Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
The latest from Hillary
Comments
-
Actually I did it for you. If you make the ridiculously generous assumption that Trump had $40 million of cash at his disposal upon graduating from college in 1974, and that he is now worth a wikipedia reported $4.5 billion, the S&P 500 would have needed to generate an annual return of 12.5%, which it of course did not.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Care to show the math and your assumptions on his net worth?2001400ex said:
Trump would have been more successful investing his money in the S&P500.Tequilla said:
Downvoted it for the reference to bankruptcy which is the classic attack against Trump the businessman ...Baseman said:
So you're saying Trump isn't smart Tequila ?
Trump's business success is what it is and speaks for itself ...
People that don't think that even the most successful of business people fail from time to time are FS ... the difference is that their successes are way more prevalent and as a result their losses are nothing more than a blip on the radar.
HTH
However, the above assumptions are also insane. The $40 million was the estimated value of Trump's share of his dad's company and was of course about as illiquid of an asset you could have. It's impossible to know just how much available cash Trump had to invest at the time, but it was almost certainly way below $40 million.
There is nothing particularly impressive about Trump's business resume; he was a rich child who inherited a company from his rich father, and learned the ropes of the real estate business from him. But quit making shit up, because he still generated a return much higher than the S&P 500. -
Read my other post. It's called a wwooosssshhhh.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Actually I did it for you. If you make the ridiculously generous assumption that Trump had $40 million of cash at his disposal upon graduating from college in 1974, and that he is now worth a wikipedia reported $4.5 billion, the S&P 500 would have needed to generate an annual return of 12.5%, which it of course did not.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Care to show the math and your assumptions on his net worth?2001400ex said:
Trump would have been more successful investing his money in the S&P500.Tequilla said:
Downvoted it for the reference to bankruptcy which is the classic attack against Trump the businessman ...Baseman said:
So you're saying Trump isn't smart Tequila ?
Trump's business success is what it is and speaks for itself ...
People that don't think that even the most successful of business people fail from time to time are FS ... the difference is that their successes are way more prevalent and as a result their losses are nothing more than a blip on the radar.
HTH
However, the above assumptions are also insane. The $40 million was the estimated value of Trump's share of his dad's company and was of course about as illiquid of an asset you could have. It's impossible to know just how much available cash Trump had to invest at the time, but it was almost certainly way below $40 million.
There is nothing particularly impressive about Trump's business resume; he was a rich child who inherited a company from his rich father, and learned the ropes of the real estate business from him. But quit making shit up, because he still generated a return much higher than the S&P 500. -
Big banks buying up the risky home loans of subprime borrowers, which consisted primarily of loans of people who lacked verified incomes and had poor credit. Then repackaging them as highly rated mortgage securities.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Now I'm curious as to what exactly you think caused the housing bubble.greenblood said:Who passed the regulations that ended up leading to the housing bubble? What's worse, causing the bubble burst or being smart enough to take advantage of it?
The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 created these loans, which the big banks backing Hillary Clinton profited off of until the bubble burst.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme. -
Why do you hate Ric Edelman???TurdBuffer said:
I'm sure Suzie Orman has taught you all about it, from 3 to 6 on Sunday afternoons.2001400ex said:
Clearly the time value of money is lost on you.TurdBuffer said:
Christ. Which PBS or NPR review of Freakonomics are you plagiarizing, Hondo?2001400ex said:
Trump would have been more successful investing his money in the S&P500.Tequilla said:
Downvoted it for the reference to bankruptcy which is the classic attack against Trump the businessman ...Baseman said:
So you're saying Trump isn't smart Tequila ?
Trump's business success is what it is and speaks for itself ...
People that don't think that even the most successful of business people fail from time to time are FS ... the difference is that their successes are way more prevalent and as a result their losses are nothing more than a blip on the radar.
HTH
Forget it. Don't answer. -
Hondo seems to think creating GDP, jobs and taxes is somehow better for society than passive investment
-
Spot on, just missing Clinton's involvement in repealing Glass-Steagall and implementing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This allowed the merger of deposit and investment banks, which led to packaging and selling bad mortgages in the form of mortgage backed securities, as you pointed out.greenblood said:
Big banks buying up the risky home loans of subprime borrowers, which consisted primarily of loans of people who lacked verified incomes and had poor credit. Then repackaging them as highly rated mortgage securities.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Now I'm curious as to what exactly you think caused the housing bubble.greenblood said:Who passed the regulations that ended up leading to the housing bubble? What's worse, causing the bubble burst or being smart enough to take advantage of it?
The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 created these loans, which the big banks backing Hillary Clinton profited off of until the bubble burst.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
-
nice more cock "I'm whooshing you" desperate Hail Mary jump ball chuck to the end zone2001400ex said:
Read my other post. It's called a wwooosssshhhh.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Actually I did it for you. If you make the ridiculously generous assumption that Trump had $40 million of cash at his disposal upon graduating from college in 1974, and that he is now worth a wikipedia reported $4.5 billion, the S&P 500 would have needed to generate an annual return of 12.5%, which it of course did not.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Care to show the math and your assumptions on his net worth?2001400ex said:
Trump would have been more successful investing his money in the S&P500.Tequilla said:
Downvoted it for the reference to bankruptcy which is the classic attack against Trump the businessman ...Baseman said:
So you're saying Trump isn't smart Tequila ?
Trump's business success is what it is and speaks for itself ...
People that don't think that even the most successful of business people fail from time to time are FS ... the difference is that their successes are way more prevalent and as a result their losses are nothing more than a blip on the radar.
HTH
However, the above assumptions are also insane. The $40 million was the estimated value of Trump's share of his dad's company and was of course about as illiquid of an asset you could have. It's impossible to know just how much available cash Trump had to invest at the time, but it was almost certainly way below $40 million.
There is nothing particularly impressive about Trump's business resume; he was a rich child who inherited a company from his rich father, and learned the ropes of the real estate business from him. But quit making shit up, because he still generated a return much higher than the S&P 500.
It's not a whoosh... You are just a fucking idiot
HTH but it wont -
This is kind of why I'm intrigued with Trump. Hillary is the bar which is lying on the floor. I don't think you can get worse, so I'm up for taking a flyer at someone with no political track record. No political track record > Hillary's political track record.Southerndawg said:
Spot on, just missing Clinton's involvement in repealing Glass-Steagall and implementing the Commodity Futures Modernization Act. This allowed the merger of deposit and investment banks, which led to packaging and selling bad mortgages in the form of mortgage backed securities, as you pointed out.greenblood said:
Big banks buying up the risky home loans of subprime borrowers, which consisted primarily of loans of people who lacked verified incomes and had poor credit. Then repackaging them as highly rated mortgage securities.GreenRiverGatorz said:
Now I'm curious as to what exactly you think caused the housing bubble.greenblood said:Who passed the regulations that ended up leading to the housing bubble? What's worse, causing the bubble burst or being smart enough to take advantage of it?
The Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act passed by Bill Clinton in 1993 created these loans, which the big banks backing Hillary Clinton profited off of until the bubble burst.
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
Hondo can try and separate bill and Hillary all he wants, but when hillary puts bill in charge of the economy it kind of wipes that out. -
Was that before, or after, he started selling Trump steaks and fake diplomas from Tump university?RaceBannon said:Trump in 2007 talking about the coming bust and saying he could make a lot of money off it. *swoon*
-
And during the Bush administration, when most of this Ponzi scheme was in high gear, regulators tried to end it, with guess what... regulation. Bush had his economic advisors squash the attempt to regulate the derivatives on mortgages.greenblood said:
What kept the bubble going for so long was newly invested money into these "highly rated" securities. It was pretty much a banking Ponzi Scheme.
But yeah, keep trying to blame Clinton for a collapse that happened 6-7 years into Bush's term.
