Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

awallejr (80.15)

Anti-Bailout people here have real money in the stock market?

Recs

3

September 24, 2008 – Comments (12)

I see alot of anti-bailout blogs.  And I am just curious.  Are you REALLY invested in the stock market?  And if you are do you really think this plan will hurt the market long term?  I am invested in the market.  And as an investor I really do want this plan to pass (I want it to pass even if I wasn't) because I am pretty confident the market will rally bigtime if it does (at least short term).  I also feel it has a chance to do what Paulson and Bernanke think it will do (2 really smart people even if you don't agree with their policies).

Piecemeal, firebrigading isn't working. Both just bottom lined the probelm and decided let's just deal with it and turn things around.  I happen to agree with them.  It isn't just spending $700 billion.  It is investing $700 billion in the US economy.

The ultimate is "time."  But we need stabilization first, and the purpose of this plan is to hopefully, and finally achieve that.  Once stabilized then growth should resume, albeit at a slower pace, but at an upward pace nevertheless.

Anyway, if you are against this plan, and have REAL money in the market I would love to hear you reasons.

 

 

12 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On September 25, 2008 at 12:07 AM, d1david (29.88) wrote:

I have money invested, but do more daytrading than anything. 

If this bailout gets passed, several trillion will be wiped out (notice the wording on the bill... $700 billion at any one time) and then a few months later we will have a major crash.

Do you remember Bear Stearns-- didn't they say that was the "last" bailout and that it would fix everything?  

 I am not the best writer...so recommend visiting www.fedupusa.org or market-ticker.denniger.net.

 

-David 

Report this comment
#2) On September 25, 2008 at 12:30 AM, EnergyCzar79 (61.80) wrote:

Yes, I have REAL money invested in the markets.

I, like most people, am revolted at the measures that have been forced upon us by this situation. I have a serious problem with the 'moral hazard' it poses. This is just another step down the long bailout road we've traveled so far. What guarantees do we have that this will work? Nothing else has so far.

That being said, I'm not sure what other options are open to us. I am thankful that Congress didn't rubber stamp this proposal like the Frannie fiasco. This $700 billion proposal is a huge escalation in the fight to stem the blood letting. If it fails, how much further can we escalate this? Or is this the last 'hurrah'?

Bottom Line: I loathe and detest this $700 billion package, but I'm not smart enough to come up with any other alternative. The only other recourse is total failure of the banking system. Where that would leave us is anyone's guess.

Report this comment
#3) On September 25, 2008 at 12:49 AM, BradAllenton (31.74) wrote:

I have real money in the market and real money to loose, but I think the market should bleed when it needs to. I don't like government intervention in good or bad markets. Free market shouldn't be just a catch phrase. Here is the real rub.............. If you have.... say 100K in the market and the market took a 25% haircut from here it would be worth 75K. Now figure if you had 100k and it rose 25% after a bailout, but the buying power of the 125K was really 75K after the devaluation of the US green back. Why bother "fixing" it?

Report this comment
#4) On September 25, 2008 at 12:57 AM, motleyanimal (97.75) wrote:

I am amazed by the outrage and moral indignation many writers profess. Certainly, you knew your government would always do this, as they have done in the past.

A trillion government dollars are about to enter the financial system. The wise man steps out of the way.

Report this comment
#5) On September 25, 2008 at 1:43 AM, LordZ wrote:

Yeah I have a ton of money invested, now wishing that I didn't these phuckers are going to screw up, I can almost guarantee that.

What good is a rally if it takes 700 billion to get a stupid 10% gain in stocks that will quickly evaporate, nothing really is going to change, except that these super rich insiders are going to end up even more richer while honest smaller investors will end up in a losing sum game.

I say F the credit markrt

F the banks

Its stupid trying to force interest rates into negative yields.

These leveraged to the hilt greedy sons of dogs will only burn threw any liquidity.

Hell Paulson was the grand mastermind of it back when he was with Goldman SUCKS and now he's finally admitting they all screwed up, well maybe they need to find a solution that doesnt involve all this bull crap welfare which only rewards stupidity.

