[Tail Gunner]

(01-27-2014 11:50 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Also enjoy that I am dead right that you own zero international farm land and yet give that advice out on the anti fragile thread. You're as keyboard jockey as they come. No money, no experience, no respect from me.

Enjoy your childish personal attacks. I know that I will. That simply establishes that you lost the debate.

I have money invested on three continents. Four after this Friday. I have nothing to prove. I try to help some people on this forum think about things that may help them in the future. Those with an eye for discernment will prosper. Others will not.

[T and A Man]

(01-27-2014 03:32 PM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Why respond? You made a statement that companies can use bonds to bring in cash. Sure, duh!

Now, can you tell me there will be the same amount of cash available to businesses if they strictly relied on bonds and there was no incentives for people to invest in stocks?

if there is no monetary inflation, thus base assets are always book value less depreciation, then what goes up on the ledger is either goodwill, or increased market share.

Branding, internal processes, value and supply chain management.

The thing that we pay management for.

Bonds always have a nominal face value, to beat that you need a well performing company.

To instill inflation means poor performing companies get rewarded too. it is in noone's best interests to have that.

Quote:

I mean, you said it yourself, people have to invest into something otherwise their cash erodes in value. If there was no erosion, there would be no need to invest.

It's called greed. People wil invest because they want more.

Bonds return a coupon, companies return a dividend.

Quote:

Now you're trying to tell me they would all invest in bonds and the same amount of cash available to businesses wouldn't change. Got a link to that fact? Besides the fact that the company owes that money back since it is debt.

Erhh, there are very few companies that don't have debt. Companies actually prefer debt because its cheaper than equity. However, lenders insist on equity ratios, thus companies have to go that way at time.

And in regards to paying for equity, in a no inflationary environment, equity would just have to pay a different premium.. in other words, pay the proper price.

Having people be forced to chase equity to hedge against inflation means they are captive, and thus the price paid for equity will probably be lower than it should be.

In other words, inflation becomes a form of welfare for companies.

You point out these types of welfare when asserting rampant systematic welfare is destroying civilisation?

I agree with the premise however, I have found out this more than ever as I now deal with equity raisings in my company.

The game is rigged. It is rigged for asset holders, to the detriment of savers and workers.

Inflation makes people 'pay', when they don't know they are paying.

[WestCoast]

(01-28-2014 12:11 AM)Tail Gunner Wrote:  

(01-27-2014 11:50 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  

Also enjoy that I am dead right that you own zero international farm land and yet give that advice out on the anti fragile thread. You're as keyboard jockey as they come. No money, no experience, no respect from me.

Enjoy your childish personal attacks. I know that I will. That simply establishes that you lost the debate.

I have money invested on three continents. Four after this Friday. I have nothing to prove. I try to help some people on this forum think about things that may help them in the future. Those with an eye for discernment will prosper. Others will not.

What "debate" you're my new favorite on this forum.

You said I'll repeat "correction likely to come soon" I don't have time to say the exact verbage by back spacing a page. You're not god bro. Neither am I. Notice I don't make such ridiculous guesses on the world economy and make an ass of myself.

This was a phenomenal interaction though. I am laughing my ass off in real life.

I'll see you at the top in that case and hope your international player "4 investments" work out because we'll see those data sheets soon right? Since you're global already it seems ... (Crickets)

Note to intelligent readers notice he dodged the question and said 4 continent investments. That could be as weak as $100 invested in one stock in 4 different countries. By that logic I'm invested in the world! Big ballin!

[T and A Man]

(01-27-2014 03:07 PM)RougeNoir Wrote:  

Are you talking 3-5K per monthly investment? (Month 1: $5000 to pay for 25 shares @ $200, Month 2: $5000 to pay for 28 shares at $175, etc) Or, are you talking about needing to have 3-5K for the life of the investment?

He is saying that you don't lay down your money until you have $5000 of unencumbered cash to splurge.

You need around $5,025 dollars, to make a $5,000 purchase, as approx $25 disappears in a transaction friction, namely brokerage fees.

You're down 0.5%, meaning your $5,000 have to work 0.5% harder for your to break even. The smaller you invest, the greater it has to work to recoup your costs.

A $250 outlays needs to work 10% harder to get your $25 back for example.

[worldwidetraveler]

Hey T and A Man,

(01-28-2014 12:33 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

To instill inflation means poor performing companies get rewarded too. it is in noone's best interests to have that.

