The Investigation
- Thread starter eyephone
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
I am invested in MAGA friendly industries, and the Trump trade has led to exquisite returns far exceeding the S&P (with less risk).
So when Starman or MoreKaos talk about the outstanding results they are having, I believe them.
Real estate is not in a bubble, but is expensive. Invest at your own risk. I'm not currently buying anything, but continue to hold most of what I own.
[fortune11 then proceeds to blather as if he were a self-professed financial expert.
I have seen nobody make that remark, but then again the giggling bullies make things up every day.]
Investors do not "collect return" when they are invested in common stocks and the market retreats. They LOSE MONEY.
Finance 101. Please tell the audience what was your single best investment in the stock market, and provide your analysis.
There is NOTHING criminal about any of those three payments. All three readily admitted to the payments and gave reasons. All legal, this is just a lot of suggestive innuendo but no burger. Watch, there will be no criminal charges filed in relation to these 3 payments, or they would have already been filed by the Southern District.
Liar Loan
Well-known member
I don't remember a Republican president ever doing anything like this before...
Trump Reportedly ?100 Percent? for Race Summit With Kaepernick, Kanye
The president wants to have multiple meetings with athletes and musicians to discuss race.
Trump Reportedly ?100 Percent? for Race Summit With Kaepernick, Kanye
The president wants to have multiple meetings with athletes and musicians to discuss race.
http://www.realclearlife.com/sports...race-summit-with-kaepernick-kanye-and-others/
Liar Loan
Well-known member
fortune11 said:
I am invested in MAGA friendly industries, and the Trump trade has led to exquisite returns far exceeding the S&P (with less risk).
So when Starman or MoreKaos talk about the outstanding results they are having, I believe them.
Real estate is not in a bubble, but is expensive. Invest at your own risk. I'm not currently buying anything, but continue to hold most of what I own.
Yeah but we are not investing for the past but looking forward
Both Trump-friendly sectors Industrials and Banks have underperformed the broader S&P this year
Again, lot of pompous talk but no specifics. For the other readers of this forum , here is my take since you never get a straight answer from the self-professed financial experts of MAGA dom
And this is basic 101 btw , nothing fancy --
In investing , all you are doing is collecting return - based on either 1) price appreciation and, where applicable 2) income generation - this is true of all financial assets
Now the price of assets is based on value of future cash flows discounted by an interest rate - again true of all assets - even tech stocks which don't have any cash flow right now (but its all about "future" potential)
Now this discount rate is all important right -- and it varies depending on the type of asset - but all the discounts rates from those used to value an office building, to the homes in Portola springs to Caterpillar stock are some version of the benchmark treasury rate - for simplicity lets assume 10y treasury - say at 3% right now
If this discount rate goes up from 3% to 4% , guess what happens ? the present value of cash flows goes down -- hence the asset value also goes down . this is why many people say stocks cannot stay at this level is bonds were to selloff violently.
But another offset to that is -- what if future cash flows are also growing at a faster rate then that could make stocks go higher regardless of rates going higher - and this happens to some degree as well as with tax cuts etc.
But as always , stocks look forward not backward so the good news gets priced in fast, Higher earnings for 2018 are already priced in with guidance fully baked in. This is why stocks have been selling off as rates have headed higher lately -- what matters more now if the discount rate of future cash flows
So this is why people who say bond bubble will "burst" don't really know what they are talking about
If a bubble bursting means 20% correction --- or a 20% loss in price -- then the 3% 10y treasury would be at 5.4% -- if that happens in a short period of time -- which is what a "bubble bursting" means , I can guarantee you everyone on this forum is in trouble with their investment portfolios , no matter what asset they are in .
Yes, there will be wise-a__ retorts like you will make money if you are short but there is a cost to being short -- negative carry and margin borrow -- and most people don't operate that way
Both Trump-friendly sectors Industrials and Banks have underperformed the broader S&P this year
Again, lot of pompous talk but no specifics. For the other readers of this forum , here is my take since you never get a straight answer from the self-professed financial experts of MAGA dom
And this is basic 101 btw , nothing fancy --
In investing , all you are doing is collecting return - based on either 1) price appreciation and, where applicable 2) income generation - this is true of all financial assets
Now the price of assets is based on value of future cash flows discounted by an interest rate - again true of all assets - even tech stocks which don't have any cash flow right now (but its all about "future" potential)
Now this discount rate is all important right -- and it varies depending on the type of asset - but all the discounts rates from those used to value an office building, to the homes in Portola springs to Caterpillar stock are some version of the benchmark treasury rate - for simplicity lets assume 10y treasury - say at 3% right now
If this discount rate goes up from 3% to 4% , guess what happens ? the present value of cash flows goes down -- hence the asset value also goes down . this is why many people say stocks cannot stay at this level is bonds were to selloff violently.
But another offset to that is -- what if future cash flows are also growing at a faster rate then that could make stocks go higher regardless of rates going higher - and this happens to some degree as well as with tax cuts etc.
But as always , stocks look forward not backward so the good news gets priced in fast, Higher earnings for 2018 are already priced in with guidance fully baked in. This is why stocks have been selling off as rates have headed higher lately -- what matters more now if the discount rate of future cash flows
So this is why people who say bond bubble will "burst" don't really know what they are talking about
If a bubble bursting means 20% correction --- or a 20% loss in price -- then the 3% 10y treasury would be at 5.4% -- if that happens in a short period of time -- which is what a "bubble bursting" means , I can guarantee you everyone on this forum is in trouble with their investment portfolios , no matter what asset they are in .
Yes, there will be wise-a__ retorts like you will make money if you are short but there is a cost to being short -- negative carry and margin borrow -- and most people don't operate that way
Liar Loan
Well-known member
Judge in Manafort case says Mueller's aim is to hurt Trump
https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/04/politics/paul-manafort-hearing/index.html
StarmanMBA
Active member
fortune11 said:
[fortune11 then proceeds to blather as if he were a self-professed financial expert.
I have seen nobody make that remark, but then again the giggling bullies make things up every day.]
Investors do not "collect return" when they are invested in common stocks and the market retreats. They LOSE MONEY.
Finance 101. Please tell the audience what was your single best investment in the stock market, and provide your analysis.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
Because half of Amazon's employees make less than $28K.
StarmanMBA
Active member
"In investing, all you are doing is collecting a return." - fortune11
That is real nonsense.
That is real nonsense.
morekaos
Well-known member
This is falling apart...
As of Friday, three separate Judges have rendered harsh setbacks to the Mueller investigation - demanding, if you can believe it, facts and evidence to back up the Special Counsel's claims - in unredacted format as one Judge demands, or risk having the cases tossed out altogether.
The first major setback happened in February, when the federal judge assigned to the criminal case against Trump's former National Security Advisor, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Mueller's team to turn over any "exculpatory evidence" to Flynn's defense.
Instead, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued the order "sua sponte," or at his discretion, invoking the "Brady Rule" - which requires prosecutors to turn over previously unfiled evidence that might have a material impact on a defendant's case. Two days before Sullivan issued the order, Mueller filed a motion for a protective order regarding the use of evidence in the case, including "sensitive materials," which would be provided to Flynn's lawyers by the office of the Special Counsel.
Then there's the judge in the Manafort Case, who excoriated a Special Counsel attorney on Friday during a "motion to dismiss" hearing. A leaked transcript of the heated exchange between attorney Michael Dreeben and Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis reveals that the entire Manafort case is in jeopardy if the Special Counsel doesn't produce an unredacted copy of the original order from Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein authorizing the original investigation.
Ellis also said that Mueller shouldn't have "unfettered power" to prosecute Manafort for charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and called out the DOJ's efforts in the case as an attempt by Mueller to gain leverage over Manafort.
"You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That's what you're really interested in." -Judge Ellis
Last - but we're quite sure not least, was last week's ruling by federal Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, denying Mueller a trial delay over the high-profile February indictment of 13 Russians for interfering in the 2016 US election.
And Concord Management decided to fight it...
As PowerLine notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don?t think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area attorneys ? Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm ? filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
Politico's Gerstein notes that by defending against the charges, ?Concord could force prosecutors to turn over discovery about how the case was assembled as well as evidence that might undermine the prosecution?s theories.?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-06/mueller-investigation-jeopardy-witch-hunt-accusations-play-out-court
As of Friday, three separate Judges have rendered harsh setbacks to the Mueller investigation - demanding, if you can believe it, facts and evidence to back up the Special Counsel's claims - in unredacted format as one Judge demands, or risk having the cases tossed out altogether.
The first major setback happened in February, when the federal judge assigned to the criminal case against Trump's former National Security Advisor, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ordered Mueller's team to turn over any "exculpatory evidence" to Flynn's defense.
Instead, Judge Emmet G. Sullivan issued the order "sua sponte," or at his discretion, invoking the "Brady Rule" - which requires prosecutors to turn over previously unfiled evidence that might have a material impact on a defendant's case. Two days before Sullivan issued the order, Mueller filed a motion for a protective order regarding the use of evidence in the case, including "sensitive materials," which would be provided to Flynn's lawyers by the office of the Special Counsel.
Then there's the judge in the Manafort Case, who excoriated a Special Counsel attorney on Friday during a "motion to dismiss" hearing. A leaked transcript of the heated exchange between attorney Michael Dreeben and Eastern District of Virginia Judge T.S. Ellis reveals that the entire Manafort case is in jeopardy if the Special Counsel doesn't produce an unredacted copy of the original order from Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein authorizing the original investigation.
Ellis also said that Mueller shouldn't have "unfettered power" to prosecute Manafort for charges that have nothing to do with collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, and called out the DOJ's efforts in the case as an attempt by Mueller to gain leverage over Manafort.
"You really care about what information Mr. Manafort can give you that would reflect on Mr. Trump or lead to his prosecution or impeachment or whatever. That's what you're really interested in." -Judge Ellis
Last - but we're quite sure not least, was last week's ruling by federal Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, denying Mueller a trial delay over the high-profile February indictment of 13 Russians for interfering in the 2016 US election.
And Concord Management decided to fight it...
As PowerLine notes, Mueller probably didn't see that coming - and the indictment itself was perhaps nothing more than a PR stunt to bolster the Russian interference narrative.
I don?t think anyone (including Mueller) anticipated that any of the defendants would appear in court to defend against the charges. Rather, the Mueller prosecutors seem to have obtained the indictment to serve a public relations purpose, laying out the case for interference as understood by the government and lending a veneer of respectability to the Mueller Switch Project.
One of the Russian corporate defendants nevertheless hired counsel to contest the charges. In April two Washington-area attorneys ? Eric Dubelier and Kate Seikaly of the Reed Smith firm ? filed appearances in court on behalf of Concord Management and Consulting. Josh Gerstein covered that turn of events for Politico here. -Powerline Blog
Politico's Gerstein notes that by defending against the charges, ?Concord could force prosecutors to turn over discovery about how the case was assembled as well as evidence that might undermine the prosecution?s theories.?
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-05-06/mueller-investigation-jeopardy-witch-hunt-accusations-play-out-court
sgip
Well-known member
Cohen, like any "hanger on" in a new administration, is going to push around the pay to play access for personal benefit. Novartis published a great response about Cohen's deal being a bust, but they had to pay. I read it on Twitter, but don't have the time to link the story.
Do I care that Cohen got money from them rooskies? Not really. When the full articles are read about these payments, most of them rooskies had contributed to Democratic candidates in prior elections. Wasn't much wailing and gnashing of teeth then, only open palms waiting for grease to be slathered.
To be clear - none of this is right, but also none of it is new.
My .02c
Do I care that Cohen got money from them rooskies? Not really. When the full articles are read about these payments, most of them rooskies had contributed to Democratic candidates in prior elections. Wasn't much wailing and gnashing of teeth then, only open palms waiting for grease to be slathered.
To be clear - none of this is right, but also none of it is new.
My .02c
morekaos
Well-known member
eyephone said:Any thoughts on Cohen?s Essential consulting?
Follow the money!!
There is NOTHING criminal about any of those three payments. All three readily admitted to the payments and gave reasons. All legal, this is just a lot of suggestive innuendo but no burger. Watch, there will be no criminal charges filed in relation to these 3 payments, or they would have already been filed by the Southern District.