Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Swings And .................................

Here's a pretty conservative portfolio which at 11.00 a.m. on Friday a week ago was worth $306k.

On Friday last week it was worth $320k

A few minutes ago it was worth:-


Funny thing is the fundamental soundness of these businesses has not altered.

In six months' time, everybody will look back and say, "What was that all about?"

These companies weren't involved in shonky lending, so why were they too bid down?

The reason the 'bail out' must be made to work is the perception by the public that somehow there is a crisis more deep seated than a correction for a vast instutionalised orgy of reprehensible banking practice, all of which was brought about by The Democratic Party. Even when Dubbya and his mates sought to stop it, the Doncs voted the legislation down.


pdm said...

Agreed i did you see the figures I put up last week in a couple of places re the growth of the Dow:

1974 700
1990 2,800
2008 11,000 - down from 14,000plus.

Yhe above represents a gain of 1,600% over 34 years.

Note: I have excluded todays trading.

The next 34 years may not be as spectacular but the foundations are being laid with this short term hiccup for solid growth to be achieved.

homepaddock said...

If you don't have to sell there's nothing to worry about. It's the people who'll be forced to sell who'll lose money.

Psycho Milt said...

Even when Dubbya and his mates sought to stop it, the Doncs voted the legislation down.

Actually, Dubya's own party colleagues voted it down.

Barnsley Bill said...

"Even when Dubbya and his mates sought to stop it, the Doncs voted the legislation down.

Actually, Dubya's own party colleagues voted it down."

Actually you are both right........

pdm said...

hp. even worse are the panic sellers. These are people who are in Investment Sectors they shouldn't be because they don't have the heart to `ride out' the bad times.

PM - as I understand it the Democrats had sufficient majority to carry the vote through. However, a number decided to `kill the bill' and voted against.

Psycho Milt said...

pdm - quite a few Democrats voted against, yes, but significantly more Republicans voted against a bill being promoted by a President and a Presidential candidate from their own party. I don't think there's any particular reason to point a finger at the Democrats here.

Clunking Fist said...

Gee, I could pull down some more mort on the house and buy some index funds. I'll be laughing when the market recovers.


Anonymous said...

Until you sell it, it's worth nothing.

pdm said...

pm. - it now seems it was a speech from Nancy Pelosi that turned both Republicans and Democrats against the Bill.

Adolf Fiinkensein said...

pdm it appears the Dems want a depression so that they can come riding to the rescue. There are more than a few hints in some of their own background comments.

pm, your latest is one of your more disingenuous comments. The Democrats have the MAJORITY in both houses. 65 Republicans voted yes. 95 Democrats voted no. Pelosi now admits she did not engage in any 'whipping' for the vote. How strange. She then made sure to outrage enough Republicans before the vote to reverse some of their previously indicated intentions.

The Doncs sank this thing on purpose.