Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idUSN2360738520080123"]US STOCKS-Recession worries, Apple weigh on futures | Markets | U.S. | Reuters[/URL]

"On Tuesday, recession worries pushed U.S. stocks lower, but the decline was shallower than feared as an emergency interest-rate cut by the Federal Reserve helped stabilize global markets after a two-day rout."

In the first few minutes that the market is open today the DOW is already down 252 (I had to adjust almost 50 points since I started this thread). I've got two questions

1) Where is the bottom?
2) Which Presidential canidate has the best economic growth plan?

I've heard that the Fed Reserve needs to cut the rates more...

Thoughts?

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[QUOTE=RobH4413;411117][URL="http://www.reuters.com/article/usMktRpt/idUSN2360738520080123"]US STOCKS-Recession worries, Apple weigh on futures | Markets | U.S. | Reuters[/URL]

"On Tuesday, recession worries pushed U.S. stocks lower, but the decline was shallower than feared as an emergency interest-rate cut by the Federal Reserve helped stabilize global markets after a two-day rout."

In the first few minutes that the market is open today the DOW is already down 252 (I had to adjust almost 50 points since I started this thread). I've got two questions

1) Where is the bottom?
2) Which Presidential canidate has the best economic growth plan?

I've heard that the Fed Reserve needs to cut the rates more...

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Don't lost your mind and panic. A recession is an excellent buying opportunity.

Benjamin Graham always said that a strong bull market should be a much greater cause for concern than a bear market or a recession. A recession just means prices go lower which is a great time to buy. While everyone else is panicking, buy, buy, buy and ride the thing out (assuming you don't need particularly liquid assets over the next 3-5 years.)

Call me crazy, but personally I'm excited. No house, no mortgage (I rent), so I'm waiting for the interest rates and home values to take a big dip, at which point I can buy. Meanwhile I'll look for undervalued stocks as the market takes a dive.

Six months living expenses in cash is also a smart thing to have on hand.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

Any candidate planning to roll back the Bush tax cuts will push the economy further into recession. Taking money out of the hands of people, even if they are the rich, will hinder their ability to spend (hurting retail), hinder their ability to invest (hurting the financial companies), and hinder their ability to hire people to the extent they run small businesses.

Increasing taxes will always create higher unemployment. It's practically a law of physics in economics. Higher taxes takes money out of the economy, so businesses tighten their belts. They lay people off or put hiring freezes in place.

Yes, the Fed will continue to ease the Fed Funds rate. If you'll remember in 2002, the Fed took the rate all the way down to 1% and maybe even below, if my memory serves. They'll continue to go lower as time goes on. This will help the stock market.

As for a bottom in the stock market, really hard to say. If I knew, I'd be a rich rich man. Some think the fears have already been priced into the market, and we're kind of close to a bottom already. Others think the credit crunch is going to take tons of money out of the market as lenders refuse to lend to folks with marginal credit, banks foreclose on mortgages, etcetera. We'll see.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute had an interesting checklist of sorts in the Washington Post, well worth a read:

[QUOTE]1. We're already in a recession. The truth is, nobody knows. It takes a while for the data to come in. By the time the National Bureau of Economic Research announced the 1991 recession, it was already over.

2. The stock market tanks during recessions. Actually, stocks usually drop before a recession. Then, the market tends to look ahead and starts responding favorably to the expected end of a recession.

3. Recessions used to be a lot worse. For the most part, recessions before World War I and since World War II have been just about equally severe. As for duration, the average recession since World War II has lasted about a year.

4. Recessions are bad for your health. The reality: Americans get healthier as the economy gets worse. With more free time and less money on their hands, people tend to consume less tobacco, exercise more, prepare healthier meals, and lose weight.

5. There is a regular "business cycle." The truth: Economic fluctuations are anything but regular. In the nine recessions since 1949, the shortest time between two recessions was only nine months. The longest period between two recessions was almost ten years.[/QUOTE]

If you're worried about the market, keep in mind that prices will almost certainly be higher five years from now. If you look at your "stock money" as "five year money," 95% of the time, stocks' five year average annual returns fall between -0.8% and 26.0%.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=mheisig;411142]Kevin Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute had an interesting checklist of sorts in the Washington Post, well worth a read:



If you're worried about the market, keep in mind that prices will almost certainly be higher five years from now. If you look at your "stock money" as "five year money," 95% of the time, stocks' five year average annual returns fall between -0.8% and 26.0%.[/quote]

I agree with this.

