The Good News Is That The Stock Market Went UP over 50%... FIFTY Percent!

[arwalden]

And the freepers are delirious about the year-end news. But don't they realize that it's still WORSE than when Clinton left office? And don't they realize that the short term gains are at the expense of our national debt and rids on the shoulders of future generations of Americans? And don't they realize that when you're at the bottom, the only way to go is "up".

So why are they so happy? They need a reality check, eh?

-- Allen

[Racenut20]

1. 50% of zero is zero.

[joeunderdog]

101. Must be happy to have gotten Cisco at 86. Now at 24 and cruising!

How many blue chips are performing the same? My portfolio is still pathetic. Hearing about how well the market is doing is only a momentary lapse of depression for most investors. Then, the montly statement comes...and along with it, reality.

Not many people who are still down 50% Post-Clinton are fooled.

[mopinko]

2. huh??

calculated how?? it hit a low of about 7000something, and is now at 10500. how does this add up to over 50%? or am i just stupid.

[YNGW]

4. 50%

7000 divided by 50% = 3500

7000 + 3500 = 10,500, or an increase of 50%.

[Vitruvius]

92. And if Bu$h had tanked the market down to 500, it would be up 2,100%

at the same 10,500 or so... But the net return under Bu$h is still NEGATIVE, as ARWalden pointed out in his original post.

And if Bu$h successfully steals another election, watch out below! He may yet crack 1000 -- from above.

[Skittles]

3. IGNORANCE IS BLISS

THAT'S WHY FREEPERS ARE HAPPY.

[radwriter0555]

5. LOL! Easy to go up from ROCK BOTTOM. Where else are you going to GO?

Hmmmm...... GOPSpeak for stuff and nonsense.

[West Coast Democrat]

6. US $Dollar$ is Worth MUCH LESS

factor that into the equation.

[louis-t]

17. excellent point

bush admin using devaluation of dollar to bolster economic news. Another short term gain (effect on market) with long term consequences. Repubs would destroy our economy and that of the rest of the world, kill millions of people, lay waste to the earth just to win an election and keep the $ flowing from big business.

[nolabels]

97. They don't even get that the US is the Multinationals little slave

When ever the multinationals need something they just put in a request to the beltway for delivery.

These freeping fools need to be sent back to elementary school or least read one book or something. I am more than willing to admit I am no financial genius. It just does not seem to me that stealing from Paul to make payments to Peter on a loan you just picked up from him at compound interest rates (bonds)is that smart.

It seems to not to make a whole lot of sense, even if Peter was threatening to starve me to death if I didn't make the installment payment to him. I am ready to throw some more tea in the harbor, I am not willing to be anybodies curmudgeon

The people running the US government are nothing but confirmed wimps ( they probably even used Popeye's "Wimpy" as model for their life, I would be willing to bet)

The US has amassed the largest, most incredible debt the world has ever seen. Many peoples grandchildren of grandchildren will be paying for it one way or the the other, so when will somebody say "stop already".

[Frodo]

23. Why "factor that into the equation" ?

Do you buy your groceries with Euros? Or your Gas with Yen?

If you get a 4% raise did you actually get a 30% pay cut because you aren't going to be paid in dollars anymore?


A dollar is STILL worth a dollar (minus 1/5% for inflation).

[MadHound]

44. Actually, in a roundabout way you do

Several oil producing countries are now tieing their oil price to the euro. Imports into this country are more expensive, exports out are worth less. The deflating dollar makes foreign investors nervous, hence they pull their money out, which effects you and me. This is a global economy now, and with a weak dollar the US will suffer, both in the short and long term.

That is why you factor dollar value into the equation.

[Frodo]

66. Which oil companies?

I have only seem speculation. If one company were to do it alone they're product would immediately go up in price relative to their competition still charging dollars... why would they do that?

They have to move together.

[MadHound]

79. Darn that dyslexia

I stated in my post oil countries, you read oil companies. Don't worry, we've all suffered from that;)

Anyway, to answer your question, the only countries that have switched to euros are small ones, former Soviet bloc countries that have little clout. But Russia and OPEC are both seriously flirting with the idea, and if that happens, well you can kiss our recovering economy goodbye. Here is a helpful little article to shed some light on the subject.
<http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/crisis/2003/1010oilpriceeuro.htm>

[West Coast Democrat]

51. The US Dollar does not exist in a vacuum

a dollar is not always worth a dollar.

