WCDF General Assembly

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Nothing secured today, even government bonds, because as we learned recently - government also may become a bankrupt. The Russian proverb says - "if you are so smart, why you are so poor ?" This is apply to everyone who made here a clever statements how to earn $$$,$$$ It is easy to manage not a personal money.

Gene left his money to WCDF for 3-moves QT's which run once in 2 years. Interest from some CD's today are around 3% which gives us in two years - $3,000. This is enough to secure comfortably event as Gene wished.

Alex

[Ingo_Zachos]

Now to something completely different:

There will be a commitee to revise the bye-laws.
That's fine.
Was it decided who is on that commitee?

Greetinx from cloudy Wattenscheid,
birth place of James Bond

Ingo

[Bernard Coll]

Could Charles Walker not be approached to advise on WCDF finances?

[liam stephens]

Ingo,

If they convert all that money into gold bars and put them in Fort Knox, might be quite a safe place for it, with 007 to watch over it.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Another thing is - Gene Lindsay left his money only to promote 3-moves events, not for GAYP, woman, youths. Even with smart investmment if we earn extra bucks,we can still can spend them only for 3-moves man events - remember this.

WCDF Exec's have enough power to do many things, bot not enough to change Gene wishes.

[steve]

for nearly all investors,the principal asset classes of choice boil down to common stocks[for maximum total return],bonds[for reasonable income]and cash reserves[for stability of principal].each differs in risk:stocks are the most volatile,bonds are less so,and the nominal value of cash reserve is inviolable.with proper diversification one can optimize one return.

[Alex_Moiseyev]

Don't invest until end of year - my sources told me that there will be another global crisis around this time, maybe even more serious than year ago. After then you can buy anything you want ... for those companies which survive

Another possibility is - create WCDF stock and register on stock market. Prices in checkers events can be paid by shares.

[MostFamousDane]

Now to something completely different:

There will be a commitee to revise the bye-laws.
That's fine.
Was it decided who is on that commitee?

Ingo

No

[vhabgood]

If you take a look at ANY 30 year period in the history of the stock market. The gain will be slightly over 11% proportioned directly with the DJIA (Dow Jones), and even more so in the S&P 500. No period has had any gain less than this, even if you use a period including the Great Depression! Other stock markets have had a little less gain, but it is much of the same over 30 year periods. Stocks are not meant to be short term investments, unless you live on Wall Street!
Governmental bonds have low returns and are taxable. Local bonds are usually tax free, and sometimes the best bonds you can buy. Still, there is no better investment than having an index that follows the S&P 500.

[Ingo_Zachos]

Dear Eric, did yopu ever re-calculated that?

Given an interst rate of 1 percent a year , you will get a gain of 34 percent after 30 years, so the point is that your gain of 11 percent actually gives proof to the fact that stock market investment in the long run does not promise more gains then a normal interest rate, but rather much lower gains.

Just use your pocket calculator and you will see that even with an interest rate of 0,4 percent (a normal bank account in Germany has more then that) you get a 12,7 percent gain and that beats the stock market in a 30 year perspective.

It is that easy to show that stock market investment does not pay out in the long run, unless you are interested in other goals like the control over a certain company.

It is like a poker game:
The gains are limited and distributed by the stock market, but the market does not create gains.
So like in a Poker game some win and some lose, but overall the money that can be gained is limited and equals the money others lost minus the fees you paid.

If you can make money just by stock market investment then why does your agent demand a fee?
She/he should be able to earn her/his living without a fee if they can really beat the market.
They need no bail out.
But in fact she/he and the investment companies make more profits from fees then from their gains on the stock markets.

There can be bubbles, but in the long run and summarized over all "players" the level of gains is even lower then interests on normal saving accounts.

That fact is known for decades.
Don't get fooled by numbers that on the 1st view appear good.
If you use mathematics you can see how poor the performance really is.
Poker is no game that produces millionaires, but also a game in which millions are lost and the casino gets a gain from the fees they collect.
The stock markets distributes shares that give you the rights to receive a certain share of the profits of a company.
Or a certain share of the losses, which is what all seem to forget.
In the end only the profits of the companies determine the growth of the stock markets and that is summarized over all companies, not very much.

Greetinx from cloudy Germany,

Ingo Zachos

[steve]

well-ingo i don't know anything about the german economy.however in the usa you can make money in the stock market if you know what your doing.i have over the past 40 years-not a lot,but a lot more then if i left it in a bank account.

[MostFamousDane]

Ingo I don't know what you are smoking but can I have some .

http://www.the-privateer.com/chart/dow-long.html

Dear Eric, did yopu ever re-calculated that?

Given an interst rate of 1 percent a year , you will get a gain of 34 percent after 30 years, so the point is that your gain of 11 percent actually gives proof to the fact that stock market investment in the long run does not promise more gains then a normal interest rate, but rather much lower gains.

Just use your pocket calculator and you will see that even with an interest rate of 0,4 percent (a normal bank account in Germany has more then that) you get a 12,7 percent gain and that beats the stock market in a 30 year perspective.

It is that easy to show that stock market investment does not pay out in the long run, unless you are interested in other goals like the control over a certain company.

It is like a poker game:
The gains are limited and distributed by the stock market, but the market does not create gains.
So like in a Poker game some win and some lose, but overall the money that can be gained is limited and equals the money others lost minus the fees you paid.

If you can make money just by stock market investment then why does your agent demand a fee?
She/he should be able to earn her/his living without a fee if they can really beat the market.
They need no bail out.
But in fact she/he and the investment companies make more profits from fees then from their gains on the stock markets.

There can be bubbles, but in the long run and summarized over all "players" the level of gains is even lower then interests on normal saving accounts.

That fact is known for decades.
Don't get fooled by numbers that on the 1st view appear good.
If you use mathematics you can see how poor the performance really is.
Poker is no game that produces millionaires, but also a game in which millions are lost and the casino gets a gain from the fees they collect.
The stock markets distributes shares that give you the rights to receive a certain share of the profits of a company.
Or a certain share of the losses, which is what all seem to forget.
In the end only the profits of the companies determine the growth of the stock markets and that is summarized over all companies, not very much.

Greetinx from cloudy Germany,

Ingo Zachos

[Ingo_Zachos]

Sune,

I am asthmatic and don't smoke at all.


But what did you do?

You took an investment chart for real.
Take a closer look:
1.It is not linear, but "semi-log" ie it creates overportortional growth.
The growth is not real or if there is growth it is overestimated.
Look at the distance on the axis and you see that the difference from 12.000 to 14.000 is different from that between 2.000 and 4.000 in order to see what that means.

2. Also, the base was cut.
It does not begin with 0, but at least with 500.

To make an example:
If you bought shares worth 10 and you sold them for 12 a year later, you gained 2 points.
That is 2/10*100 = 20 percent

If I bought shares worth 100 and sold it for 102 a year later I also gained 2 points , but my growth rate is ony 2/100*100 = 2 percent, or 10 times less then the growth of your shares.

BUT:
If I cut out 10 in your growth graphic and 100 in mine (the base) and paste them side by side, it seems, graphically, that we had the same growth.
In other words: cutting the base makes lower growth rates look bigger.

3. Did you realize those "supportive lines" creating kind of "tunnels".
What are they good for?

That is very simple: they create an optical illusion as our mind uses this supportive lines to create a trend and that makes the real line, in between the supportive lines, look longer and steeper then it really is.
Note there is no supportive line if there is a decline.
You can guess why.

That is a very poor and old, but silly dirty trick of investment bankers that still works after all those years...

At least you fell for it.

So no, I don't smoke and I don't take an investment chart made with the purpose to sell shares to you for real.
It is a marketing trick, manipulated and not for real.

BTW:
Did you realize the small red column under the chart?
They represent the real growth. Do they look impressive?
Certainly not that much as the graphic above , especially as you can see the decline of the recent years in real proportion

This is kept small, not to scare the possible costumer.
But to avoid compensation claims if the customer realizes he lost with his invesment in shares.
The invesment banker then points out that she/he in fact did not hide the truth and that you were informed about the risks properly, but you just did not want to see it.

Greetinx from cloudy Dortmund,

Ingo

[MostFamousDane]

Sune,

I am asthmatic and don't smoke at all.

Ingo

Good one .

But what did you do?

You took an investment chart for real.
Take a closer look:
1.It is not linear, but "semi-log" ie it creates overportortional growth.
The growth is not real or if there is growth it is overestimated.
Look at the distance on the axis and you see that the diffrence from 12.000 to 14.000 is different from that between 2.000 and 4.000 in order to see what that means.

2. Also, the base was cut.
It does not begin with 0, but at least with 500.

To make an example:
If you bought shares worth 10 and you sold them for 12 a year later, you gained 2 points.
That is 2/10*100 = 20 percent

If I bought shares worth 100 and sold it for 102 a year later I also gained 2 points , but my growth rate is ony 2/100*100 = 2 percent, or 10 times less then the growth of your shares.

BUT:
If I cut out 10 in your growth graphic and 100 in mine (the base) and paste them side by side, it seems, graphically, that we had the same growth.
In other words: cutting the base makes lower growth rates look bigger.

3. Did you realize those "supportive lines" creating kind of "tunnels".
What are they good for?

That is very simply: they create an optical illusion as our mind uses this supportive lines to create a trend and that makes the real line, in between the supportive lines look longer and steeper then it really is.

That is a very poor and old, but silly dirty trick of investment bankers that still works after all those years...

At least you fell for it.

So no, I don't smoke and I don't take an investment chart made with the purpose to sell shares to you for real.
It is a marketing trick, manipulated and not for real.

BTW:
Did you realize the small red column under the chart?
They represent the real growth. Do they look impressive?
Certainly not that much as the graphic above , especially as you can see the decline of the recent years in real proportion

This is kept small, not to scare the possible costumer.

Greetinx from cloudy Dortmund,

Ingo

Very funny Ingo

Since I have taken univercity level courses in statistics and economics - I'm well aware that you can cheat with charts that is why I just looked at the numbers. On the chart you can see that start index is around 1.000 and end index is around 10.000 which is quite a bit higher than 34 % .

Here is another chart from an independent source with a linear scale that shows EXACTLY the same thing:

http://money.cnn.com/quote/chart/chart. ... t1=Refresh

Your argumentation is COMPLETELY absurd Ingo - think about it if it wasn't a good investment to buy stocks why would anyone do it ??? The tradeoff is that you might have to keep your stocks for a long time for instance if you bought stocks on the high in 1999 it took 8 years before they got back to the same value. Another thing you have to taken into consideration is that some companies pay off dividends which you have to add which makes it even more lucrative.

[Ingo_Zachos]

So, if you had courses in finacial mathematics, do you know that the Dow Jones changed over the years?
In composition and scale?

What the Dow Jones is about:
It shows the winners of the capital distribution, but not in real value.
If you take the companies that were in the Dow Jones in 1972 in value of money and volume as in 1972, and look at them you will see a modest rise, not more.
Just look once again at the red columns under the 1st exasmple you picked.

What do you do if you just take a look at the Dow Jones without taking in account the real values and volume changes?
It is like showing those top 10 poker players that have earned millions each years, and claim that eveyone can make easy money by playing poker.
That index of course rises as price money increases.
The same with the Dow Jones:
It rises as long as the profits overall rise.
Once profits drop they also drop.
But the composition of the Top 10 changes and who was a winner might end up as a loser, but that is not refelcted in those "index" numbers, as losers are thrown out.

BUT:
Does the market overall rise if the best performances rise?
What about the losers that fell in debt cause they started to play poker?
What abnout those who gave their money to invesmant bankers?
They are millions.

Your mistake Sune, is just to pick the raisins and forget about the rotten harvest and you proclaim to have had excellent years, as the best 100 still taste as well as ever or even better and now also gain higher prices at the market.
And the real problem of investment is too see which ones will rise and which ones will fall.
If you can predict that safely I would say it is worth while, but there lies the catch why almost all investment houses are on a verge to collapse or collapsed.
You can't predict that.

You can make money in horse betting as well, but millions more are lost over the years, even if the best performers "(winners) make more then ever.

Greetinx from Dortmund,

Ingo