Euro's Loss = Gold's Gain?

I'm fairly confident that if a crime has been committed, it will be prosecuted. Others may disagree, but the burden of proof is on them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

And suppose they choose not to prosecute it? What does it mean then? Or have you simply eliminated this possibility from your mind? If so is your only "proof" just your emotion of confidence? In other words, this isn't an argument at all against what InfleXion has stated.

Furthermore, in what has become the routine fleecing of stock investors, the Facebook IPO has yet again exposed the lack of regulation enforcement on Wall Street. The TBTF investment banks are there again as well as an entire stock exchange this time, Nasdaq. We will see who gets prosecuted, if anyone, just like it hasn't happened for the last 4 years. I've said many times on this forum this sort of thing was taking place and here it is proven again.

The retail investor stands no chance in this environment though I suppose even the greenest of investors should have seen this one coming.

 

Well, Cloud has to prove nothing. Inflexion is the one who threw out the conjecture, and Cloud was simply saying it would have to be proven. He does not have to "prove" it needs to be proven.

Btw, Facebook IPO was done in the middle of a week of down markets. No one put a gun to the head of anyone to buy the stock, (btw I stayed away from that one like the plague, too many think Facebook is another Google, I instead see another Myspace fiasco). If a stock goes down after it starts trading, I don't see a crime committed. NASDAQ has stated trading difficulties were their problem and apologized.

Sorry, but investing is risky, be it stocks, bonds, houses, or gold. Way too many people in thsi country wants the government to hold thier hand and make sure they cannot lose on an investment. I can see it now, if PM goes down a bunch of people will band together demanding a "PM bailout fund". If you don't understand a stock, a market, and its risks, don't freaking invest.

 

Regarding FB, it was foolish on the part of anyone who bought it, and the result was predictable. Even a superficial analysis of the financials shows that the company was grossly overpriced. But it's a free market and the duty of the investment banker is to match supply and demand. Nobody held a gun to their head and forced them to buy, so I don't feel sorry for anybody involved.

Regarding JPM, you have already convicted them in your mind in lynch mob fashion even though you have no proof of a crime. I can see you, arms flailing, mouth foaming, voice shreeking -- and you call my statement emotional? After you have been in our country for awhile, you will learn that it takes time for prosecutors to gather evidence. The more complex the case, the longer it takes. And until charges are brought, a trial held, and a conviction determined, the accused is presumed innocent.

 

I wrote my comment before reading yours. Funny how we described it the same way.

 

Eh, I bet more than a few here think were are simply the same person with two accounts. The one time we usually disagree, (about DCA), they probably simply think we are arguing with ourselves.

 

Btw, another point about Facebook. In reality Facebook did exactly what they should have, maximized THEIR return on the sale of the stock. Always remember the only money a company gets from stock is when they sell it, not others. Why would a company want to issue stock that goes up dramatically after they sell? That is like you saying, "I hope the instant after I sell this gold the price goes up $100 an ounce so that the new owner gets a huge profit".

I don't like the stock, too risky short term, and long term I don't like the prospects at the price, but I don't begrudge one cent Facebook may have sold their stock for. Everyone should do their own analysis, bring their big boy pants, and understand risks.

 

Gee, do you think there are some multiple personalities on the forum ??

 

Why is this? The investing environment has changed surprisinly little for as long as I've been an investor, or at least 25 years. It's always been about being smart and researching where you put your money and being responsible for your own actions. Today's investors want to throw blame to everyone but themselves. Making money with money is not rocket science. One just has to learn to follow their intelligence and not the rantings of others.
Guy

 

You are correct, of course. I guess it's a sign of the times that some people believe that an investment in the stock market should offer a guaranteed return with little or no effort. If they lose money, someone [but not the face in the mirror] must be at fault. And you are correct that investing isn't rocket science, but it does require a little effort beyond throwing money at whatever TV commentators talk about.

 

I am not a court room and my opinion on JPM is just as irrelevant to yours concerning the facts. Unlike you, I don't use my opinion as a fact. In regards to misdeeds JPM's own CEO has said something went horribly wrong and then in the next breath stated that "regulation" needed to do a better job. There is your proof. Your eyes and ears. It's up to you to pay attention to them or not.

 

I'm a believer in letting people speak for themselves.

In regards to the IPO, nobody said investing wasn't risky. This is another red herring argument.

What was said was that when the rules are broken that govern that risk, as was clearly done here, then every investor needs to exit the room because there is then absolutely no way to judge that risk. Investing is about making judgements of risk vs potential return. The US financial system exists to place that effort into a structured environment that attempts to make it fair for everyone. The facebook fiasco simply demonstrates where this is no longer the stockmarket of years ago and no place for retail investors. They can no longer get a fair shake at things.

camiosis

 

The reason that you are asking Why? is because you falsely believe the investing environment has changed little. Over the last 25 years there has been huge change, absolutely huge, ranging from everything from direct access to the markets via the Internet, the repeal of Glass Stegall (which had a huge effect on the investment banks), regulation change, and now as I pointed out above, outright law breaking which means that YOU the common investor can't judge risk.

Facebook's underwriters did not report Facebook's own estimates for growth and reported numbers much higher at issue time. They did however pass this information own to their "special" customers. The IPO occurs, the stock gets bought up by common investors (directly or indirectly), then it falls a huge amount when the facts come out, and then the "special" customers move in and clean up.

Years ago, people would be thrown in jail for this as the rules say you can't do this. However now, there is no enforcement, no regulation and not one banker tossed in jail. If you wish to believe this environment is the same as it was 25 years ago with all this said, then this is certainly your right. IMO, you have less risk with gold and silver, what this forum is about, and why these continued "adventures" by Wall Street means positive things for bullion investors.

I hope this clears it up for you.

 

Really?! Guess I've just been blindly lucking out all these years. Who knew.
Guy

 

Oh I wrote what I wrote in response to you fully knowing that your only purpose was to attempt to discredit what I've said. This hardly does it as personal acnedotes given as some sort of proof means the party has real argument to make. You didn't address one point that I made. But others reading it will figure it out.

The questions I raised, "can the small investor get a fair shake on Wall Street?", was raised on both ABC & NBC news tonight. Of course they didn't actually answer the question, but the fact these pro-status quo outlets even touch on it speaks volumes for what I've said. So we have that versus your personal acnedote. The rest reading this can decide which to believe.

 

Because when you use "YOU" that makes it personal and personal anecdotes are what I have as response. But no, we use something we heard on ABC and NBC News as non-anectotal references? All news is anecdotal. But, I suppose you'll always be of the opinion that if you didn't invest wisely, then nobody did, or it's all just heresay and unprovable by you. But thats just another "personal anecdote" <--- the correct spelling, by the way.
Guy

 

But personal anecdotes that support Fatima's position are valid newsworthy historical information. Those that don't are simply easily dismissed personal anecdotes.

Haven't you figured that code out by now Guy? Jeez, its easy, nothing you say is correct.

 

I know. What was I thinking.

 

I haven't given any and you haven't addressed what I've posted.

You HAVE done what you ususally do when you have nothing relevant to say to the points made which is to start talking about the individual that made them. Your opinion of me is noted, but it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. As I said above, if you guys don't like what I've posted, and discounting your self-appointed roles as "forum protectors" then I fail to see why you participate in a topic that I've created if you have such feelings towards me which you constantly post on this forum.

 

Thank you for the correct spelling.

However you still haven't addressed my response to your question(s) about investing.