cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
     
ElLobo
Participant ○○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up


@Fishingrod wrote:

Yes, Howaya

M*Ryan took care of that problem lickety -split.


Holy Crapola, Rod.  Now you're gonna bring Ryan back in and YOU'LL be banned!  Ditto for Howaya.

0 Kudos
cliff
Explorer ○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up

 

Good move, Ryan.

I have been shocked - SHOCKED - that a discussion of a scheme that guarantees stock market profits could degenerate into silliness.

Keep up the good work.

 

norbertc
Contributor ○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up


@RyanM wrote:

Locker room talk removed. Apologies if some on-topic posts were caught up in the clean sweep. 


qc20oct2016lorez-w538h319.jpg

0 Kudos
chang
Valued Contributor

Re: R48 - pyramid up

Was it that bad Ryan? Not allowed to enjoy a laugh every once in a while? I thought these forums were to foster enjoyable and productive intercourse.
Highlighted
cliff
Explorer ○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up


@chang wrote:
Was it that bad Ryan? Not allowed to enjoy a laugh every once in a while? I thought these forums were to foster enjoyable and productive intercourse.

 

chang, as a carryover rule from the legacy forums, whenever you use the word ‘intercourse’ in a post, you must precede it with the ‘s’ word.

Social.  It’s social intercourse.

This is to avoid confusion and minimize salacious content when discussing schemes that guarantee stock market profits.

0 Kudos
kwk75wi
Explorer ○

Re: R48 - pyramid up

I'm still trying to figure out chang's op claim about always being in profit.

0 Kudos
kwk75wi
Explorer ○

Re: R48 - pyramid up

Chang based on R48.

Zero chance of me investing in that strategy.

0 Kudos
Gary1952
Contributor ○○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up

Thanks for clarifying. I was thinking something else altogether. 


@cliff wrote:

@chang wrote:
Was it that bad Ryan? Not allowed to enjoy a laugh every once in a while? I thought these forums were to foster enjoyable and productive intercourse.

 

chang, as a carryover rule from the legacy forums, whenever you use the word ‘intercourse’ in a post, you must precede it with the ‘s’ word.

Social.  It’s social intercourse.

This is to avoid confusion and minimize salacious content when discussing schemes that guarantee stock market profits.


 

0 Kudos
chang
Valued Contributor

Re: R48 - pyramid up


@kwk75wi wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out chang's op claim about always being in profit.


Unless your first purchase is at a top, and it declines. Then, sure, you'll be in a deficit, and presumably will sell when the loss reaches some trigger e.g., 5-10%. Otherwise you'd always be in profit.

0 Kudos
norbertc
Contributor ○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up


@chang wrote:

@kwk75wi wrote:

I'm still trying to figure out chang's op claim about always being in profit.


Unless your first purchase is at a top, and it declines. Then, sure, you'll be in a deficit, and presumably will sell when the loss reaches some trigger e.g., 5-10%. Otherwise you'd always be in profit.


The price can never fall below that of your first purchase once you make a second purchase at a higher price.  It's technically impossible to lose money if you follow R48's strategy and only buy into an upward price trend.

Warren Buffett should be calling any day now to offer R48 a partnership.

-----

In this sketch by M. C. Escher, we see water running downhill to the top of a waterfall, proving that Pyramid Up can actually work.  No water is ever lost!

waterfall.jpg

N.

0 Kudos
PatMorgan
Explorer ○

Re: R48 - pyramid up


@retiredat48 wrote:

Bottom Line:  Lump sum, DCA, and PyrUp each work 100% of the time in that you get the risk/reward you select.  PyrUp is the best approach to meeting Buffett's rule one:  Never lose money; and his rule 2: re-read rule one.


Let me see if I have this right: lump sum, Dollar Cost Averaging, and Pyramid Up each work 100% of the time. What a vacuous statement!

As for the "posters on these forums who have not invested in the market since the 2009 bear market...because they couldn't get started", they should learn from experience. The stock market has short-term losses, but it also has long-term gains. They should consider following the advice that John Bogle wrote in a pillar of wisdom in the epilogue of the book "Bogle of Mutual Funds: New Perspectives for the Intelligent Investor".

When all else fails, fall back on simplicity.