[Frodo]

65. Actually it is.

In the absence of inflation, a dollar is worth a dollar. You may buy something produced overseas that costs more dollars and thus have some diminished purchasing power, but your home, probably your car, the food you eat, your retirement savings, etc are all in dollars.

[MadHound]

84. Economics 101

A dollar is only worth the goods and/or services that a customer is willing to exchange for it. Right now, foreign countries are willing to only exchange less goods/services for that dollar. Since a large part(if not the majority) of our goods are now imported, our dollar is worth less and this drop in value effects all of us negatively.

This weakening of the dollar is in no way made up for in our exports, since we have a record high trade deficit, and the old fallback, tourism, seems to have just gone out the window with these color coded terror alerts and now fingerprinting every foreign tourist. Talk about unfriendly.

And if Russia and OPEC go to euro for oil pricing, you will start to live the Great Depression II.

[West Coast Democrat]

91. Very True, MadHound

It seems that nearly everything Americans buy is imported from somewhere else; we do very little manufacturing. Anyone who thinks a falling dollar doesn't matter is just being foolish.

[camero]

7. Another bubble

I read that the same players who drove the market to be overpriced with their greed are in the market again. The same forces are at work and P/E ratios are still too high.

[MISSDem]

8. The stock market is up and my RSP is making money so I am

happy too. Would you really rather that the economy be in the toilet just so it can be blamed on Bush? Pleeze. Besides the President doesn't really have anything to do with the economy.

[KansDem]

9. Really???

Then why does His Royal Flatulence blame Bill Clinton for his recession?

As 2004 Nears, Bush Pins Slump on Clinton

By Dana Milbank
Tuesday, July 1, 2003; Page A11


With the start of his reelection campaign in the past two weeks, President Bush has revived his pastime of blaming his predecessor, Bill Clinton, for the economic recession.
(more)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A54318-2003Jun30?language=printer

Why???

[MISSDem]

10. I don't know why they do that. It is politics as usual.

Both sides do it. (I should have said don't know why they do that)

[Cat Atomic]

15. Are you saying the "Reagan Boom" was a myth?

I mean, it was of course, but are you saying that?

[JanMichael]

13. The Stock Market is NOT the Economy.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

Oh and Presidents, along with Congress, certainly DO have something to do with the Economy. They can grow, maintain, and/or crash it.

[milliner]

77. use your deffinition

and what would that be?

[JanMichael]

90. Good lord. Do you you honestly think that the SM IS the Economy?

I hope that I'm leaping to a false conclusion here but that what it sounded like.

It's a gauge, nothing more. On extreme ends it can have more of an effect on the Economy than when it's within normal ranges but, once again, it isn't the entire Economy. Nor is it the only gauge of the health of the Economy.

Unemployment (Both reported and effective rates).

The Dollar.

US Bonds.

Housing Starts.

Manufacturing Numbers.

Hourly Income Earned by Sector.

Employment by Industry and Type.

Personal Debt.

Residential Foreclosure Numbers.

Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

[MadHound]

16. Then I would suggest you get your money out now

While you are still ahead. P/E ratios are still over the top, the market is increasing in points to make up for the dropping dollar, consumer confidence is still shaky, record underemployment, record deficits, and the hits just keep on coming.

Even that staid magazine of the market, Barrons, is calling this "The Greatest Sucker Rally Ever". Time for all the non-suckers to cut and run. I'd say offhand that you have until about ohh, early Novemember of the this year, then all bets are off.

[Sir_Shrek]

78. This is why the more time you have...

...the better the stock market treats you.

I've probably got about 80% of my retirement funds in stocks. Aggressive stocks. But I've also got, at the minimum, 35 years before I retire.

Do you think the stock market will be up in 1 year from where it is right now? Maybe, maybe not.

2 years? Maybe, maybe not.

5 years? Likely, but who knows?

10 years? Pretty likely. We may have a dips here and there....

20 years? Pretty likely. We probably will have a few dips here and there, but...

....you see where I'm going with this.

Of course, if you don't have a long time horizon, you shouldn't be so heavily in stocks...and the stocks probably shouldn't be all that aggressive. Again, indivudal situations...

[MadHound]

11. This whole country needs a reality check

Let's see, we have the numbers of unemployed being cooked, the numbers of underemployed at record levels, wholesale replacement of well paying manufacturing jobs with low paying McJobs, the first budding of stagflation, a housing market that is starting to slide, consumer confidence that is shaky at best, a record deficit, a sinking dollar, and the country is buying the BS that the economy is just peachy because the stock market went up. This country needs to stop the spin and listen to the reality of the situation.

The market went up due to two events. One, it is making up in numbers for the sinking dollar. Dollar's value goes down, market force are going to push the numbers up. The overall real value of the market is staying roughly the same as it was last year, give or take ten percent. The second event is the fact that the market is being propped up by the extended Bushco family. They learned well from their lesson with Poppy that you at least had to have the numbers looking good come election time, so they do the Anderson accounting on various economic stats(only to revise them quietly a month later), and they prop up the financial markets. We've all heard of the Plunge Protection Team, that quiet cadre of Wall Street insiders who were gathered together by Poppy Bush back in '87. Originally designed as a market resuscitation team in order to forestall another disaster like '87, this group of moneyed elite are more than willing to pour their money into the market when the blue chips are plunging. However, it has been noted here and elsewhere that the PPT seems to be expanding on it's original mandate, and are now willing to prop up the market for political gain. Though this remains an unprovable development, influencial groups are taking a look at the market's fluctuations and crying foul. Even that venerable magazine of the market, Barrons, has noticed the political/market ties, and is decrying it, calling it the "Greatest Sucker Rally Ever"(Jeremy Grantham, Barrons, 11/5/03).

But unfortunately it seems that once again the people are being lulled to sleep. The market is up, the spinmeisters are whirling, and the books are cooking. My prediction is that there is going to be little besides good economic news from here to November, with anything that is negative simply mentioned in passing and then disappearing down the memory hole(like the greater than expected consumer confidence drop in November, and the flatline Christmas sales numbers). But once Bush is guaranteed a second term, look out. With no constraints holding it(excepting Jeb's coranation in '08), Bushco will drop the facade and the public will finally wake up to the fact that we are in deep economic doo-doo and have been since '00. Perhaps this will stir the people to action, perhaps not. Let us hope so, for otherwise this country will simply go down the memory hole, joining all of those negative numbers.

[MISSDem]

12. People decide how the economy is doing by how their own life is going,

not by all of this stuff you listed. Personally, the company I work for is doing great, says the bonus checks are in the mail, my RSP account is booming and I had money to give large cash gifts for Christmas. The economy is fine by me and I'm a card carrying Democrat.

[Sir_Shrek]

20. Agreed

If we wanted to rank the economy by my 2003 experience alone, it's a super-bull-market-ultra-fantastic-year.

[JanMichael]

22. Myopic people I suppose.

Thinking people don't however. They may see the "Free Trade" race to the bottom, increasing residential foreclosures, high effective unemployment, outsourced middle class jobs, etcetera, as not so rosy.

PS~ I'm doing great too, however I realize that there's a whole big world outside of my own, give it a try:-)

[Sir_Shrek]

28. Oh I know it...

January 2003 saw me living in an apartment with no phone, teleivision, barely functional heat (which I couldn't turn on much anyway because I couldn't afford the bill), and no furniture. After rent and a car payment (about $800 total), I had about $60 for the rest of the month (had no phone because I couldn't afford it).

Take any period of time and you're going to find instances of economic hardship. Businesses go under in good times and bad. People lose jobs in good times and bad. Frankly, I was the one who put myself in the living situation I was in....I didn't mean to, but that was the result. But when it gets down to it, it's all personal and it's all relative. A thinking person would acknowledge that.

[Timefortruth]

69. So those who are not prosperous chose that fate?

Well send me a list, where do I start toward prosperity.

[Sir_Shrek]

72. Didn't say that....

I was trying to differentiate my situation from others.

[Tansy_Gold]

29. I'm not myopic

but my personal financial situation is not helped one iota by the latest bubble in the stock market. I am unemployed, my husband hasn't had a raise in six years, and. . . .

But of course, if ONE person on DU is doing well, I must be lying through my teeth or totally delusional.

[MadHound]

38. Not so, while one's own personal finances may be doing well,

Most people have the common sense to look beyond their own well being to see what is threatening them on the horizon. Me, yes, I've done fairly well economically speaking this year, got a raise(the first in two years), my wife and I bought a little acreage with a big fixer upper house, we're doing OK. But we also realize that there is an economic storm over the horizon, that the current economic situation is tenous at best, hence we are making plans taking this information into consideration. We spent frugally on Christmas(and judging from the flat Christmas sales reports, so did a lot of other people), we've switched our stocks into bonds, and other than items to fix the house, we are holding our spending in check. Judging by the dropping consumer confidence numbers, a lot of other people are doing the same.

So that while yes, you and I are doing well, it is a fool who will simply judge matters by how well they are doing without taking the big picture into consideration. To do so is to guarantee an appointment in bankruptcy courts.

[MISSDem]

52. Use dollar cost averaging and stay in the stock market because

the market always comes back. If it doesn't then you and I and our financial planners will all be without a job and non of this will matter. We'll all be looking for some land to do subsistence farming.

[MadHound]

68. Yes, the market always comes back, that tired old canard.

However sometimes it takes longer than others(after the Great Depression it took nearly thirty years, I don't have that kind of time). I'm staying out of stocks until I see what goes down in November. Then based on those results I will plan my own future. When even a bullish market rag like Barrons is crying sucker rally, then I think one should take heed.

And don't laugh at subsistence farming. Less than eighty years ago the economy was so bad that subsistence farming was needed for many people to survive. I think that we're facing those kind of times again. One reason we decided to get a little acreage with our house.

[Sir_Shrek]

71. Then you'll be late....

The best thing for encouraging gains in stocks is time. The less you have, the riskier stocks get. But MISSDEM is right. Over history, stocks make money in any given year 70% of the time. Buy and hold beats timing something like 99.8% of the time....and essentially, you're timing. Purely speculating.

[MadHound]

80. I might be late, but I'll still have money

Sorry, you may call it speculation, but by selling my stocks in '99-'00 and going to bonds for the past three years, I've protected my nest egg and retirement. I'm even making a cool 6.7%. I agree with you about stocks and time, but since I'm looking at retirement in twenty years, I'm starting to get a little conservative with my money.

And you may knock me by calling what I do speculation, but I look upon it as simply informed decision making. Get a 'Pug in office and you can count at least one armed conflict, and at least one lingering economic downturn. Besides, if you pay attention to P/E ratios and such like stuff, it wasn't too damn hard to predict this last bubble burst. A blind man should have known it was coming.

No, I'll see how the economy shakes out after the re-selection of Bush next November(yes, I'm making book on that too). Then I'll see what to do with my money. But I will never, ever simply stick my money in a market on the blind faith that it will always rise. I will do my research and keep my ear to the ground, and what I'm hearing now is a Perfect Economic Storm coming. It will soon be time to take shelter. Are you prepared?

[Sir_Shrek]

83. But do you see now...

...how individual the perception of economy and finance is? That yes, you can look beyond your own world, but when it's get down to it's going to be what affects you the most directly that drives your view of the economy? To me, your moves are not what I would do at all. But you're not me, and I'm not you. So what difference does it make. But it seems to me that for all the talk about looking to the outside world and seeing things beyond yourself, when it gets down to it, you're looking out for number 1, first and foremost. And there's nothing wrong with that. I think folks should always act in their own interest, and sometimes that means looking to the outside world to figure it out. But I'm sorry; I don't buy the whole spiel about considering others, etc.

I'm absolutely prepared. I'm well-diversifed for my goals at this point. I've got aggressive stock funds and I've got fund negatively correlated to the market at the same time. I'm following a fairly specific allocation that is typical for most folks my age. Plus, I've got enough cash reserves to keep me going in an emergency (though I'd like to add another month to that). I have no credit card balances, and easily managed payments on other debts (car and student loan).

[MadHound]

89. I see your point

But one doesn't live in a bubble. While you and I might be doing well, many many others aren't, and their suffering impacts us either directly or indirectly. If Joe Shmoe loses his job, his family can barely make it on Jane's salary, their Christmas is frugal, they can't buy Bobby Boy that new GI Joe with the Kung Fu grip, and you own stock in Hasburo, well, your stock value went down.

And yes, diversification in your portfolio is generally a wise move. But there are simply times when it is obvious that it is time to get the hell out of one market or another. I think that this is one of those times. And I applaud your effort in keeping your debt to income ration low. I've always been a firm believer in that.

[MISSDem]

70. Oh believe me, I am not laughing at subsistence farming; indeed,

I was raised on a farm where my Daddy did just that.

[Sir_Shrek]

60. I agree with you in a certain sense too...

It's smart to look ahead. For instance, one of my goals is to get some cash reserves saved up should I need some extra money in the future. And while I'm very secure in my job, I don't necessarily sit back and relax about it.

But here's the problem: we're not all skilled economic seers. We may see or perceive good times or bad times and may have a generally good feel for the climate, but I'd be curious to see what everyones track record here is. The fact is no one can really truly see what's actually going to happen. That's why I think it's not all that wise to make a move to one extreme or the other (good times or bad times). You moved all into bonds you said...well, what happens if you're wrong about what you think is on the horizon? What happens if interest rates go up? What happens if stocks do well? You're most likely going to lose money in bonds, and you will have little or no stocks to offset the losses. I'm not saying that you made a right or a wrong move...that's yet to be seen and it's your decision anyway. You could be 100% right, and I could be mistaken. But we won't know for sure until after it's all said and done.

Again, it all goes back to how things are ultimately perceived individually. What person A does with their money, based on what they think may happen, can look foolish to person B. Looking beyond yourself is great, and required...but it's never a good indicator of what's really going on, just like ignoring the outside world is never a good indicator either.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

58. I've been laid off 3 times since June of '02

and most people I know are doing far worse than before Bush took office. This includes people who would qualify as upper-middle class.

[Skittles]

73. YOUR LIFE IS GOING OK

so that's how you base the ENTIRE ECONOMY? You need to WAKE UP.

[Yavin4]

14. The Markets Are Up Because of the Federal Reserve Board

This "recovery" is based on three things:

1. Record low interest rates at 1%, the lowest it's been in over 40 years. This interest rate is the basis for how much interest is charged on most debt in the economy. A low interest rate makes consumer borrowing cheaper.

2. Massive government spending. Bush came in with a $276 billion surplus, and now has a $450 billion projected deficit, for a total of $726 billion worth of additional government spending in the past three years.

3. Cheap dollar policy which makes our exports more affordable abroad.


IOW, this "recovery" is nothing more than maxing out a bunch of credit cards and throwing around borrowed money. Debt makes you feel wealthy while you're spending it.

[louis-t]

19. problem is, all this borrowing

will eventually send interest rates back up effectively stifling economy further. Typical of Repub admins.

[Yavin4]

25. Yep, It Will Mean Interest Rates Will Rocket Up

But, there's an even bigger problem. When interest rates skyrocket to cover for the debt, there won't be a single growth industry in the U.S. like IT was in the 80s and 90s. There won't be an industry where Americans can re-train their skills and earn their way out of debt.

That's why I say that we're headed for a crash in 2006.

[MISSDem]

33. when interest rates go up so does the interest you earn on your savings

accounts and your CDs, etc. That's good.

[camero]

36. So does your mortgage

If you have an ARM. Thank god mine's fixed.

[Yavin4]

If You Have an ARM...

you will be paying an ARM and a LEG when the rates go back up.

Get it! Get it! I made a jokey joke.

[camero]

42. Hehe...No doubt.

And higher rent in areas with no rent control if the landlords messed up by doing that. :)

[Timefortruth]

75. And when mortgage rates go up, fewer people will be able to afford

the McMansions, so the price of a home will decline. That might be nice if you're shopping for your first home, but if you own a home with a mortgage balance higher than the home's value you are stuck. The result will be a pop of the real estate bubble.

[camero]

81. Yep

You are most correct.

[Yavin4]

37. Yes, You're Right, BUT

We don't save as a nation, and if the incentive is on saving rather than spending, our economy will collaspe like Japan. Remember, 70% of the GDP is consumer spending.

[Sir_Shrek]

41. Whoa......

"We don't save as a nation, and if the incentive is on saving rather than spending, our economy will collaspe like Japan."

Huh?

[Yavin4]

49. What Don't You Understand?

Our economy is primarily based on consumer spending. When interest rates go up, it will curb consumer spending causing a long-term economic recession just like Japan's.

[Sir_Shrek]

50. Saving is a fundamental part of growth....

You can't create capital without savings, and capital is what enables economic growth. You can't discount consumption, but not encouraging savings is not smart either.

[Yavin4]

53. I Agree

You can't discount consumption, but not encouraging savings is not smart either.

This is exactly what we're doing today. Have you seen the rate of return on a savings account? It's less than 1%. In order to get a better return, you have to invest in stocks.

[Sir_Shrek]

61. Which, in theory...

...is still saving. You're still creating capital. From an economic point of view, saving simply means deferred consumption. Whether you put it in a savings account or a stock is pretty much one in the same.

[camero]

57. I would agree if

corporations were investing thier capital in America. Which thanks to free trade they are not. Savings is supply and consumption is demand and 70% of our economy is based on demand for consumer goods.

[Sir_Shrek]

62. But that demand...

...is also driven by the need for supply. OK, that's redundant....

Supply and demand are, as one economist put it "two sides of the same coin". A supply is created not only to satisfied the consumers demand, but also the suppliers deamnds as well. Demand wouldn't be 70% of our economy if supply wasn't so important.

And if demand is so much more important than supply, why is it so bad that corps are seeking demand overseas? Why limit themselves to simply fulfilling demand in the US, when demand is the bread and butter of the US economy?

[camero]

82. But they're not

They are shipping them back here. I'll give you the link in a min.
They are merely taking advantage of wage and labor in foreign countries, not stimulating demand. Something like 60% of all shipping is intra-industry trade.

[Sir_Shrek]

86. Again....

Supply and demand are different sides of the same coin. Those folks fulfill demand with wage they're paid.

[camero]

87. But they can't afford the things they are making

So they can't stimulate demand except for the small segment of the population that can afford the goods. That's not exactly stimulating demand.

[camero]

85. Here's the link I promised

It's a good article.

http://www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/ftaa/883.html

[Kathy in Cambridge]

59. So does inflation eventually

it sounds like you subscribe to Reaganomics..

[joe_sixpack]

24. At least 2 out of 3

of the items you mentioned would have been the same had a democrat taken office in 2000, don't you agree? Maybe even all three. But at least with keeping interest rates low and increasing govt spending, those surely would be factors utilized by a Dem to help the economy.

[Yavin4]

43. No, I Don't Agree At All

Yes, interest rates would have declined if a Dem was in office, but an Al Gore administration wouldn't have cut taxes AND exploded spending at the same time. Gore would have kept the budget in balance and used some of the surplus as a more targeted stimulus.

Also, I think that Gore would have still pursued a strong dollar policy which would have been supported because our budget balanced.

Finally, there's a huge difference between keeping interest rates low with a balanced budget, and keeping interest rates HISTORICALLY low while the government is running up an out of control deficit.

[arwalden]

32. "Debt makes you feel wealthy while you're spending it."

Wiser words are seldom spoken (or written).

-- Allen

[Yavin4]

45. I Stole That Quote

from an article that I will post later.

[NashVegas]

54. Low Interest Rates

And low inflation also mean that your investement retains its value.

But if you don't think that people are nervous, check out the price of gold.

[rman]

55. so if this recovery doesn't hold,

(and it probably won't)
with all that money already spend on it, there'll be none left to keep the bubble afloat. so isn't it likely to be a swift and total collapse when it comes?
i am no expert but this doesn't look good.

[Sir_Shrek]

64. I wouldn't say that so much...

I don't think there will ever be a lack of an income stream dire enough to bring the economy down. Furthermore, if people are gaining, they're going to continue to have money to invest. Growth will eventually slow, but I doubt it will collapse entirely.

[kcwayne]

18. Interesting how my portfolio is still way down.

When the Dow was last at 10,500 my stock portfolio was worth over twice what it is now. And I have not sold off shares or added shares in that time.

The stock market being up hasn't helped my stocks for some reason. Of course I got dinged on Worldcom, Microsoft, Cisco, and AOL bigtime, like a whole lot of other people.

[Sir_Shrek]

21. Dollar Cost Averaging....

...is your friend.

[spinbaby]

40. I keep telling myself that

But in my 9-year-old 401k, the low-interest fixed income option has done better than the mutual funds.

[Sir_Shrek]

47. My bond funds...

...have barely moved compared to my stocks. I carry a mid-cap fund, an emerging markets fund, and a precious metals fund in my IRA and they're all up substantially. I also have a large cap fund outside of an IRA, and it's done pretty well. My money market has done nothing, but that's kind of the standard in the low interest rate environment. It's really just a cash repository anyway.

[Yupster]

26. sounds like you are more tech heavy

than the market as a whole. The tech sector crashed much worse than the market as a whole, so you may have been hurt worse than most.

[Frodo]

27. There's you answer.

If you owned (in individual stocks) "Worldcom, Microsoft, Cisco, and AOL" then you had a VERY tech-heavy portfolio (unless you own literally DOZENS of individual issues). The Dow is irrelevant to that conversation because the Dow represents a cross-sampling of the largest US companies (in the major sectors).

Tech stock have a LONG way to go to get back to where you were.

If a market falls 75% in one year... and then gains 100% the next... you still have half of what you started with.

[arwalden]

31. Excellent Example!!! Why Don't The Freepers GET IT???

"Here's a dollar... it's yours... you earned it."

"Now give me 75 cents." (You now have a quarter.)

"I'll give you a ONE HUNDRED PERCENT increase!"
(You now have 50 cents.)

"I just DOUBLED your money!"

"Aren't I nice? Vote for me!"

"Don't you feel rich? Vote for me!"

-- Allen

[Sir_Shrek]

34. Like I said....

50% is different things to different people.

[kcwayne]

35. I know, I know

But I bought AOL when they acquired Time Warner, thinking that the major business there was publishing, not tech. AOL provided a tech outlet for all that content tha Time Warner had, and I bought into the idea that they would dominate the distribution of movies into the home.

And Worldcom I viewed as a utility, since they were in the long distance business. They weren't selling tech outside of their Internet provider side of the business.

Oh, and Microsoft is in the Dow.

I didn't mention it, but I was also lost on Bank of America, Schlumberger, Haliburton, Walmart, Lowes, and Eli Lilly. I have sold sold most of these, but they are all still hovering around where I sold.

I have decided that I should start my own stock indicator, when I buy it you should short it.

[Sir_Shrek]

39. It really doesn't matter...

...where a stock hovers after you've sold it. If you sold it low, you sold it low. It doesn't make much sense to say "Well, I sold ABC and took a loss, but you should've seen it move after I sold it!!"

[Sir_Shrek]

30. 50% means different things to different people

If you bought at the bottom, you've probably only had gains this whole time through. If you bought high and before the crash, you may not have any of those gains back at all. If you've owned stocks for the past 20 years, you've probably been up the whole time the last 4 or 5 years (depending, of course on what you own and how long you've held it). Some folks probably put MORE money in the market when it was down to get shares at lower prices.

It's hard to quantify what up or down is in the stock market on an individual basis because they are tons of stocks and other investments which all behave differently to the stock market. I've seen my very stock-heavy portfolio actually go up on days when the Dow has dropped. I've seen no gains or even losses on days the Dow has shot up 100 points or better.

[KFC]

46. If you bought a Dow index fund at 7000, you did indeed gain 50%

I got lucky when a speculative stock tripled. You just have to learn to sell as well as buy.

[Yupster]

48. Yup selling very important

because no company lasts forever. Conestoga Company used to be a very safe investment. They made covered wagons.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

56. Less Than 40% of Americans Own Stock Anyway

So this only affects a select few. 60% of Americans are low-wage workers living paycheck to paycheck, or are too deep in debt to invest.

[Sir_Shrek]

63. Then that begs the question.....

Why is the stock market so important, if less than half (according to you) of households own such investments?

On edit: As of 2002, 52% of households own equities in some form.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

67. 40% was a figure from a Paul Krugman article

in December.

Even so 52% is pretty low, considering this includes 401Ks. What this really means is that institutions not individuals play the stock market. And the real issue is that individual debt has skyrocketed in the past 3 years.

[Yupster]

74. 2000 exit poll results

http://www.udel.edu/poscir/road/course/exitpollsindex.html

More important than how many Americans own stock is how many voters own stocks.

In 2000 exit poll the question was asked. Do you own stocks?

Yes 70 %
No 30 %

It doesn't surprise me that stockholders vote at a higher rate than non-stockholders.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

76. Polls are unscientific

and this is from 2000-the height of the market. I wouldn't be surprised if an unscientific poll today saw ownership drop. A lot of my friends and family pulled out of the stock market.

[MacCovern]

88. "a select few" equals more than 110,000,000

I never thought a select few would be more than 100 million.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

93. Walmart is the largest employer in the US

do you think they offer their workers stock options while denying them benefits? Do you think the 45 million people in the US who can't afford health insurance have a portfolio that would make Bill Gates jealous?

110,000,000 people own stock? Says who?

Your reality is not the reality of the majority of Americans.

[MacCovern]

94. Got the 110,000,000 from you Rose

You said less than 40% of Americans own stock.

Walmart offers stock options "stock purchase" plan plus medical benefits and a host of other employee benefits including profit sharing, etc.
Perhaps you would like to start a separate topic about Walmart.

[Kathy in Cambridge]

99. Bill Moyers NOW had an expose on Walmart

Very interesting-you would appreciate it since you are always defending big business. Corporate sent a memo to managers to encourage their employees to apply for public assistance to help cover their medical benefits.

Since most Walmart employees are minimum wage earners, do you REALLY think they can afford purchasing stock? Get a grip on reality. Perhaps you'd like to find a message board more in tune with your agenda?

[MacCovern]

102. Avg. Wal-mart employee is way above Minimum Wage

I will use your source, Bill Moyers NOW, and include a link:

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/walmart.html

The average hourly wage of a Wal-Mart emplyee in 2001 was $8.23.
You said: "Since most Walmart employees are minimum wage earners,..."
Your statement is completely inaccurate since the minimum wage is $5.15 per hour. Not only are you wrong, you were off by 60%!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have problems, as do a lot of people with the way Wal-Mart does things, but we should strive to get our facts right when we post.

The jobs at Wal-Mart are not highly skilled positions, and associates are paid accordingly.

[stevedeshazer]

95. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph

I've somehow been transported to a Bob Brinker discussion....

[MISSDem]

96. Bottom line, a prudent person will still be in the stock market even when

she is retired. That's the only way you can keep up with inflation.

[kentuck]

98. The stock market is for short term traders....

If someone robs you two years ago and you get back half your money, you are not doing great. You will get ahead if you sell when the stock is up. You will lose in the long run because every few years, the market dumps all the profits into the pockets of the few and the many are left high and dry.

Besides, the stock market is not necessarily a reflection of the economy as a whole. It is quite possible that much of the present "investment" in the market is from the Bush tax cut. It does not create any jobs or build any manufacturing plants when it is put into the stock market. There is the illusion that the job market is picking up, but the sad fact is that many people, out of sheer desperation, are taking jobs that are temporary or pay about half what they are accustomed to making.

[Cleita]

100. I know I just checked my itty bitty portfolio and it's still

one third below in value than it was when Clinton left office. So basically this "huge" market upsurge is coming back to where it was when Clinton left office and it hasn't reached those heights yet.