Trying to figure out when it's wise to dump stocks and run to bonds or gold or cash, it's fruitless. Most of the time, you'll jump out of stocks AFTER the lion's share of the drop is done. And most of the time, you'll get back into stocks AFTER they've bounced back quite a bit.

You don't want to get out of stocks now, because you never know when they're going to bounce back up. You could miss out on that bounce.

Assuming you don't need the money for a number of years, just ride it out. It pays off in the end.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

That said, be diversified. Don't just own one or two stocks in a recession (or anytime for that matter). Own a mutual fund that invests in a bunch of stocks.

If one gets tanked by recession pressures, you won't lose your shirt.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

The Fed already cut rates yesterday prior to opening, 3/4%. Although this is bad news bears for us, we are doing a bit better than some other markets which took 5-12% hits yesterday.

I hope their anticipation about our market is not a reality.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

this president has done everything he could to weaken the American dollar. cutting the rate is another way. that's just trying to insert a quick stop gap on the economy. we need more jobs on American soil. NAFTA should be dropped into the nearest trash can. worse piece of legislation ever passed. more jobs = more spending. in turn strengthens the economy

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=dmek25;411198]this president has done everything he could to weaken the American dollar. [/quote]

Without his tax cuts, we'd be in FAR worse shape for the last 5 years.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=Buster;411211]Without his tax cuts, we'd be in FAR worse shape for the last 5 years.[/quote]

There is no doubt about this. Unemployment would have hit 7% instead of 5.5%. More jobs would have been outsourced overseas.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

Fuck the Bush tax cut, I wipe my ass with that measly $300 I got back. I'm getting screwed and I know it, how anyone else doesn't is beyond me. And when did we go from "the tax cut is wonderfully awesomely godsend" to "we would be in a far worse position without it???" Psst, the government is running in RED, what that means to you is that you're getting chickenfeed while the wealthy bleeds this country dry.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

NAFTA [b]is[/b] the biggest turd of legislation ever. There, I've agreed with dmek for the first time ;)

Tax rebates ($300, $800, $1,600 whatever) seem like a good idea at first glance, but most economists agree that they are a pretty bad idea. Not to mention the fact that most people end up putting that rebate in savings instead of spending it, so the impact is negligible at best.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=saden1;411325][B]Fuck the Bush tax cut, I wipe my ass with that measly $300 I got back.[/B] I'm getting screwed and I know it, how anyone else doesn't is beyond me. And when did we go from "the tax cut is wonderfully awesomely godsend" to "we would be in a far worse position without it???" Psst, the government is running in RED, what that means to you is that you're getting chickenfeed while the wealthy bleeds this country dry.[/quote]

You're getting the tax [I]cuts[/I] and [I]tax[/I] rebates confused. The rebate was the one-time $300 check. Which I agree, amounts to a hill of beans in the long run.

However the tax cuts have been in place all along. We're all paying less taxes every pay period, especially the wealthy, because of the tax cuts. That is the move that made such a good impact on our economy.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=Schneed10;411406]You're getting the tax [I]cuts[/I] and [I]tax[/I] rebates confused. The rebate was the one-time $300 check. Which I agree, amounts to a hill of beans in the long run.

However the tax cuts have been in place all along. We're all paying less taxes every pay period, especially the wealthy, because of the tax cuts. That is the move that made such a good impact on our economy.[/quote]

How has it been good for the economy? We are spending more money than we generate. I'm no economist but my take is that you don't give a tax cut without a balanced budged and a surplus.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=mheisig;411364]NAFTA [B]is[/B] the biggest turd of legislation ever. There, I've agreed with dmek for the first time ;)

Tax rebates ($300, $800, $1,600 whatever) seem like a good idea at first glance, but most economists agree that they are a pretty bad idea. Not to mention the fact that most people end up putting that rebate in savings instead of spending it, so the impact is negligible at best.[/quote]

Exactly there is no incentive to put that money back into the economy. A tax cut is better because you will have direct disposable income.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=saden1;411432]How has it been good for the economy? We are spending more money than we generate. I'm no economist but my take is that you don't give a tax cut without a balanced budged and a surplus.[/quote]

1) If the tax cut wasn't put in place, unemployment would have hit sky high levels.

