Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.
“I read such articles, keep diversified portfolio, sell if market drops 10 percent, then buy back if market crosses previous high.”
What? Using SPY (the ETF for the S&P 500 Index). The high in late 2007 was 155.75. It dropped >10% in January of 2000. So you sold equities. It didn’t come back and cross the “previous high” of 155.75 until late 2007 when it hit 157.52. So then you bought back - just in time for the next crash. Am I understanding your strategy?
Just like an emergency plan, it is best for investors to have a bug out plan of sorts if they feel they have to pull the trigger. A list of funds that would hold up in a bear scenario if you wish. I'm in my late 50's and would rather not take a big hit here.
When will it happen? Only God and Goldman Sachs knows.
Goldman Sachs’ Blankfein on Banking: ‘Doing God’s Work’
By Matt Phillips
The Times of London’s mammoth 6,900-word piece on Goldman Sachs over the weekend contains plenty of fodder for those that see the investment bank as Wall Street’s top dog, as well as those that see it as a creepy, conspiratorial vampire squid of finance.
But the key quote that’s getting attention comes in Goldman Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein’s exchange with a reporter after a question on whether there should be limits to compensation:
Is it possible to make too much money? “Is it possible to have too much ambition? Is it possible to be too successful?” Blankfein shoots back. “I don’t want people in this firm to think that they have accomplished as much for themselves as they can and go on vacation. As the guardian of the interests of the shareholders and, by the way, for the purposes of society, I’d like them to continue to do what they are doing. I don’t want to put a cap on their ambition. It’s hard for me to argue for a cap on their compensation.”
So, it’s business as usual, then, regardless of whether it makes most people howl at the moon with rage? Goldman Sachs, this pillar of the free market, breeder of super-citizens, object of envy and awe will go on raking it in, getting richer than God? An impish grin spreads across Blankfein’s face. Call him a fat cat who mocks the public. Call him wicked. Call him what you will. He is, he says, just a banker “doing God’s work”
Even if you have serious questions about whether investment banks actually perform a useful societal function, there’s no reason to get all bent out of shape about Blankfein’s comments. The “impish grin,” that seems to go along with the abbreviated quote makes it clear that the head Goldmanite just can’t resist winding us all up a bit.
At the same time, there does seem to be a strange uptick in religious rhetoric from bankers lately, as they strive to counter an upsurge in anti-banker sentiment. For example, Time Magazine’s Justin Fox writes:
In a discussion about morality and markets at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, Goldman Sachs international vice chairman Brian Griffiths, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, described giant paychecks for bankers as an economic necessity. “We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all,” he said.
And the New York Times recently quoted John Varley, of Barclays, telling an audience at London’s St. Martin-in-the-Fields that ”profit is not satanic.”
Blankfein’s wry comment that he’s “doing god’s work” seems almost to be a veiled jab at this sort of religio-public relations push, which to a serious banker of Blankfein’s stature, must seem somewhat silly.
Blankfein clearly knows who he works for. After all, God couldn’t afford him.
“I read such articles, keep diversified portfolio, sell if market drops 10 percent, then buy back if market crosses previous high.”
What? Using SPY (the ETF for the S&P 500 Index). The high in late 2007 was 155.75. It dropped >10% in January of 2000. So you sold equities. It didn’t come back and cross the “previous high” of 155.75 until late 2007 when it hit 157.52. So then you bought back - just in time for the next crash. Am I understanding your strategy?
no you are not. I again sold after it crashed 10%. And I should have mentioned I only do this in 401k. Otherwise I DCA. Also I was holding my left hand up while I was typing the response instead of my right hand.
Catch. Catch! Quoting uncle Lloyd. I could have done without that. But thanks, anyway. Inequality is inevitable. But an egalitarian elan is quite morally necessary.There's my .02 cents for today. Liberté, égalité, fraternité. And we are currently in short supply of them all.
There's going to be no end to these articles........until there will actually be the inevitable bear market, and then they will all say they were right.......
I would be curious to see what Blankfein a.) does when he retires (assuming he does) and b.) does with his estate when he dies. Of course, I will be dead first, so it is idle speculation, but I think there is more to this guy than meets the eye (except perhaps when he winks -- clearly he doesn't blink). Or not. I also find it ironic that when he applied to G-S for a job he was rejected --- became a Goldmanite via G-S buy-out/takeover. Should be a great subject for biography.
Comments
I don't read articles like these anymore. Waste of time. One persons slanted opinion amongst many.
Have a plan and a diversified portfolio to go with it and carry on with your life.
“I read such articles, keep diversified portfolio, sell if market drops
10 percent, then buy back if market crosses previous high.”
What?
Using SPY (the ETF for the S&P 500 Index).
The high in late 2007 was 155.75.
It dropped >10% in January of 2000.
So you sold equities.
It didn’t come back and cross the “previous high” of 155.75
until late 2007 when it hit 157.52.
So then you bought back - just in time for the next crash.
Am I understanding your strategy?
When will it happen? Only God and Goldman Sachs knows.
Have not forgotten this from Nov 9, 2009:
Goldman Sachs’ Blankfein on Banking: ‘Doing God’s Work’
By Matt Phillips
The Times of London’s mammoth 6,900-word piece on Goldman Sachs over the weekend contains plenty of fodder for those that see the investment bank as Wall Street’s top dog, as well as those that see it as a creepy, conspiratorial vampire squid of finance.
But the key quote that’s getting attention comes in Goldman Chief Executive Lloyd Blankfein’s exchange with a reporter after a question on whether there should be limits to compensation:
Is it possible to make too much money? “Is it possible to have too much ambition? Is it possible to be too successful?” Blankfein shoots back. “I don’t want people in this firm to think that they have accomplished as much for themselves as they can and go on vacation. As the guardian of the interests of the shareholders and, by the way, for the purposes of society, I’d like them to continue to do what they are doing. I don’t want to put a cap on their ambition. It’s hard for me to argue for a cap on their compensation.”
So, it’s business as usual, then, regardless of whether it makes most people howl at the moon with rage? Goldman Sachs, this pillar of the free market, breeder of super-citizens, object of envy and awe will go on raking it in, getting richer than God? An impish grin spreads across Blankfein’s face. Call him a fat cat who mocks the public. Call him wicked. Call him what you will. He is, he says, just a banker “doing God’s work”
Even if you have serious questions about whether investment banks actually perform a useful societal function, there’s no reason to get all bent out of shape about Blankfein’s comments. The “impish grin,” that seems to go along with the abbreviated quote makes it clear that the head Goldmanite just can’t resist winding us all up a bit.
At the same time, there does seem to be a strange uptick in religious rhetoric from bankers lately, as they strive to counter an upsurge in anti-banker sentiment. For example, Time Magazine’s Justin Fox writes:
In a discussion about morality and markets at St. Paul’s Cathedral in London, Goldman Sachs international vice chairman Brian Griffiths, a former adviser to Margaret Thatcher, described giant paychecks for bankers as an economic necessity. “We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all,” he said.
And the New York Times recently quoted John Varley, of Barclays, telling an audience at London’s St. Martin-in-the-Fields that ”profit is not satanic.”
Blankfein’s wry comment that he’s “doing god’s work” seems almost to be a veiled jab at this sort of religio-public relations push, which to a serious banker of Blankfein’s stature, must seem somewhat silly.
Blankfein clearly knows who he works for. After all, God couldn’t afford him.
Sarcasm est moi nome
Liberté, égalité, fraternité. And we are currently in short supply of them all.
There's going to be no end to these articles........until there will actually be the inevitable bear market, and then they will all say they were right.......
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/two-signs-a-market-crash-is-coming-153348885.html
and b.) does with his estate when he dies. Of course, I will be dead first, so it is idle speculation, but I think there is more to this guy than meets the eye (except perhaps when he winks -- clearly he doesn't blink). Or not. I also find it ironic that when he applied to G-S for a job he was rejected --- became a Goldmanite via G-S buy-out/takeover. Should be a great subject for biography.