Outlook Gloomy at Secret Billionaire Meeting

FireWeatherMet said:
the gov't wants to prevent the masses from doing something massively stupid with our retirment money....like losing biggtime by being wrong on market timing both on the up and downside.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I believe L funds are a great idea for those who have no ummm, desire:D to manage their TSP. In that case the contoller of the Investment has a professional responsibility to ease investor choices but lets not forget that it is our money and if you limit the choices smart investors will contribute the minimum to get the match and take the rest of their dollars elsewhere.
 
FWM,
I for one absolutely see where you are coming from. However, IMHO, what you talking about is not investing, it sounds more like a defined pension plan that you contribute to. And when you have money pools like that, ones in which you have no control over, they become enticing to those who can manipulate those who control it. You're making assumptions that someone else should be making our decisions for us by tightening controls so tight that contribitors will just leave it alone and grow or lose as the market moves in either direction.
If I am to be poor when I get older I for one want to be the cause of it. But that's just me.

Like I've said many times: Risk is time based in TSP. If you are young have at it, If you are getting close to retirement age enter at your own risk.
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Shorting the market will never be part of the TSP.

When you buy stocks in companies that should prosper in the long term, that's called "investing".

When you set up "bets" against stocks, that pay inversely...that's called "gambling". Nothing different than going to a blackjack table. Thats not investing.

Shorting is a powerful tool when used sparingly and presicely, but if allowed, would take away a big chunk of TSP money for a significant amount of FERS participants. Not a smart idea. We can all roll the dice with our private money that we don't rely on for retirement.
Click to expand...

I short currency all the time....reason? Because I can- Why? If you believe a stock will go up, you buy it...Why can't I short it for when it goes down? If you want to DCA in an order when it drops...be my guest!

"Shorting" made George Soros a ton of money- ask the Brits!....I would like to do the same....make enough to retire early....My count this year of successful trades=2,034, Buys=659, Sells=1,375. Trading is trading...Investing is investing. I'll trade, you invest - hope this time GM can make some money!:suspicious:
 
I can't short in my IRA account either, but we can buy short ETF's. How about an inverse TSP fund? ... It will probably never happen.
 
FireWeatherMet said:
We can all roll the dice with our private money that we don't rely on for retirement.
Click to expand...

We can role the dice, if we choose, with our retirement money also. Last time I checked we put it there. This does not mean I advocate doing so but people should be aloud to make that choice.
 
What else would they do? Successful people are usually successful because they love their work. They may not even consider it work, but a game or a challenge as was suggested. How would it be?

I am almost at that point (not money-wise, but loving what I do) but I'm a little too lazy to go the extra mile like they do. I'm happier being content, rather than going for the extra "score".

Hard work. It's an interesting concept. :) Add that to loving what you do and it's a pretty good formula.
 
crws said:
I personally find it hard to conceive what another 2, 3, 5 billion could do for an individual, but for the sport of it...
Click to expand...

I have to agree with you, crws. Once anybody reaches a certain level of wealth, all thats left is simply "keeping score."
 
tsptalk said:
Here it is... http://www.beltwaytalk.com/showthre...s-of-Bush-Tax-Cuts&p=4998&viewfull=1#post4998

I'm more concerned that these guys are pessimistic on the economy and investment opportunities, which won't be good for the TSP accounts, and may explain why the volume is light and the "big money" is not jumping in the market.
Click to expand...

I think, Tom, that they would be fighting for each other's wealth.
The market is cornered....
and the average folk know it, thus the run up in bonds.
I read somewhere, don't recall at the moment, but that financial deceptions such as our current situation take close to 10 years to fully recover.
I know you don't agree with Obama, but if you remember, one of his main goals was to minimize the boom & bust economic cycles and return to more of a healthy steady growth pattern.
OTW, the plethora of get rich quick schemes, investment bubbles, and rampant speculation are getting the frown.
I'd venture to say that would have an impact on O's popularity amongst those who got used to making a few billion a year, and can leverage communication to their benefit.
I personally find it hard to conceive what another 2, 3, 5 billion could do for an individual, but for the sport of it...
seems to distort the meaning of "a comfortable living".
m2c

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/15/concentration-of-wealth-in-hands-of-rich/
Concentration of wealth in hands of rich greatest on record
By Daniel Tencer
Published: August 15, 2009

Saez also broke the numbers down by administration, and found that while the wealthiest few saw their incomes rise as quickly during the Bush years as they did during the Clinton years, the same was not true for the rest of the population.

Saez suggests that the economic growth seen on paper during the Bush years was little more than an illusion for the vast majority of Americans, who saw their income grow much more slowly in the 2002-2007 period than they did during the Clinton years.

During both expansions, the incomes of the top 1 percent grew extremely quickly at an annual rate over 10.3 and 10.1 percent respectively. However, while the bottom 99 percent of incomes grew at a solid pace of 2.7 percent per year from 1993–2000, these incomes grew only 1.3 percent per year from 2002–2007. As a result, in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth.

Those results may help explain the disconnect between the economic experiences of the public and the solid macroeconomic growth posted by the US economy since 2002. Those results may also help explain why the dramatic growth in top incomes during the Clinton administration did not generate much public outcry while there has been an extraordinary level of attention to top incomes in the press and in the public debate over the last two years.

Saez, who this spring won the prestigious John Bates Clark Medal for economists under 40, links this disparity to the Bush tax cuts, noting that “top income tax rates went up in 1993 during the Clinton administration (and hence a larger share of the gains made by top incomes was redistributed) while top income tax rates went down in 2001 during the Bush administration.”
 
FireWeatherMet said:
Interesting...

My take is, reading between the lines...after a near 40% drop in upper tax rates over the past 30 years...they're in a panic because they'll go up 3%??
Still far ways away from the 70% top rate in 1980...or the 50% rate thru most of Reagans boom years.

An interesting graphical plot....top tax rates vs deficit. You end up seing that as tax cuts get enacted...deficits immediately go up. Tax hikes, and deficits go down.

You had an interesting link a few weeks ago, about the "ideal" top rate of near 42%.

The main thing that would help stabilize the US economy would be a steady reduction in the annual deficit...making the possibility of a US financial collapse less, and giving companies more comfort to invest in America as opposed to overseas.

Those saying the top tax rate going up 3% is going to send us into a tailspin is as rediculous as saying lowering mortgage rates from 6% a few years ago to near 4% today is going to to stimulate the housing market. The housing markets woes have nothing to do with mortgage rates like our recent recession and slow economic recovery has nothing to do with tax rates. Bigger issues abound iwth both....actually the same issue...the fiscal solvency of banks and of the United States Gov't, who props up the banks.
Click to expand...

Hey, FWM.
I'd like to add that the one point most overlooked in this foolish tax debate is that the upper income folks stand to gain as much if not more, because of positioning, as ordinary folk when the economy kicks in. The sooner that happens, the sooner we ALL benefit.
2011 will be a good year to be an accountant or CPA!

Reminds me of Mr. Burn's disdain when the Billionaire club found out he was only worth 9,999,999 and tossed him out to the AAA Millionaire's club.
BooHoo.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/hl-12552883/the_simpsons_billionaires_retreat_season_20/
 
tsptalk

tsptalk

Moderator
Staff member
Outlook Gloomy at Secret Billionaire Meeting

"For 25 years, legendary Wall Street strategist Byron Wien, now with The Blackstone Group, has held summer meetings with high net worth individuals to get their outlook on the global economy and investing. This year’s group, totaling fifty individuals and including more than 10 billionaires, was decidedly pessimistic on the U.S. economy, investment opportunities and the Obama administration.

More
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top