Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 60 of 60

Thread: Long-Term Stock Market Performance -- Can You Make Money?

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Ronin Truth View Post
    I love those who are presumptively ignorant, by choice. But not a lot.
    Again, have you read Security Analysis? What would you like to say about it?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Well then I wish you the best, of course! And I'm glad I didn't waste time going into more detail on the other points!
    Why are you trying to be cute yet condescending? If I thought your points were valid or something new I would have.

    I do not know of any evidence that so-called "dividend-growth" stocks (which are actually just stocks, that happen to have exhibited certain patterns in the past, patterns which could change at any instant) have less volatility or lower draw-downs than the stock population in general. But, since you love volatility, this could be a good thing (since lack of volatility would be a bad thing).
    You think large cap value stocks(which most DG stocks are), are a volatile as the general market(which includes small cap, tech etc)?

    Yes, but better to see the reality that companies change, boards of directors change, and dividend-payment philosophies come and go.
    So things could get even better in the future with better boards? Great!

    Truth is I am not betting on a future much different than the past or present.

    I really just think that the trendy focus on dividends is muddying and confusing things. A gain is a gain. If a stock went up an extra percent in dividends or capital value makes no difference (except for taxes). If one stock went down 8% and another went down 9% but paid a 1% dividend, they both performed identically. They both lost you the same amount of money (forgetting about the tax penalties with the dividend). If one stock went up 100% over a decade but paid no dividends and another went down 50% but paid a 1% annual dividend, from which one were you "getting income"? Dividends and capital gains should really just be lumped together conceptually to give you the accurate total picture of returns. Dividends or capital value -- makes no difference. A gain is a gain.
    Obviously a gain is a gain. You are explaining something everyone already knew. While it is nice to have the "set and forget" income streams from the companies as they dish out cash to you, its mainly about the companies themselves. Companies that have been raising dividends for decades are doing something right. Free cash flow is king when I choose to invest. These companies have it.


    In this day and age, whether the board of directors decides to pay dividends or not is a technical decision based on taxes and tax sheltering and cash-flow and other considerations but which isn't all that important to the business fundamentals and which doesn't affect investors either (as I showed above).

    1. Doesn't affect the business
    2. Doesn't affect the investors
    3. Could change at any time

    All adds up to: not something I should care about. At all! And certainly not the prime lynchpin factor to build a strategy out of.
    Thats true. If KO decided tomorrow to stop paying dividends and instead said they would use the money to buy back an extra 3.5% of their float each year, I wouldn't be upset. I hope to own BRK.b one of these days and it doesn't pay squat. I would think of it as a proxy that hold and reinvests all my free cash flow. Its not about the dividend on its own, but its about what the decades of dividend growth represents.

    But that's just my opinion, and I very well could be wrong. And this is working for you and you're pleased with it (presumably), and so, again, I wish you all the best!
    Thank you
    Last edited by cubical; 04-23-2014 at 07:01 PM.
    What I say is for entertainment purposes only!

    Mark 10:45 The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.

    "If you want to make a lot of money, resist diversification." - Jim Rogers



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by cubical View Post
    Why are you trying to be cute yet condescending? If I thought your points were valid or something new I would have.
    You've misread me! I really, really was not! I am and was sincerely wishing you the best! I don't have any desire to force my way of thinking down everyone's throat, nor to suggest you're "wrong" for doing it the way you do. It's your money. You worked hard for it. You earned it. You know best what to do with it. Condescending is the opposite of what I was trying to get across, and not at all what I was feeling.

    So please accept my apologies. Truly. My communication clearly failed completely, giving you the complete opposite impression of what I intended.

    You think large cap value stocks(which most DG stocks are), are a volatile as the general market(which includes small cap, tech etc)?
    Yeah, pretty much. I don't have the beta in front of me, but I do not think it is far off. And the max drawdown (which I think is an even better metric) I do not think is very different either. Not enough to really notice in real life. But, again, I don't have the figures in front of me so I definitely could be wrong. Feel free to embarrass me with the facts!

    So things could get even better in the future with better boards? Great!
    Absolutely they could.

    Truth is I am not betting on a future much different than the past or present.
    I know, and yes, that is "conservative" to an extent, as you say. I just am conservative to a greater extent. Things that could get better or stay the same could also get worse. I just want to be prepared no matter what happens. One might say that the Permanent Portfolio philosophy takes conservatism to the extreme, and that would be a fair accusation.

    Obviously a gain is a gain. You are explaining something everyone already knew.
    Well, it never hurts. This investing stuff is unfamiliar territory to many people and so there is some chance that my point was not as obvious to some as it was to you.

    Its not about the dividend on its own, but its about what the decades of dividend growth represents.
    Now that makes good sense.

    Make it a great day, cubical!

  6. #34
    So if you had an extra 50k to throw at the market tomorrow where would you put it and why?

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post

    Make it a great day, cubical!
    Thanks, you too!
    What I say is for entertainment purposes only!

    Mark 10:45 The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life as a ransom for many.

    "If you want to make a lot of money, resist diversification." - Jim Rogers

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    So if you had an extra 50k to throw at the market tomorrow where would you put it and why?
    This is a great question! Any takers? What does everybody think? My own answer is too boring and you all already know it anyway.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    This is a great question! Any takers? What does everybody think? My own answer is too boring and you all already know it anyway.
    Actually I am interested and don't really know your answer. I would be interested in your stock picks and why you would choose them.

  10. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    Actually I am interested and don't really know your answer. I would be interested in your stock picks and why you would choose them.
    Well thanks! I'm flattered, of course that you would ask. I don't know that I am going to have a real good answer that you're going to be satisfied with. But to at least slightly increase the probability that I'll at least answer the right question: what is the goal you have in mind? What are you trying to accomplish? Do you have to put the $50,000 into the stock market, or is it just a free $50,000 and you'd be open to other options for it as well?

  11. #39
    52 years old with no retirement per se. I have been flush and bust in the past. Once owned a printing company and netted 250k but printing is not what it once was. Slaving today as an LPN at a nursing home. I want out of that if/when possible. I have some physical gold & silver and a positive cash flow two family rental home. I am very mechanical and can achieve professional results with any endeavor I undertake. I am looking for ongoing and future financial independence. I expect to receive somewhere between $50 & $300 k in the near future. Want to preserve the wealth without pissing it away.

  12. #40
    OK, so it sounds like the goal for the 50k is to "preserve the wealth". That's a good goal.

    With that in mind, I would say you want to take a conservative approach. This is money you want to keep safe.

    Certainly some companies are better-run than others. Some stocks will be better than others. Like anything else, some are doubtless good deals, and some are bad deals. The problem is (not exactly "problem," but... situation anyway), there are a hundred thousand professional people devoted full-time to looking for the good deals. So whatever information you can find that would lead you to believe that such-and-such company is an outstandingly good buy has already been taken into consideration by those pros and is already part of the market price for that stock. It's already accounted for. So it is very, very difficult to beat the general market. There is no iron-clad theory that will allow you to do it reliably. It is an art, not a science.

    So let's look at the real-life, practical reality. Here's a recent article:

    http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2014/04/...-discredited-d

    The key take-away:

    "So over the 30 years from QAIB’s inception to the 2013 market close — a period encompassing the crash of 1987 and subsequent market booms and busts — equity fund investors earned an average annual return of 3.69% compared with the S&P 500’s 11.11% return."

    So, the first thing is to give up on trying to vastly outperform the S&P. You're not going to get rich investing; you're not going to get 1000% returns and turn $5,000 into a billion. It's just not going to happen, regardless of how much Ronin Truth thinks it should. A realistic goal would seem to be not to beat the 11% return (or whatever it happens to be) of the S&P, since virtually no one does, but to beat the 3.7% return that most real-life people are getting in real life. Even a modest 5% annual return would put you at the top end of the bell curve.

    But we can do better than that.

    Even though all those people were doing so poorly, getting only 3.7% (and half of them doing even worse), it would have been extremely simple -- in theory -- for them to get 10 or 11% instead. All they had to do? Put the money into an S&P index fund. It would have matched the performance of the S&P exactly, minus less than a percentage point for fees. That's all they had to do.

