Discussion:
The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
(too old to reply)
mg
2018-04-08 01:53:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards

TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018

2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.

Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.

1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.

2. ABC News' Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral
with false report.

3. CNN FALSELY reported that candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald
J. Trump, Jr. had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.

4. TIME FALSELY reported that President Trump removed a bust of Martin
Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office.

5. Washington Post FALSELY reported the President’s massive sold-out
rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. Dishonest reporter showed
picture of empty arena HOURS before crowd started pouring in.

6. CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump
defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime
minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the
feeding.

7. CNN FALSELY reported about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a
Russian, but retracted it due to a “significant breakdown in process.”

8. Newsweek FALSELY reported that Polish First Lady Agata
Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump’s hand.

9. CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would
dispute President Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under
investigation.

10. The New York Times FALSELY claimed on the front page that the
Trump administration had hidden a climate report.
https://www.gop.com/the-highly-anticipated-2017-fake-news-awards/



----------------------
No statement should be
believed because it is
made by an authority.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-08 06:10:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 07 Apr 2018 19:53:12 -0600, mg <***@none.nl> wrote:
<snip>
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
I've been watching the S&P slide, and I have $300,000 in
my local checking account at the moment, getting zero
interest, because I was so pissed off to find that one of the
online banks I have money in (Popular Direct) had been
paying 1.50% to new customers since January, but still
paying me, as an old customer, 1.15%, that I completely
closed out that account last week, as soon as I was sure
interest for March had been credited, and had all the
money wired to my local bank.

If the S&P dips some more, maybe I'll take a flyer and put at
least $100,000 into it. I've been avoiding stocks because they're
too risky, but I feel like taking a flyer. I should move at least
$100,000 of the money into the Charles Schwab savings account,
which does pay at least a little interest. If I have money at
Schwab, I can move fast if I want to buy into the S&P. I hesitate
and hesitate and hesitate, but when I decide to do something, I
want it done IMMEDIATELY . That's just the way I am.

Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.

---

I have to move my car by Monday noon, or the meter whores
will give me a $76 parking ticket. That would piss me off a lot
more than losing $100,000 in the stock market, which may not
make much sense, but as is often observed, old people are
funny in the head.
islander
2018-04-08 14:57:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
We have had an account at Key Bank for a long time now that has an
interesting approach to balancing checking and savings accounts. At the
end of each business day, most of the money is swept out of the checking
account (which pays no interest) and into the savings account (which
pays interest). When our checking account gets below a certain amount,
money is moved from the savings account into the checking account. This
seems like a lot of moving money around, but it all happens
automatically and is mostly invisible to us. It still doesn't pay much
interest, but at least it is something.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-08 16:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
We have had an account at Key Bank for a long time now that has an
interesting approach to balancing checking and savings accounts. At the
end of each business day, most of the money is swept out of the checking
account (which pays no interest) and into the savings account (which
pays interest). When our checking account gets below a certain amount,
money is moved from the savings account into the checking account. This
seems like a lot of moving money around, but it all happens
automatically and is mostly invisible to us. It still doesn't pay much
interest, but at least it is something.
My two (now only one) checking accounts at online banks
do pay some interest. Only between one and two percent,
but that's at least better than my local bank which doesn't
even pay that much on savings accounts, of didn't used to -
I haven't inquired lately. I just got a waste of paper from
Schwab that shows my account there is still open, even
though I cleared it out in 2011. The paper said that I had
a dime in there. I think that's the first thing I've gotten
from Schwab in at least a year, maybe more. Tomorrow
I'll be dropping by there tomorrow, to see what's the least
unlucrative way to stash money there (with interest) which
money I may or may not soon put into an S&P fund.
El Castor
2018-04-08 18:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
We have had an account at Key Bank for a long time now that has an
interesting approach to balancing checking and savings accounts. At the
end of each business day, most of the money is swept out of the checking
account (which pays no interest) and into the savings account (which
pays interest). When our checking account gets below a certain amount,
money is moved from the savings account into the checking account. This
seems like a lot of moving money around, but it all happens
automatically and is mostly invisible to us. It still doesn't pay much
interest, but at least it is something.
Banks make money by putting your cash to work, earning interest -- by
loaning it in a variety of ways. If they can attract deposits by
paying you a little interest, that's good for them, as long as they
generate more income from your cash than the interest that they pay
you.
islander
2018-04-09 00:28:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
We have had an account at Key Bank for a long time now that has an
interesting approach to balancing checking and savings accounts. At the
end of each business day, most of the money is swept out of the checking
account (which pays no interest) and into the savings account (which
pays interest). When our checking account gets below a certain amount,
money is moved from the savings account into the checking account. This
seems like a lot of moving money around, but it all happens
automatically and is mostly invisible to us. It still doesn't pay much
interest, but at least it is something.
Banks make money by putting your cash to work, earning interest -- by
loaning it in a variety of ways. If they can attract deposits by
paying you a little interest, that's good for them, as long as they
generate more income from your cash than the interest that they pay
you.
Sure, but mortgage rates are now 4.375% for a 20 year fixed rate
mortgage and if you include all the other costs, it goes up to
4.455% (more for a 30 year mortgage). So, either they have an enormous
overhead or they are treating their investors very well. Bank stocks
are expected to go up 10-25% in 2018 and that doesn't include dividends.
Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for the banks.
El Castor
2018-04-09 08:26:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
We have had an account at Key Bank for a long time now that has an
interesting approach to balancing checking and savings accounts. At the
end of each business day, most of the money is swept out of the checking
account (which pays no interest) and into the savings account (which
pays interest). When our checking account gets below a certain amount,
money is moved from the savings account into the checking account. This
seems like a lot of moving money around, but it all happens
automatically and is mostly invisible to us. It still doesn't pay much
interest, but at least it is something.
Banks make money by putting your cash to work, earning interest -- by
loaning it in a variety of ways. If they can attract deposits by
paying you a little interest, that's good for them, as long as they
generate more income from your cash than the interest that they pay
you.
Sure, but mortgage rates are now 4.375% for a 20 year fixed rate
mortgage and if you include all the other costs, it goes up to
4.455% (more for a 30 year mortgage). So, either they have an enormous
overhead or they are treating their investors very well. Bank stocks
are expected to go up 10-25% in 2018 and that doesn't include dividends.
Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for the banks.
I'm not suggesting you should have sympathy -- just a brief
explanation of one way banks make money. They employ a lot of people,
and those people need to be paid. BTW -- banks usually don't tie up
their money in home loans -- they set up the loan and provide cash to
pay the seller, but then turn around and sell the loan to a
securitizer like FNMA, keeping the points charged the buyer to cover
costs incurred in acting as an intermediary. Sorry you don't like
banks, but they play an important role in greasing the gears of our
economy, so to speak.
islander
2018-04-09 14:49:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
We have had an account at Key Bank for a long time now that has an
interesting approach to balancing checking and savings accounts. At the
end of each business day, most of the money is swept out of the checking
account (which pays no interest) and into the savings account (which
pays interest). When our checking account gets below a certain amount,
money is moved from the savings account into the checking account. This
seems like a lot of moving money around, but it all happens
automatically and is mostly invisible to us. It still doesn't pay much
interest, but at least it is something.
Banks make money by putting your cash to work, earning interest -- by
loaning it in a variety of ways. If they can attract deposits by
paying you a little interest, that's good for them, as long as they
generate more income from your cash than the interest that they pay
you.
Sure, but mortgage rates are now 4.375% for a 20 year fixed rate
mortgage and if you include all the other costs, it goes up to
4.455% (more for a 30 year mortgage). So, either they have an enormous
overhead or they are treating their investors very well. Bank stocks
are expected to go up 10-25% in 2018 and that doesn't include dividends.
Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for the banks.
I'm not suggesting you should have sympathy -- just a brief
explanation of one way banks make money. They employ a lot of people,
and those people need to be paid. BTW -- banks usually don't tie up
their money in home loans -- they set up the loan and provide cash to
pay the seller, but then turn around and sell the loan to a
securitizer like FNMA, keeping the points charged the buyer to cover
costs incurred in acting as an intermediary. Sorry you don't like
banks, but they play an important role in greasing the gears of our
economy, so to speak.
I very much understand how banks make money and also that they have
mostly sold off mortgages to companies that compile them into
derivatives. This whole process was badly abused in the middle of the
last decade and resulted in the Great Recession. I lump all banks into
the same category, even tho the big banks are very different businesses
than your neighborhood bank. Collectively, I don't like what they did
to the country when greed came to dominate the industry. Most banks do
not act like it is a "Wonderful Life." It is "just business" after all
and profits are to be maximized!
El Castor
2018-04-09 19:15:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
We have had an account at Key Bank for a long time now that has an
interesting approach to balancing checking and savings accounts. At the
end of each business day, most of the money is swept out of the checking
account (which pays no interest) and into the savings account (which
pays interest). When our checking account gets below a certain amount,
money is moved from the savings account into the checking account. This
seems like a lot of moving money around, but it all happens
automatically and is mostly invisible to us. It still doesn't pay much
interest, but at least it is something.
Banks make money by putting your cash to work, earning interest -- by
loaning it in a variety of ways. If they can attract deposits by
paying you a little interest, that's good for them, as long as they
generate more income from your cash than the interest that they pay
you.
Sure, but mortgage rates are now 4.375% for a 20 year fixed rate
mortgage and if you include all the other costs, it goes up to
4.455% (more for a 30 year mortgage). So, either they have an enormous
overhead or they are treating their investors very well. Bank stocks
are expected to go up 10-25% in 2018 and that doesn't include dividends.
Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for the banks.
I'm not suggesting you should have sympathy -- just a brief
explanation of one way banks make money. They employ a lot of people,
and those people need to be paid. BTW -- banks usually don't tie up
their money in home loans -- they set up the loan and provide cash to
pay the seller, but then turn around and sell the loan to a
securitizer like FNMA, keeping the points charged the buyer to cover
costs incurred in acting as an intermediary. Sorry you don't like
banks, but they play an important role in greasing the gears of our
economy, so to speak.
I very much understand how banks make money and also that they have
mostly sold off mortgages to companies that compile them into
derivatives. This whole process was badly abused in the middle of the
last decade and resulted in the Great Recession. I lump all banks into
the same category, even tho the big banks are very different businesses
than your neighborhood bank. Collectively, I don't like what they did
to the country when greed came to dominate the industry. Most banks do
not act like it is a "Wonderful Life." It is "just business" after all
and profits are to be maximized!
The securitizers (predominantly Fannie and Freddie) defined the terms
of the loans they would buy, and in doing so, created the sub-prime
market. In 2003 Bush recognized the danger and tried to get the House
to rein in Fannie and Freddie. His proposed legislation was blocked by
Democrats in the House Finance Committee. In 2006 he was back with
similar legislation in the Senate -- also blocked by Democrats. Those
Democrats, like their friends in the House, wanted to help the poor
and minorities to realize the American Dream of home ownership. The
Law of Unintended Consequences kicked in two years later and the
American Dream became the American Nightmare.
islander
2018-04-10 00:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
We have had an account at Key Bank for a long time now that has an
interesting approach to balancing checking and savings accounts. At the
end of each business day, most of the money is swept out of the checking
account (which pays no interest) and into the savings account (which
pays interest). When our checking account gets below a certain amount,
money is moved from the savings account into the checking account. This
seems like a lot of moving money around, but it all happens
automatically and is mostly invisible to us. It still doesn't pay much
interest, but at least it is something.
Banks make money by putting your cash to work, earning interest -- by
loaning it in a variety of ways. If they can attract deposits by
paying you a little interest, that's good for them, as long as they
generate more income from your cash than the interest that they pay
you.
Sure, but mortgage rates are now 4.375% for a 20 year fixed rate
mortgage and if you include all the other costs, it goes up to
4.455% (more for a 30 year mortgage). So, either they have an enormous
overhead or they are treating their investors very well. Bank stocks
are expected to go up 10-25% in 2018 and that doesn't include dividends.
Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for the banks.
I'm not suggesting you should have sympathy -- just a brief
explanation of one way banks make money. They employ a lot of people,
and those people need to be paid. BTW -- banks usually don't tie up
their money in home loans -- they set up the loan and provide cash to
pay the seller, but then turn around and sell the loan to a
securitizer like FNMA, keeping the points charged the buyer to cover
costs incurred in acting as an intermediary. Sorry you don't like
banks, but they play an important role in greasing the gears of our
economy, so to speak.
I very much understand how banks make money and also that they have
mostly sold off mortgages to companies that compile them into
derivatives. This whole process was badly abused in the middle of the
last decade and resulted in the Great Recession. I lump all banks into
the same category, even tho the big banks are very different businesses
than your neighborhood bank. Collectively, I don't like what they did
to the country when greed came to dominate the industry. Most banks do
not act like it is a "Wonderful Life." It is "just business" after all
and profits are to be maximized!
The securitizers (predominantly Fannie and Freddie) defined the terms
of the loans they would buy, and in doing so, created the sub-prime
market. In 2003 Bush recognized the danger and tried to get the House
to rein in Fannie and Freddie. His proposed legislation was blocked by
Democrats in the House Finance Committee. In 2006 he was back with
similar legislation in the Senate -- also blocked by Democrats. Those
Democrats, like their friends in the House, wanted to help the poor
and minorities to realize the American Dream of home ownership. The
Law of Unintended Consequences kicked in two years later and the
American Dream became the American Nightmare.
Revisionist history. But we have been through all this before. The
crash was caused by private sector greed. By 2001, mortgages were being
written outside the regulations that governed the GSEs and were being
packed into creative derivatives that were protected from prying
government eyes by the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
By 2004, 60% of new mortgages were consumed by private banks, not the
GSEs. When it crashed in 2008, they brought down the GSEs with them.
All this is well documented and I have presented the whole history
including the names of the players here several times.
El Castor
2018-04-10 21:41:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
We have had an account at Key Bank for a long time now that has an
interesting approach to balancing checking and savings accounts. At the
end of each business day, most of the money is swept out of the checking
account (which pays no interest) and into the savings account (which
pays interest). When our checking account gets below a certain amount,
money is moved from the savings account into the checking account. This
seems like a lot of moving money around, but it all happens
automatically and is mostly invisible to us. It still doesn't pay much
interest, but at least it is something.
Banks make money by putting your cash to work, earning interest -- by
loaning it in a variety of ways. If they can attract deposits by
paying you a little interest, that's good for them, as long as they
generate more income from your cash than the interest that they pay
you.
Sure, but mortgage rates are now 4.375% for a 20 year fixed rate
mortgage and if you include all the other costs, it goes up to
4.455% (more for a 30 year mortgage). So, either they have an enormous
overhead or they are treating their investors very well. Bank stocks
are expected to go up 10-25% in 2018 and that doesn't include dividends.
Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for the banks.
I'm not suggesting you should have sympathy -- just a brief
explanation of one way banks make money. They employ a lot of people,
and those people need to be paid. BTW -- banks usually don't tie up
their money in home loans -- they set up the loan and provide cash to
pay the seller, but then turn around and sell the loan to a
securitizer like FNMA, keeping the points charged the buyer to cover
costs incurred in acting as an intermediary. Sorry you don't like
banks, but they play an important role in greasing the gears of our
economy, so to speak.
I very much understand how banks make money and also that they have
mostly sold off mortgages to companies that compile them into
derivatives. This whole process was badly abused in the middle of the
last decade and resulted in the Great Recession. I lump all banks into
the same category, even tho the big banks are very different businesses
than your neighborhood bank. Collectively, I don't like what they did
to the country when greed came to dominate the industry. Most banks do
not act like it is a "Wonderful Life." It is "just business" after all
and profits are to be maximized!
The securitizers (predominantly Fannie and Freddie) defined the terms
of the loans they would buy, and in doing so, created the sub-prime
market. In 2003 Bush recognized the danger and tried to get the House
to rein in Fannie and Freddie. His proposed legislation was blocked by
Democrats in the House Finance Committee. In 2006 he was back with
similar legislation in the Senate -- also blocked by Democrats. Those
Democrats, like their friends in the House, wanted to help the poor
and minorities to realize the American Dream of home ownership. The
Law of Unintended Consequences kicked in two years later and the
American Dream became the American Nightmare.
Revisionist history. But we have been through all this before. The
crash was caused by private sector greed. By 2001, mortgages were being
written outside the regulations that governed the GSEs and were being
packed into creative derivatives that were protected from prying
government eyes by the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
By 2004, 60% of new mortgages were consumed by private banks, not the
GSEs. When it crashed in 2008, they brought down the GSEs with them.
All this is well documented and I have presented the whole history
including the names of the players here several times.
You are as wrong now as you ever were. Banks were not issuing
mortgages unacceptable to Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie were
buying liar loans and other crap with great abandon -- and they all
met their low deplorable standards because the goal of the GSEs was to
get homes into the hands of minorities, and the goal of the Banks was
to comply with the CRA, and other abominable laws -- and of course
make money. The housing boom, largely caused by the availability of
sub-prime loans and Feds low interest rate policy in the wake of the
Dot Com bust, was a disaster.

