Headed to Bern-a-palooza tonight.

[Spartanmack]

Oh, you mean the several failed ventures that Trump had before his old man bailed him out? The university he started that scammed thousands of people? Maybe Trump Steaks, Trump Vodka, Trump Casinos, Trump Mortgage?

And his constant plead to get rid of illegal immigrants while thousands of said people work in his conglomerates.

If it wasn't for his pops, he'd be selling ketchup popsicles to a woman in white gloves. When he's had to actually do work on his own, his companies have failed time and time again. And to be honest with you, I don't really give a damn if Bernie is worth 1 million or 1 cent, if his head is right and he's got good ideas, who gives a damn? Trump's the king of corporate greed and will buddy up to his rich friends. No thanks.

maybe you should reserve this for someone who is supporting Trump. But if you think for a second that Trumps failures - clearly outweighed by his successes by any measure, somehow validate a total failure like Sanders, you're just being foolish. At least you're consistent. By the way - a great many very successful people have failed 1 or more times before making their fortunes - many have built fortunes, lost it all and rebuilt them. So when you look at a guy who has only ever known failure until winning an election in a tiny all white state full of leftists and been broke his whole life and say he's the one who knows how to manage a budget, you look kind of stupid when you criticize someone who has actually made a more than $1bln fortune after having declared bankruptcy and bounced back from it.

 

[tomdalton22]

maybe you should reserve this for someone who is supporting Trump. But if you think for a second that Trumps failures - clearly outweighed by his successes by any measure, somehow validate a total failure like Sanders, you're just being foolish. At least you're consistent. By the way - a great many very successful people have failed 1 or more times before making their fortunes - many have built fortunes, lost it all and rebuilt them. So when look at a guy who has only ever known failure until winning an election is a tiny all white state full of leftists and been broke his whole life and say he's the one whose ideas supported by his ridiculous estimates and projections who knows how to manage a budget, you look kind of stupid when you criticize someone who has actually made a more than $1bln fortune after having declared bankruptcy and bounced back from it.

lol...Sanders thinks it makes financial sense to have $65K in credit card debt.

 

[dubbsco]

Look at his damn timeline. After his first few business bombed, he went into work with the old man. And then he got out on his own, and he's failed time and time again when he put his own crap on the line. If there's a bigger example of silver spoon, I don't know what it is.

 

[Gulo Blue]

I thought there was some explanation for the credit card debt, he paid for a wedding so something like that. Not a constant things for years.

 

[Thumb]

I thought there was some explanation for the credit card debt, he paid for a wedding so something like that. Not a constant things for years.

Stop trying to ruin their arguments. :cheers:

 

[Gulo Blue]

Stop trying to ruin their arguments. :cheers:

Lot of typos in my posts lately...or whatever you want to call them. When I type "so" instead of "or" it's not a mistake of hitting an adjacent key. Don't know how to explain it.

 

[Spartanmack]

I thought there was some explanation for the credit card debt, he paid for a wedding so something like that. Not a constant things for years.

so that's better? Instead of not throwing a wedding you can't afford, finance it with credit card debt? I couldn't find details on his prior disclosures but one piece said he regularly lists credit card debt and LOCs on his financial disclosures.

Stop trying to ruin their arguments. :cheers:

Yeah, he really destroyed that argument.

 

[Spartanmack]

Look at his damn timeline. After his first few business bombed, he went into work with the old man. And then he got out on his own, and he's failed time and time again when he put his own crap on the line. If there's a bigger example of silver spoon, I don't know what it is.

show me on the timeline where his dad gave him a billion dollars? the estimates of what he inherited from his dad are between $40 and $200mm and he claims his net worth is currently $8.7bln - about inline with the S&P500 from the time of his inheritance.

Regardless, it's still better than what Sanders has done in his 70+ years. And I'm not supporting Trump so the comparison is irrelevant - i just think it's absurd that someone knocks him for his financial failings while supporting Sanders.

 

[Gulo Blue]

so that's better? Instead of not throwing a wedding you can't afford, finance it with credit card debt?

It depends entirely on how long it was on his card. If it was one month, there's zero wrong. 2 months, not perfect but not that bad. 3 months, worse. A year? That would be bad. To me, it matters whether or not he's paying interest and what the rate is. There's a world of difference between paying 20% on 65k for years and 10% on 65k for 1 or 2 months.

I've paid for most things with a credit card for a long time, so while I never pay any interest, it does look like I always have some credit card debt.

 

[Gulo Blue]

show me on the timeline where his dad gave him a billion dollars? the estimates of what he inherited from his dad are between $40 and $200mm and he claims his net worth is currently $8.7bln - about inline with the S&P500 from the time of his inheritance.

Regardless, it's still better than what Sanders has done in his 70+ years. And I'm not supporting Trump so the comparison is irrelevant - i just think it's absurd that someone knocks him for his financial failings while supporting Sanders.

If it's in line with S&P, then how is it a sign of achievement?

 

[Thumb]

i just think it's absurd that someone knocks him for his financial failings while supporting Sanders.

So because Sanders is not a billionaire, or didn't inherit a ton of money, and actually lived much closer to the income level of his constituents, and had some credit card debt; I then should not question the financial prowess of a guy who constantly brags about being so rich, has mishandled a ton of money and companies, all the while writing it off and shrugging with a stupid grin on his face when asked about it?

As if they were even in the same ballpark, that's more absurd.

 

[TheVictors]

His plan is about giving money back to the people who earn it and power back to the states, not confiscating more of it for the government to waste on corruption, graft and inefficiency. would you like to compare the results to see which entity is better at managing money and allocating resources - government vs. business?

Any Tax money 'returned to the people' is offset by plenty of corporate money for all the corruption, graft and inefficiency. And then the donors not taxpayers, and the same politicians, pass laws to remove laws in order to make more money off the same taxpayers.

There's no difference

 

[Spartanmack]

If it's in line with S&P, then how is it a sign of achievement?

most active managers under perform the S&P over the long haul. he's actually outperformed slightly.

Also buying equities in the secondary market doesn't have much direct impact on the economy. Building skyscrapers, hotels and pursuing other businesses that produce a product creates jobs both within his organization and those that he contracts with, buys from, etc. It generates income for local businesses, suppliers and so on. It's safe to say, even in his failures, he's likely done more for the economy than Bernie Sanders has.

 

[Spartanmack]

Any Tax money 'returned to the people' is offset by plenty of corporate money for all the corruption, graft and inefficiency. And then the donors not taxpayers, and the same politicians, pass laws to remove laws in order to make more money off the same taxpayers.

There's no difference

It's not offset by corporate money - the corporate money flowing into the government isn't going to increase because of cuts to income taxes. and the high taxes we currently pay isn't offsetting or keeping the special interests in check. They're separate issues. Ted Cruz is opposed to crony corporatism and special interests buying politicians. He wants to take power from the federal government to get special interests out of national politics. Sanders wants to get rid of special interests as well but there is a huge difference - he wants to raise taxes and feed the beast and he somehow thinks he can rein in corruption and waste by making government bigger. You have to be a fool to believe that can be done.

 

[Spartanmack]

So because Sanders is not a billionaire, or didn't inherit a ton of money, and actually lived much closer to the income level of his constituents, and had some credit card debt; I then should not question the financial prowess of a guy who constantly brags about being so rich, has mishandled a ton of money and companies, all the while writing it off and shrugging with a stupid grin on his face when asked about it?

As if they were even in the same ballpark, that's more absurd.

Again you keep wanting to make this about Trump - and again, it's a horrible comparison but not even one worth making. You can question his financial prowess all day long, but when you compare him to Sanders and think Sanders compares favorably, that's where your argument falls apart.

But to answer your question, you don't have to be a billionaire - at this point, I support Ted Cruz, then Kasich and neither of them are even close to being billionaires. You just can't be a total failure and dead beat that didn't get a job until you were 40 especially if that job is working for the government. And you can't be someone that thinks income inequality created the problems that poor people face today and that you can bring about prosperity through taxation.

 

[Gulo Blue]

most active managers under perform the S&P over the long haul.

I've heard this stat before, as an argument that most managers aren't worth the fees they charge and the people that go to them are fools.

 

[TheVictors]

I've heard this stat before, as an argument that most managers aren't worth the fees they charge and the people that go to them are fools.

It's categorically and statistically true for almost every asset class over any material amount of time.

Investors are their own worst enemy still

 

[Spartanmack]

I've heard this stat before, as an argument that most managers aren't worth the fees they charge and the people that go to them are fools.

There is truth to it but it's an oversimplification - it depends on the risk profile. Donald Trump wasn't trading stocks so is the S&P 500 the appropriate benchmark for him? What is his beta to the market? Did his business have more or less volatility than the appropriate benchmark or even the S&P? Did it offer/experience less downside risk? If his business offered significantly less risk while matching the S&P's returns, you could say he massively outperformed. I'm not saying they did - I don't know, but just comparing his returns to the S&P is an apples and oranges comparison - and it ignores the knock-on affects I mentioned in my prior post.

The same is true for active managers - many investors, particularly institutions (endowments, retirement plans, insurance companies, etc) and high net worth individuals are willing to forego upside to the market if a manager can provide low beta/correlation with downside protection. You have to look at risk adjusted returns after fees, not just the S&P 500.

 

[Gulo Blue]

There is truth to it but it's an oversimplification - it depends on the risk profile. Donald Trump wasn't trading stocks so is the S&P 500 the appropriate benchmark for him? What is his beta to the market? Did his business have more or less volatility than the appropriate benchmark or even the S&P? Did it offer/experience less downside risk? If his business offered significantly less risk while matching the S&P's returns, you could say he massively outperformed. I'm not saying they did - I don't know, but just comparing his returns to the S&P is an apples and oranges comparison - and it ignores the knock-on affects I mentioned in my prior post.

The same is true for active managers - many investors, particularly institutions (endowments, retirement plans, insurance companies, etc) and high net worth individuals are willing to forego upside to the market if a manager can provide low beta/correlation with downside protection. You have to look at risk adjusted returns after fees, not just the S&P 500.

Wait. You made the comparison though, not me, right?

 

[Michchamp]

I've heard this stat before, as an argument that most managers aren't worth the fees they charge and the people that go to them are fools.

this is true.
plus - depending on their fee structure - their incentives to manage your money (ie maximizing the fees they can charge you) are often at odds with your own goals of maximizing your return.

money managers have fought tooth and nail against legislation that would require them to have a fiduciary duty to their investors, which is pretty telling.