If you have a major investment decision to make, there are an infinite number of solutions that would be worse than this one: commit, over a period of a few years, half of your assets to a stock index fund and half to a bond index fund. Ignore interim fluctuations in their net asset values. Hold your positions for as long as you live, subject only to infrequent and marginal adjustments as your circumstances change. Occam's razor—a thesis set forth 600 years ago and often affirmed by experience since then—should encourage you: when there are multiple solutions to a problem, choose the simplest one.

0 Kudos
cliff
Explorer ○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up

 

chang, I want you to know that I have always considered you a valued member of the Morningstar forum scene.  (Of course, that opinion was largely formed on the legacy forum where humor and wit were tolerated by most, even if always not appreciated.)

What prompts me to mention this at the ragged end of this conversation about a scheme that is guaranteed to produce stock market profits is that I just noticed something . . . . . You’ve been designated a “contributor” by either some algorithm or the judgement of Ryan as he reviews these posts, likely late at night after finishing off a bottle.

I also noticed that yogi is considered a “valued contributor.”  One can only think that your contributions are not as valued as yogi’s; otherwise, you’d be a valued contributor, also.  Am I missing something here? Maybe it’s pay-for-play around here now and yogi feels the need to shell out more than you do?

Well, whatever.  It really comes down to how YOU feel about the situation.  If you’re all giddy because you’ve been upgraded to contributor, great.  If you’re bummed because you’re not particularly valued, you have my sympathy.

 

p.s.  Just had another thought.  Maybe do more links if you wanna be valued.  yogi throws a lot of links out there.  Maybe that’s the key.              Or not.

0 Kudos
bilperk
Participant ○○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up


@cliff wrote:

 

chang, I want you to know that I have always considered you a valued member of the Morningstar forum scene.  (Of course, that opinion was largely formed on the legacy forum where humor and wit were tolerated by most, even if always not appreciated.)

What prompts me to mention this at the ragged end of this conversation about a scheme that is guaranteed to produce stock market profits is that I just noticed something . . . . . You’ve been designated a “contributor” by either some algorithm or the judgement of Ryan as he reviews these posts, likely late at night after finishing off a bottle.

I also noticed that yogi is considered a “valued contributor.”  One can only think that your contributions are not as valued as yogi’s; otherwise, you’d be a valued contributor, also.  Am I missing something here? Maybe it’s pay-for-play around here now and yogi feels the need to shell out more than you do?

Well, whatever.  It really comes down to how YOU feel about the situation.  If you’re all giddy because you’ve been upgraded to contributor, great.  If you’re bummed because you’re not particularly valued, you have my sympathy.

 

p.s.  Just had another thought.  Maybe do more links if you wanna be valued.  yogi throws a lot of links out there.  Maybe that’s the key.              Or not.


Ha!  Easy to say when you are just an explorer and a participant wannabe.  How many badges do you have, Bub?

0 Kudos
Community Manager RyanM Community Manager
Community Manager

Re: R48 - pyramid up


@cliff wrote:

 

chang, I want you to know that I have always considered you a valued member of the Morningstar forum scene.  (Of course, that opinion was largely formed on the legacy forum where humor and wit were tolerated by most, even if always not appreciated.)

What prompts me to mention this at the ragged end of this conversation about a scheme that is guaranteed to produce stock market profits is that I just noticed something . . . . . You’ve been designated a “contributor” by either some algorithm or the judgement of Ryan as he reviews these posts, likely late at night after finishing off a bottle.

I also noticed that yogi is considered a “valued contributor.”  One can only think that your contributions are not as valued as yogi’s; otherwise, you’d be a valued contributor, also.  Am I missing something here? Maybe it’s pay-for-play around here now and yogi feels the need to shell out more than you do?

Well, whatever.  It really comes down to how YOU feel about the situation.  If you’re all giddy because you’ve been upgraded to contributor, great.  If you’re bummed because you’re not particularly valued, you have my sympathy.

 

p.s.  Just had another thought.  Maybe do more links if you wanna be valued.  yogi throws a lot of links out there.  Maybe that’s the key.              Or not.


cliff, ranks are not “pay to play”. Please see this FAQ for more info. In short, members move up the ranks for actions like posting, replying, and having their replies accepted as solutions by other members. They are based on formulas, not awarded manually. As such, they do not reflect a value judgment from Morningstar. Yogi has reached the highest possible rank due to his level of participation. 

0 Kudos
cliff
Explorer ○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up


@bilperk wrote:

@cliff wrote:

 


Ha!  Easy to say when you are just an explorer and a participant wannabe.  How many badges do you have, Bub?


 

I only have a few badges. But one is for ‘likable,’ believe it or not.  How screwed up is that?

My wife was looking over my shoulder one day and saw me labeled an explorer.  Now I’m not allowed to go drinking with the guys or walk our cute little poodle alone.  If she ever saw me called a participant, she’d grill me and insist upon knowing who the two girls were.

0 Kudos
cliff
Explorer ○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up

 

Thanks, Ryan.

Please know that I never post on Morningstar without a grin on my face.

cliff

 

0 Kudos
chang
Valued Contributor

Valued and non-valued Contributors


@cliff wrote:

What prompts me to mention this at the ragged end of this conversation about a scheme that is guaranteed to produce stock market profits is that I just noticed something . . . . . You’ve been designated a “contributor” by either some algorithm or the judgement of Ryan as he reviews these posts, likely late at night after finishing off a bottle.

I also noticed that yogi is considered a “valued contributor.”  One can only think that your contributions are not as valued as yogi’s; otherwise, you’d be a valued contributor, also.  Am I missing something here? Maybe it’s pay-for-play around here now and yogi feels the need to shell out more than you do?

Well, whatever.  It really comes down to how YOU feel about the situation.  If you’re all giddy because you’ve been upgraded to contributor, great.  If you’re bummed because you’re not particularly valued, you have my sympathy.


What the heck? Yogi is a "Valued Contributor", but I am just a "Contributor"? Actually I am a "Contributor ○○○", which I assume is pronounced "Con-tri-bu-tor - oh, oh, oh", like in that Carole King song, "You've Lost That Lovin' Feeling"

     You lost that lovin' feelin'
     Whoa, that lovin' feelin'
     You lost that lovin' feelin'
     Now it's gone, gone, gone, oh, oh, oh-oh.

What am I then? A "non-valued" contributor? A "waste-of-everyone's-time" contributor? I find this insulting. Not to mention shockingly insensitive in the #metoo era. I am pondering a class action suit against Morningstar on behalf of all the "Contributors" here.

I've lost that lovin' feeling.

Thanks Cliff, good catch. Not bad for an Explorer . Sorry to see that you've only got one ball, but I'm sure a second one's on its way soon.

#notavaluedcontributor

0 Kudos
ElLobo
Participant ○○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up


@cliff wrote:

 

Thanks, Ryan.

Please know that I never post on Morningstar without a grin on my face.

cliff

 


According to M*, here are all the possibilities.  Kinda reminds me of bond ratings from Moody's, except the rating agencies put some thought into making a analytical distinction between each rating.  According to this, Yogi is Aaa, aka Prime, like US Treasury debt, while you, Chang, are one notch below, Aa1 (High Grade, not Sub-Prime!)  You, Cliff, at Explorer o, seem to be at the edge of Investment Grade, or Baa3.

I question this, @RyanM.  M*, not you, has me at Participant oo, clearly above Cliff but, in fact, Cliff is a much more seasoned, well liked, active, lurker hereabout, as well as a much more conservative investor.  As most everyone around here knows, I actually should be rated below Cliff, probably at the high end, Caa1, Highly Speculative, the top tier in junk land.

I would suggest M* tweak their algorithms to set this straight.

Is there a list of user ranks?

New Member

Member

Follower ○

Follower ○○

Follower ○○○

Explorer ○

Explorer ○○

Explorer ○○○

Participant ○

Participant ○○

Participant ○○○

Contributor ○

Contributor ○○

Contributor ○○○

Valued Contributor

0 Kudos
norbertc
Contributor ○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up

*
0 Kudos
racqueteer
Participant ○○○

Re: R48 - pyramid up


@norbertc wrote:
*

Cheater...  8^b

0 Kudos
Announcements

To learn more about the recent changes to Morningstar.com, please see the updated FAQ.

See recent posts and all our forums or access the old forums here.
 

You can read the community guidelines in