Granted that loans were being packaged and sold by others than the
GSEs, but please document that loans being written by banks that were
"outside the regulations that governed the GSEs" -- which I interpret
you to mean, were "loans that failed to meet the GSE standards for
purchase." I would honestly be interested in reading about that.
islander
2018-04-12 15:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
We have had an account at Key Bank for a long time now that has an
interesting approach to balancing checking and savings accounts. At the
end of each business day, most of the money is swept out of the checking
account (which pays no interest) and into the savings account (which
pays interest). When our checking account gets below a certain amount,
money is moved from the savings account into the checking account. This
seems like a lot of moving money around, but it all happens
automatically and is mostly invisible to us. It still doesn't pay much
interest, but at least it is something.
Banks make money by putting your cash to work, earning interest -- by
loaning it in a variety of ways. If they can attract deposits by
paying you a little interest, that's good for them, as long as they
generate more income from your cash than the interest that they pay
you.
Sure, but mortgage rates are now 4.375% for a 20 year fixed rate
mortgage and if you include all the other costs, it goes up to
4.455% (more for a 30 year mortgage). So, either they have an enormous
overhead or they are treating their investors very well. Bank stocks
are expected to go up 10-25% in 2018 and that doesn't include dividends.
Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for the banks.
I'm not suggesting you should have sympathy -- just a brief
explanation of one way banks make money. They employ a lot of people,
and those people need to be paid. BTW -- banks usually don't tie up
their money in home loans -- they set up the loan and provide cash to
pay the seller, but then turn around and sell the loan to a
securitizer like FNMA, keeping the points charged the buyer to cover
costs incurred in acting as an intermediary. Sorry you don't like
banks, but they play an important role in greasing the gears of our
economy, so to speak.
I very much understand how banks make money and also that they have
mostly sold off mortgages to companies that compile them into
derivatives. This whole process was badly abused in the middle of the
last decade and resulted in the Great Recession. I lump all banks into
the same category, even tho the big banks are very different businesses
than your neighborhood bank. Collectively, I don't like what they did
to the country when greed came to dominate the industry. Most banks do
not act like it is a "Wonderful Life." It is "just business" after all
and profits are to be maximized!
The securitizers (predominantly Fannie and Freddie) defined the terms
of the loans they would buy, and in doing so, created the sub-prime
market. In 2003 Bush recognized the danger and tried to get the House
to rein in Fannie and Freddie. His proposed legislation was blocked by
Democrats in the House Finance Committee. In 2006 he was back with
similar legislation in the Senate -- also blocked by Democrats. Those
Democrats, like their friends in the House, wanted to help the poor
and minorities to realize the American Dream of home ownership. The
Law of Unintended Consequences kicked in two years later and the
American Dream became the American Nightmare.
Revisionist history. But we have been through all this before. The
crash was caused by private sector greed. By 2001, mortgages were being
written outside the regulations that governed the GSEs and were being
packed into creative derivatives that were protected from prying
government eyes by the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
By 2004, 60% of new mortgages were consumed by private banks, not the
GSEs. When it crashed in 2008, they brought down the GSEs with them.
All this is well documented and I have presented the whole history
including the names of the players here several times.
You are as wrong now as you ever were. Banks were not issuing
mortgages unacceptable to Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie were
buying liar loans and other crap with great abandon -- and they all
met their low deplorable standards because the goal of the GSEs was to
get homes into the hands of minorities, and the goal of the Banks was
to comply with the CRA, and other abominable laws -- and of course
make money. The housing boom, largely caused by the availability of
sub-prime loans and Feds low interest rate policy in the wake of the
Dot Com bust, was a disaster.
Granted that loans were being packaged and sold by others than the
GSEs, but please document that loans being written by banks that were
"outside the regulations that governed the GSEs" -- which I interpret
you to mean, were "loans that failed to meet the GSE standards for
purchase." I would honestly be interested in reading about that.
Read *All The Devils Are Here* by McLean and Nocera. It is the most
detailed account that I have read of events leading up to the financial
crisis, identifying people and organizations and how they participated.
They don't whitewash the GSEs, but the blame is squarely placed on the
private sector financial institutions.
https://www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Are-Here-Financial/dp/159184438X

As pertains specifically to the regulations, the Clinton administration
tightened the regulations specifically governing the GSEs in 2000, but
Alphonso Jackson, the GW Bush appointee to HUD relaxed them again in
2004 in order to pump more energy into the housing market. Admittedly,
Freddie Mac was pressing the government to allow them to enter sectors
of the sub-prime market that they were previously denied, mainly because
the private sector with essentially no regulation was capturing the
major share of the market. Freddie Mac was on the verge of going out of
business! This was why GW Bush opposed the legislation that you keep
referencing. He felt strongly that the creativity in the private sector
would drive them out of business. Jackson's relaxing of the regulations
governing the GSEs has been called one of the most serious mistakes
leading up to the crisis. Personally, I think that most of the blame
can be placed on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodities
Modernization Act of 2000 which essentially removed the regulations in
the private sector banks and hid what was happening from the government.

I've provided lots of references to this in the past and if you didn't
read them then, why should I expect you to read them now. If you really
want me to, I'll dig them out again.
El Castor
2018-04-13 16:08:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
We have had an account at Key Bank for a long time now that has an
interesting approach to balancing checking and savings accounts. At the
end of each business day, most of the money is swept out of the checking
account (which pays no interest) and into the savings account (which
pays interest). When our checking account gets below a certain amount,
money is moved from the savings account into the checking account. This
seems like a lot of moving money around, but it all happens
automatically and is mostly invisible to us. It still doesn't pay much
interest, but at least it is something.
Banks make money by putting your cash to work, earning interest -- by
loaning it in a variety of ways. If they can attract deposits by
paying you a little interest, that's good for them, as long as they
generate more income from your cash than the interest that they pay
you.
Sure, but mortgage rates are now 4.375% for a 20 year fixed rate
mortgage and if you include all the other costs, it goes up to
4.455% (more for a 30 year mortgage). So, either they have an enormous
overhead or they are treating their investors very well. Bank stocks
are expected to go up 10-25% in 2018 and that doesn't include dividends.
Sorry, but I don't have any sympathy for the banks.
I'm not suggesting you should have sympathy -- just a brief
explanation of one way banks make money. They employ a lot of people,
and those people need to be paid. BTW -- banks usually don't tie up
their money in home loans -- they set up the loan and provide cash to
pay the seller, but then turn around and sell the loan to a
securitizer like FNMA, keeping the points charged the buyer to cover
costs incurred in acting as an intermediary. Sorry you don't like
banks, but they play an important role in greasing the gears of our
economy, so to speak.
I very much understand how banks make money and also that they have
mostly sold off mortgages to companies that compile them into
derivatives. This whole process was badly abused in the middle of the
last decade and resulted in the Great Recession. I lump all banks into
the same category, even tho the big banks are very different businesses
than your neighborhood bank. Collectively, I don't like what they did
to the country when greed came to dominate the industry. Most banks do
not act like it is a "Wonderful Life." It is "just business" after all
and profits are to be maximized!
The securitizers (predominantly Fannie and Freddie) defined the terms
of the loans they would buy, and in doing so, created the sub-prime
market. In 2003 Bush recognized the danger and tried to get the House
to rein in Fannie and Freddie. His proposed legislation was blocked by
Democrats in the House Finance Committee. In 2006 he was back with
similar legislation in the Senate -- also blocked by Democrats. Those
Democrats, like their friends in the House, wanted to help the poor
and minorities to realize the American Dream of home ownership. The
Law of Unintended Consequences kicked in two years later and the
American Dream became the American Nightmare.
Revisionist history. But we have been through all this before. The
crash was caused by private sector greed. By 2001, mortgages were being
written outside the regulations that governed the GSEs and were being
packed into creative derivatives that were protected from prying
government eyes by the Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
By 2004, 60% of new mortgages were consumed by private banks, not the
GSEs. When it crashed in 2008, they brought down the GSEs with them.
All this is well documented and I have presented the whole history
including the names of the players here several times.
You are as wrong now as you ever were. Banks were not issuing
mortgages unacceptable to Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie were
buying liar loans and other crap with great abandon -- and they all
met their low deplorable standards because the goal of the GSEs was to
get homes into the hands of minorities, and the goal of the Banks was
to comply with the CRA, and other abominable laws -- and of course
make money. The housing boom, largely caused by the availability of
sub-prime loans and Feds low interest rate policy in the wake of the
Dot Com bust, was a disaster.
Granted that loans were being packaged and sold by others than the
GSEs, but please document that loans being written by banks that were
"outside the regulations that governed the GSEs" -- which I interpret
you to mean, were "loans that failed to meet the GSE standards for
purchase." I would honestly be interested in reading about that.
Read *All The Devils Are Here* by McLean and Nocera. It is the most
detailed account that I have read of events leading up to the financial
crisis, identifying people and organizations and how they participated.
They don't whitewash the GSEs, but the blame is squarely placed on the
private sector financial institutions.
https://www.amazon.com/All-Devils-Are-Here-Financial/dp/159184438X
As pertains specifically to the regulations, the Clinton administration
tightened the regulations specifically governing the GSEs in 2000, but
Alphonso Jackson, the GW Bush appointee to HUD relaxed them again in
2004 in order to pump more energy into the housing market. Admittedly,
Freddie Mac was pressing the government to allow them to enter sectors
of the sub-prime market that they were previously denied, mainly because
the private sector with essentially no regulation was capturing the
major share of the market. Freddie Mac was on the verge of going out of
business! This was why GW Bush opposed the legislation that you keep
referencing. He felt strongly that the creativity in the private sector
would drive them out of business. Jackson's relaxing of the regulations
governing the GSEs has been called one of the most serious mistakes
leading up to the crisis. Personally, I think that most of the blame
can be placed on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 and the Commodities
Modernization Act of 2000 which essentially removed the regulations in
the private sector banks and hid what was happening from the government.
I've provided lots of references to this in the past and if you didn't
read them then, why should I expect you to read them now. If you really
want me to, I'll dig them out again.
Books like the one you cited are written for an audience looking for
answers they want to hear. As one of the Amazon reviewers put it ...

"This history wasn't hidden, it's made up by the authors."

There were lots of reasons for the sub-prime fiasco, but the two chief
ones were the politically inspired willingness of the GSEs to buy the
crap, and political pressure on the banking system to generate it.
mg
2018-04-09 01:11:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
I've been watching the S&P slide, and I have $300,000 in
my local checking account at the moment, getting zero
interest, because I was so pissed off to find that one of the
online banks I have money in (Popular Direct) had been
paying 1.50% to new customers since January, but still
paying me, as an old customer, 1.15%, that I completely
closed out that account last week, as soon as I was sure
interest for March had been credited, and had all the
money wired to my local bank.
If the S&P dips some more, maybe I'll take a flyer and put at
least $100,000 into it. I've been avoiding stocks because they're
too risky, but I feel like taking a flyer. I should move at least
$100,000 of the money into the Charles Schwab savings account,
which does pay at least a little interest. If I have money at
Schwab, I can move fast if I want to buy into the S&P. I hesitate
and hesitate and hesitate, but when I decide to do something, I
want it done IMMEDIATELY . That's just the way I am.
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
---
I have to move my car by Monday noon, or the meter whores
will give me a $76 parking ticket. That would piss me off a lot
more than losing $100,000 in the stock market, which may not
make much sense, but as is often observed, old people are
funny in the head.
In theory -- and in practice, too, I might add -- one should become
increasingly more and more conservative with his investments as he
gets older and older and considering our age (pushing 80), I think we
should be extremely cautious.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-09 05:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
I've been watching the S&P slide, and I have $300,000 in
my local checking account at the moment, getting zero
interest, because I was so pissed off to find that one of the
online banks I have money in (Popular Direct) had been
paying 1.50% to new customers since January, but still
paying me, as an old customer, 1.15%, that I completely
closed out that account last week, as soon as I was sure
interest for March had been credited, and had all the
money wired to my local bank.
If the S&P dips some more, maybe I'll take a flyer and put at
least $100,000 into it. I've been avoiding stocks because they're
too risky, but I feel like taking a flyer. I should move at least
$100,000 of the money into the Charles Schwab savings account,
which does pay at least a little interest. If I have money at
Schwab, I can move fast if I want to buy into the S&P. I hesitate
and hesitate and hesitate, but when I decide to do something, I
want it done IMMEDIATELY . That's just the way I am.
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
---
I have to move my car by Monday noon, or the meter whores
will give me a $76 parking ticket. That would piss me off a lot
more than losing $100,000 in the stock market, which may not
make much sense, but as is often observed, old people are
funny in the head.
In theory -- and in practice, too, I might add -- one should become
increasingly more and more conservative with his investments as he
gets older and older and considering our age (pushing 80), I think we
should be extremely cautious.
That's why I mostly stay out of the market, though I may
risk $100,000 or even as much as $300,000 if the ratio
between fear and greed tempts me. I may well not buy
anything at all though.
El Castor
2018-04-09 08:30:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
I've been watching the S&P slide, and I have $300,000 in
my local checking account at the moment, getting zero
interest, because I was so pissed off to find that one of the
online banks I have money in (Popular Direct) had been
paying 1.50% to new customers since January, but still
paying me, as an old customer, 1.15%, that I completely
closed out that account last week, as soon as I was sure
interest for March had been credited, and had all the
money wired to my local bank.
If the S&P dips some more, maybe I'll take a flyer and put at
least $100,000 into it. I've been avoiding stocks because they're
too risky, but I feel like taking a flyer. I should move at least
$100,000 of the money into the Charles Schwab savings account,
which does pay at least a little interest. If I have money at
Schwab, I can move fast if I want to buy into the S&P. I hesitate
and hesitate and hesitate, but when I decide to do something, I
want it done IMMEDIATELY . That's just the way I am.
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
---
I have to move my car by Monday noon, or the meter whores
will give me a $76 parking ticket. That would piss me off a lot
more than losing $100,000 in the stock market, which may not
make much sense, but as is often observed, old people are
funny in the head.
In theory -- and in practice, too, I might add -- one should become
increasingly more and more conservative with his investments as he
gets older and older and considering our age (pushing 80), I think we
should be extremely cautious.
50/50 diversified equities and fixed income seems reasonable.
mg
2018-04-09 11:22:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:30:28 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
I've been watching the S&P slide, and I have $300,000 in
my local checking account at the moment, getting zero
interest, because I was so pissed off to find that one of the
online banks I have money in (Popular Direct) had been
paying 1.50% to new customers since January, but still
paying me, as an old customer, 1.15%, that I completely
closed out that account last week, as soon as I was sure
interest for March had been credited, and had all the
money wired to my local bank.
If the S&P dips some more, maybe I'll take a flyer and put at
least $100,000 into it. I've been avoiding stocks because they're
too risky, but I feel like taking a flyer. I should move at least
$100,000 of the money into the Charles Schwab savings account,
which does pay at least a little interest. If I have money at
Schwab, I can move fast if I want to buy into the S&P. I hesitate
and hesitate and hesitate, but when I decide to do something, I
want it done IMMEDIATELY . That's just the way I am.
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
---
I have to move my car by Monday noon, or the meter whores
will give me a $76 parking ticket. That would piss me off a lot
more than losing $100,000 in the stock market, which may not
make much sense, but as is often observed, old people are
funny in the head.
In theory -- and in practice, too, I might add -- one should become
increasingly more and more conservative with his investments as he
gets older and older and considering our age (pushing 80), I think we
should be extremely cautious.
50/50 diversified equities and fixed income seems reasonable.
Everyone has to make his own decision based on a variety of factors
and a couple of the most obvious ones, of course, is how long he
thinks he's going to live and how much of his money is "excess wealth"
(for lack of a better phrase).

Here's an article on the subject:

"What's the best asset allocation for my age?

The old rule of thumb used to be that you should subtract your age
from 100 - and that's the percentage of your portfolio that you should
keep in stocks. For example, if you're 30, you should keep 70% of your
portfolio in stocks. If you're 70, you should keep 30% of your
portfolio in stocks.

However, with Americans living longer and longer, many financial
planners are now recommending that the rule should be closer to 110 or
120 minus your age. That's because if you need to make your money last
longer, you'll need the extra growth that stocks can provide.

To find the right asset allocation for you, go to our asset allocation
calculator."
http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/investing_basics.moneymag/index7.htm
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-09 16:30:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:30:28 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
I've been watching the S&P slide, and I have $300,000 in
my local checking account at the moment, getting zero
interest, because I was so pissed off to find that one of the
online banks I have money in (Popular Direct) had been
paying 1.50% to new customers since January, but still
paying me, as an old customer, 1.15%, that I completely
closed out that account last week, as soon as I was sure
interest for March had been credited, and had all the
money wired to my local bank.
If the S&P dips some more, maybe I'll take a flyer and put at
least $100,000 into it. I've been avoiding stocks because they're
too risky, but I feel like taking a flyer. I should move at least
$100,000 of the money into the Charles Schwab savings account,
which does pay at least a little interest. If I have money at
Schwab, I can move fast if I want to buy into the S&P. I hesitate
and hesitate and hesitate, but when I decide to do something, I
want it done IMMEDIATELY . That's just the way I am.
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
---
I have to move my car by Monday noon, or the meter whores
will give me a $76 parking ticket. That would piss me off a lot
more than losing $100,000 in the stock market, which may not
make much sense, but as is often observed, old people are
funny in the head.
In theory -- and in practice, too, I might add -- one should become
increasingly more and more conservative with his investments as he
gets older and older and considering our age (pushing 80), I think we
should be extremely cautious.
50/50 diversified equities and fixed income seems reasonable.
Everyone has to make his own decision based on a variety of factors
and a couple of the most obvious ones, of course, is how long he
thinks he's going to live and how much of his money is "excess wealth"
(for lack of a better phrase).
"What's the best asset allocation for my age?
The old rule of thumb used to be that you should subtract your age
from 100 - and that's the percentage of your portfolio that you should
keep in stocks. For example, if you're 30, you should keep 70% of your
portfolio in stocks. If you're 70, you should keep 30% of your
portfolio in stocks.
However, with Americans living longer and longer, many financial
planners are now recommending that the rule should be closer to 110 or
120 minus your age. That's because if you need to make your money last
longer, you'll need the extra growth that stocks can provide.
To find the right asset allocation for you, go to our asset allocation
calculator."
http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/investing_basics.moneymag/index7.htm
I'm not in pain, but I'm definitely in worse shape than
I used to be before last September. I don't expect to
live more than ten more years, perhaps not even five.

I've never been tempted to use a formula for asset
allocation. That sounds far too much like "work" to
me. I just do what I want and avoid anything that looks
at all like "work", but the money keeps rolling in, from
my pension and SS, though I quit working forever
about age 50. it must be true that "God" takes care of
the feeble minded, I guess.

Of course, I don't have any dependents except my
cat, I have cheap rent due to rent-control, and I live
"frugally" though some would be looking for a much
more extreme word to describe it, even though I've
given away more than $100,000 over the last ten
years or so. I've avoided like the plague owning
any Real Estate, so I suppose I have an instinct for
not getting into anything that's sure to create
ongoing grief, Real Estate being the Sirius in that
constellation, considering taxes and "community
standards" and such.
mg
2018-04-09 20:17:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:30:28 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
I've been watching the S&P slide, and I have $300,000 in
my local checking account at the moment, getting zero
interest, because I was so pissed off to find that one of the
online banks I have money in (Popular Direct) had been
paying 1.50% to new customers since January, but still
paying me, as an old customer, 1.15%, that I completely
closed out that account last week, as soon as I was sure
interest for March had been credited, and had all the
money wired to my local bank.
If the S&P dips some more, maybe I'll take a flyer and put at
least $100,000 into it. I've been avoiding stocks because they're
too risky, but I feel like taking a flyer. I should move at least
$100,000 of the money into the Charles Schwab savings account,
which does pay at least a little interest. If I have money at
Schwab, I can move fast if I want to buy into the S&P. I hesitate
and hesitate and hesitate, but when I decide to do something, I
want it done IMMEDIATELY . That's just the way I am.
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
---
I have to move my car by Monday noon, or the meter whores
will give me a $76 parking ticket. That would piss me off a lot
more than losing $100,000 in the stock market, which may not
make much sense, but as is often observed, old people are
funny in the head.
In theory -- and in practice, too, I might add -- one should become
increasingly more and more conservative with his investments as he
gets older and older and considering our age (pushing 80), I think we
should be extremely cautious.
50/50 diversified equities and fixed income seems reasonable.
Everyone has to make his own decision based on a variety of factors
and a couple of the most obvious ones, of course, is how long he
thinks he's going to live and how much of his money is "excess wealth"
(for lack of a better phrase).
"What's the best asset allocation for my age?
The old rule of thumb used to be that you should subtract your age
from 100 - and that's the percentage of your portfolio that you should
keep in stocks. For example, if you're 30, you should keep 70% of your
portfolio in stocks. If you're 70, you should keep 30% of your
portfolio in stocks.
However, with Americans living longer and longer, many financial
planners are now recommending that the rule should be closer to 110 or
120 minus your age. That's because if you need to make your money last
longer, you'll need the extra growth that stocks can provide.
To find the right asset allocation for you, go to our asset allocation
calculator."
http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/investing_basics.moneymag/index7.htm
I'm not in pain, but I'm definitely in worse shape than
I used to be before last September. I don't expect to
live more than ten more years, perhaps not even five.
I've never been tempted to use a formula for asset
allocation. That sounds far too much like "work" to
me. I just do what I want and avoid anything that looks
at all like "work", but the money keeps rolling in, from
my pension and SS, though I quit working forever
about age 50. it must be true that "God" takes care of
the feeble minded, I guess.
Of course, I don't have any dependents except my
cat, I have cheap rent due to rent-control, and I live
"frugally" though some would be looking for a much
more extreme word to describe it, even though I've
given away more than $100,000 over the last ten
years or so. I've avoided like the plague owning
any Real Estate, so I suppose I have an instinct for
not getting into anything that's sure to create
ongoing grief, Real Estate being the Sirius in that
constellation, considering taxes and "community
standards" and such.
I agree with all of that, including my life expectancy part and I also
agree with avoiding as much work and worry as one can.

In regard to this newsgroup and life expectancy, do we get many new
members on this newsgroup? I don't really have any idea because I
don't keep track of a lot of names and then some people obviously
change their user name, from time to time, anyway.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-09 23:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:30:28 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
I've been watching the S&P slide, and I have $300,000 in
my local checking account at the moment, getting zero
interest, because I was so pissed off to find that one of the
online banks I have money in (Popular Direct) had been
paying 1.50% to new customers since January, but still
paying me, as an old customer, 1.15%, that I completely
closed out that account last week, as soon as I was sure
interest for March had been credited, and had all the
money wired to my local bank.
If the S&P dips some more, maybe I'll take a flyer and put at
least $100,000 into it. I've been avoiding stocks because they're
too risky, but I feel like taking a flyer. I should move at least
$100,000 of the money into the Charles Schwab savings account,
which does pay at least a little interest. If I have money at
Schwab, I can move fast if I want to buy into the S&P. I hesitate
and hesitate and hesitate, but when I decide to do something, I
want it done IMMEDIATELY . That's just the way I am.
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
---
I have to move my car by Monday noon, or the meter whores
will give me a $76 parking ticket. That would piss me off a lot
more than losing $100,000 in the stock market, which may not
make much sense, but as is often observed, old people are
funny in the head.
In theory -- and in practice, too, I might add -- one should become
increasingly more and more conservative with his investments as he
gets older and older and considering our age (pushing 80), I think we
should be extremely cautious.
50/50 diversified equities and fixed income seems reasonable.
Everyone has to make his own decision based on a variety of factors
and a couple of the most obvious ones, of course, is how long he
thinks he's going to live and how much of his money is "excess wealth"
(for lack of a better phrase).
"What's the best asset allocation for my age?
The old rule of thumb used to be that you should subtract your age
from 100 - and that's the percentage of your portfolio that you should
keep in stocks. For example, if you're 30, you should keep 70% of your
portfolio in stocks. If you're 70, you should keep 30% of your
portfolio in stocks.
However, with Americans living longer and longer, many financial
planners are now recommending that the rule should be closer to 110 or
120 minus your age. That's because if you need to make your money last
longer, you'll need the extra growth that stocks can provide.
To find the right asset allocation for you, go to our asset allocation
calculator."
http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/investing_basics.moneymag/index7.htm
I'm not in pain, but I'm definitely in worse shape than
I used to be before last September. I don't expect to
live more than ten more years, perhaps not even five.
I've never been tempted to use a formula for asset
allocation. That sounds far too much like "work" to
me. I just do what I want and avoid anything that looks
at all like "work", but the money keeps rolling in, from
my pension and SS, though I quit working forever
about age 50. it must be true that "God" takes care of
the feeble minded, I guess.
Of course, I don't have any dependents except my
cat, I have cheap rent due to rent-control, and I live
"frugally" though some would be looking for a much
more extreme word to describe it, even though I've
given away more than $100,000 over the last ten
years or so. I've avoided like the plague owning
any Real Estate, so I suppose I have an instinct for
not getting into anything that's sure to create
ongoing grief, Real Estate being the Sirius in that
constellation, considering taxes and "community
standards" and such.
I agree with all of that, including my life expectancy part and I also
agree with avoiding as much work and worry as one can.
In regard to this newsgroup and life expectancy, do we get many new
members on this newsgroup? I don't really have any idea because I
don't keep track of a lot of names and then some people obviously
change their user name, from time to time, anyway.
I think the majority keep their original user names, or
maybe change it just once or twice when they fall out
of love with it (like Werner who now calls himself "me")

There are fewer members now than there used to
be. Maybe Facebook is sapping the former interest.
mg
2018-04-11 02:07:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
Post by mg
On Mon, 09 Apr 2018 01:30:28 -0700, El Castor
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
I've been watching the S&P slide, and I have $300,000 in
my local checking account at the moment, getting zero
interest, because I was so pissed off to find that one of the
online banks I have money in (Popular Direct) had been
paying 1.50% to new customers since January, but still
paying me, as an old customer, 1.15%, that I completely
closed out that account last week, as soon as I was sure
interest for March had been credited, and had all the
money wired to my local bank.
If the S&P dips some more, maybe I'll take a flyer and put at
least $100,000 into it. I've been avoiding stocks because they're
too risky, but I feel like taking a flyer. I should move at least
$100,000 of the money into the Charles Schwab savings account,
which does pay at least a little interest. If I have money at
Schwab, I can move fast if I want to buy into the S&P. I hesitate
and hesitate and hesitate, but when I decide to do something, I
want it done IMMEDIATELY . That's just the way I am.
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
---
I have to move my car by Monday noon, or the meter whores
will give me a $76 parking ticket. That would piss me off a lot
more than losing $100,000 in the stock market, which may not
make much sense, but as is often observed, old people are
funny in the head.
In theory -- and in practice, too, I might add -- one should become
increasingly more and more conservative with his investments as he
gets older and older and considering our age (pushing 80), I think we
should be extremely cautious.
50/50 diversified equities and fixed income seems reasonable.
Everyone has to make his own decision based on a variety of factors
and a couple of the most obvious ones, of course, is how long he
thinks he's going to live and how much of his money is "excess wealth"
(for lack of a better phrase).
"What's the best asset allocation for my age?
The old rule of thumb used to be that you should subtract your age
from 100 - and that's the percentage of your portfolio that you should
keep in stocks. For example, if you're 30, you should keep 70% of your
portfolio in stocks. If you're 70, you should keep 30% of your
portfolio in stocks.
However, with Americans living longer and longer, many financial
planners are now recommending that the rule should be closer to 110 or
120 minus your age. That's because if you need to make your money last
longer, you'll need the extra growth that stocks can provide.
To find the right asset allocation for you, go to our asset allocation
calculator."
http://money.cnn.com/retirement/guide/investing_basics.moneymag/index7.htm
I'm not in pain, but I'm definitely in worse shape than
I used to be before last September. I don't expect to
live more than ten more years, perhaps not even five.
I've never been tempted to use a formula for asset
allocation. That sounds far too much like "work" to
me. I just do what I want and avoid anything that looks
at all like "work", but the money keeps rolling in, from
my pension and SS, though I quit working forever
about age 50. it must be true that "God" takes care of
the feeble minded, I guess.
Of course, I don't have any dependents except my
cat, I have cheap rent due to rent-control, and I live
"frugally" though some would be looking for a much
more extreme word to describe it, even though I've
given away more than $100,000 over the last ten
years or so. I've avoided like the plague owning
any Real Estate, so I suppose I have an instinct for
not getting into anything that's sure to create
ongoing grief, Real Estate being the Sirius in that
constellation, considering taxes and "community
standards" and such.
I agree with all of that, including my life expectancy part and I also
agree with avoiding as much work and worry as one can.
In regard to this newsgroup and life expectancy, do we get many new
members on this newsgroup? I don't really have any idea because I
don't keep track of a lot of names and then some people obviously
change their user name, from time to time, anyway.
I think the majority keep their original user names, or
maybe change it just once or twice when they fall out
of love with it (like Werner who now calls himself "me")
There are fewer members now than there used to
be. Maybe Facebook is sapping the former interest.
Yes, indeed. I know that facebook is really popular. In fact, my
oldest daughter set me up with an account several years, ago, but I've
never used it.

The advantage with soc.retirement is that one can piss people off and
it doesn't matter, but pissing off friends and relatives is a
different thing entirely.
islander
2018-04-09 19:32:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
I've been watching the S&P slide, and I have $300,000 in
my local checking account at the moment, getting zero
interest, because I was so pissed off to find that one of the
online banks I have money in (Popular Direct) had been
paying 1.50% to new customers since January, but still
paying me, as an old customer, 1.15%, that I completely
closed out that account last week, as soon as I was sure
interest for March had been credited, and had all the
money wired to my local bank.
If the S&P dips some more, maybe I'll take a flyer and put at
least $100,000 into it. I've been avoiding stocks because they're
too risky, but I feel like taking a flyer. I should move at least
$100,000 of the money into the Charles Schwab savings account,
which does pay at least a little interest. If I have money at
Schwab, I can move fast if I want to buy into the S&P. I hesitate
and hesitate and hesitate, but when I decide to do something, I
want it done IMMEDIATELY . That's just the way I am.
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
---
I have to move my car by Monday noon, or the meter whores
will give me a $76 parking ticket. That would piss me off a lot
more than losing $100,000 in the stock market, which may not
make much sense, but as is often observed, old people are
funny in the head.
In theory -- and in practice, too, I might add -- one should become
increasingly more and more conservative with his investments as he
gets older and older and considering our age (pushing 80), I think we
should be extremely cautious.
50/50 diversified equities and fixed income seems reasonable.
That is pretty close to what I have, but I'm finding as I get older that
I am becoming more cautious. I wouldn't want to have to go back to work
at my age, nor would I want to be dependent solely upon care under
Medicaid, especially under Republican administrations.
rumpelstiltskin
2018-04-09 23:46:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
Post by mg
Post by rumpelstiltskin
<snip>
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
I've been watching the S&P slide, and I have $300,000 in
my local checking account at the moment, getting zero
interest, because I was so pissed off to find that one of the
online banks I have money in (Popular Direct) had been
paying 1.50% to new customers since January, but still
paying me, as an old customer, 1.15%, that I completely
closed out that account last week, as soon as I was sure
interest for March had been credited, and had all the
money wired to my local bank.
If the S&P dips some more, maybe I'll take a flyer and put at
least $100,000 into it. I've been avoiding stocks because they're
too risky, but I feel like taking a flyer. I should move at least
$100,000 of the money into the Charles Schwab savings account,
which does pay at least a little interest. If I have money at
Schwab, I can move fast if I want to buy into the S&P. I hesitate
and hesitate and hesitate, but when I decide to do something, I
want it done IMMEDIATELY . That's just the way I am.
Then I have to figure out what to do with the rest of the
money, since my local bank pays zero interest on my checking
account. Money is such a pain in the neck.
---
I have to move my car by Monday noon, or the meter whores
will give me a $76 parking ticket. That would piss me off a lot
more than losing $100,000 in the stock market, which may not
make much sense, but as is often observed, old people are
funny in the head.
In theory -- and in practice, too, I might add -- one should become
increasingly more and more conservative with his investments as he
gets older and older and considering our age (pushing 80), I think we
should be extremely cautious.
50/50 diversified equities and fixed income seems reasonable.
That is pretty close to what I have, but I'm finding as I get older that
I am becoming more cautious. I wouldn't want to have to go back to work
at my age, nor would I want to be dependent solely upon care under
Medicaid, especially under Republican administrations.
I didn't go to Schwab today, and I'm not sure now if I will.
"Popular Direct", the bank whose account I just closed, is
now offering a savings account at 2%, but in association
with that I'm reading warnings from users about come-on
rates that decline in the hope that people are not watching.

2% still seems picayune to me. When I was a kid, banks
routinely paid 5% or 6%. The excuse given, I'm sure, is
that inflation is low now, but I expect that the government's
official inflation rate is just a lie, created to somehow give
more and more money to oligarchs. I don't know why I've
become so suspicious - Oh, Wait - that's right, I DO know.
GLOBALIST
2018-04-08 12:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mg
"The Highly-Anticipated 2017 Fake News Awards
TEAM GOP - January 17, 2018
2017 was a year of unrelenting bias, unfair news coverage, and even
downright fake news. Studies have shown that over 90% of the media’s
coverage of President Trump is negative.
Below are the winners of the 2017 Fake News Awards.
1. The New York Times’ Paul Krugman claimed on the day of President
Trump’s historic, landslide victory that the economy would never
recover.
2. ABC News' Brian Ross CHOKES and sends markets in a downward spiral
with false report.
3. CNN FALSELY reported that candidate Donald Trump and his son Donald
J. Trump, Jr. had access to hacked documents from WikiLeaks.
4. TIME FALSELY reported that President Trump removed a bust of Martin
Luther King, Jr. from the Oval Office.
5. Washington Post FALSELY reported the President’s massive sold-out
rally in Pensacola, Florida was empty. Dishonest reporter showed
picture of empty arena HOURS before crowd started pouring in.
6. CNN FALSELY edited a video to make it appear President Trump
defiantly overfed fish during a visit with the Japanese prime
minister. Japanese prime minister actually led the way with the
feeding.
7. CNN FALSELY reported about Anthony Scaramucci’s meeting with a
Russian, but retracted it due to a “significant breakdown in process.”
8. Newsweek FALSELY reported that Polish First Lady Agata
Kornhauser-Duda did not shake President Trump’s hand.
9. CNN FALSELY reported that former FBI Director James Comey would
dispute President Trump’s claim that he was told he is not under
investigation.
10. The New York Times FALSELY claimed on the front page that the
Trump administration had hidden a climate report.
https://www.gop.com/the-highly-anticipated-2017-fake-news-awards/
----------------------
No statement should be
believed because it is
made by an authority.
-- Robert A. Heinlein
I remember all of these. And they NEVER write an retraction.
Loading...