Stocks & Investing

This forum is for discussion about anything else.
User avatar
Majiffy
Majiffy
Go with the Flow
User avatar
User avatar
Majiffy
Go with the Flow
Go with the Flow
Posts: 23825
Joined: November 23, 2011
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact:

Post Post #50 (ISO) » Sat Mar 01, 2014 9:26 am

Post by Majiffy »

In post 37, Zachrulez wrote:
In post 22, Uite wrote:Don't do stocks, m'kay. Well, don't go in it with hopes of getting rich quick, I should say. If you can find some good long-term investments you'll be fine, but the game is pretty rigged against amateur traders. Don't get greedy, is all I'm saying.
You mean the stock market doesn't work like this in real life? I am so sad... very disappointed. :(
This is beautiful.
Hopefully, some people were unhappy with that and created free softwares to mimic the old computers operating system!

Depending of you operating system, you have different options.

You already have one software installed, it is DOSBox shipped with D-Fend. Lauching it will bring you to an operational MS-DOS. Guess you want to play a GAME so not much to do here. Go to step 2.

Once this is done, go to the step 4.

Some game have several executables files you can select in this step
Only playing in games at personal moderator and/or 50%+ playerlist request.


How To Win Every Game At Mafiascum (The Flowchart)
||
In case anyone was unsure...
Svenskt Stål (23:38) majiffy, worst mod on ms? we talk to a surviving victim of his game
User avatar
PeregrineV
PeregrineV
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
PeregrineV
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 21275
Joined: February 23, 2011
Location: Zendikar

Post Post #51 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:11 am

Post by PeregrineV »

Heard about this this morning. I bolded and redded the part that makes it more relevant to why I'm posting it.
All the other shareholders
pay for the taxes that the board of Directors and any other executives WOULD have to pay for their shares and options, while at the same time paying their own taxes for the inversion.


http://www.marketplace.org/topics/econo ... g-tax-bill

Inversions can hit small investors with a big tax bill

by Nancy Marshall-Genzer
Monday, August 25, 2014 - 05:00
STORY
Ninety-five-year old Lois Powers of Okoboji, Iowa, owns about $40,000 worth of Medtronic stock.

“I’ve been buying it all through the years,” she says.

Now, Medtronic is considering an inversion. Currently, it’s a pharmaceutical and medical device company.

It plans to buy Covidien, a surgical supply firm based in Dublin. Ireland has a lower corporate tax rate than the U.S., meaning Medtronic’s taxes would go down, but Lois Powers’s would spike up.

“It’ll be thousands,” she says.

That’s because Powers will get stock in the new company created by Medtronic’s merger with Covidien. To the IRS, it’ll look like Powers sold her old Medtronic stock.

She’ll have to pay capital gains taxes on the difference between what she originally paid for the stock, and on what it’s worth at the time of the merger.

But the profit’s all on paper. She didn't make a bundle of cash.

Steven Davidoff Solomon is a professor of law at University of California, Berkeley.

He says, for example, “Let’s say you bought the stock at $10 a share and now it’s at $40 a share. The IRS will look at that as $30 in profit and they’re going to tax that at the capital gains rate.”

Depending on your tax bracket, that rate can reach nearly 24 percent.

Why is the IRS doing this to shareholders? Believe it or not, it’s part of a 1994 law intended to discourage inversions.

Robert Willens is an independent tax adviser in New York.

He says the thinking was: “You know, no one will ever want to invert if we create this penalty, but it just hasn’t worked out that way.”

That’s partly because corporations reimburse executives for any capital gains taxes they pay
. Little guy investors aren’t reimbursed, of course. But they don’t protest.

Willens says many don’t realize they’re paying higher taxes in inversions because they hold mutual funds, which tally up your capital gains for the year without breaking it out stock by stock.

And individual investors may be thinking the stock price will eventually go up because of the inversion.

“Once it’s all said and done, we’ll be happy that we bore this short term penalty for the greater payoff that comes later,” Willens says.

But Lois Powers, our 95-year-old Medtronic shareholder, is skeptical.

“I don’t know that exactly," she says. "And furthermore, I probably don’t have that much time.”

Powers says she planned to pass the Medtronic stock on to her heirs so she wouldn’t have to pay tax on it.

“This is money that I have put away for my elder years and for my estate when it’s passed onto my children,” she says.

Now, Powers says, that money will take a hit.
I will have
Limited Access
on weekends.
User avatar
Thestatusquo
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

User avatar
User avatar
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

Shea

Posts: 14370
Joined: July 27, 2006
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #52 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:23 am

Post by Thestatusquo »

I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who has made enough money from investing that the tax from sale would be "thousands."

Put that in perspective. It means she's made at least 10 grand or so on her investment. If the tax is so burdensome to her, she can easily sell out to pay for it, but paying taxes on profit isn't a hardship. It's just what happens when you make money. There is no difference between this and the tax that comes out of a paycheck.
tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner
User avatar
shaft.ed
shaft.ed
dem.agogue
User avatar
User avatar
shaft.ed
dem.agogue
dem.agogue
Posts: 4998
Joined: August 15, 2007
Location: St. Louis

Post Post #53 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 3:24 am

Post by shaft.ed »

so why doesnt she just cash out then?
User avatar
PeregrineV
PeregrineV
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
PeregrineV
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 21275
Joined: February 23, 2011
Location: Zendikar

Post Post #54 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:26 am

Post by PeregrineV »

In post 52, Thestatusquo wrote:I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who has made enough money from investing that the tax from sale would be "thousands."

Put that in perspective. It means she's made at least 10 grand or so on her investment. If the tax is so burdensome to her, she can easily sell out to pay for it, but paying taxes on profit isn't a hardship. It's just what happens when you make money. There is no difference between this and the tax that comes out of a paycheck.



It's a timing issue. Buying stock over the course of 60 years to slowly cash out to meet your living expenses keeps your taxes at a manageable level.

An inversion where the government determines that the old stock you had is now gone and you made a large profit (which is on paper, not in cash) which you must pay taxes for is not the same as determining how and when to sell your stock and how you pay taxes on it.

For the paycheck example, if the government started taking 80% of your check and said "Hey, we will be applying this to your 2015 taxes, so just deal with it", you'd be in the same boat. Sure, you'd have more money in the future, but you probably plan your now-budget based on money you expect to have next week, not next year.
Last edited by PeregrineV on Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
I will have
Limited Access
on weekends.
User avatar
PeregrineV
PeregrineV
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
PeregrineV
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 21275
Joined: February 23, 2011
Location: Zendikar

Post Post #55 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:28 am

Post by PeregrineV »

In post 53, shaft.ed wrote:so why doesnt she just cash out then?


I think she is just going to put it into her estate (she's 90something) and letting her kids deal with the taxes.

It's like having to pay taxes on the money you make selling your car even though you don't want to sell your car. Good news is that you are getting your car back , and even though it's exactly the same, it's now a "new" car.
I will have
Limited Access
on weekends.
User avatar
Thestatusquo
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

User avatar
User avatar
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

Shea

Posts: 14370
Joined: July 27, 2006
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #56 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 7:54 am

Post by Thestatusquo »

In post 54, PeregrineV wrote:
In post 52, Thestatusquo wrote:I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who has made enough money from investing that the tax from sale would be "thousands."

Put that in perspective. It means she's made at least 10 grand or so on her investment. If the tax is so burdensome to her, she can easily sell out to pay for it, but paying taxes on profit isn't a hardship. It's just what happens when you make money. There is no difference between this and the tax that comes out of a paycheck.



It's a timing issue. Buying stock over the course of 60 years to slowly cash out to meet your living expenses keeps your taxes at a manageable level.

An inversion where the government determines that the old stock you had is now gone and you made a large profit (which is on paper, not in cash) which you must pay taxes for is not the same as determining how and when to sell your stock and how you pay taxes on it.

For the paycheck example, if the government started taking 80% of your check and said "Hey, we will be applying this to your 2015 taxes, so just deal with it", you'd be in the same boat. Sure, you'd have more money in the future, but you probably plan your now-budget based on money you expect to have next week, not next year.

No, it would be like if the government took money out of your paycheck for some future benefit you might have. You know. Like they already do for social security and medicaid.

It's not a timing issue. The fact that you're able to make money and not pay taxes is something I don't support, and I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make with "in paper vs in cash." There's no other part of the tax code that makes this distinction. If you win a car, you have to pay taxes on that. If you buy a house and it grows in value, you have to pay taxes on that. As a general rule, investors are under taxed, not the other way around, and, if we return to the point at hand in order for those tax burdens to actually be detrimental, you have to have made literally tens of thousands of dollars. I feel no sympathy. None at all. Cash out if you can't handle it, but I'm pretty sure if you've got those kinds of investments just in PROFITS and you can't afford to pay a few thousand bucks in taxes then you're either a) an idiot who doesn't know that they need liquid capital or b) someone who doesn't know how to diversify their investments.

Suck it up, homie. Cry some more about netting 10000k in profit. No one likes paying taxes, but the harsh reality is that you have to, and investors get out of it more than literally any other group in society other than corporations.
tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner
User avatar
PeregrineV
PeregrineV
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
PeregrineV
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 21275
Joined: February 23, 2011
Location: Zendikar

Post Post #57 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 8:55 am

Post by PeregrineV »

In post 56, Thestatusquo wrote:
In post 54, PeregrineV wrote:
In post 52, Thestatusquo wrote:I find it hard to feel sorry for someone who has made enough money from investing that the tax from sale would be "thousands."

Put that in perspective. It means she's made at least 10 grand or so on her investment. If the tax is so burdensome to her, she can easily sell out to pay for it, but paying taxes on profit isn't a hardship. It's just what happens when you make money. There is no difference between this and the tax that comes out of a paycheck.



It's a timing issue. Buying stock over the course of 60 years to slowly cash out to meet your living expenses keeps your taxes at a manageable level.

An inversion where the government determines that the old stock you had is now gone and you made a large profit (which is on paper, not in cash) which you must pay taxes for is not the same as determining how and when to sell your stock and how you pay taxes on it.

For the paycheck example, if the government started taking 80% of your check and said "Hey, we will be applying this to your 2015 taxes, so just deal with it", you'd be in the same boat. Sure, you'd have more money in the future, but you probably plan your now-budget based on money you expect to have next week, not next year.

No, it would be like if the government took money out of your paycheck for some future benefit you might have. You know. Like they already do for social security and medicaid.

It's not a timing issue. The fact that you're able to make money and not pay taxes is something I don't support, and I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make with "in paper vs in cash." There's no other part of the tax code that makes this distinction. If you win a car, you have to pay taxes on that. If you buy a house and it grows in value, you have to pay taxes on that. As a general rule, investors are under taxed, not the other way around, and, if we return to the point at hand in order for those tax burdens to actually be detrimental, you have to have made literally tens of thousands of dollars. I feel no sympathy. None at all. Cash out if you can't handle it, but I'm pretty sure if you've got those kinds of investments just in PROFITS and you can't afford to pay a few thousand bucks in taxes then you're either a) an idiot who doesn't know that they need liquid capital or b) someone who doesn't know how to diversify their investments.

Suck it up, homie. Cry some more about netting 10000k in profit. No one likes paying taxes, but the harsh reality is that you have to, and investors get out of it more than literally any other group in society other than corporations.


No, it's more like (no pun intended) a change in the status quo. She has stocks that are sitting in her knitting drawer or whatever because they are not important to her current financial status, and BAM, they now cost you $10,000. Through nothing the greedy grandma did, just because the rules in place to make companies not move to a different country, and that exact same penalty in place through legislation does not affect the decision makers, it's passed on to the greedy grandmas of the world.

You don't make money until you cash your stock in (or cash your check). Until then, it's all on paper (not realized). The inversion forces a cash-in whether you like it or not.

If Grandma makes $25k a year, she probably has a tax burden of about 2k (8%). If she suddenly gets taxed for $100k while only making $25k, her taxes come to $18k (18%). If she had decided to cash in, then , yes, pay it and move on- you made money. My point is that she did not decide that, it was forced on her (and all investors on those companies except the ones that decide it).
I will have
Limited Access
on weekends.
User avatar
Thestatusquo
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

User avatar
User avatar
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

Shea

Posts: 14370
Joined: July 27, 2006
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #58 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:20 am

Post by Thestatusquo »

So what you're saying is she made a lot of money? And had to pay taxes on it?

Huh.
tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #59 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:38 am

Post by zoraster »

The interesting thing is that it harms non-grandmas more than grandmas. If I'm working at the 28% marginal income tax rate right now but I'm going to retire in two years at 65 and I know my income is going to reduce to near 0, I have every incentive to hold onto a stock I'll have to pay capital gains on because I'll be taxed this year at 15% and in two or three years at 0%.
.
User avatar
PeregrineV
PeregrineV
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
PeregrineV
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 21275
Joined: February 23, 2011
Location: Zendikar

Post Post #60 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:44 am

Post by PeregrineV »

In post 58, Thestatusquo wrote:So what you're saying is she made a lot of money? And had to pay taxes on it?

Huh.


If that's all you really took away from it, OK.
I will have
Limited Access
on weekends.
User avatar
PeregrineV
PeregrineV
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
PeregrineV
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 21275
Joined: February 23, 2011
Location: Zendikar

Post Post #61 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 9:49 am

Post by PeregrineV »

In post 59, zoraster wrote:The interesting thing is that it harms non-grandmas more than grandmas. If I'm working at the 28% marginal income tax rate right now but I'm going to retire in two years at 65 and I know my income is going to reduce to near 0, I have every incentive to hold onto a stock I'll have to pay capital gains on because I'll be taxed this year at 15% and in two or three years at 0%.


Yes, the net effect is even worse for people near the top of their bracket, since it could send them over it. It is also mitigated by the fact that with an income in place, you can adjust your income to compensate.

Just against the whole forced nature of it, and those that it's intended to penalize bypass that penalty by passing it on.
I will have
Limited Access
on weekends.
User avatar
Thestatusquo
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

User avatar
User avatar
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

Shea

Posts: 14370
Joined: July 27, 2006
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #62 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:20 am

Post by Thestatusquo »

Yes. People at the top of the bracket should be taxed more. That's what's known as a progressive tax system, and it is one of the greatest achievements of our economic society.

Using my house example, if you buy a house for 100,000 and in 5 years that house is worth 500,000 do you think you should be paying property taxes on 100,000k or 500,000k?
tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner
User avatar
PeregrineV
PeregrineV
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
PeregrineV
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 21275
Joined: February 23, 2011
Location: Zendikar

Post Post #63 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:33 am

Post by PeregrineV »

In post 62, Thestatusquo wrote:Yes. People at the top of the bracket should be taxed more. That's what's known as a progressive tax system, and it is one of the greatest achievements of our economic society.

Using my house example, if you buy a house for 100,000 and in 5 years that house is worth 500,000 do you think you should be paying property taxes on 100,000k or 500,000k?


Property taxes are paid every year. Pay on $500k.

Let's say your neighborhood association decided to do their version of inversion.
Your house is worth $500k. You just made $400k this year in addition to whatever you earned.
Pay taxes on that.
I will have
Limited Access
on weekends.
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #64 (ISO) » Wed Sep 10, 2014 10:34 am

Post by zoraster »

I have no problem with progressive taxation, TSQ. I have no problem that someone earning more is in a 28 or 39.6 or higher tax bracket. That's fine with me. And I don't have a problem with so-called "double taxation" either for the most part.

My point was that the stock you bought from the money that you earned and then was taxed as income you could anticipate being able to reduce your tax load as you use it to pay for retirement. That's one of the benefits of tax deferred programs like 401ks too. So when a corporation does something that through no input of your own causes you to be suddenly taxed that has a real impact. Whether you have sympathy or not is something I frankly don't care about, as long as you acknowledge it's not the same thing to be forced to take a tax hit as it is to consciously choose to do so.
.
User avatar
Telo
Telo
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Telo
Goon
Goon
Posts: 821
Joined: August 15, 2012

Post Post #65 (ISO) » Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:47 am

Post by Telo »

I'm an investor in a company and I belong to an online group of other investors in the same company.
A common complaint that I hear from my fellow investors is that the company doesn't care about us and that they only care about share holders and stock holders.

So now I'm thinking that maybe I should be one of those people since everyone assumes they are getting all the benefits. But what is the difference between a stock and a share?
How do I know which one I want to be?
Why are stockholders and shareholders more important than investors?
I'm buying a 'for dummies' book today but I thought I'd ask since the topic is open.
User avatar
Thestatusquo
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

User avatar
User avatar
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

Shea

Posts: 14370
Joined: July 27, 2006
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #66 (ISO) » Fri Sep 12, 2014 6:58 am

Post by Thestatusquo »

Stockholders are those who own stake in the company, I.E. they have actual certificates of stock which entitle them to whatever percent ownership of the company that stock is.

Investors are people who have lended capital to the firm. Stock offerings are one of the ways in which companies can gain raise capitol, so all stockholders are investors, but not all investors are stockholders because not all capital infusions come with a share of the company.

It makes sense that the company would care more about stockholders, since the company is owned by stockholders. Though, they should probably care about other kinds of investors as well because they might want to raise capital at a later date and need more investment but don't want to do any more stock offerings.
tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #67 (ISO) » Fri Sep 12, 2014 9:21 am

Post by zoraster »

First, generally shareholder=stockholder. You own a share of a stock.

Second, shareholders literally own part of a company (i.e. the stock). Executives and Boards of Directors have a fiduciary duty to represent the interests of shareholders. It's not just they have a basic reason to favor shareholders but the law demands it of them. A shareholder's rights are usually contained in a corporation's charter and by-laws.

How are you exactly invested in the company?
.
User avatar
Telo
Telo
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Telo
Goon
Goon
Posts: 821
Joined: August 15, 2012

Post Post #68 (ISO) » Fri Sep 12, 2014 4:01 pm

Post by Telo »

In post 67, zoraster wrote:
shareholder=stockholder.
You own a share of a stock.

How are you exactly invested in the company?

ok lightbulb. I didn't realize that the terms were interchangeable. That simplifies things a bit.

I'm not 'technically' an investor I don't think. I'm more of a customer that owns some benefits in the company.

They sold certain rights to their company. It's like a time share but not exactly.
I bought a certain amount of right to usage and I can sell those rights to someone else. Since the value of my rights have increased since I purchased them I consider it an investment and me an investor but I could be wrong in my thinking.
Rather than sell I can maintain my ownership and rent my rights (time) to others at a profit which is what I do on a regular basis. Again in my mind that makes my ownership a cash-flow investment to me but maybe not making me an investor in the company.

No matter my confused definition I don't own any shares of stock only shares of time or shares of use.

I do get voting rights in proportion to how much time I own. We are in an election and I keep reading the board to try to understand how to vote and people keep saying how bad things are and how we are getting screwed in favor of the share holders so I was figuring that I should become a share holder if they are getting all the benefits.

But hell if I know what they are. I've never owned a stock before. And I make a good living off of renting out so I'm not exactly sure what everyone is so upset about.

I got the 'Investing for Dummies' book today. It does have some chapters on what I need to learn but I think I need to get 'Stocks for Dummies' and research some more because I know nothing.
User avatar
Thestatusquo
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

User avatar
User avatar
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

Shea

Posts: 14370
Joined: July 27, 2006
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #69 (ISO) » Sat Sep 13, 2014 4:57 am

Post by Thestatusquo »

What your describing sounds like you are a "customer" and not an investor at all. Just because the market value of the goods you bought has raised doesn't make you an investor.

It's sort of a weird model you're describing. I don't understand what goods you're talking about, to be honest, unless it IS a time share,

the "companies only care about their shareholders not customers" is a pretty common complaint that is caused by the publicly traded model imo.
tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner
User avatar
Telo
Telo
Goon
User avatar
User avatar
Telo
Goon
Goon
Posts: 821
Joined: August 15, 2012

Post Post #70 (ISO) » Sat Sep 13, 2014 5:16 am

Post by Telo »

Yeah, you may be right. I'm a customer as I have purchased their product but it's confusing to me because I have voting rights based on how much I own so I don't really get it.

The fact that I don't get it is kinda pathetic because this is how I earn my living.
I was happy with it until I joined this group lol. Now I feel like I'm missing out on something.

Btw it is kind of a timeshare only instead of getting deeded a set amount of time in a certain place you can buy however much time you want in any number of places
User avatar
Thestatusquo
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

User avatar
User avatar
Thestatusquo
He/Him
Shea

Shea

Posts: 14370
Joined: July 27, 2006
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Chicago!

Post Post #71 (ISO) » Sat Sep 13, 2014 5:17 am

Post by Thestatusquo »

You make your living off of a timeshare? How do I do that? :-/
tout comprendre c'est tout pardonner
User avatar
zoraster
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
User avatar
User avatar
zoraster
He/Him
Disorganized Crime
Disorganized Crime
Posts: 21680
Joined: June 10, 2008
Pronoun: He/Him
Location: Belmont, CA

Post Post #72 (ISO) » Sat Sep 13, 2014 5:31 am

Post by zoraster »

My parents own a 1/12th share in a house but practically speaking can use any of the 20ish houses in the area for certain dates of the year as well as limited ability to use a few other properties. (http://www.theownersclub.com/clubhome/index.asp) Is it like that?

You may have voting rights to something other than the corporation. Your community may elect members to oversee certain things with a certain allocated budget for improvements and what not based on dues, but that's probably separate from any controlling interest in the company that sold you the interest or any attached resort.
.
User avatar
Majiffy
Majiffy
Go with the Flow
User avatar
User avatar
Majiffy
Go with the Flow
Go with the Flow
Posts: 23825
Joined: November 23, 2011
Location: Memphis, TN
Contact:

Post Post #73 (ISO) » Sat Sep 13, 2014 6:51 am

Post by Majiffy »

Image
Only playing in games at personal moderator and/or 50%+ playerlist request.


How To Win Every Game At Mafiascum (The Flowchart)
||
In case anyone was unsure...
Svenskt Stål (23:38) majiffy, worst mod on ms? we talk to a surviving victim of his game
User avatar
PeregrineV
PeregrineV
Survivor
User avatar
User avatar
PeregrineV
Survivor
Survivor
Posts: 21275
Joined: February 23, 2011
Location: Zendikar

Post Post #74 (ISO) » Fri May 01, 2015 9:42 am

Post by PeregrineV »

In post 25, PeregrineV wrote:
In post 16, shaft.ed wrote:Just buy DJIA, S&P500 etc.


I have 401(k) funds already tied to those, and those don't let me apply them to specific stocks. That's what my old "pension" money is for.

Bought MJNA this morning at about 31 cents a share. It's still there.


Looks like as a long term investment, it may be a bust.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2809915 ... nts_header
I will have
Limited Access
on weekends.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”