BearTrap

What is a "regular" member ?

132 posts in this topic

Adding Sally to the bet is not fair. The original was just the two of them. I got three of Sallys already though so I figure that is 3 fingers of laphy and maybe a dominican hehehe

Actually I bought a bottle of laphy this morning and a couple new romeo's. I also got some water for my humidor as I _really_ have to get that thing in good shape. Embarrassing pulling out tubes.

Always hilarious when trolls get trolled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay I will now reveal the nature of the game as with Sally being forced to back Sherlock up I have obviously succeeded in my little game.

I announced a while back that the game was to see if you could get the troll club to waste all their posts in a pointless thread on a pointless topic and keep the poo out of the more interesting threads.

Do you really imagine that trolls are concerned about the nature of the threads in which they manage to ensnare others in pointless waste of effort nonsense engagements? I would have thought that the more pointless the exchange the more successful the troll. Have you not thought that whilst you were playing your game you were not using your time to the advantage of the forum? Isn't that an objective of a troll?

Thanks for your explanation. If BT and Sherlock really are trolls then their activity has been more successful than it appeared at first sight. It now appears that they managed to create extensive and worthless goings on in the background. It appears they have managed more than they could have hoped for. You have given them much encouragement to continue - in some form or another - if indeed they are trolls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sally? sally?

Oh dear.

Oh well, screw you tin, gonna go get me own laphroaig if the trolls won't play fair.

I'd have thought once they realised the game they would queue up to respond to me knowing it would cost you something. I think they hate you more than me, but then I am a generally likeable chap :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really imagine that trolls are concerned about the nature of the threads in which they manage to ensnare others in pointless waste of effort nonsense engagements? I would have thought that the more pointless the exchange the more successful the troll. Have you not thought that whilst you were playing your game you were not using your time to the advantage of the forum? Isn't that an objective of a troll?

Thanks for your explanation. If BT and Sherlock really are trolls then their activity has been more successful than it appeared at first sight. It now appears that they managed to create extensive and worthless goings on in the background. It appears they have managed more than they could have hoped for. You have given them much encouragement to continue - in some form or another - if indeed they are trolls.

w00t, that's four. Even when you know the game you can't help yourself.

I am the Troll.

I tied up all three in pointless exchanges. hehehe stupid trolls.

Sorry tin but I am claiming a minor rule (which I just made up):

3.3.4: When a troll is trolled and then gets told they are being trolled and somehow tries to make out they don't suck arse at trolling all bet payoffs are doubled. Plus tor gets to use the cool glass which has horns or something else cool and he can play Jesus and MaryChain really loud for the first drink. he might get prize money too.

Man I love this game!

I can't wait for sherlock and BT to have their next allocation of posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sally? sally?

Oh dear.

Oh well, screw you tin, gonna go get me own laphroaig if the trolls won't play fair.

I'd have thought once they realised the game they would queue up to respond to me knowing it would cost you something. I think they hate you more than me, but then I am a generally likeable chap :)

w00t, that's four. Even when you know the game you can't help yourself.

I am the Troll.

I tied up all three in pointless exchanges. hehehe stupid trolls.

Sorry tin but I am claiming a minor rule (which I just made up):

3.3.4: When a troll is trolled and then gets told they are being trolled and somehow tries to make out they don't suck arse at trolling all bet payoffs are doubled. Plus tor gets to use the cool glass which has horns or something else cool and he can play Jesus and MaryChain really loud for the first drink. he might get prize money too.

Man I love this game!

I can't wait for sherlock and BT to have their next allocation of posts.

..another two points for me.

Edited by Sally Periwinkle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

..another two points for me.

funny :) you reckon tor only gets 10 posts a day too? and now tor has fetched 5 of yours...

of course with multiple accounts you would get more than 10 as well so perhaps its an even playing field.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I love this game!

I can't wait for sherlock and BT to have their next allocation of posts.

What a genius. I've seven left, to use today -- if I want to use them. You have too much free time!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What a genius. I've seven left, to use today -- if I want to use them. You have too much free time!!

You should use them telling me how exactly your plan in life is better than mine. Or complaining when I point out that my investment scheme works better than yours by saying I am too proud of mine a couple of breaths after you say yours is awesome.

Or perhaps answer the question regarding your portfolio. Come on, stump up some numbers. Fairly easy if you are really in the game. If you aren't of course you have to spend hours trying to figure out exactly when you should have bought property as an investment compared to other allocations.

Shame gold has done so well over the past 10 years. really makes it hard for the property pump and dumpers to find a period where they could conceivably say they are still in the property game _and_ beating the gold bugs.

Whoah just realised that since 03 in the Sydney market (you are sydney aren't you sherlock) even shares with their horrific performance due to the crash have still beaten residential property.

Be a shame if you had to say that investing in property requires skill and knowledge like all the other asset classes. Just doesn't hit the agenda does it? "Property is awesome and a numbskull can make money by just buying property" is the agenda you push isn't it?

What a conundrum! Play my silly game and thereby admit you are simply a troll that has lost the trolling game or prove you are not a pump and dumper.

Who knows where lady luck will land next.

Gee I wonder which part of this post you or your friends will selectively reply to. Feeling all tingly with anticipation.

Thanks for the extra post though, I appreciate it and it is nice of you not to reply to urchin or tin and let them get points. I'll drop by your house with flowers if you would only give me your address. Can't have chocolates though, I have reserved them for when BT gets out of his post limit and says whether he wants belgian or swiss.

Oh the hell with it, I have some lovely belgian florentines I have been saving up, you can have them. I just can't bear to be mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shame gold has done so well over the past 10 years. really makes it hard for the property pump and dumpers to find a period where they could conceivably say they are still in the property game _and_ beating the gold bugs.

Australian property has beaten gold over the last 10 years - easily.

Gold price March 2000 AU$480 an ounce.

Gold price March 2010 AU$1222 an ounce.

So gold price increased by a factor of 2.54 or 9.8% pa. No yield so that's all you got.

ABS 8 capital city indices:

1st Series

March 2000 - 143.9

March 2002 - 180.6

2nd Series

March 2002 - 74.3

March 2010 - 148.5

Overall price increase = 2.51 or 9.6% pa.

So, gold got 9.8% no yield and property got 9.6% PLUS rent (for a PI) or PLUS free rent (for a OO).

Big win for property.

Edit add: Sydney index shows 6.7% pa PLUS rent. About the same or perhaps a little better than gold. Sydney rents are about 4% or 4.5%.

Edited by Sally Periwinkle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder which part of this post you or your friends will selectively reply to

You're spending lots of time, writing long posts, to people you think are "trolls". Did you apologise to BT yet, for lying about him?? Please do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're spending lots of time, writing long posts, to people you think are "trolls". Did you apologise to BT yet, for lying about him?? Please do.

I type quickly and pretty much free form my responses to trolls, years of training I guess, I don't have to think particularly much, I don't even care if my argument is coherent. I am just wasting your time while watching backups run.

And yes I have asked BT to give me his address so I can drop by and apologise in person, I find internet apologies to typically be very inconsequential.

Maybe we should rename this thread the "tor wastes the trolls time while earning $4 a minute".

No chance you will say when you bought in Sydney and what your portfolio leverage is?

A chance we get to see if you are a pump and dump or a real investor?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australian property has beaten gold over the last 10 years - easily.

Gold price March 2000 AU$480 an ounce.

Gold price March 2010 AU$1222 an ounce.

So gold price increased by a factor of 3.54 or 10.8% pa. No yield so that's all you got.

ABS 8 capital city indices:

1st Series

March 2000 - 143.9

March 2002 - 180.6

2nd Series

March 2002 - 74.3

March 2010 - 148.5

Overall price increase = 2.51 or 9.6% pa.

So, gold got 10.8% no yield and property got 9.6% PLUS rent (for a PI) or PLUS free rent (for a OO).

Big win for property.

Edit add: Sydney index shows 6.7% pa PLUS rent. About the same or perhaps a little better than gold. Sydney rents are about 4% or 4.5%.

When did you buy in Sydney? Or are you one of those clever people that comes in afterwards and says what the past did but hasn't got skin in the game?

Come on let's see where your money is?

Strange how not BT, Sherlock or Sally will say when they bought, what they bought or what their leverage is.

I smell made up bollocks by people that are paid to trade, not making money by buying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I type quickly and pretty much free form my responses to trolls, years of training I guess, I don't have to think particularly much, I don't even care if my argument is coherent. I am just wasting your time while watching backups run.

And yes I have asked BT to give me his address so I can drop by and apologise in person, I find internet apologies to typically be very inconsequential.

Maybe we should rename this thread the "tor wastes the trolls time while earning $4 a minute".

No chance you will say when you bought in Sydney and what your portfolio leverage is?

A chance we get to see if you are a pump and dump or a real investor?

Shucks - that's a point for Sherlock. I thought my post on property beating gold over the last 10 years would get a reply. Unwelcome message I suppose. Want me to do it for any other period to the present? The answer is the same - just more so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shucks - that's a point for Sherlock. I thought my post on property beating gold over the last 10 years would get a reply. Unwelcome message I suppose. Want me to do it for any other period to the present? The answer is the same - just more so.

Poor Sally, so desperate for attention from tor that she sits by the phone and if I call _anyone_ else she think sshe is left out, don't worry honey. I already replied to you.

In fact before you posted.

I guess you are getting a little hot under the collar eh? Don't worry lots of chicks get that way.

Almost as if you had to log out, switch accounts and log back in again.

Gee tor would never ever use latency of accounts and reply in reverse order to trip you up. Nope he would not. tor is a nice guy that just wants to know if you actually have a portfolio in the investment area you purport to support. Numbers would be good.

(I speak in third person because you get to and I can't be arsed having multiple accounts)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did you buy in Sydney? Or are you one of those clever people that comes in afterwards and says what the past did but hasn't got skin in the game?

Come on let's see where your money is?

Strange how not BT, Sherlock or Sally will say when they bought, what they bought or what their leverage is.

I smell made up bollocks by people that are paid to trade, not making money by buying.

oh goody - another point for me.

My own purchases are irrelevant and make no difference to facts. I bought in Sydney in 1999 and sold there in 2005. But that has no relevance to the facts in my post which correctly contradict what you erroneously posted as a fact. There is value in correct facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Australian property has beaten gold over the last 10 years - easily.

Gold price March 2000 AU$480 an ounce.

Gold price March 2010 AU$1222 an ounce.

So gold price increased by a factor of 2.54 or 10.8% pa. No yield so that's all you got.

ABS 8 capital city indices:

1st Series

March 2000 - 143.9

March 2002 - 180.6

2nd Series

March 2002 - 74.3

March 2010 - 148.5

Overall price increase = 2.51 or 9.6% pa.

So, gold got 10.8% no yield and property got 9.6% PLUS rent (for a PI) or PLUS free rent (for a OO).

Big win for property.

Edit add: Sydney index shows 6.7% pa PLUS rent. About the same or perhaps a little better than gold. Sydney rents are about 4% or 4.5%.

did you pay cash for that house? or did you get a mortgage at 8%? reckon that effects yield?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you pay cash for that house? or did you get a mortgage at 8%? reckon that effects yield?

If you took a 300,000 loan in 2000, in 2010 you'd frittered away $210,000 in interest (@ 7%)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh goody - another point for me.

My own purchases are irrelevant and make no difference to facts. I bought in Sydney in 1999 and sold there in 2005. But that has no relevance to the facts in my post which correctly contradict what you erroneously posted as a fact. There is value in correct facts.

You know _you_ are meant to be trolling the forum right? and that all the other threads are running happily and smoothly with you frantically logging in and out of accounts to try and argue with me when I have stated I am deliberately trying to get you to waste your posts on me right?

Man you must really hate tin to be so determined to make me win the bet and get my cigar and scotch. You realise he works airports and so probably gets them Duty free right? It just ain't gonna hurt him much.

Oh and your purchases matter. You are not in the real estate game at the moment but you say it is awesome. Why aren't you investing in real estate. Seems you haven't for 5 years. But I thought you were under the impression real estate would boom? Why wouldn't you invest in it?

However as you are claiming to be an awesome investor from your RE thing what are you invested in now? Surely an awesome investor got in early and can tell us they are now invested in something.

You don't have to tell us your next play, you think it is real estate right? Or do you want to wait for the crash before you buy BACK IN to the real estate market?

ooops. or are you going to claim now you are invested in RE in, let's say anywhere it Perth. Is it Adelaide or are you holding gold?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did you pay cash for that house? or did you get a mortgage at 8%? reckon that effects yield?

Its a comparative analysis. In any comparative analysis you have to assume you begin each with the same. Borrowing costs cancel in comparative analysis.

Or perhaps you wish to compare putting a $20k deposit on a $200k house with buying $20k of gold 10 years ago? Let's do that.

House buyer

Spends $20k first year then $7.2k each year (8% interest less 4% rent or opportunity rent). Total spent $92k. Mortgage owing (worst case of interest only payments) $180k. March 2010 House value $500k. Net position = $500k-$180k-$92k = $228k.

Gold buyer

Spends $20k (41 ounces) first year then $7.2k each year (same as house buyer) on more gold (rough average of 10 ounces a year). Total gold now 141 ounces. March 2010 value = $172k.

Net position = $172k-$92k = $80k.

House buyer wins by a factor of nearly THREE. Play with the figures as much as you like. The house buyer won.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Spends $20k (41 ounces) first year then $7.2k each year (same as house buyer) on more gold (rough average of 10 ounces a year). Total gold now 141 ounces. March 2010 value = $172k.

