Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Bear In Mind  

Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Employers Perpetuate the 'Buy and Hold' Myth [View article]
    So true. And, definitely sad.
    Aug 19, 2010. 09:51 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Employers Perpetuate the 'Buy and Hold' Myth [View article]
    Thanks, and yes I do agree I did pick a rather convenient time frame...but it was more so on purpose to illustrate the potential impact these employer-forced holding periods can have on one's portfolio.
    Aug 17, 2010. 04:12 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Employers Perpetuate the 'Buy and Hold' Myth [View article]
    Exactly. People always use Warren Buffet as an example of their beloved buy and hold strategy.

    Sure, he had success in the good 'ole days but now he reaps gains through majority shareholding in these companies.

    My point was not to day trade, but that I don't feel employers should force investors to lock in holdings for any period of time. If someone had the misfortune to purchase shares just prior to the market collapse, they'd have to hold onto these the entire ride down.

    Big difference between day trading and being vigilante in ensuring your holdings are well positioned.

    Aug 17, 2010. 04:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Employers Perpetuate the 'Buy and Hold' Myth [View article]
    Exactly, your first sentence is what allowed me to decide that your comments aren’t worthwhile to read. It's simple.

    And Warren Buffet turned out “alright” because he has enough shares to force structural change in companies of which he holds equity. Do you? Doubtful.
    Aug 17, 2010. 12:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Employers Perpetuate the 'Buy and Hold' Myth [View article]
    I'm not saying to trade on a daily basis at all. I'm saying to watch markets closely for changes in the tide, and that companies shouldn't force investors to be locked in for any period of time.

    Dividends mean squat if you market cap erodes more than those precious dividends.

    Your criticism is far from constructive, and those that lost fortunes from your dearly held "buy and hold" strategy would likely have different opinions.
    Aug 17, 2010. 11:53 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Bipolar Economy [View article]
    True, most likely because the push bit by bit to pass legislation, and before you know it—we’re communist. And we all know once an entitlement is in place, its essentially impossible to be reversed.
    Aug 13, 2010. 11:54 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Bipolar Economy [View article]
    Bingo. The suckers (like me) in the private sector had grown up assuming that you'd be paid more in the private industry, with perhaps less generous benefits and less job security.

    Now it appears that we get paid less base salary, get less vacation, no automatic cost of living raise, and no ridiculous pension for life.

    Pensions were meant to outweigh the salaries (which at the time were less), but now they make more than the private sector in base salary alone....making it ridiculously imbalanced--which would be fine, if us taxpayers weren't footing the bill.
    Aug 12, 2010. 08:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Bipolar Economy [View article]
    I agree.

    But haphazard regulation thrown together to gain political favor to herd populist anger is rarely decent and substantive regulation.

    Clearly this is Dodd-Frank considering its breadth and complete lack of specifications…they leave it completely up to regulators to flush out rules. This will take years.

    So yes, good, swift, and specific regulation can be a good thing. But this new legislation is surely none of those things.
    Aug 12, 2010. 05:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Jobs Have Gone AWOL [View article]
    I would add an uncertain and punishing regulatory environment thanks to the Obama Administration.

    Nothing hurts more than uncertainty in the business world, and each and every new and massive bill rammed through Congress injects MORE uncertainty into the economy rather than reducing it.

    Its clear that the feds and Congress are more interested in ideology than true job creation. If they were truly interested in increasing employment nationwide, they would reduce the financial burden on employers rather than promise a plethora of new and additional taxes in relation to health, payroll, and the like.

    Thank goodness November should give a firm slap to those who are disconnected from the real world, and will force them to focus on the true driver of economic recovery: the private sector, not Big Labor.
    Aug 12, 2010. 01:10 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • July Budget Numbers Show Revenues Improving [View article]
    I find myself jumping ship from one economic outlook to another in this erratic market/economy.

    I think that Wall Street's jitters are a result of impatience in combination with expectations falsely pushed by the Administration (prime example the infamous 8% unemployment if stimulus was passed).

    I think while the economy is most definitely "on the mend", it'll be a long slow trip to full function considering the minimal business lending from financial institutions....the only way out seems to be to wait until balance sheets are insanely loaded with cash (even more than now), and a more certain regulatory environment.

    Wall Street seems to be focusing on consumer confidence, which by itself is not a good indicator of economic progress.

    Definitely a business-led recovery, and likely another Keynesian failure.
    Aug 12, 2010. 12:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Sham' Economy Becoming Clearer [View article]
    Completely agreed. It doesn't help when the Administration continues to deny that the stimulus had near zero impact when you look at relevant charts. The only program that seems to have "stimulated" anything is the cozy "cash for appliances" program (only $100 million or so)...this had an impact on retail sales of appliances.

    Considering the "cash for appliances" program was about 1 basis point in comparison to the $862 billion stimulus, its unfortunate that the impact was noticeable on this targeted program rather than the free for all spending of the larger package.

    The response of those who still can't concede failure? "It wasn't big enough". Now THAT is denial.
    Aug 12, 2010. 12:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Steepening Yield Curve Mirrors Erosion in Economic Indicators [View article]
    Thanks for adding that. Correct, hindsight is always 20/20!
    Aug 10, 2010. 10:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Steepening Yield Curve Mirrors Erosion in Economic Indicators [View article]
    Good point.
    Aug 10, 2010. 02:58 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why the Disconnect Between Stocks and the Real Economy May Widen [View article]
    True, not "imploding" (yet at least)...but surely MUCH more sluggish than promised. 2.4% GDP growth with interest rates at rock bottom and trillions in "stimulus" deployed?

    Big Government and the Fed are nearly out of bullets, and so far, the best we can hope for is minimal growth with high unemployment for the foreseeable future.

    Opposite what you say, it doesn't matter how much liberals try to demonstrate that the economy is soon to-be booming thanks to their efforts--because it is clearly not.
    Aug 2, 2010. 02:11 PM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 5 Reasons Why the Market Will Strengthen From Here [View article]
    I agree with your points on the strength of business and all, but there is enormous uncertainty that will continue to linger until midterm elections in November.

    I'm hoping some balance will be restored in the federal legislative bodies to slow this fiscal train wreck.

    Whether you're Democrat, Republican, or an investor, uncertainty is like the plague--so if Republicans can get some seats back, gridlock will ensue, and with it the financial markets will rejoice in our new-found legislative prudence.
    Aug 2, 2010. 12:21 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment