K, everything is relative. I'm speaking of individual human beings, each who have a vested interest in where their respective monies are being invested.
My goodness, you don't think that "10% of the wealthy" are "actual human beings"...you keep going in circles, go back and start reading with this post, which is where this convo began...your argument/point makes no sense; http://www.sportstwo.com/posts/4932889/
Even if you don’t own or trade individual stocks, there’s a decent chance you have a 401(k) account or an Individual Retirement Account or belong to a pension fund that is invested in stocks. "Many individuals have an indirect interest in the stock market by means of their claims on pension funds that own stocks and use these stock positions to fund pension payments," said Hendrik Bessembinder, a professor at Arizona State University’s W.P. Carey School of Business. A once-every-three-years study by the Federal Reserve Board found that in 2016, 51.9 percent of families owned stocks, either directly or as part of a fund. And in 2017, Gallup found that 54 percent of respondents owned stocks either directly or as part of a fund. Those findings show a majority owning stocks — a modest majority, but still a majority. In an email interview, Khanna told PolitiFact that he still feels the "essence of the post" is accurate but added that "a better headline would have been, "Most Americans Don’t Have a Real Stake in the Stock Market." Khanna has a point that a household’s affluence does help determine how vested they are in the stock market. The Federal Reserve Board study found that about one-third of families in the lower half of the income scale had stock holdings. In the next 40 percent of the income scale, about 70 percent of households held stocks, while households in the top 10 percent of the income scale had stock ownership rates above 90 percent. Here's a chart from the Fed's report, showing how stock ownership rates vary depending on income level. Gallup, meanwhile, found that certain subgroups were notably less likely to own stocks, including those without a college education, younger Americans, unmarried Americans, African-Americans, and Hispanics. Our ruling Khanna wrote that "most Americans don’t own stocks." To be precise, a narrow majority of Americans does own stocks, according to credible recent studies. But Khanna has a point that Americans of modest incomes are significantly less invested in the stock market than wealthier Americans are. Other large groups, including minorities and those without a college education, also lag in stock ownership, meaning that the stock rally is largely passing them by. We rate the statement Half True. Share The Facts Ro Khanna U.S. Representative, D-Calif. "Most Americans don’t own stocks." a Facebook post – Wednesday, September 12, 2018 SHARE READ MORE
This statement from your article above actually supports up what was said originally...."10%". Also using "IRAs and 401Ks" as a barometer for stock ownership is skewed by the fact that both of those are not exclusively funded by the stock market alone, instead, those type funds/accounts are generally broadly diversified between "high risk and low risk" investments This whole discussion is in response to ABM implying that the recent uptick in the stock market is because Trump has handled the virus calamity well...he hasn't.
LOL. Your point is? I mentioned that the DOW might be a day-to-day indicator on Trump's performance. A basic barometer. Then, this was mentioned: "When 90-95% of all stocks are owned by the wealthy, that leaves the vast majority of the country getting no benefit from a couple good days." The rabbit trail ensued. Probably 60 million - or more - American people are in the stock market thru their respective 401k's, IRA's, or whatever. These are handled by fund managers, who have a vested interest in netting gains for their clients.
1. Which as has been mentioned, "is BS"....so your point is that you're arguing about something that "Might be" 2. That means that if your number is accurate, there are almost 270 Million who are not ! And as I just pointed out, 401Ks and IRAs are something you interjected into the convo and as I also just pointed out, stocks are generally a fraction of how those type accounts are structured. The rich are pretty much the only ones watching the stock market...do you really think that the everyday middle class is more concerned with the stock market?...no, instead, they are occupied with the prospect of whether they or someone close to them will die from this fucking virus.
You mean I "might" be?...exactly what "tangent" are you speaking of? Can you logically and coherently disprove what I said with actual facts?
I simply said that the DOW might be reacting to Trump's daily good news and bad news. The overall pool in DOW contains FAR more than those 10%ers, etc.
Agree, and it does very depending on the plan and person that participates in 401K's and or other investments. Even he agrees that he should have titled the article differently. I've been getting my quarterly statements and some are hard to look at now.
My wife has a "457 pretaxed plan" not sure how she has it structured but she commented the other day that it "taken a hit".
Fed should pay every American more, let hedge funds and billionaires ‘get wiped out,’ says Social Capital CEO ‘What we’ve done is disproportionately prop up poor-performing CEOs and boards,’ Chamath Palihapitiya tells CNBC https://www.marketwatch.com/story/f...-wiped-out-says-social-capital-ceo-2020-04-09
Ha. 1...With no basis, you broadly claimed that I went off on a "tangent" and asked you to "logically and coherently disprove what I said with actual facts". 2...you failed to do so. 3...now you broadly claim "irrelevance", again with no basis...so at this point you seem to be simply typing random words.
Sounds like a plan to me...I wonder how many corporate CEOs has been "laid off"?...n/m, what was I thinking?
They should most definitely suffer from lack of planning for emergencies. I'll mention a former employer that is owned by one of these huge billion dollar funds. The actual shop has been buying up other shops left and right in recent years. They have over 1000 shops nationwide right now and from what I have been told (could be all nonsense, I don't know this for a fact) they supposedly only have 2 million in cash. That sounds like a lot but for 1000 shops it really isn't. It isn't enough to pay the lease payments for each shop for one month. I have made sure for the last 10 years that my wife and I have over a year's worth of expenses on hand at any one time. Their CEO is working unpaid right now. What skeleton crew that is working on salary has taken huge pay cuts. They don't have any choice because they don't have any work. They seem to want to buy enough shops to be the Starbucks of the industry.
