In an article today about the DJIA passing the 14,000 threshold, CNBC starts with this paragraph:
With investors jaded by years of turbulence and low returns, the Dow’s break through 14,000 did not trigger bells and whistles, but it should still portend a slow march higher for stocks. [emphasis added]
I don’t know how these delusional assholes define “years of…low returns”, but the Dow has more than fucken doubled in the four years since its low of less than 7000 in March, 2009.
8 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Shplane, Spess Alium
February 1, 2013 at 7:59 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
See, Proffe, they’re only getting SOME of the money, instead of ALL of the money.
Any amount short of “absolutely everything” is “low returns” for these people.
sailor1031
February 1, 2013 at 9:07 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It’s years of NO fukken returns if you was in the market when it was last at 14K and didn’t get out in time.
smrnda
February 1, 2013 at 9:33 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I think the reason people say ‘no returns’ is that the High Rollers are already at the point of diminishing returns – they can’t buy anything more, so the next doubling of their resources registers as ‘no return’ since it doesn’t lead to a more lavish lifestyle.
Crudely Wrott
February 1, 2013 at 10:03 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
Selling shite that ain’t worth shite to someone who doesn’t know shite seems to be lucrative. Has been for a long time. This is not news. This is olds.
I really oughta find a way to get a piece of this shite.
Improbable Joe
February 1, 2013 at 10:33 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
“Low returns” means that they should see exponential growth. The billionaires didn’t see their solid-gold toilets replaced by one-piece diamond shitters, therefore the stock market isn’t giving them enough of a return. Maybe if they are allowed to rape and murder one average American a week, their hunger for more profits will be appeased… except next year they’ll expect to be able to rape, murder, and EAT one American a week, and next year they’ll demand one per day, and by 2020 they’ll need an hourly sacrifice.
Francisco Bacopa
February 2, 2013 at 8:27 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
What would happen if over the last few years a good share of this money that went into profit taking had gone into higher wages and employing people to actually make and do stuff? Lets see, maybe consumer demand would go up, further increasing employment. People might start buying up undervalued real estate, thus adding stability to the financial sector. And you know what? With stable and growing consumer demand, people might just figure out good ways to make profits and stuff. Of course, some of those people might just be regular folks instead of the already rich, but I still think the already rich would find plenty of ways to make a buck or two million.
But this simply cannot be. To paraphrase one of my favorite songs: “They don’t want the world, they just want our half.”
F [nucular nyandrothol]
February 2, 2013 at 1:45 pm (UTC -7) Link to this comment
I don’t know, but
doesn’t make sense. That’s not what “bells and whistles” means.
TGAP Dad
February 3, 2013 at 8:23 am (UTC -7) Link to this comment
It’s not clear from the excerpt, but I’m pretty confident that when the article refers to “returns” it means either dividends (ROE) or stock valuation (arbitrage, or ROI). One is dependent on the dividends returned to shareholders while the other is determined my stock price. Not sure which the article is referring to, but when most people talk about making money investing in stocks, they aren’t talking about a minuscule quarterly dividend check.