I would be surprised if a company was able to stay afloat solely based on inflation.

Quote:

Quote:

I mean, you said it yourself, people have to invest into something otherwise their cash erodes in value. If there was no erosion, there would be no need to invest.

It's called greed. People wil invest because they want more.

Bonds return a coupon, companies return a dividend.

I agree and mentioned greed when it came to certain bubbles. That comment was in response to SpecialEd stating no one would invest in stocks if it wasn't for it being pegged to inflation.

Still, greed based investing tends to be short term from what I have seen. Most want to get in and get out which doesn't really help anyone.

Not all companies pay a dividend.

Quote:

Erhh, there are very few companies that don't have debt. Companies actually prefer debt because its cheaper than equity. However, lenders insist on equity ratios, thus companies have to go that way at time.

I would say that depends on why the company needed a cash infusion.

I could see taking on debt for things like production increases to meet demands. For me, I wouldn't want to be saddled with too much debt unless there was an immediate boost to my bottom line.

If you look at a company like Amazon. Focusing on growth and not profits allowed them to grow fast which kept competitors from sneaking up on them. That is the problem with some markets, the barriers of entry are small and if you show something to be successful the clones come out very quickly.

Doing so completely on debt would have been a disaster, imo.

Besides, I wouldn't invest in a company with too much debt.

Quote:

And in regards to paying for equity, in a no inflationary environment, equity would just have to pay a different premium.. in other words, pay the proper price.

Having people be forced to chase equity to hedge against inflation means they are captive, and thus the price paid for equity will probably be lower than it should be.

Sorry, I didn't understand why it would be lower if more people are actively investing. It is hard to generalize this since companies are different and the appeal of those companies will be different to investors.

Quote:

In other words, inflation becomes a form of welfare for companies.

I don't see it as welfare unless you were talking about all companies getting the same amount of money without worrying about competition for those investments.

Quote:

I agree with the premise however, I have found out this more than ever as I now deal with equity raisings in my company.

Good luck with that. Keep us updated, I would be interested to hearing how things go for you.

Quote:

The game is rigged. It is rigged for asset holders, to the detriment of savers and workers.

Agree. Is encouraging people to not sit on their money and invest into assets a bad thing?

[Sawyer]

Quote:

Agree. Is encouraging people to not sit on their money and invest into assets a bad thing?

It is if you value stability. Stability rewards the innocent. If you value innocence, you value stability. Of course innocence is a value beyond investment gain, and therefore not relevant to this thread. But it is relevant to the society in which investment exists.

So do people have a greater right to exist outside the investment world than the investment world has a right to encompass the innocent? I don't ever argue "for the people" but I do argue for the innocent.

I don't think inflation is worth it. It fosters societal malinvestment in the human soul.

[T and A Man]

(01-28-2014 01:13 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

Hey T and A Man,

(01-28-2014 12:33 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

To instill inflation means poor performing companies get rewarded too. it is in noone's best interests to have that.

I would be surprised if a company was able to stay afloat solely based on inflation.

Well in Australia for example, we have a compulsory superannuation system, similar to 401k. Much of it is is equity based investment.

The top 8-10 stocks of our stock exchange comprise around 50% of its the total ASX's market cap.

In other words, compusory money is pumped into these stocks continuously. It does mask poor performance.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

I mean, you said it yourself, people have to invest into something otherwise their cash erodes in value. If there was no erosion, there would be no need to invest.

It's called greed. People wil invest because they want more.

Bonds return a coupon, companies return a dividend.

I agree and mentioned greed when it came to certain bubbles. That comment was in response to SpecialEd stating no one would invest in stocks if it wasn't for it being pegged to inflation.

If he was to rephrase it as people would re-evaluate stocks vs bonds in the absence of inflation, would that makes more sense?

Quote:

Still, greed based investing tends to be short term from what I have seen. Most want to get in and get out which doesn't really help anyone.

Greed is just wanting more. If greed is the motive, but can be contained to not influence sound investment decisions, it is then benign.

People will always want more, they don't need stocks prices linked to inflation to obtain it.

Quote:

Not all companies pay a dividend.

They are companies that serve different purposes in a portfolio, however I'll concede that, and reclassify it as ROE.