    So why don't they?

    Unrealistic expectations is part of it. By trying to beat the market, they end up losing to the market. The desire for a shortcut, to "get rich quick," carries a heavy penalty. But many people, like you, are trying to be conservative. They're not getting greedy chasing yield. The problem that kills them many times is volatility. In theory it is simplicity itself to leave all your money in an S&P index fund. In reality, it is very difficult to see, for example, 37% of your life savings go up in smoke in 2008. That's tough. That's really tough. That's gut-wrenching.

    So that's a big problem with the stock market: it goes up in times of prosperity, but during other times -- depression, inflation, deflation, recession -- it does not necessarily go up. During those times it often goes down. Like a rock. Look at the starting graphic I posted. What if you had invested at any time between 1953 and 1974? That's a really long time period. If you'd put your money down at any time during those 20 years and kept it in until 2010, you'd have gotten an under-3% real return (except for two years in the '50s when you'd have got slightly above 3%)! What about more recently? If you'd have invested any time between 1995 and 2007, other than one lucky year, you'd once again clock in below 3%. And during all but four of those years, you'd have come in at below 0%. You'd have actually lost money!

    So the stock market is unpredictable. It does not always and inevitably make money for those who invest in it, despite the claims of some of its most over-enthusiastic partisans.

    What to do? Diversify. Find other investments that will do well during the times that stocks do poorly. These are:

    During a time of inflation: Gold
    During a time of deflation (like 2008): Bonds
    During a time of recession: Nothing. Everything tends to go down in a recession. Something might go up, but you can't predict what.

    So, moral of the story, my picks would be:

    FSTMX -- a low-cost total stock market fund. Total stock market funds are even more diversified than S&P 500 funds, and so I recommend them over S&P 500 funds. This Fidelity Spartan fund has a fee of just 0.1%. You could also use VTI which has half the fee -- only 0.05%! It just depends which broker you want to go with. Most any mainstream total stock market fund charging less than 0.2% would be good. Any higher is a rip-off.

    TLT -- A long-term treasury ETF from iShares that only holds bonds over 20 years maturity. You could also just buy the bonds directly yourself, which would be slightly better.

    IAU -- A gold ETF from iShares. This is a simple way to own gold. It is not the best way. Better would be to buy physical gold coins (bullion coins, not collectible or rare).

    SHV -- An iShares money market fund. This is equivalent of cash. It's a little safer than just keeping the cash in a bank, and if you can get a debit card or check book with your brokerage, you can use it just as you would a bank account. If you can't, you can just keep this portion in a savings account instead (especially since your $12,500 will be under the FDIC-insured amount).

    I would put about $12,500 in each. $12,500 in FSTMX or VTI or another good cheap total stock market fund; $12,500 in TLT or directly buy thirteen 30-year bonds, $12,500 in IAU or gold coins, and $12,500 in cash either in a money market fund or in a savings account.

    Distributing your money in this way, you will be ready for whatever comes -- prosperity, inflation, recession, even depression. It has given steady, even growth in the past, and I see good reason to believe that it will continue to do so in the future. This strategy was devised by a man named Harry Browne in the 1970s and it is called the Permanent Portfolio.

    I should make a graphic like the one in my OP for the Permanent Portfolio. Until then, here is a growth curve graph:



    Even with the serious limitations of this type of graphical representation, you can still see how much smoother the Permanent Portfolio ride has been.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    Here is an interesting graphic I found showing stock market performance:



    I think it is especially good as it gives a realistic view of what would have been happening at the time for you as an investor. Most investment charts just show exponential growth curves, which really do not graphically represent reality in what I see as a useful way.

    "Hey, I'm in the middle of this really steep part at the end here -- lucky me! Good thing I wasn't born during the totally flat part during the previous 100 years!"

    So anyway, I like this graphic. Thoughts?

    Should we all be investing in the stock market right now? Or should we be running for the hills and keep as far away from stocks as possible?
    You chart is showing cyclical bear and bull cycles lasting 10-20 years. Isn't it? I'm being serious, not sure what the upper right part of the triangle really stands for.

