popular holdings news image
Mahmoud
help me plzzzzzz
Answer
I am not sure it was a factor in the 2008 crash....but it certainly a factor in the 1929 crash.
When you buy on margin you are in effect borrowing money from your broker under the understanding that he can call in this loan at any time and you pay a daily interest payment on this loan.
Back in the roaring 20's the stock market was very active. Times were pretty good following WWI and a lot of investors relied heavily on using their margin account
Let us give you a scenaro...you have $50,000 in your brokerage account....invested in a variety of stocks....your broker gives you margin of another $50,000 that you can borrow on. This sounds great as to date you have not made a bad decision....so you buy another $50,000 worth of shares and happily pay the daily interest because you are scoring a lot of extra money.
This became epidemic in the 1920's lots and lots of people wanted the "easy money" (kinda sounds familiar eh?) so they opened margin accounts and used them to the max.
The one day there was bad news and stocks dropped...maybe there was a week of bad news and the brokers were nervous...they gave their clients 24 hours to pay back the money they owe on the margin....the people had no more money...they were fully invested +all in on the margin.
Suddenly they found out that the brokers had the right to sell their stocks without their permission. There was panic and prices were falling as people tried to sell their stocks to payback their loans. The the brokers stepped in....they started to sell the clients stock....not the poorly performing stocks....no,no....they sold off the best ones so they could get their money back as fast as possible....clients were wiped out by this action and window-jumping was a popular way to end-it-all.
That is why using margin foolishly can be very dangerous...I was shocked to see a daytrader in recent messages here who apparently maxed his holdings + margin on his account to day-trade. Very dangerous IMHO...a bad trade can wipe you out doing this.
I am not sure this happened in 2008 but I am sure some investors fell this way...
I am not sure it was a factor in the 2008 crash....but it certainly a factor in the 1929 crash.
When you buy on margin you are in effect borrowing money from your broker under the understanding that he can call in this loan at any time and you pay a daily interest payment on this loan.
Back in the roaring 20's the stock market was very active. Times were pretty good following WWI and a lot of investors relied heavily on using their margin account
Let us give you a scenaro...you have $50,000 in your brokerage account....invested in a variety of stocks....your broker gives you margin of another $50,000 that you can borrow on. This sounds great as to date you have not made a bad decision....so you buy another $50,000 worth of shares and happily pay the daily interest because you are scoring a lot of extra money.
This became epidemic in the 1920's lots and lots of people wanted the "easy money" (kinda sounds familiar eh?) so they opened margin accounts and used them to the max.
The one day there was bad news and stocks dropped...maybe there was a week of bad news and the brokers were nervous...they gave their clients 24 hours to pay back the money they owe on the margin....the people had no more money...they were fully invested +all in on the margin.
Suddenly they found out that the brokers had the right to sell their stocks without their permission. There was panic and prices were falling as people tried to sell their stocks to payback their loans. The the brokers stepped in....they started to sell the clients stock....not the poorly performing stocks....no,no....they sold off the best ones so they could get their money back as fast as possible....clients were wiped out by this action and window-jumping was a popular way to end-it-all.
That is why using margin foolishly can be very dangerous...I was shocked to see a daytrader in recent messages here who apparently maxed his holdings + margin on his account to day-trade. Very dangerous IMHO...a bad trade can wipe you out doing this.
I am not sure this happened in 2008 but I am sure some investors fell this way...
What happened to Sonic the Hedgehog?
Alexander
Wow, Sonic the Hedgehog for PS3/Xbox 360 is one of the worst games in the world. The graphics were worse than Halo 2 for Xbox and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess for Wii. I was very upset after playing the game.
What happened to Sonic?
Sonic the Hedgehog 1, 2, 3, and Sonic and Knuckles were OUTSTANDING games! Then they had to release Sonic Spinball, Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine, followed by these stupid Gamegear and Sega Saturn Sonic games. Then they released the worst Sonic games on different platforms. Then, a new light hit Sonic in Sonic Adventure 1 and 2 for Dreamcast, and now garbage again.
I really hope that the Sonic game for the Wii wont be that bad. Any good news on it?
Answer
You're trying to make a comparison to a $20 game that was in production for 6 months, to two full-price critically-acclaimed blockbuster games that were in production for over a year each? That's like trashing the economical Ford Escort because it's not as powerful as a high-performance V10 muscle car.
I'm in agreeance with several other people here, the high-speed 8-directon action of the 16-bit generation 2D Sonic games are difficult to capture in a 3D engine. And, a 3D engine is a must, because the average stupid consumer won't touch a 2D game, even if it was universally heralded as the best game of it's generation (case point, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night didn't sell until it was a value-priced game, and even then it didn't outsell 3D garbage like Fighting Force II).
Something else to consider is the current state of Sega development teams since the Sega / Sammy merging into Sega Sammy Holdings. Sega Sammy has been busy restructuring the company, and as a result they have been cutting software R&D on large projects. Only smaller value-based projects and popular licenses are being used at the moment. According to Sega Sammy investor media, Sega Sammy will start development of more blockbuster games that Sega had been known for, in late 2007 and 2008. So, in the mean time, the quality of some Sega games may be suffering due to this corporate restructuring.
You're trying to make a comparison to a $20 game that was in production for 6 months, to two full-price critically-acclaimed blockbuster games that were in production for over a year each? That's like trashing the economical Ford Escort because it's not as powerful as a high-performance V10 muscle car.
I'm in agreeance with several other people here, the high-speed 8-directon action of the 16-bit generation 2D Sonic games are difficult to capture in a 3D engine. And, a 3D engine is a must, because the average stupid consumer won't touch a 2D game, even if it was universally heralded as the best game of it's generation (case point, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night didn't sell until it was a value-priced game, and even then it didn't outsell 3D garbage like Fighting Force II).
Something else to consider is the current state of Sega development teams since the Sega / Sammy merging into Sega Sammy Holdings. Sega Sammy has been busy restructuring the company, and as a result they have been cutting software R&D on large projects. Only smaller value-based projects and popular licenses are being used at the moment. According to Sega Sammy investor media, Sega Sammy will start development of more blockbuster games that Sega had been known for, in late 2007 and 2008. So, in the mean time, the quality of some Sega games may be suffering due to this corporate restructuring.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment