Official Lance Armstrong Thread: Part 3 (Post-Confession)

[Netserk]

Methinks this thread needs a fern

 

[ChrisE]

What is not "easy to follow" is The Hog's ridiculous claims of 8% annual returns on deposits and 15% annual returns in the market. If it was so "easy to follow" he would provide examples of ease of obtaining such returns instead of nonsense like "off shoring" funds to "Hawaii"

Certainly there are some equities that have returned 15% annually over the last 8 years, but they are the minority. As for deposits, hard to find those returns without substantial foreign exchange risk.

The 8% was mine, and it is based upon history of avg. annual returns of the stock market. Look it up.

Hog is saying 15% or whatever over time by investing wisely. I don't dispute or support what he/she is saying in terms of what an actual % would be.

But, what he/she means is investments vary depending on what is going on in the economy. Savvy investors with large sums of money don't just put all of their money in one basket and sit and wait. $ is moved all the time, to bonds in volatile times to stocks when things are good, to commodities, futures, currency, foreign markets, etc. in other times.

The 8% was just used to make a point, looking at one investment type over 8 years to attempt to help you understand what we are trying to tell you. Which is LA is not losing $12 million because most of that is basically an interest free loan that he used to make $ with over these 8 years.

Think about what I just wrote for awhile before you knee-jerk reply.

 

[thehog]

I used 3% in my first example. Not even 8%!

It was for pure simplicity that having a substantial cash holding gives you many options at making potential profit.

or losses as in Bob's case.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

This is just dumb. I'm not attacking RR.

Many here were having a very good discussion in regards to the lack of due diligence by SCA on betting on Armstrong per doping in the sport.

That is all. RR doesn't agree and that's fine. That's not me attacking him. He chose to enter that discussion of his own accord. And good on him. Some good information has come from those discussions and disagreements.

You're just trying to drill it down and make it personal. I don't see I that way and I don't think RR does either.

Why cause conflict when there is none?

Your trollkraft doesn't work on me hog. I'm a level 100 Trollkraft Wizard. Save that sh!t for the locals.

 

[Jeremiah]

The 8% was mine, and it is based upon history of avg. annual returns of the stock market. Look it up.

Hog is saying 15% or whatever over time by investing wisely. I don't dispute or support what he/she is saying in terms of what an actual % would be.

But, what he/she means is investments vary depending on what is going on in the economy. Savvy investors with large sums of money don't just put all of their money in one basket and sit and wait. $ is moved all the time, to bonds in volatile times to stocks when things are good, to commodities, futures, currency, foreign markets, etc. in other times.

The 8% was just used to make a point, looking at one investment type over 8 years to attempt to help you understand what we are trying to tell you. Which is LA is not losing $12 million because most of that is basically an interest free loan that he used to make $ with over these 8 years.

Think about what I just wrote for awhile before you knee-jerk reply.

Yup, Lance, Lenny Dykstra, investment geniuses....

 

[MarkvW]

I don't think that it is a safe assumption that SCA is going to receive "interest" on the money it recovers.

In the US, most states don't allow for the recovery of prejudgment interest on a contract claim unless the interest amount is "liquidated" (can be determined or is determinable from the contract). I don't think Texas does.

If any of SCA's claims relate to something other than a contract (either the original or the settlement contract), I don't see how the arbitrators can possibly have any jurisdiction over them.

FYI

 

[ChrisE]

Yup, Lance, Lenny Dykstra, investment geniuses....

You think the wealthy sit and decide how to manipulate their portfolio on their own? Newsflash, people have investment advisors and even firms that handle their money as they see fit, for a % of the profits.

 

[thehog]

You think the wealthy sit and decide how to manipulate their portfolio on their own? Newsflash, people have investment advisors and even firms that handle their money as they see fit, for a % of the profits. I know in Jeremiah's world of running the drive thru window at McDonalds, this is probably hard to fathom.

And probably where Mr. Weisel comes into play. I'm sure he found some "interesting" ways to invest the $7m from SCA with very high returns.

Just like, in my view, Armstrong has sold on the risk of SCA now for $2m with a scheduled loan repayment plan. I have no evidence of this it's just a strategy that I've seen others use in similar situations.

I remember when I first read Bill Gates's book years ago. There was a passage in the the opening chapters whereby when he first realised that the world was not fair. Those with money had many more options than those without. That's when Bill became a more restless businessman than he ever was as a technologist.

Similarly to tax avoidance. If you earn 160k your options are limited. If you earn 3m a year you can pay someone 20k to avoid paying tax on 2.5m of your earnings.