Quote:

Quote:

Erhh, there are very few companies that don't have debt. Companies actually prefer debt because its cheaper than equity. However, lenders insist on equity ratios, thus companies have to go that way at time.

I would say that depends on why the company needed a cash infusion.

They don't, it's just called leverage. If debt is cheaper than equity, yuo get debt. It's just you can't really get 100% unsecured debt funding.

Quote:

I could see taking on debt for things like production increases to meet demands. For me, I wouldn't want to be saddled with too much debt unless there was an immediate boost to my bottom line.

Bankers/lenders do to, that's why they insist on equity ratios, so losses come out of equity.

Quote:

If you look at a company like Amazon. Focusing on growth and not profits allowed them to grow fast which kept competitors from sneaking up on them. That is the problem with some markets, the barriers of entry are small and if you show something to be successful the clones come out very quickly.

Umm, that's not a 'problem', that is what we all want fro our market system.

Amazon, like all companies, will stop growing fast one day. When it does, that's when dividends occur.

Quote:

Doing so completely on debt would have been a disaster, imo.[/qute]

It'd be cheaper, its just what type of loss(es) do bonds holders expose themselves to. It's one of the reasons equity pays more, more risk.

Quote:

Besides, I wouldn't invest in a company with too much debt.

You'd have to be wondering about a company too little either, before investing in it.

Quote:

[quote]
And in regards to paying for equity, in a no inflationary environment, equity would just have to pay a different premium.. in other words, pay the proper price.

Having people be forced to chase equity to hedge against inflation means they are captive, and thus the price paid for equity will probably be lower than it should be.

Sorry, I didn't understand why it would be lower if more people are actively investing.

If people aren't defaulting to inevsting in stocks, out of being forced to hedge inflation, then investing incurs more of an opportunity cost.

In other words, companies have to give a greater incentive, namely more yield. Higher yield means lower stock price.

Quote:

It is hard to generalize this since companies are different and the appeal of those companies will be different to investors.

or non-investment.. as I said, opportunity cost.

Quote:

Quote:

In other words, inflation becomes a form of welfare for companies.

I don't see it as welfare unless you were talking about all companies getting the same amount of money without worrying about competition for those investments.

Getting money for nothing is welfare. If asserting my claim about increased yields, then there is a wealth transferance... free money.

Quote:

Quote:

I agree with the premise however, I have found out this more than ever as I now deal with equity raisings in my company.

Good luck with that. Keep us updated, I would be interested to hearing how things go for you.

I'm on the other side, I try to protect my clients from conmen.

Quote:

Quote:

The game is rigged. It is rigged for asset holders, to the detriment of savers and workers.

Agree. Is encouraging people to not sit on their money and invest into assets a bad thing?

if we all endorse having the best party on the titanic yes.

Western civilisation grew to be the best of all time because we all agreed in consensus to make short term sacrifices.

Most westerners here, including the ones that have climbed from poverty, have done so on the back of these communal sacrifices giving opportunity.

It's narcissistic to claim that we all work harder, and are smarter than the Ethiopian farmer, we have socitieis opportunities underwriting much of what we do.

It's quite vivd in the manosphere, particularly the WN's, for many to claim that their success are due to personal exceptionalism, and failures are down to "gum'int!".

It would be as apt to claim their successes are down to "gum'int!", with free secondary education, accessible tertiary education, relatively transparent laws and taxation... and their failures are their lack of personal exceptionalism.

I just guess I got some code of honour I can't get rid of.

[worldwidetraveler]

T and A, I won't be going through your posts with responses.

You have your view and I have mine based on my own experiences running a company in a very competitive market.

I focus my attention on what will be the best for me and the life I want to live.

I will let you guys decide what is right or wrong with the world. I am not interested in rants and the doom and gloom so many are fond of here. I certainly won't be apologizing for not being an Ethiopian farmer.

To try and take away others achievements just because they were born in a Western country is pretty ridiculous. That is like saying you're not a player unless you're broke, haven't showered for years and didn't work as a farmer in a 3rd world country who only had one testicle because of some weird goat fiasco.

Quote:

I just guess I got some code of honour I can't get rid of.

Not narcissistic at all there.

[Sawyer]

Quote:

It would be as apt to claim their successes are down to "gum'int!", with free secondary education, accessible tertiary education, relatively transparent laws and taxation.

And these institutions are created by whom?

