Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I guess that split prediction didn't work out. On the other hand, ROK is now within spitting distance of $100 a share.
That would translate to about 18% on my cost basis. Not even factoring in the $22 per share gain I have, the dividends alone will return my entire investment in 3 more years!
Not bragging on this, just a happy camper on this stock. I wish everything I own had done so well.
I am propbably a little more enthusastic than most here since I bought MVO back at $18 a share which means I am earning a dividend of over 15% on my cost basis. Even without that I still like this investment.
New report reveals madness at root of Irish crisis
11:35am EDT
* Banking sector took large risks; herd mentality
* Officials had a lack of scepticism not lack of power
* Major domestic policy failure at the central bank
* Banks' boards had little appreciation of how they were run
By Padraic Halpin
DUBLIN, April 19 (Reuters) - A third and final probe into Ireland's banking crisis reads like a psychologist's report.
Groupthink, herding and a "national speculative mania" are all cited as explanations for why Irish banks' reckless lending went unchecked, leading to devastating consequences for the country and its people.
"As in most manias, those caught up in it could believe and have trust in extraordinary things, such as unlimited real wealth from selling property to each other on credit," said the 172-page report, published on Tuesday.
"It appears now, with hindsight, to be almost unbelievable that intelligent professionals in the banking sector appear not to have been aware of the size of the risk they were taking."
Anglo Irish Bank [ANGIB.UL] and Irish Nationwide [IRNBS.UL] were at the heart of the flawed lending practices which saw Dublin house prices trump Manhattan and Moscow at the height of the property bubble in 2006, the report's author, Finnish expert Peter Nyberg, concluded.
But the other banks dubbed "The Herd" followed their lead, while the banks' external auditors were "The Silent Observers" and the public authorities -- the central bank, the financial regulator and the Department of Finance -- were "The Enablers".
A belief in the fundamentals of the Irish property market and in the efficient operation of financial markets led to Groupthink, a psychological process that reduces the likelihood of critical views being aired.
"In order for a systemic crisis to happen, you will need a very large part of society to take part, not understand the risks or stay quiet," Nyberg, a former director general for financial services at the Finnish Ministry of Finance, told a news conference.
"Investors have to make bad decisions, banks have to make bad decisions. You have to have a central bank, regulator and a government that doesn't understand or care, media has to be supportive and politicians, in general, have to not understand."
TRIO OF REPORTS
Ireland has since overhauled supervision of the financial sector, beefed up staffing at the central bank and is in the process of cutting its banking sector down to just two lenders to stabilise its finances.
Last month, the government put a 70 billion euros ($100 billion) pricetag on drawing a line under the banking crisis, which forced Dublin into an EU-IMF bailout last year.
The previous government, booted out of office in a February election dominated by the crisis, commissioned Nyberg to look into the period leading up to the nationalisation of Anglo Irish Bank [ANGIB.UL] in mid-January 2009.
His remit did not include looking at the role of government.
Two previous reports, one of them authored by central bank governor Patrick Honohan, had looked at events leading up to the end of Sept 2008, when the government guaranteed the banking sector's liabilities, tying the fate of the sovereign to its bust lenders.
Those earlier reports blamed the implosion of the banking sector on the government's pro-cyclical fiscal policy, poor corporate governance and the then financial regulator's excessively deferential approach.
I would write to you but my TROLL BLOCK has you blocked.
I like FXEN's long term prospects. Field development takes a long time and they have been making steady progress. Poland has been working on the infrastructure to transport the gas so progress is being made on all fromts.
Currently the EU is very dependant on Russian natural gas so large scale development of the Polish fields seems to make sense. How long all this will take, I don't know.
If he did that, he wouldn't see any posts but his own.
He isn't very clever... as a result he is boring.
I haven't lost a dime on penny stock scams. Apparently you can't say the same... at least not honestly.
The scams you promote don't exactly tip you into the genius column.
And most of our morons are in the state legislature.
It has been great for the last couple of years.
Interesting. The CPP doesn't look like a very good deal though. 10% of everything for 40 years or so seems like it should return more than $900 a month.
Yes, I think they will make changes to keep it going.
My original premise that it is a Ponzi scheme still stands though. If they stopped collecting new FICA taxes tomorrow, how long would those receiving benefits continue to do so and what would the chances be for those under 62 of ever collecting anything on what they have paid in?
It has always been in the red. You are too ignorant to even understand the concept.
The part where they transferred revnues from the general fund. Didn't you even read what you posted?
There are a lot of other subjects you should add to your class schedule as well.
After reading your own refernce link I noted that you conveniently left out the parts that didn't fit with your premise.
You really must be a member of Congress or a talk show host... half the truth all the time.
Never say never... you just make a fool out of yourself. If you had done even 10 minutes worth of research you would know the answer to your question.
I don't invest in penny stocks as most people on this board know.
I don't think they have any choice but to make changes.
65.7 years was the average lifespan of a child born in that year. Childhood disease, etc used to take a larger portion back then. For a 50 year old in that year, it was much longer.
The statement was that it would if they didn't make any changes. Obviously they will. The only two things you can do is reduce benefits (by raising the age as you state or lowering benefits) or increase payroll taxes.
From my point of view it isn't the best retirement system and should be replaced by something similar to the Federal Employees Retirement System.
I will agree with that presumption. That is a major difference but the result is still similar.
Medicare is a different thing than social security. Obviously a bigger problem.
Also that quote is about Medicaide not Medicare. Medicaide is welfare for the poor.
Congressional Budget Office estimates: (The CBO is usually more accurate than other sources)
Program spending is projected to rise from 4.8% of GDP in 2010 to 5.9% of GDP by 2030, where it will stabilize.[35] The Social Security Administration projects that an increase in payroll taxes equivalent to 1.9% of the payroll tax base or 0.7% of GDP would be necessary to put the Social Security program in fiscal balance for the next 75 years.
When discussing something that has political implications we usually get a wide range of estimates depending on which side is doing the talking. Almost any of them can be justified but guessing which is reality is hard to do when talking about the future.
By dollars paid, the U.S. Social Security program is the largest government program in the world and the single greatest expenditure in the federal budget, with 20.8% for social security, compared to 20.5% for discretionary defense and 20.1% for Medicare/Medicaid. Social Security is currently the largest social insurance program in the U.S. where combined spending for all social insurance programs constitutes 37% of government expenditure and 7% of the gross domestic product
Check with Jimmy.... I think he is hiding your packet.
Who was the first person to get Social Security benefits?
A: A fellow named Ernest Ackerman got a payment for 17 cents in January 1937. This was a one-time, lump-sum pay-out--which was the only form of benefits paid during the start-up period January 1937 through December 1939.
Has Social Security always taken in more money each year than it needed to pay benefits?
A: No. So far there have been 11 years in which the Social Security program did not take enough in FICA taxes to pay the current year's benefits. During these years, Trust Fund bonds in the amount of about $24 billion made up the difference.
How much has Social Security paid out since it started?
A: From 1937 (when the first payments were made) through 2009 the Social Security program has expended $11.3 trillion.
How much has Social Security taken in taxes and other income since it started?
A: From 1937 (when taxes were first collected) through 2009 the Social Security program has received $13.8 trillion in income.
From the beginning of Social Security in 1935 until 1983 it operated in the red. From the year 1983 onwards, surplus money has existed with the US Social Security program. Without any action, it will be bankrupt in 2037,
Like I said... they ecpect it to be funded by what they take in ove the next 7 decades. That's why it is a Ponzi scheme.
But it doesn't exceed the GDP in any particular year.
That shows me you don't have the slightest idea what you are talking about. You must be a member of Congress.
Apparently you are the one who needs to engage in some more research.
On the bright side, Ireland's banking plan ensures that Allied Irish and B of I will remain the key players in Ireland's banking system. But the big question is what the future will look like for equity shareholders. With the government continuing to pour money into the banks, it remains to be seen how much shareholders will still own when the dust settles. The consensus view seems to be that B of I has a pretty good chance of remaining at least partly in private hands, while Allied Irish -- which is already 92% owned by the government -- may have a tougher time avoiding full nationalization.
The estimated GDP for 2015 is around $18 trillion so the chance of those programs adding up to that amount doesn't seem likely.
This is assuming that the government doesn't have to pay CMKX shareholders $3.8 trillion which will skew things a bit.
But we should be looking at all the facts, not just part of them.
That is sort of true at the present time but remember that when SS began, they were paying benefits before they took much in. It has been in the hole ever since. You are still talking about funding it with current revenues instead of holding the money in an investment accout like you do with a 401k. And unlike a 401k, it isn't your money - if you die before collecting any benefits you just lose your contributions.
It is a very poor retirement system and doomed to failure in the long run unless it is funded by tax revenues.... and you know where they come from.
A chain letter is a Ponzi scheme.
Social Security isn't going to be short because money was moved to other uses but that excrabates the problem. The money paid in by boomers was never going to be enough to pay for all of them when it came time to shell out benefits.
Maybe they thought the nuclear option during the cold war would solve the problem.
Insurance companies are a whole different game.
A Ponzi scheme is where you pay old investors with the money new investors are putting into the fund. That is what Social Security does. The people drawing Social Security now are being paid with money that new investors (current workers) are putting into the fund.
Like all Ponzi schemes, the SS fund now doesn't have enough new investors to cover the money needed to pay out to old investors due to a shortage of new investors. A pyramid scheme is very similiar but is based on sales revenue instead of invested funds.
That doesn't sound correct but I have no numbers on that.