2) Government deficits don't stall economic growth. They weaken the dollar, which is a bad thing in that you can't go to Europe for vacation as cheaply, and you can't import goods as cheaply. But it's a good thing because people from other countries invest more in our companies (their currency is stronger against the dollar, so one Euro can buy more shares of Coca Cola than it normally could). Our businesses then take that cash and invest in new products and markets, creating jobs and generating more tax revenue for the US government.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=Schneed10;411455]1) If the tax cut wasn't put in place, unemployment would have hit sky high levels.

2) Government deficits don't stall economic growth. They weaken the dollar, which is a bad thing in that you can't go to Europe for vacation as cheaply, and you can't import goods as cheaply. But it's a good thing because people from other countries invest more in our companies (their currency is stronger against the dollar, so one Euro can buy more shares of Coca Cola than it normally could). Our businesses then take that cash and invest in new products and markets, creating jobs and generating more tax revenue for the US government.[/quote]

Right but point two only lasts for a bit. Severe weakening leads to depreciation of the dollar, and in the LR can lead to inflation. Nations will pull out their investments for fear of failure. See Asian nations crisis and what happened to several Latin American countries from 70's-90's. The cycle goes back around.

Just studied this stuff last semester as an International Economics major.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=hooskins;411461]Right but point two only lasts for a bit. Severe weakening leads to depreciation of the dollar, and in the LR can lead to inflation. Nations will pull out their investments for fear of failure. See Asian nations crisis and what happened to several Latin American countries from 70's-90's. The cycle goes back around.

Just studied this stuff last semester as an International Economics major.[/quote]

Asian and Latin American countries don't have the underlying resources and skill sets to continue driving profit from investment. The United States is positioned strategically with natural resources and, despite growth in other nations, still contains the most highly skilled and educated workforce in the world. You're right, investment from overseas investors will not last long, but that is the case because American businesses will invest the cash in new products and markets successfully, driving profits up, driving tax revenues to the government up, driving the deficit down, and ultimately strengthening the dollar. The strengthening dollar is what will curtail overseas investment. That's the cycle that will take place in the US, not a downward spiraling cycle, but the typical business cycle we've observed over the past fourty to fifty years.

There's a reason that US government bonds yield the lowest return of all government bonds in the world. It's the most stable economy on Earth, and hence least risky to invest in.

And while we're mentioning academic credentials, BS in Finance/Economics with a minor in math, and an MBA in finance.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=Schneed10;411466][B]Asian and Latin American countries don't have the underlying resources and skill sets to continue driving profit from investment.[/B] [B]The United States is positioned strategically with natural resources and, despite growth in other nations, still contains the most highly skilled and educated workforce in the world. [/B]You're right, investment from overseas investors will not last long, but that is the case because American businesses will invest the cash in new products and markets successfully, driving profits up, driving tax revenues to the government up, driving the deficit down, and ultimately strengthening the dollar. The strengthening dollar is what will curtail overseas investment. That's the cycle that will take place in the US, not a downward spiraling cycle, but the typical business cycle we've observed over the past fourty to fifty years.

[B] There's a reason that US government bonds yield the lowest return of all government bonds in the world. It's the most stable economy on Earth, and hence least risky to invest in.[/B]

And while we're mentioning academic credentials, BS in Finance/Economics with a minor in math, and an MBA in finance.[/quote]

All good points about resources and skill sets, and clearly you know a bit more about this than I do lol. I was just stating my background just the older folk don't jump all over me not to undermine you. :)

And I agree with the last point as well, that is other nations keep buying our govt's bonds, t-bills, etc.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=Schneed10;411455]1) If the tax cut wasn't put in place, unemployment would have hit sky high levels.

2) Government deficits don't stall economic growth. They weaken the dollar, which is a bad thing in that you can't go to Europe for vacation as cheaply, and you can't import goods as cheaply. But it's a good thing because people from other countries invest more in our companies (their currency is stronger against the dollar, so one Euro can buy more shares of Coca Cola than it normally could). Our businesses then take that cash and invest in new products and markets, creating jobs and generating more tax revenue for the US government.[/quote]

This sounds all peachy but are tax cuts a good long term solution and how long should we rely on tax cuts to "stimulate" the economy? Should the tax cuts be permanent? Do you expect the increase tax revenues to eventually balance the budget? How long should the government be in a deficit?

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=hooskins;411474]All good points about resources and skill sets, and clearly you know a bit more about this than I do lol. I was just stating my background just the older folk don't jump all over me not to undermine you. :)

And I agree with the last point as well, that is other nations keep buying our govt's bonds, t-bills, etc.[/quote]

No sweat, you're a smart cookie and I respect all the posts you lay on us all over the Warpath. I just figured if it was gonna be that kind of party I'd whip mine out too and measure up, LOL!

But seriously, it's good to have these discussions on the boards. I think it's educational for those who see the headlines about the economy and don't know what the hell the articles are talking about.

And you made me think about the Asian cycle, something I hadn't considered before. So it helped me think through it too.

Good thread.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=saden1;411478]This sounds all peachy but are tax cuts a good long term solution and how long should we rely on tax cuts to "stimulate" the economy? Should the tax cuts be permanent? Do you expect the increase tax revenues to eventually balance the budget? How long should the government be in a deficit?[/quote]

Tax cuts are the best long term solution for the generation of jobs. Tax cuts are not a one-time shot in the arm. Think of the government like a dam in a river, where the dam opens and closes the flow of money coming downstream to the town below where all the corporations and citizens live. As the government increases taxes, they choke off the river, and money's a little harder to come by to the town folk. It gets harder to fish and you can't irrigate as many crops because you don't have as much water (money to invest with) at your disposal. But when a tax cut comes along, the government eases the dam, and money flows more freely. As long as the tax cut is in place, more money continues to flow to our businesses, and they continue to put those resources to use.

A tax rebate on the other hand, is like when someone comes along and dumps a big bucket of water (money) right along the shore where the people live. It's a one-time thing. You can use it to water an extra field and get an extra field's worth of corn that year, but once you use it up, you're back to dealing with the same choked-off river you were before.

So yes, the tax cuts should be permanent.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=Schneed10;411146]
You don't want to get out of stocks now, because you never know when they're going to bounce back up. You could miss out on that bounce.[/quote]

Case in point, today. The DOW was down 300 points to start the day. It staged a huge rally and finished UP 300 points.

An intraday swing of 600 points.

It's a rollercoaster ride, has its ups and downs. Tomorrow might be down 300 points, you never know. Just hold on for the ride, it's worth it in the end.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

I understand the reasons for a tax cut and quite frankly I like the idea of giving money back to their rightful owners (like everyone else I want my money back). I strongly disagree with giving out tax cuts at the expense of the future (we'll take worry about it later mentality). In the long run we're going to crash into a [URL="http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/"]wall and we'll be screwed[/URL]. Fiscal responsibility is not an oxymoron.

As for what the Feds did today, it's an emergency measure, permanent tax cuts are not. In any case I'd like to see government spending reduced and maybe then we'll both be happy.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

Too many bank loans are killing stocks.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

saden is right and schneed is right. tax cuts should be permanent and we need to cut our government spending. alas we haven't one singl politician who is brave enough to make reducing spending happen. not one.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;411198]this president has done everything he could to weaken the American dollar. cutting the rate is another way. that's just trying to insert a quick stop gap on the economy. we need more jobs on American soil. NAFTA should be dropped into the nearest trash can. worse piece of legislation ever passed. more jobs = more spending. in turn strengthens the economy[/QUOTE]

I wont quibble about NAFTA but this is a prime example of piling on Bush. Bush has nothing, NOTHING, to do with the Federal Reserve and it's policies. The rate cuts are their discretion and frankly the decision makers in the Fed are probably more qualified to make those decisions than any economic advisor any president has had in decades. Bush gives us plenty to get mad about but why do people have to attribute everything to him?

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=Schneed10;411406]You're getting the tax [I]cuts[/I] and [I]tax[/I] rebates confused. The rebate was the one-time $300 check. Which I agree, amounts to a hill of beans in the long run.