Net position = $172k-$92k = $80k...

What if they instead spent their time getting better at their job and increased their income by 17% a year?

That would beat the bejesus out of gold and actually be sustainable as a high income tends to continue whereas gold might drop in value. Income insurance doesn't exist for gold price rises.

You gold bugs are all the same. rah rah rah gold is awesome rah rah rah.

Quite depressing how you are so single minded about things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a comparative analysis. In any comparative analysis you have to assume you begin each with the same. Borrowing costs cancel in comparative analysis.

Or perhaps you wish to compare putting a $20k deposit on a $200k house with buying $20k of gold 10 years ago? Let's do that.

House buyer

Spends $20k first year then $7.2k each year (8% interest less 4% rent or opportunity rent). Total spent $92k. Mortgage owing (worst case of interest only payments) $180k. March 2010 House value $500k. Net position = $500k-$180k-$92k = $228k.

Gold buyer

Spends $20k (41 ounces) first year then $7.2k each year (same as house buyer) on more gold (rough average of 10 ounces a year). Total gold now 141 ounces. March 2010 value = $172k.

Net position = $172k-$92k = $80k.

House buyer wins by a factor of nearly THREE. Play with the figures as much as you like. The house buyer won.

but if i bought 20k worth of apple shares in 2000 for $8 or so a share i'd have $605,000 right now or a profit of $585,000.

that beats your net profit of 128k by a factor of FOUR POINT FIVE.

guess i showed you. just buy apple shares and you will be rich rich rich!

oh and let's not forget that would be completely unleveraged - max downside is 20k. if i borrowed 180k and bought 200k worth of shares i'd have a profit of about $6 million. play with the figures all you like the apple share buyer totally kicked your ass.

Edited by urchin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a comparative analysis. In any comparative analysis you have to assume you begin each with the same. Borrowing costs cancel in comparative analysis.

Or perhaps you wish to compare putting a $20k deposit on a $200k house with buying $20k of gold 10 years ago? Let's do that.

House buyer

Spends $20k first year then $7.2k each year (8% interest less 4% rent or opportunity rent). Total spent $92k. Mortgage owing (worst case of interest only payments) $180k. March 2010 House value $500k. Net position = $500k-$180k-$92k = $228k.

Gold buyer

Spends $20k (41 ounces) first year then $7.2k each year (same as house buyer) on more gold (rough average of 10 ounces a year). Total gold now 141 ounces. March 2010 value = $172k.

Net position = $172k-$92k = $80k.

House buyer wins by a factor of nearly THREE. Play with the figures as much as you like. The house buyer won.

Did you factor in any costs with that?

You see there is no cost really in holding gold, but there are costs associated with holding houses.

Then of course there is the cost of selling and buying a house which usually goes to the Real Estate Agent, who are really just blood sucking leeches, who prey on innocent, young men and women and woo them with their slick speak and forked tongue messages.

I hope you aren't one of them Sally, because that would disappoint me incredibly.

I hope that you are on this sight because you really have a desire to see young men and women have the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of their own small shelter to raise their family and build a happy home.

Otherwise I would have to wonder what the heck you are really doing here, and so fresh to the forum and you want to go into bat for Sherlock and BT, who have shown that they can really look after themselves.

Im not trying to enflame the situation but a young innocent woman like yourself really should be careful about the company you keep.:vampire:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Im not trying to enflame the situation but a young innocent woman like yourself really should be careful about the company you keep.:vampire:

I think he means me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst we are all having fun. using all 20K as margin and buying 20 'lots' of Euro (against USD) in November 2000 at 0.83. even after the recent Euro plunge to 1.24 you'd have $820,000 in your FX account today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you factor in any costs with that?

You see there is no cost really in holding gold, but there are costs associated with holding houses.

Then of course there is the cost of selling and buying a house which usually goes to the Real Estate Agent, who are really just blood sucking leeches, who prey on innocent, young men and women and woo them with their slick speak and forked tongue messages.

Heck yes. The other thing everyone forgets (gold AND houses in this case) is that capital gains are just on paper. If your house has gone up by $200,000, well, that's nice, you can't spend it unless you either sell the house or get further into debt - the thing about debt is you need income to service it. And the more your house is worth, generally the more you pay in rates, water/sewer, and in SA there's the emergency services levy. And of course as houses age they inevitably need fairly major maintainence which doesn't come cheap. New paint, floor coverings, a new kitchen every couple of decades, new roof at least once a century ...

I gotta stop buying old houses. I've only had 3 but they were built in 1921, 1876 and around 1900 so I can tell you aaaaaaaall about major maintainence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now