The communal sacrifices of which you speak are not to the institutions people leave, which can obviously be corrupted beyond recognition, but to their creed. The creed keeps the institutions in check. Which is why the enemy seeks to see the creed constantly diluted. Which enables the creedless to inflate for personal gain. As the creed is diluted, so is the currency.

Whites are not exceptional in themselves, but they are exceptional in that people flock to the societies they create. They are exceptional by popular vote. You'll never fight inflation by denying facts.

By the way this thread is awesome. It's a chicken or egg situation, obviously there can be no agreement. But in the end, business will flourish no matter the system -- business will find a way. But business shouldn't lead. Business should be a subject, not a master.

[T and A Man]

(01-28-2014 02:09 AM)Sawyer Wrote:  

Quote:

It would be as apt to claim their successes are down to "gum'int!", with free secondary education, accessible tertiary education, relatively transparent laws and taxation.

And these institutions are created by whom?

The communal sacrifices of which you speak are not to the institutions people leave, which can obviously be corrupted beyond recognition, but to their creed.

I agree. But in first iteration thinking, there are no benefits and one is not serving self-interest when ones thought is shallow.

Aurini is one which takls about 'collaboration' being another male traits driven by testosterone, though one which isn't spoken of much, instead of opting for dark-triad, first iteration thinking.

We can be as equally indifferent to our own creed, as those that are not.

Quote:

The creed keeps the institutions in check. Which is why the creed must constantly be diluted. Which enables the creedless to inflate for personal gain.

They can't manage this unless they are aided by useful idiots, making others thinking they can join them. All they do is allow proper measures to keep them in check becomes diluted.

Quote:

Whites are not exceptional in themselves, but they are exceptional in that people flock to the societies they create. They are exceptional by popular vote. You'll never fight inflation by denying facts.

popular vote probably enables inflation more than keeps it in check.

[Sawyer]

Quote:

popular vote probably enables inflation more than keeps it in check.

Agree 100%, because it dilutes creed. But I meant voting with feet.

[T and A Man]

(01-28-2014 02:07 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

T and A, I won't be going through your posts with responses.

You have your view and I have mine based on my own experiences running a company in a very competitive market.

Then you would have a bias for inflation shifting wealth to you. It's a perfectly rational thing to do.

Quote:

I focus my attention on what will be the best for me and the life I want to live.

I can understand that. But societal advancement doesn't occur when 100% of the population only think of getting theirs, otherwise women would be leading us to 'equal greatness'.

I think there is a common viewpoint about that.

Quote:

I will let you guys decide what is right or wrong with the world. I am not interested in rants and the doom and gloom so many are fond of here.

I'm not a doom merchant, I'm just asserting I do not believe inflation is a net benefit.

Quote:

I certainly won't be apologizing for not being an Ethiopian farmer.

No one asked you to.

Quote:

To try and take away others achievements just because they were born in a Western country is pretty ridiculous.

I don't.

My primary point was to take away claims of achievement, when inflation has handed up a free, unearned gift.

My secondary point was the many achievements are underwritten by a better society, and that where these undrwritings are absent, many valuable people cannot advance.

A stable society ultimately leads to benefits for us all, and is second iteration thinking

Quote:

That is like saying you're not a player unless you're broke, haven't showered for years and didn't work as a farmer in a 3rd world country who only had one testicle because of some weird goat fiasco.

That's a more ridiculous comparison than anything I've made.

You can't figure out actuarial science, or chemical engineering by yourself no matter how "ZOMG alpha!!" you are. We now live in a society where the where a slect few actuaries and chemical engineers make our life better, we are benefice of their efforts.

For this benefit, you need institutes of learning, you need sound governance in law and money. All of these are underwriiten by communal sacrifices and maintained by a stable society.

Quote:

Quote:

I just guess I got some code of honour I can't get rid of.

Not narcissistic at all there.

yes.

I recognise that sound society needs sacrifice. I am willing to burden my share. I applaud those that carry a burden.

narcissism indeed.

[worldwidetraveler]

(01-28-2014 02:38 AM)T and A Man Wrote:  

Quote:

That is like saying you're not a player unless you're broke, haven't showered for years and didn't work as a farmer in a 3rd world country who only had one testicle because of some weird goat fiasco.

That's a more ridiculous comparison than anything I've made.

Was it the one testicle that pushed it over the top? Maybe if there wasn't inflation he could have saved the other testicle.

[WestCoast]

(01-28-2014 02:07 AM)worldwidetraveler Wrote:  

T and A, I won't be going through your posts with responses.

You have your view and I have mine based on my own experiences running a company in a very competitive market.

I focus my attention on what will be the best for me and the life I want to live.

I will let you guys decide what is right or wrong with the world. I am not interested in rants and the doom and gloom so many are fond of here. I certainly won't be apologizing for not being an Ethiopian farmer.

To try and take away others achievements just because they were born in a Western country is pretty ridiculous. That is like saying you're not a player unless you're broke, haven't showered for years and didn't work as a farmer in a 3rd world country who only had one testicle because of some weird goat fiasco.

Quote:

I just guess I got some code of honour I can't get rid of.

Not narcissistic at all there.

And the bolded will make all the difference.

Again if you know there is inflation. You know owning assets is the right move and you are saving your money... What is preventing you from buying assets?

Nothing.

[2014]

https://www-uk.computershare.com

thoughts on this company?

[Switch]

Warren Buffett also said to "keep all of your eggs in one basket, but watch that basket very closely." I wonder which one he truly believes.

[Steve9]

(01-24-2014 05:46 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

I've changed my mind. It is all a crock of shit. Nobody knows anything.

cardguy, you may like to read the book "Free Capital" by Guy Thomas.

The book profiles 12 of your fellow Englishmen who are private investors. Each of them has accumulated £1 million or more – in most cases considerably more – from stock market investments.

Quote:

Personal investing can radically change your life. It is probably not reasonable to plan on the basis that it will, but it can; and for each of the 12 investors profiled in this book, it has.
The freedom which investors enjoy from the drudgery of conventional careers is attractive to many people, but possible paths to achieving this through personal investment are obscure to most. Each of the profiles in this book illustrate one such path.

This is not a ‘how-to’ book or a manifesto, it is a collection of personal stories; but I hope that private investors who read it will, as well as enjoying the stories for their own interest, find some thoughts which can be used to improve their own investment performance.

The people in this book are not high earners who have accumulated wealth primarily through their salaries, nor entrepreneurs who have built and sold businesses for cash, nor trustafarians living idly off unearned inheritances.

Instead the people in this book are principally investors: they have accumulated free capital through their own decisions in the stock market, in most cases starting with modest savings from a salary. The skills and temperament required to do this are different from those required to advance in most careers and organisations, and also different from those of an entrepreneur. Personal investing requires no deference, self-promotion, management skills or tact; it requires only a few good decisions.

It is a field where outsiders can excel: an individualistic game loosely defined by rules which are sufficiently static to make experience valuable, but also sufficiently fluid to keep the game interesting.

You can read the first chapter here :

http://www.guythomas.org.uk/investment/freecap.php

[davidvs]

(01-24-2014 06:55 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

I think clearing your mortgage - or not having to pay rent - is better than investing in the market. There is no better feeling than not having to write a check to the bank or your landlord each month.

If the better feeling is what best helps your quality of life, go for it.

By my mortgage is doing three important things:

1. It is my family's protection against inflation. As the dollar is worth less, the debt is worth less. For this reason anyone with significant investments should also have some debt.

2. It is the cheapest debt I can have. I have a fixed rate mortgage at 3.875%. The stock market 10-year average is 7.67%. So I could pay off my mortgage. But not doing so is equivalent to the bank loaning me money to invest -- I get the difference (3.8%).

3. Moreover, what I actually have to pay is less than that 3.875% because having the mortgage gives me a tax break. So bank is actually loaning me money that earns me more than that 3.8% difference.

Obviously, these are only true for long-term investors. If you are not using the money which you could use to pay off your mortgage to invest, that plan is not about you. If you do not have a long-term time span for your investment goals, that plan is not about you.

[cooledcannon]

(01-27-2014 08:27 AM)WestCoast Wrote:  

This thread has made it increasingly clear to me that the average person does not know anything about finance or the economy.

Here I am talking to people with above average IQs and yet people want to argue that inflation is bad.

How come every single bull market has rampant inflation? If you can't answer that you seriously are an arm chair historian.

Even if you don't believe me (because you don't want to bother looking up the CPI for the last 100 years in any major economy) and think inflation is still "bad"... Then just follow my advice and dollar cost into indexes or buy assets like homes etc.

.
.
.