However the tax cuts have been in place all along. We're all paying less taxes every pay period, especially the wealthy, because of the tax cuts. [B]That is the move that made such a good impact on our economy[/B].[/quote]
its seems like we disagree:) all those tax cuts did was try to balance out the ever rising rate of inflation. so now your taxes are a wee bit lower, but your paying more for your actual purchases

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=FRPLG;411887]I wont quibble about NAFTA but this is a prime example of piling on Bush. Bush has nothing, [B]NOTHING, to do with the[/B] [B]Federal Reserve and it's policies[/B]. The rate cuts are their discretion and frankly the decision makers in the Fed are probably more qualified to make those decisions than any economic advisor any president has had in decades. Bush gives us plenty to get mad about but why do people have to attribute everything to him?[/quote]
wasn't he appointed by the president? and isn't there any meetings or consulting done with the president over the economy? i know that any administration that has any economic issues always went straight to Greenspan. why the difference now? you should know that any CEO is only as good as the people he surrounds himself with

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=saden1;411520]I understand the reasons for a tax cut and quite frankly I like the idea of giving money back to their rightful owners (like everyone else I want my money back). I strongly disagree with giving out tax cuts at the expense of the future (we'll take worry about it later mentality). In the long run we're going to crash into a [URL="http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/"]wall and we'll be screwed[/URL]. Fiscal responsibility is not an oxymoron.

As for what the Feds did today, it's an emergency measure, permanent tax cuts are not. In any case I'd like to see government spending reduced and maybe then we'll both be happy.[/quote]

Yeah that I definitely agree with. The government is wasteful with our money. We should be cutting spending without repealing the tax cuts in order to get the budget back in balance.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=dmek25;411914]its seems like we disagree:) all those tax cuts did was try to balance out the ever rising rate of inflation. so now your taxes are a wee bit lower, but your paying more for your actual purchases[/quote]

I'd rather see higher inflation than higher unemployment. You'd think the democrats, who decry the rich and seem to be the party for the lower and middle class, would get this. But they don't seem to.

Inflation and unemployment go hand in hand. If you're taking steps, like cutting taxes and running a deficit, you're going to end up keeping unemployment nice and low, but you put inflation pressures in place. Sure enough inflation is at 4% right now, and unemployment is real low, below 5%.

Inflation costs me more money. But I'm willing to pay more for my milk and my gasoline if it means more Americans have a chance at jobs, especially the lower and middle class who need the jobs so much. Democrats love to balance the budget and love to bring in tax revenue, but they never acknowledge that these moves put a ton of lower-middle class workers out of work.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[QUOTE=dmek25;411915]wasn't he appointed by the president? and isn't there any meetings or consulting done with the president over the economy? i know that any administration that has any economic issues always went straight to Greenspan. why the difference now? you should know that any CEO is only as good as the people he surrounds himself with[/QUOTE]

Yeah I guess you're right. It's all Bush's fault.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;411466]Asian and Latin American countries don't have the underlying resources and skill sets to continue driving profit from investment. The United States is positioned strategically with natural resources and, despite growth in other nations, still contains the most highly skilled and educated workforce in the world. You're right, investment from overseas investors will not last long, but that is the case because American businesses will invest the cash in new products and markets successfully, driving profits up, driving tax revenues to the government up, driving the deficit down, and ultimately strengthening the dollar. The strengthening dollar is what will curtail overseas investment. That's the cycle that will take place in the US, not a downward spiraling cycle, but the typical business cycle we've observed over the past fourty to fifty years.

There's a reason that US government bonds yield the lowest return of all government bonds in the world. It's the most stable economy on Earth, and hence least risky to invest in.

[B]And while we're mentioning academic credentials, BS in Finance/Economics with a minor in math, and an MBA in finance.[/B][/QUOTE]

And Schneed wins the thread.

Where'd you get your MBA? I've been looking at doing my MBA in Finance while still working...aw hell, I'll PM you some time.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;411887]I wont quibble about NAFTA but this is a prime example of piling on Bush. Bush has nothing, NOTHING, to do with the Federal Reserve and it's policies. The rate cuts are their discretion and frankly the decision makers in the Fed are probably more qualified to make t[B]hose decisions than any economic advisor any president has had in decades. Bush gives us plenty to get mad about but why do people have to attribute everything to him?[/B][/QUOTE]

One of the fundamental characteristics of irrational hatred. "Person X did y wrong, therefore everything done thereafter is wrong."

Hey, I think Bill Clinton was the sorriest excuse for a president to ever walk this earth, but I wouldn't argue that every last decision he made in office was wrong.

Unfortunately things in politics get so polarized that people lose their ability to consider each issue rationally, one by one.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;411886]saden is right and schneed is right. tax cuts should be permanent and we need to cut our government spending. alas we haven't one singl politician who is brave enough to make reducing spending happen. not one.[/QUOTE]

Well there's Ron Paul, but everyone on here concluded he's a "loon" already, so... ;)

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=mheisig;411949]And Schneed wins the thread.

Where'd you get your MBA? I've been looking at doing my MBA in Finance while still working...aw hell, I'll PM you some time.[/quote]

I was just teasing hooskins, since he was talking about classes he took. I wasn't really trying to have a pissing contest based on academic credentials. Probably came out sounding arrogant, so my bad on that.

But I went to Temple. Here in Philly, you've got your Wharton School at U Penn, which is one of the best in the country obviously. I definitely couldn't have gotten into Wharton, didn't have the grades in college (too much messin around!). Then after that, you've got your Villanova and you've got your Temple. Those are the other two programs in the area that are be considered strong.

I work for Temple Health System, so the tuition was free for me. Worked out well. They still made me apply like anybody else though.

I see you're from "the southeast." If you're in the DC area, Georgetown and George Washington are great programs. I think Maryland, American, and George Mason are good too.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

I got my MBA at American...it's a'ight

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;411964]I was just teasing hooskins, since he was talking about classes he took. I wasn't really trying to have a pissing contest based on academic credentials. Probably came out sounding arrogant, so my bad on that.

But I went to Temple. Here in Philly, you've got your Wharton School at U Penn, which is one of the best in the country obviously. I definitely couldn't have gotten into Wharton, didn't have the grades in college (too much messin around!). Then after that, you've got your Villanova and you've got your Temple. Those are the other two programs in the area that are be considered strong.

I work for Temple Health System, so the tuition was free for me. Worked out well. They still made me apply like anybody else though.

I see you're from "the southeast." If you're in the DC area, Georgetown and George Washington are great programs. I think Maryland, American, and George Mason are good too.[/QUOTE]

Southeast is actually Knoxville, TN. The University of Tennessee apparently has a decent MBA program - I think it's somewhere in the top 100 worldwide, and top 25 in the U.S. depending on who you read.

My career is currently more in marketing, and UTK has a marketing concentration for the MBA program, so that would tend to be the logical choice. I find anything finance-related to be absolutely fascinating, however, so that's awfully tempting.

Did any of you do your MBA while maintaining a full-time job? And do you think it's helped at all in your career in terms of compensation or promotion?

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=mheisig;411991]Did any of you do your MBA while maintaining a full-time job?[/quote]

We're on the verge of hijacking, so I'll answer here but will be more than willing to discuss further via PM.

Yes I was working full-time when I went for it. I did two classes each semester, and then one during the first summer session, and one during the second summer session. It amounted to two nights each week of 3-hour classes. With a full-time job, plus the classes, plus the homework, it was pretty intense. But I just burned through it and got it over with in less than two years, that was the plus side.

[quote=mheisig;411991]And do you think it's helped at all in your career in terms of compensation or promotion?[/quote]

For me, yes. I finished the MBA in 2003 and was immediately promoted from staff financial analyst to senior financial analyst. In 2004 I got moved up to the next level, which required an MBA. Another analyst in my department was good, but remained at his level because he didn't have the MBA. I'm now managing a small group of analysts. Compensation went up accordingly.

The degree really has nothing to do with how good you are at your job. But if an exec has two good people on his hands, and he can only promote one, he'll go with the MBA.

Re: Economy and that scary "R" word
 

[quote=mheisig;411991]Southeast is actually Knoxville, TN. The University of Tennessee apparently has a decent MBA program - I think it's somewhere in the top 100 worldwide, and top 25 in the U.S. depending on who you read.

My career is currently more in marketing, and UTK has a marketing concentration for the MBA program, so that would tend to be the logical choice. I find anything finance-related to be absolutely fascinating, however, so that's awfully tempting.

[B]Did any of you do your MBA while maintaining a full-time job? And do you think it's helped at all in your career in terms of compensation or promotion[/B]?[/quote]

I worked full-time while pursuing my MBA full-time. It's a challenge but it's not terribly difficult to do.

It has definitely helped me in my career. I got a nice promotion to management this past summer. While I did have a decent level of experience, I have no doubt it was my education that put me over the top and helped me leapfrog people with more experience but less education.