 

Report this comment
#6) On September 25, 2008 at 2:24 AM, EnergyCzar79 (61.80) wrote:

An addendum:

I am not smart enough to figure this situation out but apparently Mr. Karl Denninger is.

I decided to watch www.FedUpUSA.com as many anti-bailouters suggested.

I only understand two of his three points. The open exchange for the credit default swaps is a little beyond me right now, but the other two points are crystal clear. (I'll get up to speed on the CDS exchange shortly.)

Mr. Denninger's ideas seem very plausible. I don't see why we can't try his ideas prior to tossing $700 billion at the problem and giving Mr. Paulson the equivalent of dictatorial power over the financial markets.

I think I can now say I'm now officially against the $700 billion plan until Mr. Denninger's free-market ideas have been tried. I can even say it without a single expletive in any of my sentences.

As Mark Twain said, "It aint' what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."

Here, here. 

Report this comment
#7) On September 25, 2008 at 8:26 AM, devoish (98.73) wrote:

Yes. If this bailout passes I will get a boost in my portfolio that is removed by inflation in 2-3 years.

I value America more.

I value politicians that answer to my vote over ones that cower in fear of a "to big to fail" banking system, or ones that beat down renewables which can free us from monthly payments that impoverish my neighbors while enriching a select minority.

Report this comment
#8) On September 25, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Imperial1964 (97.91) wrote:

I have substantial money in the stock market, mostly in retirement accounts.  I also have a significant sum in taxable accounts and I no longer have cash sitting on the sidelines (I've been buying stocks recently).

I'm against the bailout for multiple reasons, the most of which is that I do not believe tax dollars should be spent to prop up asset prices.  The Treasury isn't "investing" the money because they plan to buy these assets at far above-market prices.

I don't trust the government to carry it out effectively, nor do I trust Sec. Paulson not to just funnel the money to his buddies at Goldman Sachs.

If you must spend enormous amounts of taxpayer money, there are better ways to spend it that will give us more long-term benefit.

How the market reacts isn't relevant.  What matters is how does what we do today affect our children?

Report this comment
#9) On September 25, 2008 at 10:00 AM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

Well just a comment about let the "free market" cure it.  It was the "free market" that caused the problem to begin with.  The regulators basically stepped aside and let everyone  do pretty much what they wanted (changing Glass-Seagal act to allow  anyone to lend residential mortgages, changing the leverage rule limitation of 15-1, letting naked shorters wolfpack any company target, etc.).

Report this comment
#10) On September 25, 2008 at 10:12 AM, starbucks4ever (99.54) wrote:

I have money in the stock market, and I am anti-bailout. The reason I am against bailouts is that if I sell my current port at 25% profit, it won't change anything, I'll still be staring at growing prices and still-unaffordable houses. I'd much rather have the stock market collapse, buy more stocks on the cheap during the next 4 years and then enjoy the benefits of recovery as it happens naturally, or better yet, the resuslting real estate deflation might even put a house within my reach. The reason I have money in the stock market is that I know who I'm dealing with, and I don't think Bernanke, Paulson & Co. will let anything of the above actually happen, at any rate, I need an insurance against the scenario in which everything just shoots up to the sky, leaving me wondering where I went wrong in my analysis. My free-market instincts tell me the bottom should be somewhere around 8500 if they don't put the market on steroids; unfortunately, I'm in no position, and have no particular desire, to test Bernanke, Paulson & Co's commitment to free markets.

Report this comment
#11) On September 25, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Schmacko (91.92) wrote:

Jim Jubak wrote a pretty good article about the bailout and why it's current form is horrible.  A bailout is almost 100% guaranteed so being pro or anti bailout is kind of a moot point that does nothing but give you internet bragging rights if things do/don't turn out like you expect.  The real issue is what is the bailout going to look like when it does go through.  I'm thankful that a few members of congress from both parties are trying to put the brakes on the process to make sure something reasonable gets passed.  The current unlimited power to Paulson version would be a disaster. 

Report this comment
#12) On September 25, 2008 at 6:41 PM, awallejr (80.15) wrote:

I do want some checks and balances, but I agree with Bernanke.  It HAS to be big, not piecemeal, for it to have the desired effect, otherwise we will simply be wasting money and accomplishing little. 

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement