| Stocks [message #76325] |
Mon, 05 April 2004 21:50  |
 |
IRON FART
Messages: 1989
Registered: September 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
This doesn't really belong in the politics section, but I posted it here anyway. Nothing controversial, but it's better suited here then on the General Discussion forum.
Anyway, can someone explain to me how stocks work and where and how to search for stocks on a certain company.
Thank you.
| Quote: |
Quote from IRC
<[Digital]> get man_fucking_a_car.mpg
<[Digital]> ah fuck wrong window
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #76337] |
Mon, 05 April 2004 23:14  |
 |
gibberish
Messages: 366
Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
In very simplistic terms think of stocks like a foreign currency.
Assume your American and the foreign currency is British pounds for this example.
Lets say you have 10 Dollars and you want to by some Pounds (or stock).
Lets say the value of the Pound (or stock) is currently 2 Dollars.
So you get 5 Pounds for your 10 Bucks.
Then lets say the pound (or stock) increases in value to 3 Bucks.
You can now sell them back to get 15 dollars.
Alternately the Pound could drop against the dollar in which case if you sell them you will loose money.
Just like when you change money at a bank, stockbrokers charge a commission on every trade, so the stock actually has to move in the right direction before you can even break even on the trade.
What stocks actually are is ownership in a company, basically if all of the available stock in a company was made available to the public and you were to buy it all, you would now own the company. When a company is doing well it is perceived to have a higher value so the stocks go up, when it is doing badly the value is perceived to be lower, hence the stock price goes down, but the bottom line is that a stock is only really worth what someone is willing to pay for it, so if no-one is willing to buy the stock, it has no value.
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #76421] |
Tue, 06 April 2004 12:59 |
|
IRON FART
Messages: 1989
Registered: September 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Ok well how would I find and buy stocks in a certain company? Where would I go for that?
I had a basic idea of what stocks are...but thats all I know. Is there more to it?
| Quote: |
Quote from IRC
<[Digital]> get man_fucking_a_car.mpg
<[Digital]> ah fuck wrong window
|
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #76428] |
Tue, 06 April 2004 13:31 |
 |
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
You would need an account with a brokerage... like Charles Schwab or eTrade. Compare brokers by minimum deposits and commission charges first and foremost.
Most brokerage houses also offer online tutorials or live broker assistance before you place your first trade. This industry is extremely regulated and there are a lot of rules in place so you can't have an unfair advantage.
I worked for Charles Schwab for 3 years, so I lived and breathed the stock market, options market, mutual funds... all that jazz for quite a while. I talked to traders every day.
Another thing is, you do have to be 18 to buy or sell stocks because minors aren't allowed to be bound by the contracts you will be under.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #76551] |
Tue, 06 April 2004 22:39 |
|
IRON FART
Messages: 1989
Registered: September 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Well I wasn't planning on buying stocks myself...but a friend of my father wanted me to look into buying stocks for the Boeing Airbus A380 early, before it comes into service.
| Quote: |
Quote from IRC
<[Digital]> get man_fucking_a_car.mpg
<[Digital]> ah fuck wrong window
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #76785] |
Wed, 07 April 2004 18:52 |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I wouldn't go investing big right now - the economy is displaying some very weird properties.
For one, the economy is going up without any jobs, and not many people have any idea what is happening.
My thinking is that the economy will eventually partially implode because without the jobs that big bubble is going to pop.
Where are the jobs going? Why, CEOs paying themselves 60 million a year. That's about 4,000 jobs that pay 15,000 a year salary. Outsourcing, schmoutsourcing. Although this is a somewhat radical idea that would never get past the government because of so much rich people influence, a salary cap law would create a lot more jobs in America. Say you can only earn 5 million dollars a year combined. Suddenly, so many more companies have 50 million dollars coming back in. Might as well do something with it.
Oh, and on that Bush attack ad that trys to hurt Kerry about the 50 cents/gallon law he voted for....
He voted for that bill roughly 20 years ago and says he doesn't support it now. And Kerry voting to raise taxes 350 times? BULLSH*T!
Here's there official list, as seen on the GOP website:
http://commrnc.grassroots.com/resources/KerryVotesForHigherTaxes.pdf
You can go for pages without actually finding a vote for higher taxes. So many of them are for tax cuts that just weren't as low as Republicans wanted. So many are for repealing tax cuts. Those aren't raises.
And Hydra: you fail to remember how great an economic genius Clinton was. He created 23 million jobs, and created the biggest surpluses in history. And Bush comes, and turns the biggest surpluses into the biggest deficits.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #76862] |
Thu, 08 April 2004 02:56 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Where are the jobs going? Why, CEOs paying themselves 60 million a year. That's about 4,000 jobs that pay 15,000 a year salary. Outsourcing, schmoutsourcing. Although this is a somewhat radical idea that would never get past the government because of so much rich people influence, a salary cap law would create a lot more jobs in America. Say you can only earn 5 million dollars a year combined. Suddenly, so many more companies have 50 million dollars coming back in. Might as well do something with it.
|
Um, that's the most ridiculous, intellectually devoid idea I've ever heard in my life. I don't normally resort to personal insults in this, but shit... this is just, so retarded.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #77071] |
Thu, 08 April 2004 13:36 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Whatever, salary caps might work, might not, but so much American money is going to so few individuals.
gibberish: If companies try to run lean, if an executive suddenly starts making 55 million less, then what is the company going to do with that new money?
Although the simple fact is that salary caps will probably never be implemented because rich people have so much control over the government. So it's all irrelevent.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #77114] |
Thu, 08 April 2004 14:31 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
They'll have to use that money to find another CEO willing to work for that chump change.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #77147] |
Thu, 08 April 2004 15:10 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Again, it's irrelevent, but 5 million dollars a year isn't chump change.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #77159] |
Thu, 08 April 2004 15:22 |
|
Crimson
Messages: 7429
Registered: February 2003
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Karma: 0
|
General (5 Stars)
ADMINISTRATOR |
|
|
Maybe not to you.
I'm the bawss.
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #77291] |
Thu, 08 April 2004 17:39 |
|
gibberish
Messages: 366
Registered: May 2003
Karma: 0
|
Commander |
|
|
|
I don't know what a company would do with $55 million dollars, but I am pretty sure that they wouldn't suddenly decide to give it all away to there employees.
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #77580] |
Fri, 09 April 2004 09:06 |
Battousai
Messages: 50
Registered: October 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
|
just buy microsoft and intel and hold onto them for like 5 years.
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #78224] |
Fri, 09 April 2004 21:42 |
|
IRON FART
Messages: 1989
Registered: September 2003
Location: LOS ANGELES
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
You can't buy MS and Intel with 55 million!
| Quote: |
Quote from IRC
<[Digital]> get man_fucking_a_car.mpg
<[Digital]> ah fuck wrong window
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #78228] |
Fri, 09 April 2004 21:57 |
cokemaster
Messages: 144
Registered: April 2003
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| IRON-FART |
You can't buy MS and Intel with 55 million!
|
Sure you can, depends how much weed you are smoking before you 'buy' them 
Remember, Friends don't let friends play Reborn!
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Stocks [message #79408] |
Mon, 12 April 2004 22:38 |
 |
Hydra
Messages: 827
Registered: September 2003
Location: Atlanta, GA
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi |
I wouldn't go investing big right now - the economy is displaying some very weird properties.
For one, the economy is going up without any jobs, and not many people have any idea what is happening.
|
About 400,000 jobs were added last month. So what's this jobless growth you speak of?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Where are the jobs going? Why, CEOs paying themselves 60 million a year.
|
Name a CEO that makes $60 million. Then name the company he works for. Then tell how much net profit that company took in during the years since he was CEO. Then look at how much net profit that company took in during the years before he became CEO.
CEOs are CEOs for a reason: they're damn good at running their companies. They know how to make billions of dollars in profit for their companies. That's why they have the most important job at their company.
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Although this is a somewhat radical idea that would never get past the government because of so much rich people influence, a salary cap law would create a lot more jobs in America. Say you can only earn 5 million dollars a year combined. Suddenly, so many more companies have 50 million dollars coming back in. Might as well do something with it.
|
Why don't we just take away rich people's mansions and just give them over to homeless people, since, after all, everyone should have the same amount of stuff, right? :rolleyes:
| SuperFlyingEngi |
And Hydra: you fail to remember how great an economic genius Clinton was. He created 23 million jobs, and created the biggest surpluses in history. And Bush comes, and turns the biggest surpluses into the biggest deficits.
|
He created large budget surpluses because the tax burden placed on higher income earners was increased so heavily during his administration. Economic genius? Don't make me puke. Clinton does not create jobs; the economy creates jobs. Tell me what Bill Clinton did to the economy that created 23 million jobs and how it was Clinton's "economic genius" and not Alan Greenspan's that led to the economic boom of the 1990s. Then you can tell me why the economy went into a recession 5 months after George W. Bush took office, which, by the way, is too little time for any Bush economic policy to have taken effect that could have possibly affected that recession. Also explain to me why the stock market started falling during the last months of Clinton's administration. Did his "economic genius" lead to that too?
| SuperFlyingEngi |
Although the simple fact is that salary caps will probably never be implemented because rich people have so much control over the government.
|
No, salary caps will never be implemented because it infringes on people's economic freedom. We use a capitalist system to make money; what you propose is communism.
Besides, who are you to say how much someone should be making? What gives you the right to set a maximum income someone can earn?
| frijud |
IMO...thoes who have money have it because they worked for it (or were born into it).
|
Though I agreed with the rest of your post, this part created some conflict. For the life of me, I cannot think of a rich person who had his money just given to him, though I am not suggesting this does not happen. But I can tell you that the vast majority of rich people are rich because they worked their asses off to earn that money. (this part is directed to SuperFlyingEngi) Why shouldn't a CEO get paid millions of dollars a year? Do you know of anyone else that can run that company better than that man? If the decisions he makes results in the gain of billions of dollars for the company, why shouldn't he get paid millions of dollars? Is he not worth it to the company?
Walter Keith Koester: September 22, 1962 - March 15, 2005
God be with you, Uncle Wally.
 (<---New(ish) Prayer Group Forums)
 (<---Archived Prayer Group Forums)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
