not think, given my experience, you can win these arguments. It is up to you if you want to continue. i am tired and bored of you. But if you post falsehoods, i will continue to reply. I'm trying to be a gentleman and give you an out. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Wendy, Here it is. Pre SLAB labeled as Student Loan Bonds JetBlue 10K 2005 pg. 68 And as I said, since college back securities became subject to scrutney upon the financial crisis starting in 2007, SLAB term has changed to "debt securities" Looks like weekender got a new handle...OWNED http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/JetBlue_Airways_(JBLU)/Filing/10-K/2005/Form_10-K%2FA/D230271 Yes, you have bested me again. you show financials from nearly 10 years ago to prove your point that JBLU owns student loan debt today. I am ashamed. its is NOT 2005. you claimed they owned half a billion. they do not as clearly shown on their current financials. that is nearly 10 years old. you had to find a 10k from 10 years ago to show they owned a security they no longer own to prove what?? that you are clueless again about the financial industry also, in my very first post i was the first to point out that they are no longer gov't securities and trade as private ABS. you have a keen sense of the obvious "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you are clueless. an investment bank and a commercial bank or two separate things. the fact you dont know that shows once again how clueless you are. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Like there is even a trading floor anymore. Every now and then the show a couple of guys walking around some computers trying to show its not computerized trading but they'll never be able to capture that live trading floor setting again. BUY SELL BUY SELL

"You beat me to it what the instruments might consist of. Since no one knows for sure, including you, the debt could be intruments of: bull sperm loans, prostitute brothel debentures or even cocaine IOU's. Now everone knows you've been left behind at the bank counting money and shuffling papers around and coming up with goofy financial terms to confuse the public, and didn't get a chance to cash in on all the bone(ass) money from all the ponzi's you were running that you could have gone to Brazil to open a coffiee shop or another invertment house as GS said Brazil and India are RIPE, as your peers got away with, that you're just a tad jealous you are still sitting there. Go complain to your floor manager... or do what your peers do. Come up with some papers and go sell them. You'll find your way... " I do know what they consist of. It says so on the 10Q i quoted earlier. i also know what they do NOT consist of, which i also quoted from the 10Q earlier. How do you know i am not the trading room manager? after all, i sure do have a lot of time during market hours to point out how clueless you are. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I read it while drafting a paper in college. It was years ago. Not sure the status of any investments they have now. It's not until the balance sheet term is defined by the type of instrument. Large financial institutions and wall street brokers bundled these loans and sold them to corporations as they were/ are good bets. I suspect Jb bought them to hedge against the debt they acquired in financing their aircraft fleet. Jb hedges on jet fuel. So someone owns them. The point still is: it doesn't matter who owns them, it's about the speculation surrounding a possible collapse when tuition costs no longer go up as quickly as they are going up now--the debt won't be as valuable. Which is why there is so much pressure to keep raising tuition costs. oh, i see. the evidence to your claim that it is on JBLU's financials are not actually on JBLU's filings. They are not on the only official record of JBLU"s financials. they only exist in a different time on a paper you wrote. Thank you for clearing that up. i should have checked your term paper and not that companies actual SEC filings. my mistake. I owe you an apology. you didnt just make that up as evidence by your term paper from whenever, with data from whatever. silly me for expecting it to actually be on verifiable, tangible financial statements that are mandated by law. You have bested me sir. It could be that as sensitive as anything to do with making money off of college kids and their parents as "College Debt Secuities" what was once on a balance sheet now has been conveniently hidden. Let's face, what better way to sell MORE College Debt Securities at the time they were introduced than to publish: so and so bought a ton of secuities so maybe you should too Mr. Corporation. I think you don't have a clue. Why do you think they want to bring illegals in the fold and give them all college educations. Goldman was at the White House yesterday talking about immigration. They want them money. thank you, now i fully understand. the holdings are evidenced by the LACK of evidence of the holdings. they are not disclosed on the SEC filings and that is the proof that they have been hidden. since they are hidden, as proven by their non existence on the public filings, they are proven to exist. again, you have bested me. Well investment in "debt securities" sound much better than COLLEGE debt securities don't you think. The WORD "college" mysteriously left off the balance sheet. Now go back to counting all your money, I've got work to do. yes that explains it. they left the word college off the balance sheet therefore exposing the evidence that they are in fact long college debt. by that logic they are also long reindeer debt securities, as a hedge against any reindeer strike loses during the holiday season on their aircraft. the word "reindeer" is not on the balance sheet so obviously they have hidden the "reindeer debt" behind the line "debt securities". those crafty bastards. i envy them almost as i do you for your business acumen and insider knowledge. its just a matter of time before they retire to Brazil to hang out with the former "admen" who got rich pushing "front end paper." once again, you have bested me. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I read it while drafting a paper in college. It was years ago. Not sure the status of any investments they have now. It's not until the balance sheet term is defined by the type of instrument. Large financial institutions and wall street brokers bundled these loans and sold them to corporations as they were/ are good bets. I suspect Jb bought them to hedge against the debt they acquired in financing their aircraft fleet. Jb hedges on jet fuel. So someone owns them. The point still is: it doesn't matter who owns them, it's about the speculation surrounding a possible collapse when tuition costs no longer go up as quickly as they are going up now--the debt won't be as valuable. Which is why there is so much pressure to keep raising tuition costs. oh, i see. the evidence to your claim that it is on JBLU's financials are not actually on JBLU's filings. They are not on the only official record of JBLU"s financials. they only exist in a different time on a paper you wrote. Thank you for clearing that up. i should have checked your term paper and not that companies actual SEC filings. my mistake. I owe you an apology. you didnt just make that up as evidence by your term paper from whenever, with data from whatever. silly me for expecting it to actually be on verifiable, tangible financial statements that are mandated by law. You have bested me sir. It could be that as sensitive as anything to do with making money off of college kids and their parents as "College Debt Secuities" what was once on a balance sheet now has been conveniently hidden. Let's face, what better way to sell MORE College Debt Securities at the time they were introduced than to publish: so and so bought a ton of secuities so maybe you should too Mr. Corporation. I think you don't have a clue. Why do you think they want to bring illegals in the fold and give them all college educations. Goldman was at the White House yesterday talking about immigration. They want them money. thank you, now i fully understand. the holdings are evidenced by the LACK of evidence of the holdings. they are not disclosed on the SEC filings and that is the proof that they have been hidden. since they are hidden, as proven by their non existence on the public filings, they are proven to exist. again, you have bested me. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

The same gov't that forces people to use these agencies. How about, like in equities, you mandate that they publish their financials on debt and let the consumer decide. by letting people rely on a rating agency rather than do their own due diligence, people get burned. The gov't should not force debt ratings on people. My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate ratings to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures. if you cannot understand them, dont buy the instrument. And there is the problem. The banks want to sell as much of this as possible and so do the gov't's who are issuing debt. Would anyone take the time to read the financials on a municipal sewer bond, no. slap a AAA rating on it and you have a brand new sewer plant. Banks win, Gov't wins and your grandmother is left holding the bag. No one should be charged with fraud you say Mr. Weekender? Spoken like a true banker. You are really something. Here you talk about: "you mandate that they publish their financials on debt" per Weekender, when in another thread you claim you know what "investment in debt security" on a balance sheet is about. Seems disjointed. How in one thread you say you have knowledge yet in another thread you advocate you don't have knowledge and need a mandate to get the information you seek? You raise more questions than anwers you give. i clearly state they should be held accountable for fraud. reread my post. your clueless. your response besides being factually wrong about what i clearly stated, is nonsense. i cannot even begin to understand your point. you are confusing an equity and a fixed income security. i am not. if you do not even know the difference and which is responsible to publish what, then you should refrain from speaking. you, once again, show yourself the fool. i will repeat. the gov't should not mandate ratings but mandate financials. people should then decide for themselves and not rely on others opinions. Maybe if you START capitalizing the first words to your sentences you'd be better understood. Lets do an anaylsis of what you wrote: You (weedender) wrote: "My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate rating to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures." Translations: Hold banks for fraud, but don't mandate the banks to be more transparent with disclosures; allow the fraud to continue. Buyer beware. Question: How can buyer beware if the seller of the investment witholds information and when there is no mandate for transparency? Solution: Buy nothing from broker dealer until financial disclosure mandates are in place. Thanks! your "translation" is the exact opposite of what i clearly stated my post is quite clear. make the financials mandatory. as they are now, fixed income securities are mostly exempt, thus the name "exempt securities". they should not be exempt, like equities. you dont get any of this because you do not understand the difference between and equity and a fixed income security. because, as evidenced everytime you post, you are clueless on finance. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

One is a equity security and one is a fixed income security, which is considered an exempt security. One is mandated to file the other is not. My point is maybe both should be. you did not get that because you are clueless on basic finance, proven again by the fact you do not know the difference. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

I read it while drafting a paper in college. It was years ago. Not sure the status of any investments they have now. It's not until the balance sheet term is defined by the type of instrument. Large financial institutions and wall street brokers bundled these loans and sold them to corporations as they were/ are good bets. I suspect Jb bought them to hedge against the debt they acquired in financing their aircraft fleet. Jb hedges on jet fuel. So someone owns them. The point still is: it doesn't matter who owns them, it's about the speculation surrounding a possible collapse when tuition costs no longer go up as quickly as they are going up now--the debt won't be as valuable. Which is why there is so much pressure to keep raising tuition costs. oh, i see. the evidence to your claim that it is on JBLU's financials are not actually on JBLU's filings. They are not on the only official record of JBLU"s financials. they only exist in a different time on a paper you wrote. Thank you for clearing that up. i should have checked your term paper and not that companies actual SEC filings. my mistake. I owe you an apology. you didnt just make that up as evidence by your term paper from whenever, with data from whatever. silly me for expecting it to actually be on verifiable, tangible financial statements that are mandated by law. You have bested me sir. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

The same gov't that forces people to use these agencies. How about, like in equities, you mandate that they publish their financials on debt and let the consumer decide. by letting people rely on a rating agency rather than do their own due diligence, people get burned. The gov't should not force debt ratings on people. My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate ratings to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures. if you cannot understand them, dont buy the instrument. And there is the problem. The banks want to sell as much of this as possible and so do the gov't's who are issuing debt. Would anyone take the time to read the financials on a municipal sewer bond, no. slap a AAA rating on it and you have a brand new sewer plant. Banks win, Gov't wins and your grandmother is left holding the bag. No one should be charged with fraud you say Mr. Weekender? Spoken like a true banker. You are really something. Here you talk about: "you mandate that they publish their financials on debt" per Weekender, when in another thread you claim you know what "investment in debt security" on a balance sheet is about. Seems disjointed. How in one thread you say you have knowledge yet in another thread you advocate you don't have knowledge and need a mandate to get the information you seek? You raise more questions than anwers you give. i clearly state they should be held accountable for fraud. reread my post. your clueless. your response besides being factually wrong about what i clearly stated, is nonsense. i cannot even begin to understand your point. you are confusing an equity and a fixed income security. i am not. if you do not even know the difference and which is responsible to publish what, then you should refrain from speaking. you, once again, show yourself the fool. i will repeat. the gov't should not mandate ratings but mandate financials. people should then decide for themselves and not rely on others opinions. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

The same gov't that forces people to use these agencies. How about, like in equities, you mandate that they publish their financials on debt and let the consumer decide. by letting people rely on a rating agency rather than do their own due diligence, people get burned. The gov't should not force debt ratings on people. My point is not that the gov't should not hold anyone liable for fraud. they should. My point is that they should not mandate ratings to protect people. Let people decide by actually taking the time to understand their investment. mandate financial disclosures. if you cannot understand them, dont buy the instrument. And there is the problem. The banks want to sell as much of this as possible and so do the gov't's who are issuing debt. Would anyone take the time to read the financials on a municipal sewer bond, no. slap a AAA rating on it and you have a brand new sewer plant. Banks win, Gov't wins and your grandmother is left holding the bag. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You need to call UBS and jetblue and ask about their investment in debt securities. There's so much faith with the banking industry states are considering issuing their own money. Bankster hiding out behind their reports and numbers. If it's not on your bank computer its not the truth.... Go away. i looked on the SEC filings. The public filings that are real and tangible. You are a liar, plain and simple. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

>Go look it up for yourself. You know little about balance sheet reporting. Did you not realize that i could do that the moment i got to work? I have a Bloomberg terminal, it takes me all of 5 seconds to type "jblu-equity-go" So i am not an analyst but can read. i checked their latest 8-k filed on 29 Jan. I saw nothing. i then checked their latest 10Q filed on 1 Nov 12 and found nothing. I did not expect too because you have told bold face lies before. for example, you claim your friends at the justice dept give you info and you know bankers who fled to brazil. All fiction just like your "ad men" and "front end paper". You are sad. I also didnt expect to because i have never heard of companies giving out positions before. they mention size and scope of debt but not the exact instruments held. not to mention why would an airline with easy access to credit own a long term retail debt instrument. of course it made no sense but you never do. I could be wrong. please produce the public filing where they disclose this. i would be shocked to find it since they disclose that they do not own any derivatives other than fuel related. as stated on Note 8 paragraph 2 and 3. 10Q filing 11/1/12. To manage the variability of the cash flows associated with our variable rate debt, we have also entered into interest rate swaps. We do not hold or issue any derivative financial instruments for trading purposes. you have made a claim. i am asking you to prove it. If you cannot verify said claim then i can only assume you are once again lying. (i edited to add the date of the 10Q) "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

You missed my point which means you doot even understand the argument you are trying to make. Very little student loan debt is securitized into a debt instuments. Unlike the mortgage debt where a large amount was securitized. its been established you are clueless on this topic but now I'm doubting your reading comprehension. My point was not at all complicated. You made a point: you said debt instruments are not dollar to dollar. I don't think you have a clue how much college debt is turned into securities. According to jet blues balance sheet they own a half billion in college debt securities and they are only one firm. When you profess to know a lot about money, you never support what you say with facts. You generalize. Even to the point that college tuition debt is not a problem. If it's not a problem then tell us why: for readers edification.

You missed my point which means you doot even understand the argument you are trying to make. Very little student loan debt is securitized into a debt instuments. Unlike the mortgage debt where a large amount was securitized. its been established you are clueless on this topic but now I'm doubting your reading comprehension. My point was not at all complicated. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you are confusing two things. student loan debt with student loan debt instruments. you implied there was going to be a problem with the latter. i pointed out i do not agree. if you want to change the subject, fine but do not imply i am the clueless one. i would agree with you that student loan debt is a big issue. one that i feel people should be concerned with. OH when students stop paying loans, or kids cut back on going to college due to cost of tuition (a direct result of the back side slimey "instruments" business you're refering to) you don't think the loan debt instruments business will suffer? Substitute college debt instruments for "mortgage backed securities" and you'll have your answer. DOH, people stop paying on the front side the back side blow up. Why do think Blankenfeild is over with Obama talking about immigration.... he wants the bodies so that the paper can be created. All those illegals need to go to college. More paper, more debt, more instruments with which to deal. Same as they did in writing mortgages. Flim flam, one paper business to the next. When one side fails the otherside fails. Same a ponzi. I though you knew about finance. You are out of it. Like most. Can't connect the dots. Yes i cannot connect the dots. good job exposing my ignorance in finance. you are assuming, because you are clueless, that all the debt is used to create debt instruments. it is not. so its not dollar for dollar as you imply. it is a very small market and not widely held. being clueless, i am confident you do not even understand what i'm saying but thats ok, i am posting for the edification of the others reading "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

you are confusing two things. student loan debt with student loan debt instruments. you implied there was going to be a problem with the latter. i pointed out i do not agree. if you want to change the subject, fine but do not imply i am the clueless one. i would agree with you that student loan debt is a big issue. one that i feel people should be concerned with. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante

Oh here we go again Mr. Banker. I'm clueless but I have a point you say. So hence, I'm not clueless. Your buddy CEO of Goldman is over there meeting with Obama today. no you are still clueless on the topic as evidenced by your next comment about "stock companies." An entity similar to "ad men" and "front end paper", that only exist in your head. Not knowing the difference between public and privately traded companies, makes you clueless on finance. making up your own words for a conversation makes you clueless on the English language. you made a point and i gave you credit. of course, being clueless you missed the greater context, which is that there is not enough student loan securities to cause a bigger problem. "The point is, I'm weird, but I never felt weird." John Frusciante