    Also if grey represents a +4.1% return OVER inflation, green shows either +7 or +10%, light red is still POSITIVE with inflation taken out and only dark red is the only time at which your money didn't at a minimum keep up with inflation doesn't this chart do a darn good job of making the case for the stock market?

    5 colors, 4 of which at a minimum kept up with inflation and 1 color that got everything below inflation including all negative years in the stock market.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by jbauer View Post
    Your chart is showing cyclical bear and bull cycles lasting 10-20 years. Isn't it?
    Well, we as humans are very good at pattern recognition, and sometimes even recognize patterns that may not really be there, but there do seem to be some concentrated lumps of red and green. Whether there is any particular time-frame to the lump distribution is doubtful. There are booms and busts. When they'll come, nobody knows.

    I'm being serious, not sure what the upper right part of the triangle really stands for.
    Each little square is a coordinate of two years: the year the money was put in and the year it was taken out. The far, far upper right square thus shows what would happen if you invested in the S&P in 1920 and just held it until 2010. It's gray, showing that you would have got somewhere between a 3 and 7% annualized return over all that time. Most of the upper-right corner is gray, because if you invested between 1920 and 1940 if you then withdrew it between 1990 and 2010 most of those years you would have gotten a real (inflation-adjusted) return between 3 and 7% (the 1928 and 1936 entrants being the lagging exceptions).

    Also if grey represents a +4.1% return OVER inflation, green shows either +7 or +10%, light red is still POSITIVE with inflation taken out and only dark red is the only time at which your money didn't at a minimum keep up with inflation doesn't this chart do a darn good job of making the case for the stock market?
    It first and foremost shows the volatility clearly, which I consider a huge plus. But yes, coloring +0 to +3% in light red does make it the S&P performance seem worse than making 0% the cut-off between red and green. However, given the extremely well-established reality that the average investor trails the S&P 500 by a significant margin, I think this gives a more realistic representation of the actual experience that actual people had from 1920 to 2010. Once again:

    "[O]ver the 30 years from QAIB’s inception to the 2013 market close — a period encompassing the crash of 1987 and subsequent market booms and busts — equity fund investors earned an average annual return of 3.69% compared with the S&P 500’s 11.11% return."

    The S&P got 11% nominally. Sounds great. It got 8% in real terms (The average inflation rate from 1987 to 2014 was 2.83481%). It got perhaps about 6% after subtracting fees and taxes. Real people, on average, got about 6% less than that, or 0%, according to the QAIB.

    Gray seems like a pretty good color to choose for a time when the average real-life return was 0%.

    5 colors, 4 of which at a minimum kept up with inflation and 1 color that got everything below inflation including all negative years in the stock market.
    True. If you get an index fund and stick with it no matter what, never messing with it, things look pretty good. You can avoid that negative six percent adjustment that investors in general get hit with (because they are trying to be the next Warren Buffett (In Your Spare Time!), and other such grand visions). Without that -6%, you're sitting pretty. Your money would have grown at a good clip in the very long term.

    But it's really hard to do that. Why don't you find a thread for me on RPF in November of 2008 expressing the sentiment that everything was fine, don't panic, just hold onto your stocks and they'll go back up?

  16. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    The S&P got 11% nominally. Sounds great. It got 8% in real terms (The average inflation rate from 1987 to 2014 was 2.83481%). It got perhaps about 6% after subtracting fees and taxes. Real people, on average, got about 6% less than that, or 0%, according to the QAIB.

    Gray seems like a pretty good color to choose for a time when the average real-life return was 0%.
    All this assumes that the official government CPI (consumer price index) numbers are a reasonably good measure of inflation. I personally believe that they are, but many other posters here (the vast majority?) believe that they are not. If you, like most of RPF, believe that real price inflation is far higher than the official CPI, then you should adjust the returns even further downward to reflect your view.

    For instance, if the government CPI under-reports inflation by 3% (it says inflation is 2% when really it is 5%, etc.) then the return above should be negative 3%, not 0%.

  17. #44
    LibForestPaul
    Member

    The chart does not take into account tax liabilities correct? i.e. Roth vs IRA vs Change Brackets (retirement)
    What I see is S&P will earn inflation +4%, not guaranteed.
    What are the guaranteed rates on TIPS?

  18. #45
    LibForestPaul
    Member

    50k. Get some training and get a government job, with a tax payer funded retirement pension. Goons with guns aren't going anywhere, so you probably will be getting paid.

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by cubical View Post
    Just buy dividend growth stocks.
    Quote Originally Posted by cubical View Post
    Companies that have been raising dividends for decades are doing something right.

    It's not about the dividend on its own, but its about what the decades of dividend growth represents.
    Hey, cubical, I ran across a good option for people who value dividends as an indicator of value. You may want to look into it:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeln...vesting-again/

    And it was in the wake of one of the biggest asset bubbles of recent history–the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s–that some people began to seriously rethink stock indexes. What if instead of weighting by market capitalization–which during the bubble resulted in investors having greater and greater exposure to stocks whose price had gone up a lot–you created an index that was weighted by fundamentals like profits and dividends? Could such a product reliably outperform the broader market over long periods of time? It wasn’t alpha–these indexes would be managed by computers and algorithms, not the instincts of Wall Street pros–but it wasn’t pure beta either. It was, for lack of a better word, beta-plus.

    “I had been a big advocate of Vanguard and market-cap weighting,” Siegel says. “It was as a result of the Internet bubble in 2000 that I began to rethink my position. I looked at my portfolio and said, ‘Gee, I wish I didn’t hold these tech stocks. There must be an index that we can devise that would underweight stocks that appeared to have gone way outside their fundamentals in terms of price.’ That’s what got me interested in exploring alternative indexation.”

    Siegel took Jono’s indexes and, with a research assistant, spent an entire week running them against an enormous database of historical stock prices. He was impressed enough–”using very long-term data there is statistically significant outperformance by fundamentally weighted indexes”–that, in return for WisdomTree stock, he was willing to lend his name and reputation to the embryonic company.

    The secret to that outperformance, according to Siegel, is what investors like Benjamin Graham and Warren Buffett have preached all along: value.

    “People overbuy growth stories,” Siegel says. “They pay too much for growth stocks. They ignore value stocks. They ignore slow growers. They tend to be underpriced. Therefore over the long run you are going to get a better return.”

    Check it out, it might be right up your alley:

    http://www.wisdomtree.com/etfs/index...aspx?IndexID=1

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by LibForestPaul View Post
    The chart does not take into account tax liabilities correct?
    Actually, it includes dividends, average taxes, and fees. If you are 100% in a tax-free vehicle, your taxes will be lower (and thus your real returns higher) than this average. If you are in a situation where you must pay high taxes on your gains, the opposite could be true.

    i.e. Roth vs IRA vs Change Brackets (retirement)
    Right; my understanding is that all of this is taken into account, proportionally. Someone has worked out what the averages are for the whole investing population at large.

    What I see is S&P will earn inflation +4%, not guaranteed.
    What are the guaranteed rates on TIPS?
    Well, you make a good point, of course.

  21. #48
    Dividend yield is not necessarily a good judge of a good stock to invest in. The yield is the stock price divided by the dividend yield. If the price of a stock rises, the dividend yield will fall and vice versa. A rising dividend comes from a falling stock price (unless they increase the dividend) which is often the sign of a weak stock. Or if the yield is high, it may be at a level which cannot be sustained (draining capital from the company). Dividend paying stocks are generally more mature, slower growing companies with surplus cash anyways they want to return to investors (stock holders). Dividend yielding stocks in general offer solid, steady returns compared to other investment alternatives.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Well , this one has done fairly well ( I am not plugging it , have another I like too that I have more of , but , not mentioning it without a case of beer delivered) . WW Granger Inc ( I think ) , probably GWW ....