The sad reality of our world.

 

[frenchfry]

There are some world-class nit-pickers that post here. Stubborn nit-pickers at that.

 

[ChrisE]

There are some world-class nit-pickers that post here. Stubborn nit-pickers at that.

I agree. Things would be much more tranquil if RR could just spew his nonsense unopposed.

 

[Samson777]

I agree. Things would be much more tranquil if RR could just spew his nonsense unopposed.

Personal attacks like this are pathetic. especially when they are so wrongly directed.

 

[Race Radio]

You work in IB, yes?

.

Lots of people work in IB. Janitors, IT guys, secretaries.....doesn't mean they know anything about finance.

Hedge funds averaged -1.8% loss after fees since 2007. With your 15% returns Hog Financial must a market leader.

 

[thehog]

I don't think that it is a safe assumption that SCA is going to receive "interest" on the money it recovers.

In the US, most states don't allow for the recovery of prejudgment interest on a contract claim unless the interest amount is "liquidated" (can be determined or is determinable from the contract). I don't think Texas does.

If any of SCA's claims relate to something other than a contract (either the original or the settlement contract), I don't see how the arbitrators can possibly have any jurisdiction over them.

FYI

Would SCA receive costs if a judgment went in their favour?

They may not.

I note per Armstrong's early 'without prejudice' 3m offer; generally a tactic used to demonstrate that you've attempted to save costs for both sides.

 

[MarkvW]

Would SCA receive costs if a judgment went in their favour?

They may not.

I note per Armstrong's early 'without prejudice' 3m offer; generally a tactic used to demonstrate that you've attempted to save costs for both sides.

I can't even guess. Assuming the case goes back to Arbitration, the Arbitrators have a lot of discretion.

 

[Jeremiah]

You think the wealthy sit and decide how to manipulate their portfolio on their own? Newsflash, people have investment advisors and even firms that handle their money as they see fit, for a % of the profits. I know in Jeremiah's world of running the drive thru window at McDonalds, this is probably hard to fathom.

You mean like Madoff and Jamie Dimon?

Race Radio has highlighted the "success" of hedge fund managers.

Seems like Buffet is one of the very few with a "strategy" like, he loves Coke so he invests in it. Or, tobacco "costs a penny to make, there is fierce brand loyalty, and it's addictive" so he'll invest in that.

I guess Armstrong stuck to what he knows best which was "energy" drinks. Goes to show that he's somewhat delusional as his FRS was spiked with "the oil."

 

[Race Radio]

The 8% was mine, and it is based upon history of avg. annual returns of the stock market. Look it up.
.

Nope, it was Hog who claimed Lance could stick in a bank and get 8%.

You might want to look up the annual returns since SCA paid Lance, nothing close to 8% or 15%.

 

[thehog]

Lots of people work in IB. Janitors, IT guys, secretaries.....doesn't mean they know anything about finance.

Hedge funds averaged -1.8% loss after fees since 2007. With your 15% returns Hog Financial must a market leader.

Just like the bike industry. There are those who carry bikes for others and those who actually race them.

Again you've missed the point.

Averaged Hedge Fund's index value is not a fund in itself. Just like the Dow is not a fund. It's an index. A number representative of the average performance across all funds.

An investor doesn't invest in "all funds". They depending on their strategy select what they wish to invest in. The result of that could be well above average or below.

This is what myself and ChrisE have been trying to demonstrate to you but you won't let it go.

I gave the example of Elevation Partners. Well above average. Well above. But they were well down a couple of years previous.

To reiterate. The Dow and Hedge Fund Indexs are just that. An index. They are not a fund.

Funds can outpace an index or dip below it. The Fortune 500 index was created because the 100 lost its effect as an index. It was no longer representative of the market.

Look at your pension. Look at the returns and then look deeper at which funds the select to invest in.

Just have a think about it and Chris's previous post. I'm not having a go at you but this is fairly basic stuff here. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue against investment fundamentals.

 

[thehog]

Nope, it was Hog who claimed Lance could stick in a bank and get 8%.

You might want to look up the annual returns since SCA paid Lance, nothing close to 8% or 15%.

Actually I said 3% in my original example. For demonstrative purposes.

Right here: http://forum.cyclingnews.com/showpost.php?p=1429238&postcount=6672

I was being very conservative and I even built it into a little picture:

 

[blackcat]

Nope, it was Hog who claimed Lance could stick in a bank and get 8%.

You might want to look up the annual returns since SCA paid Lance, nothing close to 8% or 15%.

he woulda done the odds with stapleton and it was a better bet than BetFair of Bet247

 

[Race Radio]

Just like the bike industry. There are those who carry bikes for others and those who actually race them.

Again you've missed the point.

Averaged Hedge Fund's index value is not a fund in itself. Just like the Dow is not a fund. It's an index. A number representative of the average performance across all funds.

An investor doesn't invest in "all funds". They depending on their strategy select what they wish to invest in. The result of that could be well above average or below.

This is what myself and ChrisE have been trying to demonstrate to you but you won't let it go.

I gave the example of Elevation Partners. Well above average. Well above. But they were well down a couple of years previous.

To reiterate. The Dow and Hedge Fund Indexs are just that. An index. They are not a fund.

Funds can outpace an index or dip below it. The Fortune 500 index was created because the 100 lost its effect as an index. It was no longer representative of the market.

Look at your pension. Look at the returns and then look deeper at which funds the select to invest in.

Just have a think about it and Chris's previous post. I'm not having a go at you but this is fairly basic stuff here. I'm not sure why you're trying to argue against investment fundamentals.

Nonsense.

You are claiming Lance could "easily make 6-8" or 15% offshore during a period when the average hedge fund lost -1.8%. You claimed he could have deposited it in a bank and earned 3%, when banks were under 1%.

You are too obvious dude, way to obvious.

 

[thehog]

Nonsense.

You are claiming Lance could "easily make 6-8" or 15% offshore during a period when the average hedge fund lost -1.8%. You claimed he could have deposited it in a bank and earned 3%, when banks were under 1%.

You are too obvious dude, way to obvious.

I don't need to be obvious. The principles of the market are already obvious. Well obvious to most.

And to that point you're not actually arguing against me. Your arguing against the very structure of the market.

So to make this easy; what indices do you refer in your "-1.8%"?

That will basically answer your question. Because it's so easy to tell you googled something and actually know nothing about how various funds are recorded.

Anyway I'm all ears to which indices you refer in this "1.8%".

And to be clear. There's no such thing as "average" with respects to hedge funds. They are for the most part unregulated and depending where you go not for mums and dads investors. Those with a spare 7m would be most welcome

Per the banks as I clearly stated. Advertised high street rates that you see on he internet are for the mums and dads. If you have 7m and want to term deposit they'll give you a negotiated and non-advertised rate that is much much higher. Because the bank takes your 7m and invests it at their own gain. Because it takes a lot of mums & dads with their sh1tty $5k & $10k's to make a totalised $7m. And there is the delineation. Consumer banking vs. Investment banking.

That's how banks work. I mean this is first year economics. Simple stuff.

 

[ChewbaccaD]

Lots of people work in IB. Janitors, IT guys, secretaries.....doesn't mean they know anything about finance.

Hedge funds averaged -1.8% loss after fees since 2007. With your 15% returns Hog Financial must a market leader.

Hog Financial
We invest on Tuesdays

 

[thehog]

Hog Financial
We invest on Tuesdays

According to one the entire world equally lost 1.8% in funds and only gained 1% in the banks. Equally. No more and no less. All the same. Everyone.

Every stock, every portfolio, everything. Same value as some magical one value index, globally.

Well of course with the exception of SCA in 2007. But that was a donation of 7m

 

[ChrisE]

Nope, it was Hog who claimed Lance could stick in a bank and get 8%.

You might want to look up the annual returns since SCA paid Lance, nothing close to 8% or 15%.

It is an average well known historical annual return on the DOW index, only to show you what is possible on average over time with no manipulation. To nitpick over those particular 8 years, as if the players were just sitting there with their thumbs up their *** while the market crashed in 08, instead of moving $ to different investments while that crash was oncoming, is ludicrous.

The DOW was at something like 8k in 2009, after the market crashed due to the mortgage issue and auto industry, among other things. What would be the present worth if that $ would have been put under his pillow for 2 years, then invested just in an index fund in 2009? What if he would have moved some of it to bonds, and some of it to something else stable in 07-08 then back to the market in 09, with it now around 16k?

It is much more complex than this but hopefully you get my drift, finally.

 

[ChrisE]

Personal attacks like this are pathetic. especially when they are so wrongly directed.

RR is a big boy that can take care of himself. I have been disagreeing and agreeing with RR for about 10 years, on a couple of different forums, on a variety of subjects. Go read something else if the banter makes you recoil.