Ken Lay Died

[Mjcpr]

-- Enron founder Ken Lay has died in Aspen, Colorado, a spokesman for Lay's family said today. Lay was awaiting sentencing after being found guilty of conspiracy and fraud.

That's kinda weird.

[StoopTroup]

That's to bad. ;)

[royalfan5]

I'm going to bet he went down the street, instead of across the tracks.

[Mjcpr]

Fox says it was a heart attack.

[LilSooner]

Weird.

Has anyone seen the smartest guys in the room? It is a great documentary. It is unreal how these guys made nutso money out of nothing.

[picasso]

heart attack. you think he offed himself?

sad story all the way around. greed kills and your sins shall find thee.

[BajaOklahoma]

HOUSTON - Enron Corp. founder Ken Lay, who was convicted last month of fraud and conspiracy for his part in the Houston-based company’s collapse into bankruptcy in 2001, has died of a heart attack at his vacation home in Colorado, a Houston television station reported on Wednesday.

KHOU-TV, a CBS affiliate, said Lay suffered a massive heart attack. He was awaiting sentencing later this year and was expected to face a lengthy prison term for his convictions in the Enron collapse.

This is a developing story. Check back soon for more details
per msnbc.com

Sad that my first thought was who has seen the body

[etouffee]

Meh. I'm glad the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for his prison term. He bilked enough money out of regular people already.

[1stTimeCaller]

some of you still think Bush will pardon him?

[picasso]

Meh. I'm glad the taxpayers don't have to foot the bill for his prison term. He bilked enough money out of regular people already.
so you're saying you're for the death penalty? surprising.

[SoonerWood]

May he burn in hell.

[Partial Qualifier]

Justice would've been served if he had to do SOX auditing for the rest of his life.

He got off easy ;)

[etouffee]

so you're saying you're for the death penalty? surprising.why would that be surprising to you?

[mrowl]

LMAO... where did he move to? not gonna believe this one.

[picasso]

why would that be surprising to you?
that's a surprising answer tew.

[etouffee]

perhaps you have me confused with someone else

[picasso]

LMAO... where did he move to? not gonna believe this one.
ahhhh hmmmmm. we need Fletch to solve this one.

[StoopTroup]

Headline: Layed to Rest?

[etouffee]

Headline: Layed to Rest?http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d167/bushtit/smilies/rimshot.gif

[Rhino]

See ya, Kennyboy.

"The Lays have a very large family with whom they need to communicate, and out of respect for the family we will release further details at a later time." READ: He killed himself.

[C&CDean]

Since I've never ever purchased a single shred of stock, and never will, I couldn't give a **** about Ken Lay. Or Enron.

And dude probably did off himself. BFD.

[slickdawg]

Rot in hell, you evil bastard.

[Mjcpr]

Rot in hell, you evil bastard.

Take it easy, Dean always spouts off like that.

[C&CDean]

If you're stupid enough to invest your hard earned cash in stock, then don't damn the poor bastard to hell for taking it from you.

If I wanna gamble, I go to Vegas. I sure as hell ain't gonna gamble with my future retirement in the stock market. Sure. As. Hell.

[etouffee]

Usually, a dead lay is a bad thing...

[C&CDean]

Usually, a dead lay is a bad thing...

Unless you're into that kinda ****. You know, you can't help it, you were born that way.......hell, you oughta be able to marry a stiff I'm thinking.

[1stTimeCaller]

the stock market > cattle market. fo. sho.

[Scott D]

good riddance...

and 1tc, why not, now that he's dead it's not like pardoning him is going to actually hurt anything ;)

[jk the sooner fan]

the dude was 64, so it IS possible he actually had a heart attack

whether he killed himself or not remains to be seen, but its not like the coroners office wont disclose that at a later date

[Mjcpr]

Said he was admitted to the hospital with a massive coronary.

[1stTimeCaller]

d00d, you know me. I never know what I'm yapping about and just like to stir **** up. I thought that would get a few folks going. :D

[1stTimeCaller]

Said he was admitted to the hospital with a massive coronary.

so he admitted to that but did he ever admit to stealing folks' money?

[C&CDean]

the stock market > cattle market. fo. sho.

Good 550 weights are bringing $1.35+ right now. That's $742 per calf. Three years ago the same calfs were bringing $1.00.

[1stTimeCaller]

My buddy that's a rancher and runs a little cow-calf operation on 1400 acres in Ardmore told me that the best way to make a small fortune in the cattle bidness is to start with a large one.


Do the prices for cattle stay roughly the same or with small increments either up or down or does the bottom ever just drop out or go crazy high all of the sudden?

*edit* I was just messing wif ya about the stock and cattle dealio. I know relatively nothing about either.

[FaninAma]

If you're stupid enough to invest your hard earned cash in stock, then don't damn the poor bastard to hell for taking it from you.

If I wanna gamble, I go to Vegas. I sure as hell ain't gonna gamble with my future retirement in the stock market. Sure. As. Hell.

Dean,

Do you have mutual funds in your federal retirement plan? I agree that people who tie up large portions of their investment in a single or handful of stocks are stupid, but the way the 401 rules work you're kind of limited on what you can invest in. And I really think that people who don't cash in a portion of their stock options when the company is doing well are major idiots.

[etouffee]

Three years ago the same calfs were bringing $1.00.Wait... they're still calfs after 3 years? :confused:

[Mjcpr]

Wait... they're still calfs after 3 years? :confused:

After a while, they're called old calfs.

[C&CDean]

Dean,

Do you have mutual funds in your federal retirement plan? I agree that people who tie up large portions of their investment in a single or handful of stocks are stupid, but the way the 401 rules work you're kind of limited on what you can invest in. And I really think that people who don't cash in a portion of their stock options when the company is doing well are major idiots.

Civil Service baby! I do invest a little extra into a "G" fund which is low risk (guaranteed to never go negative). It has averaged 5.65% over the past 15 years. No 401 K or any other "stock" investments though.

[slickdawg]

If you're stupid enough to invest your hard earned cash in stock, then don't damn the poor bastard to hell for taking it from you.

If I wanna gamble, I go to Vegas. I sure as hell ain't gonna gamble with my future retirement in the stock market. Sure. As. Hell.

I can't argue with you on that one Dean - my point is that this guy
is/was a ****ing crook and was walking around a free man. He knowingly
****ed a lot of people out of their money.

[FaninAma]

Civil Service baby! I do invest a little extra into a "G" fund which is low risk (guaranteed to never go negative). It has averaged 5.65% over the past 15 years. No 401 K or any other "stock" investments though.

Duh, you told me that before and I had forgotten. You're pretty lucky but most of us non-federally employed slobs have to put into 401-K's that offer stock funds, bond funds and money market funds.

Personally I'd prefer to put most of it into land.

[royalfan5]

Good 550 weights are bringing $1.35+ right now. That's $742 per calf. Three years ago the same calfs were bringing $1.00.
About 8 years ago, I was getting .65 cents. We are at the top of the cattle cycle right now, the only thing holding off the down cycle is drought, and feedyards not finishing to as high of weights because the feeders are underwater right now, and could get hammered if corn spikes because of drought, because there isn't going to be much cheap protein out there if it stays dry. Unless you are right next to an ethanol plant, that is.

[49r]

What happens to his estate?

[etouffee]

I suspect that whatever portion of his personal assets that were subject to forfeiture while he was alive as a result of his conviction will still be subject to it now.

[Penguin]

He's already been spotted in Acapulco.

Yeah, he's dead alright. Dead like a fox!

[SoonerWood]

He's already been spotted in Acapulco.

Yeah, he's dead alright. Dead like a fox!

I wouldn't be surprised at all

[Hoosier Dynasty]

stress kills

[goodonya]

What did everyone expect? He shorted the devil on his deal and now it's time to pay up. Hope his tan holds up under that heat.

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Is he going to be like Tupac and put out at least 10 more scandals

[noleamite]

Ken's in Tahiti

[49r]

I'll go with suicide...

Heart attack was induced by doing a dumptruck full of cocaine on the 4th.

Maybe he was trying to make some sort of ironic statement?

[FaninAma]

About 8 years ago, I was getting .65 cents. We are at the top of the cattle cycle right now, the only thing holding off the down cycle is drought, and feedyards not finishing to as high of weights because the feeders are underwater right now, and could get hammered if corn spikes because of drought, because there isn't going to be much cheap protein out there if it stays dry. Unless you are right next to an ethanol plant, that is.

We will never see 65 cent cattle again just like we won't ever see $400 gold again or $5 silver or $30 a barrel oil or just about any commodity price we saw 8 years ago. It's called the world economy. The world's population is not decreasing, China, India and SE Asia are modernizing their economies and demand is going up for commodities across the board..

In other words....inflation and increasing commodity prices are here for the immediate future, unless we see a severe deflationary period which would be much worse for the average working schmoe.

[GrapevineSooner]

Me thinks Lay got a massive lay, followed by a massive heart attack, and will be subsequently laid to rest.

[tulsaoilerfan]

Well at least his potato chips are pretty good.

[Sooner24]

Funny how this thread is trying to change from a Ken Lays dead thread to a cattles future thread. :D

[TopDawg]

We will never see 65 cent cattle again just like we won't ever see $400 gold again or $5 silver or $30 a barrel oil or just about any commodity price we saw 8 years ago. It's called the world economy. The world's population is not decreasing, China, India and SE Asia are modernizing their economies and demand is going up for commodities across the board..

In other words....inflation and increasing commodity prices are here for the immediate future, unless we see a severe deflationary period which would be much worse for the average working schmoe.

Don't forget 25 cent baseball card packages.

[GrapevineSooner]

Well at least his potato chips are pretty good.

Lay's

Get Your Smile On.

;)

[royalfan5]

We will never see 65 cent cattle again just like we won't ever see $400 gold again or $5 silver or $30 a barrel oil or just about any commodity price we saw 8 years ago. It's called the world economy. The world's population is not decreasing, China, India and SE Asia are modernizing their economies and demand is going up for commodities across the board..

In other words....inflation and increasing commodity prices are here for the immediate future, unless we see a severe deflationary period which would be much worse for the average working schmoe.
Ag commodities don't work like regular commodities. Increased prodution has pretty much kept Ag commodity prices at much different levels. Wheats all time high was in the 70's, corn in the mid-90's, Soybeans in the 80's. Cattle prices have hit this level before and then plunged. We've have 70 cent hogs, but we could have 30 cent hogs in the fairly near future. In all likelyhood we will see .65 cent feeders again or something similar because of higher corn costs, and expanded supply. Ag is very cyclical, and the right conditions exists for high cattle prices right now. Hard red winter wheat is high right now, but rain and acreage changes could torpedo that in a hurry. Cattle are affected by the same factors.

[oumartin]

i'm actually not happy about this..
sure he did wrong and should pay the price but i know some of his extended family..

[Vaevictis]

Good 550 weights are bringing $1.35+ right now. That's $742 per calf. Three years ago the same calfs were bringing $1.00.

So basically, what you're saying is that the cattle market was about the same as the stock market (S&P 500 in this case) over the last three years? :)

(out of curiousity, how much do you spend in care to bring an animal to market?)

[FaninAma]

Ag commodities don't work like regular commodities. Increased prodution has pretty much kept Ag commodity prices at much different levels. Wheats all time high was in the 70's, corn in the mid-90's, Soybeans in the 80's. Cattle prices have hit this level before and then plunged. We've have 70 cent hogs, but we could have 30 cent hogs in the fairly near future. In all likelyhood we will see .65 cent feeders again or something similar because of higher corn costs, and expanded supply. Ag is very cyclical, and the right conditions exists for high cattle prices right now. Hard red winter wheat is high right now, but rain and acreage changes could torpedo that in a hurry. Cattle are affected by the same factors.

I'm not so sure. While I agree that the US farmer has been a victim of his own high productivity I think that world-wide market forces are beginning to correct the lag in farm commodity prices. Here in this country there are 2 major factors that will cause ag commodity prices to rise:

1.The loss of the independent producers/farmers: the last generation of independent ranchers and farmers are getting old and kids aren't following in their parents' footsteps. As fewer independents are out there to keep the supply high the more the big ag corporations/major feeders take over production and the more control they will have over prices.

2.The price of land and fuel are too high for new small time producers to get into the business or for established independents to expand their operations. Once again this is driving production toward the big corporate producers who will then be able to control the supply and thus the prices better.

Again, all of this is on the backdrop of the increasing demand due to Asian ecomomies ramping up. So unless there is a major downturn in the world economy I fully expect ag commodity prices to increase or hold steady...even the grain prices.

[jk the sooner fan]

a few responses in this thread make me giggle beyond belief....

[crawfish]

This has gotta be one of the greatest threadjacks of all time.

[Hamhock]

a few responses in this thread make me giggle beyond belief....


You mean because he held a gun to the employees' heads and forced them to invest their entire retirement in one place?

[jk the sooner fan]

You mean because he held a gun to the employees' heads and forced them to invest their entire retirement in one place?

i dont remember ken lay actually responding to this thread.....

[Gandalf_The_Grey]

Actually Stanley1 is Ken Lay so you are right

[royalfan5]

I'm not so sure. While I agree that the US farmer has been a victim of his own high productivity I think that world-wide market forces are beginning to correct the lag in farm commodity prices. Here in this country there are 2 major factors that will cause ag commodity prices to rise:

1.The loss of the independent producers/farmers: the last generation of independent ranchers and farmers are getting old and kids aren't following in their parents' footsteps. As fewer independents are out there to keep the supply high the more the big ag corporations/major feeders take over production and the more control they will have over prices.

2.The price of land and fuel are too high for new small time producers to get into the business or for established independents to expand their operations. Once again this is driving production toward the big corporate producers who will then be able to control the supply and thus the prices better.

Again, all of this is on the backdrop of the increasing demand due to Asian ecomomies ramping up. So unless there is a major downturn in the world economy I fully expect ag commodity prices to increase or hold steady...even the grain prices.
I disagree and most ag economists would too. Prices will probably take a hit again when Brazil really gets cranked up. Corporate agriculture has a horrible record of control supply, especially when you consider that the gov't pays them to overproduce. Corporate hog farmers caused 10cent hogs a few years back. You can make the argument for collusion at the processor level, but not at the low level. Cargill doesn't want to be row crop farmers, neither does ADM. They make their cash from inputs and processing out puts. Their might be corporate land ownership, but corporate operation doesn't work very well row crops. Livestock sure, but you still have operations succumbing to the temptation to cash in when prices are high. Right now fluid milk prices have everyone but organic producers hemmoraging cash, two years ago they were at an all time high, and large corporate operations dominate dairy too. Hog prices should fall back underbreak evens later this year, and cattle feeders are getting hammered to the tune of about 150 bucks a head. Corporate production won't tame prices completely. Corporate farming is what has kept prices down, along with gov't intervention. More corprate farming will just depress commodity prices further.

[Hamhock]

I truly feel sorry for the people who had their lives ruined by this, but there is much more to blame than Ken Lay.

The analysts created this monster. The shareholders fed it. The employees did/should have known better than to put all their eggs in one basket that seemed too good to be true.

I remember when everyone I knew was trying to get hired on at CFS here in Tulsa. They thought I was crazy for not wanting to be a part of such a great company. It seemed too good to be true, if you looked at it objectively.

[walkoffsooner]

Kinda like the early years of walmart?

[Hamhock]

Kinda like the early years of walmart?


No. Not at all.

Sell stuff people need at a low price, all in one place. People can understand that.

Can you tell me how exactly it was that Enron derived its revenue?

[etouffee]

Can you tell me how exactly it was that Enron derived its revenue? Enron was multi-faceted and had multiple revenue streams. They were into natural gas, electricity, oil, water, plant construction, plastics, trading of energy and bandwidth commodities and derivatives, and more. I suggest viewing the wikipedia entry on Enron for a decent overview.

[TopDawg]

Enron was multi-faceted and had multiple revenue streams. They were into natural gas, electricity, oil, water, plant construction, plastics, trading of energy and bandwidth commodities and derivatives, and more.

The "and more" is what got everyone in trouble, right?

[FaninAma]

I disagree and most ag economists would too. Prices will probably take a hit again when Brazil really gets cranked up. Corporate agriculture has a horrible record of control supply, especially when you consider that the gov't pays them to overproduce. Corporate hog farmers caused 10cent hogs a few years back. You can make the argument for collusion at the processor level, but not at the low level. Cargill doesn't want to be row crop farmers, neither does ADM. They make their cash from inputs and processing out puts. Their might be corporate land ownership, but corporate operation doesn't work very well row crops. Livestock sure, but you still have operations succumbing to the temptation to cash in when prices are high. Right now fluid milk prices have everyone but organic producers hemmoraging cash, two years ago they were at an all time high, and large corporate operations dominate dairy too. Hog prices should fall back underbreak evens later this year, and cattle feeders are getting hammered to the tune of about 150 bucks a head. Corporate production won't tame prices completely. Corporate farming is what has kept prices down, along with gov't intervention. More corprate farming will just depress commodity prices further.

The models are changing. The stock market broke out of it's period of underperforming in the 80's. We're seeing the same thing in the oil and precious metals market. Government subsidized farming is slowly(too slowly IMO) being phased out by international agreements. And I doubt that Brazil, China or even Europe will ever be much more of an exporter than they are now.

You seem to think that just because prices have been controlled by the same forces for the past 35 years that they will always be controlled by those forces. My contention is that ag commoditity prices may be held down for a little while longer but the pressure from demand, increasing populations, decreasing land available for agricultural use and the enormous oversupply of paper money(ie. inflation) will eventually force ag commodities to follow the prices of all other assets in the world....that is higher.

Sure there will be micro trends but , IMO, it is impossible for ag products not to follow the larger general trend toward rising prices.

[etouffee]

The "and more" is what got everyone in trouble, right?Technically, no. Illegal accounting practices did it, not one of their lines of business.

[1stTimeCaller]

Technically, no. Illegal accounting practices did it, not one of their lines of business.
? They were creating shell companies to buy and sell water to themselves and other crap like that.

[etouffee]

right. i'd say creating fake companies to fraudulently move money around and create a deceptive financial picture for regulators and investors falls under "illegal accounting practices".

[1stTimeCaller]

you know if we didn't have accountants none of us would get paid don't cha?

;)

Corruption at the highest levels is a little more accurate. I guess their accounting was so fradulent that you couldn't really grasp what their actual legit revenue streams were could you?

I don't know that much about the whole thing and am really just asking questions.

[royalfan5]

The models are changing. The stock market broke out of it's period of underperforming in the 80's. We're seeing the same thing in the oil and precious metals market. Government subsidized farming is slowly(too slowly IMO) being phased out by international agreements. And I doubt that Brazil, China or even Europe will ever be much more of an exporter than they are now.

You seem to think that just because prices have been controlled by the same forces for the past 35 years that they will always be controlled by those forces. My contention is that ag commoditity prices may be held down for a little while longer but the pressure from demand, increasing populations, decreasing land available for agricultural use and the enormous oversupply of paper money(ie. inflation) will eventually force ag commodities to follow the prices of all other assets in the world....that is higher.

Sure there will be micro trends but , IMO, it is impossible for ag products not to follow the larger general trend toward rising prices.

I should send you some of the stuff I have on Brazil. They are going to be huge in the next few years, they have a ton of cheap arable land, and have people like Bunge and Cargill pushing it. If the United States drops subsidies, it will hammer the ethanol industry and livestock industries. You are underestimating folks like ADM if you think that will happen easily. Sure they will be some appreciation but Ag commodites aren't going increase that much against inflation. Unless you think that we are suddenly going start paying a larger percentage of our income for food again, I don't see large increases happening. All the models have been going to change in Ag for a long time yet, they never do. In the mid-90's we were going to have 4 dollar corn forever and no gov't subsidies because of China's imports. Didn't happen. Ag prices won't regain their relative strength against other commodities, i.e Parity any time soon.

[FaninAma]

I should send you some of the stuff I have on Brazil. They are going to be huge in the next few years, they have a ton of cheap arable land, and have people like Bunge and Cargill pushing it. If the United States drops subsidies, it will hammer the ethanol industry and livestock industries. You are underestimating folks like ADM if you think that will happen easily. Sure they will be some appreciation but Ag commodites aren't going increase that much against inflation. Unless you think that we are suddenly going start paying a larger percentage of our income for food again, I don't see large increases happening. All the models have been going to change in Ag for a long time yet, they never do. In the mid-90's we were going to have 4 dollar corn forever and no gov't subsidies because of China's imports. Didn't happen. Ag prices won't regain their relative strength against other commodities, i.e Parity any time soon.

I don't disagree with anything you have posted. The only thing we disagree on is how much longer the price of ag products can be kept down by overproduction and market manipulation.

To support my premise that it won't be a long wait I would point to the oil and energy market as an example of what I think we'll see in the not-so-distant future for ag commodity prices. The price of a barrell of oil remained fairly constant for decades but when peak production was finally realized and demand increased because of increased world-wide demand of emerging markets and the tremendous increase in fiat money supply the price of oil sky-rocketed. The fact that ag commodity prices have stayed down this long is a testament to the determination of governements to provide cheap food for the masses to keep them happy. These same governemets have lost control of the oil market and I believe they will lose control of the ag commodity markets shortly.

Right now I would compare the ag commoditiy market to the mid to late 90's oil/energy market. During the Clinton era everybody assumed we would have sub-thirty dollar a barrel oil forever. Things changed quickly and I think in 5 to 10 years we will look back and see that today's ag prices were the last of cheap food prices.....even if the federal government tries to artificially keep them down.

[royalfan5]

I don't disagree with anything you have posted. The only thing we disagree on is how much longer the price of ag products can be kept down by overproduction and market manipulation.

To support my premise that it won't be a long wait I would point to the oil and energy market as an example of what I think we'll see in the not-so-distant future for ag commodity prices. The price of a barrell of oil remained fairly constant for decades but when peak production was finally realized and demand increased because of increased world-wide demand of emerging markets and the tremendous increase in fiat money supply the price of oil sky-rocketed. The fact that ag commodity prices have stayed down this long is a testament to the determination of governements to provide cheap food for the masses to keep them happy. These same governemets have lost control of the oil market and I believe they will lose control of the ag commodity markets shortly.

Right now I would compare the ag commoditiy market to the mid to late 90's oil/energy market. During the Clinton era everybody assumed we would have sub-thirty dollar a barrel oil forever. Things changed quickly and I think in 5 to 10 years we will look back and see that today's ag prices were the last of cheap food prices.....even if the federal government tries to artificially keep them down.
If your right, the United States is going to be much less fun place to live in 5-10 years.

[Stoop Dawg]

Since I've never ever purchased a single shred of stock, and never will, I couldn't give a **** about Ken Lay. Or Enron.

And dude probably did off himself. BFD.

Since I've never met 99.999% of the women who get abortions in this country, and never will, I couldn't give a **** about abortion.

[Hamhock]

you know if we didn't have accountants none of us would get paid don't cha?

;)




Finally, someone gets it.

YMSSRA

[Hamhock]

Enron was multi-faceted and had multiple revenue streams. They were into natural gas, electricity, oil, water, plant construction, plastics, trading of energy and bandwidth commodities and derivatives, and more. I suggest viewing the wikipedia entry on Enron for a decent overview.


I could have given you that answer. My point was that they derived their revenue from very complicated business transactions. Transactions the average Joe can't begin to understand.(basically the opposite of Wal-Mart)

Therefore, the average joe shouldn't have his entire retirement sunk into it..

[FaninAma]

If your right, the United States is going to be much less fun place to live in 5-10 years.

Not if you're a farmer or rancher. And is it really fair for people to expect agricultural prooduct prices to stay at such historic lows forever so they can go out and buy their Hummers and 4 TV sets with DishTV?

The farmer and rancher, by being so good at what they do, have been helping to subsidize the arrogant consumerism we've seen in this country since the late 80's. IMO, it's about time people started paying the historic percentage of income that went toward buying food.

[C&CDean]

Since I've never met 99.999% of the women who get abortions in this country, and never will, I couldn't give a **** about abortion.

Too bad yo momma wasn't one of them.

[royalfan5]

Not if you're a farmer or rancher. And is it really fair for people to expect agricultural prooduct prices to stay at such historic lows forever so they can go out and buy their Hummers and 4 TV sets with DishTV?

The farmer and rancher, by being so good at what they do, have been helping to subsidize the arrogant consumerism we've seen in this country since the late 80's. IMO, it's about time people started paying the historic percentage of income that went toward buying food.
Do you have your NFO card?

[C&CDean]

Do you have your NFO card?

Faninama and I have our HR cards. That's "hillbilly rancher" to you.

We ain't that big time. We both have other jobs very much not related to ag. Ag is going to be our retirement job. Our lives don't depend on it.

So, no, we aren't members of NFO.

[royalfan5]

Faninama and I have our HR cards. That's "hillbilly rancher" to you.

We ain't that big time. We both have other jobs very much not related to ag. Ag is going to be our retirement job. Our lives don't depend on it.

So, no, we aren't members of NFO.
My point was that he espouses the views of the NFO in regards to pricing. That kind of thing goes over big in Minnesota. However, I do take my Ag very seriously, as it will be my career.

[C&CDean]

My point was that he espouses the views of the NFO in regards to pricing. That kind of thing goes over big in Minnesota. However, I do take my Ag very seriously, as it will be my career.

And God bless you for that. When I see the struggling farmers out there I think "I'm certainly blessed to not have to do this for a living." Seriously, we've got the best of both worlds. We can enjoy the freedom, happiness, and satisfaction that comes from farming - without the worries of "if the bottom falls out, I'm ****ed."

Good luck.

[TopDawg]

right. i'd say creating fake companies to fraudulently move money around and create a deceptive financial picture for regulators and investors falls under "illegal accounting practices".

And I was saying "illegal accounting practices" falls under "and more."

:texan:

[Stoop Dawg]

Too bad yo momma wasn't one of them.

Indeed, then you wouldn't be made to look a fool nearly as often.

[Stoop Dawg]

And I was saying "illegal accounting practices" falls under "and more."

:texan:

We've already established that it's okay to break the law and **** people over as long as it doesn't impact Dean. Quit arguing already.

[C&CDean]

Indeed, then you wouldn't be made to look a fool nearly as often.

Me bedding your momma does indeed make me look foolish. I can do better.

[C&CDean]

We've already established that it's okay to break the law and **** people over as long as it doesn't impact Dean. Quit arguing already.

Whoa big boy. Where in the hell did I say "it's OK to break the law?" I said "I couldn't give a **** about Ken Lay because I'm not stupid enough to bank my retirement on the stock market." Stretch much?

[Stoop Dawg]

Whoa big boy. Where in the hell did I say "it's OK to break the law?" I said "I couldn't give a **** about Ken Lay because I'm not stupid enough to bank my retirement on the stock market." Stretch much?

No stretch. You don't care that some guy broke the law and ****ed over thousands of people because you weren't one of them. No biggie, you're welcome to care about (and not care about) whatever you want. I'm just glad you took the time to let us all know how much you don't care. ;)

[Stoop Dawg]

Me bedding your momma does indeed make me look foolish. I can do better.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to C&CDean again.


I know better than to try that with you. :O

[C&CDean]

No stretch. You don't care that some guy broke the law and ****ed over thousands of people because you weren't one of them. No biggie, you're welcome to care about (and not care about) whatever you want. I'm just glad you took the time to let us all know how much you don't care. ;)

You're welcome.

And if more people would listen to me, there'd be a lot less people getting themselves ****ed over I'm thinking.

When I see people investing all their savings in the latest, greatest stock, all I can think of is those bits on KFOR News where they're interviewing the toothless hillbilly who gave some schmuck contractor all their money - and the contractor skipped town.

I simply can't make myself feel sorry for them. If you're stupid enough to hand over your life savings to somebody/something you don't know **** about then you deserve to lose it.

[StoopTroup]

I don't deal with anyone who wants a draw on the job.

[Vaevictis]

Fact is, the average person shouldn't invest in stocks directly; the average person doesn't even know the basic principles behind the stock market, and while they can make money on it, they really are just begging for trouble.

How many people:
1. Invest in the stock market only that which they can afford to lose?
2. Read the SEC filings of the companies they've invested in?
3. Do market research and compare the P/E of stocks they're buying to the company's expected market share performance and overall market growth performance?
4. Take the time to find out who is auditing the SEC statements referenced in #2?
5. Do research on the leadership of the company and find out who controls the Board (ie, shareholders versus CEO).
6. Fail to diversify?

Lots of other stuff too.

Smarter people stick to businesses they know something about and use that as an investment vehicle. Like certain hillbilly ranchers who know how to raise animals and make a buck that way.

Frankly, I don't feel all that sorry for the Enron suckers. The warning signs were there if you just looked, and even if you didn't look, following #6 would have done a pretty good job of protecting you.

[Zbird]

Anyone think stress doesn't affect your heart? Think again.

[critical_phil]

How many people:
1. Invest in the stock market only that which they can afford to lose?
i'll agree with the bulk of your post minus this.

you gamble with money you can afford to lose. people that equate gambling and investing are dumb..and wrong. investing is not done with monopoly money. it is purchasing ownership in something that you expect, though it's not guaranteed, to grow.


as for Dean's comments on the subject:

one of these days i hope to figure out if he's been punking me about this topic or if he really is dumb as dirt on the issue. i mean, i personally know two people who refuse to put a dime into the market....i don't know if it's coincidence, but those same two people also believe in UFO's. i'm talking tin foil hat crazy. seriously.

relating the stock markets strictly to the enron disaster (or LU, MPPP, JDSU, or any number of stocks that were part of the debacle caused by gross negligence of the entire financial services industry and governments at almost every level a few years back) is dumb. plain and simple, D-U-M-B.

are there losers in the market? yes. are there long term, systematic investing, educated, diversified, losers in the market? no. there never have been, and there never will be.*

*unless those UFO's invade, in which case no one will have a need for money...or cows.



If you're stupid enough to hand over your life savings to somebody/something you don't know **** about then you deserve to lose it.
just wondering - if you're as harsh as to say this, does this mean you shouldn't open your mouth about the market? you obviously don't know **** about it.

i mean, i can tell you all i know about cows in just a few words: i like mine served medium, with some butter and cayenne pepper sauce. other than that, i have no opinion....

:eddie:

[Vaevictis]

you gamble with money you can afford to lose. people that equate gambling and investing are dumb..and wrong. investing is not done with monopoly money. it is purchasing ownership in something that you expect, though it's not guaranteed, to grow.

If you can't afford to lose the money, there are secured investment vehicles -- such as FDIC insured CDs -- that you can invest in. You don't have to go for the totally unsecured "securities" that you find on the stock market.

[Hamhock]

Fact is, the average person shouldn't invest in stocks directly; the average person doesn't even know the basic principles behind the stock market, and while they can make money on it, they really are just begging for trouble.

How many people:
1. Invest in the stock market only that which they can afford to lose?
2. Read the SEC filings of the companies they've invested in?
3. Do market research and compare the P/E of stocks they're buying to the company's expected market share performance and overall market growth performance?
4. Take the time to find out who is auditing the SEC statements referenced in #2?
5. Do research on the leadership of the company and find out who controls the Board (ie, shareholders versus CEO).
6. Fail to diversify?

Lots of other stuff too.

Smarter people stick to businesses they know something about and use that as an investment vehicle. Like certain hillbilly ranchers who know how to raise animals and make a buck that way.

Frankly, I don't feel all that sorry for the Enron suckers. The warning signs were there if you just looked, and even if you didn't look, following #6 would have done a pretty good job of protecting you.

I agree with you. The problem with your analysis is that it, correctly, leaves emotion out of the equations. That, coupled with the fact that #3 gets ignored and people cheered.

Did any of you read Buffett's annual report a few years ago when he actually apologized to investors because Berkshire underperformed? It was when the tech stock were flying. He basically said "I have no idea why these stock prices are going up. The fundamentals don't support it and I'll have no part of it". Obviously, he's having the last laugh.

It's as simple as: If it looks too good to be true...

p.s. The problem with CD's and other guaranteed instruments is that they have a tough time out pacing inflation.

[Stoop Dawg]

p.s. The problem with CD's and other guaranteed instruments is that they have a tough time out pacing inflation.

As do mason jars. If your money isn't earning 3% per year then you're losing money.

[C&CDean]

i'll agree with the bulk of your post minus this.

you gamble with money you can afford to lose. people that equate gambling and investing are dumb..and wrong. investing is not done with monopoly money. it is purchasing ownership in something that you expect, though it's not guaranteed, to grow.


as for Dean's comments on the subject:

one of these days i hope to figure out if he's been punking me about this topic or if he really is dumb as dirt on the issue. i mean, i personally know two people who refuse to put a dime into the market....i don't know if it's coincidence, but those same two people also believe in UFO's. i'm talking tin foil hat crazy. seriously.

relating the stock markets strictly to the enron disaster (or LU, MPPP, JDSU, or any number of stocks that were part of the debacle caused by gross negligence of the entire financial services industry and governments at almost every level a few years back) is dumb. plain and simple, D-U-M-B.

are there losers in the market? yes. are there long term, systematic investing, educated, diversified, losers in the market? no. there never have been, and there never will be.*

*unless those UFO's invade, in which case no one will have a need for money...or cows.



just wondering - if you're as harsh as to say this, does this mean you shouldn't open your mouth about the market? you obviously don't know **** about it.

i mean, i can tell you all i know about cows in just a few words: i like mine served medium, with some butter and cayenne pepper sauce. other than that, i have no opinion....

:eddie:

cp,

So, I hit a nerve. You make your living throwing other people's money around. You call people who don't give you their hard earned money for you to **** with stupid. I'm pretty sure I'm quite a bit older than you. I'm also pretty sure my financial future is secure. Very secure. I do not need, nor want you, or anyone like you jacking around with my security. Simple enough, no?

So, don't take my remarks about the stupidity of ****ing your money away on stocks so personally. Obviously you've got tons of fools who don't mind the gamble. Good on you. Hope you make a brazillion bucks. I'm always happy for people when they hit a machine or the power ball too.

[etouffee]

Obviously you've got tons of fools who don't mind the gamble. Good on you. Hope you make a brazillion bucks. I'm always happy for people when they hit a machine or the power ball too.So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, everyone who invests in stocks as part of their financial planning strategy is a fool. Further, the odds of securing your financial future using stocks as a component of your portfolio are roughly those of winning the powerball. Have I missed anything?

[critical_phil]

So, just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, everyone who invests in stocks as part of their financial planning strategy is a fool. Further, the odds of securing your financial future using stocks as a component of your portfolio are roughly those of winning the powerball. Have I missed anything?
well, that's pretty much it except for leaving out the part about mason jars.


i don't know dean personally, but i'm guessing his last name isn't witter.


equating investing in the stock market to rolling the dice in vegas is dumb. holding to a dumb point of view when there are plenty of resources available that prove you wrong is dumber.

and for the record, i'm not saying that i'm right and dean is wrong. i'm saying a bunch of guys far more smart and wealthy than me are right...and dean is wrong.

[Vaevictis]

p.s. The problem with CD's and other guaranteed instruments is that they have a tough time out pacing inflation.

Yeah, that is a problem. Usually, you can get about 2 points on inflation with a 5 year CD (with laddering), which isn't much, but given the premise that this is money you can't afford to lose, it's tolerable.

There are other low risk investments that you can go after that are partially secured -- ie, loans that are secured by some asset -- if you look around.

But in any case, you shouldn't be putting money on the stock market that you can't afford to lose. It's far too volatile for that kind of thing. Long term, the stock market as a whole has an upward trend, but there's no assurance that it will be up when you need it to be up.