Fuck it I will give you the answer. inflation just means money is aggressively moving around the economy. That is why I don't care about it. As jr put it deflation means people stop spending, hence the 09 downturn. If you're going to believe otherwise that tells me everything I need to know about your finance/economic knowledge.

Sorry for reviving this old post.

Austrian economics suggests that both booms and busts are bad, often the boom is even worse than the bust. They believe that both of them result in worse outcomes than the market wants.

Booms mean people are overconfident in investment; so they put more of their money in investment than they should. This results in more people/businesses doing risky things, even if objectively it doesnt add value to the economy. Sort of like a bubble.

Busts have to occur after the boom; sort of like every bubble has to burst. It is the market reversing itself.

I believe inflation occurs when the government/central banks print money, devaluing everyone elses money. So when inflation occurs, all of your assets lose value.

I dont believe spending drives the economy; I believe adding value to it does, because assets are proxies for value. People should spend when it adds value, and save when theres nothing worth spending on.

Its interesting to me, but I think that covers the difference between Keynesian and Austrian economics

[LeBeau]

30 min primer that does a better job than many textbooks:

[cooledcannon]

(01-26-2014 06:32 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

So - if somebody own a home - you think they would be better of selling it and buying a security.

And then just start renting each month?

Interesting. I have never considered that before. I am not sure about the US - but the UK is famous for its obsession with home ownership and house prices. So it is interesting to hear something different in this area.

Pretty much. There are some benefits to owning a home- like you dont have to deal with landlords etc and you have complete freedom over that house, and maybe tax breaks; but there are also benefits to renting(location independence, owner has to deal with many problems with the house)

When you buy a house, you become a real estate investor whether you want to or not. Investment is risky; I reckon index funds are less risky and more profitable on average than real estate. Real estate is also far less liquid than stocks are(liquidity is good, as you can quickly access it if you need it for emergencies), and have higher % fees(real estate brokers)

So much so that I would only go real estate if I researched the prices and the trends properly like an investor would. Or am rich enough not to care either way.

[Feisbook Control]

(05-28-2014 12:14 AM)cooledcannon Wrote:  

(01-26-2014 06:32 PM)cardguy Wrote:  

So - if somebody own a home - you think they would be better of selling it and buying a security.

And then just start renting each month?

Interesting. I have never considered that before. I am not sure about the US - but the UK is famous for its obsession with home ownership and house prices. So it is interesting to hear something different in this area.

Pretty much. There are some benefits to owning a home- like you dont have to deal with landlords etc and you have complete freedom over that house, and maybe tax breaks; but there are also benefits to renting(location independence, owner has to deal with many problems with the house)

When you buy a house, you become a real estate investor whether you want to or not. Investment is risky; I reckon index funds are less risky and more profitable on average than real estate. Real estate is also far less liquid than stocks are(liquidity is good, as you can quickly access it if you need it for emergencies), and have higher % fees(real estate brokers)

So much so that I would only go real estate if I researched the prices and the trends properly like an investor would. Or am rich enough not to care either way.

Yes.

The thing that I always find interesting about houses is that everyone is supposedly an expert on real estate. Real estate agents and big players not only have vastly more experience than the average person when it comes to these things, but they also have access to huge amounts of data that the average person either doesn't have access to or does not look at. Yet the same people who will talk about the stock market involving speculation are purely speculative when it comes to real estate.

The other amusing thing is looking at the process involved. Flick a few light switches, flush a toilet, draw some blinds, run your hand along the kitchen bench, rustle a few leaves on the trees in the backyard. Mate, I got a bargain! Do I know what I'm doing or what? Can't go wrong. Houses only ever go up in value. Sweet! Fuckin' genius, mate.

[turuk]

F*ck, I didn't the follow the rule of diversifying, put all my money into the green market/marijuana growing business in US. I'm down 60% in assets. Put 15k of my cash into it. Probably it will get up but I hope before a market crash, otherwise I will loose my money for coming years.

[Steve9]

(05-28-2014 07:30 AM)turuk Wrote:  

F*ck, I didn't the follow the rule of diversifying, put all my money into the green market/marijuana growing business in US. I'm down 60% in assets. Put 15k of my cash into it. Probably it will get up but I hope before a market crash, otherwise I will loose my money for coming years.

Many of the US weed stocks are scams. Sometimes it is better to cut your losses when you have made bad investments rather than hoping to get even.