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by oyarde View Post
    Well , this one has done fairly well ( I am not plugging it , have another I like too that I have more of , but , not mentioning it without a case of beer delivered) . WW Granger Inc ( I think ) , probably GWW ....
    I've never really understood Granger's business model. Everything they have is available for cheaper elsewhere. At least every product that I've ever looked at and considered buying from them, which is quite a few over the years. They are so overpriced it's unbelievable, even with the business-to-business preferred customer discount. I just don't understand why anyone buys anything from them ever. But they must have some competitive advantage that I just don't know about, like faster shipping.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by helmuth_hubener View Post
    I've never really understood Granger's business model. Everything they have is available for cheaper elsewhere. At least every product that I've ever looked at and considered buying from them, which is quite a few over the years. They are so overpriced it's unbelievable, even with the business-to-business preferred customer discount. I just don't understand why anyone buys anything from them ever. But they must have some competitive advantage that I just don't know about, like faster shipping.
    I understand your thoughts and agree , if I had not worked in industry so long I would never understand it . I once ran an auto part producing plant though and that was kind of my first clue . Big Company , they had adopted the Toyota , kaizen , kan ban etc systems , they had a local tool and tooling supplier and a company in Nebraska and one in Japan we bought tooling and every day items from . Everything else , that the Group Leaders ( Leadmen ) , machine operators , cutting operators etc ordered came out of a Mcmaster Carr catalog . Lots of places are the same , I found out later at other jobs and use , about one or two suppliers , mostly Granger. There is one in my local area and there used to be two other competitors ( one of which had same or better and lower prices , I always bought some of my personal stuff there ) .The others have folded . Granger remains. They make money and the ten year return is probably around 450 % , I think annual dividend , about $3.75 , dividend yield about 1 1/2 % , without checking . Not bad considering the past ten yrs .....

  26. #52
    I dumped about 27 k into the market recently. This is what I bought.The number next to the symbol is the number of shares.
    AAWW 40
    ABB 49
    AEIS 91
    ASNA 67
    DF 64
    DSW 54
    DTSI 55
    FRAN 87
    FTEK 294
    LULU 34
    NC 23
    ODC 42
    OSTK 400
    SPLS 340
    TRR 288

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Schifference View Post
    I dumped about 27 k into the market recently. This is what I bought.The number next to the symbol is the number of shares.
    AAWW 40
    ABB 49
    AEIS 91
    ASNA 67
    DF 64
    DSW 54
    DTSI 55
    FRAN 87
    FTEK 294
    LULU 34
    NC 23
    ODC 42
    OSTK 400
    SPLS 340
    TRR 288
    Sounds like fun; good luck! As long as this is 27k that you can afford to lose! Choosing individual stocks is highly speculative. Nothing wrong with speculation, mind you!! Just don't do it with money you can't afford to lose. That's a proven recipe for heartache.

  28. #54
    Time will tell. I spent a couple of months doing analysis and developing methods to determine undervalued stocks. I think I have picked some real winners.

  29. #55
    Awesome! Sounds like you've done your homework.

    As I say, I'm not opposed to this kind of thing. It can be fun, and of course very profitable. May your picks be both!

  30. #56
    Does the fact that we are talking about stock picking and that the S&P is near 2000 mean that a market crash is imminent?



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  32. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by jclay2 View Post
    Does the fact that we are talking about stock picking and that the S&P is near 2000 mean that a market crash is imminent?
    Definitely possible!

    However, it is also possible that we're in for an extended bull market for many years to come.

    Either way is fine with me, investment-wise! I'm covered in both cases.

  33. #58
    2000 is just a number. It says nothing about if stocks are over or undervalued or if they will go up or down in the future.

  34. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    2000 is just a number. It says nothing about if stocks are over or undervalued or if they will go up or down in the future.
    That sounds about right , but the markets are full of stocks that look over valued to me .

  35. #60
    “A prediction about the direction of the stock market tells you nothing about where stocks are headed, but a whole lot about the person doing the predicting.” -- so true...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Silver Rush Spreads to Stock Market: Long Piece in WSJ
    By bobbyw24 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-27-2011, 04:43 PM
  2. How much money is needed for GE camapign in long term?
    By Agorism in forum Rand Paul Forum
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-23-2010, 12:33 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 12-10-2009, 10:58 AM
  4. Where Does Stock Market Money Go?
    By ams5995 in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 05-05-2008, 05:13 PM
  5. Long Term Money Bomb
    By VoteForRonPaul in forum Free At Last 1/21 Mass Donation
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 01-23-2008, 10:29 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •