If you have some sort of issue, you are welcome to try to express it.
As it stands, your criticism was itself what you accuse my article of being. So just spit it out, what is the issue, likely it has something to do with Apple. You are welcome to attempt to explain yourself.
Hope you get a chance to read the articles about Rochdale. One is linked in this article, makes a great case for allocation strategy over trying to time the market.
that is the shareholder page. It shows major holders, you might like (VTI) for instance too, it holds 12.5M shares of Apple. Keep overall direction of the market in mind though. That's just one of my core principles, to keep in mind the market can go up or down. I also, personally like some exposure to bonds, preferably a fund that generates some cash each month, (HYB) is an example. (Those are Junk Bonds, I like to balance high yield with investment grade bonds, (BND) is an example. Keep in mind these are just examples not recommendations, please.)
Seems to me the company is very profitable. I hope you get a chance to read my previous articles on Apple. When it was at $580, I thought the chart looked problematic.
Investors and consumers alike will need to judge and reevaluate based on newer products. The company has been slow, or patient on this front, though they clearly have been working on their strong suits. I believe there is a lot to like about the company. I believe one good way to get balanced exposure to the company is through a mutual fund -- and as I wrote, obviously it is important to understand it could go up or down.
Though $162, which was one number tossed around by the article I cited at the beginning, would bring the dividend yield to 7.5%. I simply do not see that happening, at the current rate. The article I cited pointed to Apple's ROIC going down, however the chart I pulled up seems to indicate it is a trend across the tech.industry. So whilst comparing Apple to Microsoft and Google based on ROIC, I think it is important to bring that up.
Professionals absolutely would use Final Cut Pro on an iPad, and I believe some would use it on an iPhone if they could.
It seems the devices running on the A6 and A6X are faster than the old G4 desktops. Final Cut worked great on the G4. There are obvious differences, though my point is professionals would benefit from top of the line applications on portable devices. Of course the iPad would have advantages over the iPhone; though anyone with a portable projector or mini projector, could hook their iPad or iPhone up to it and see things such a focus issues adequately.
Just some of my thoughts on it, when I've gone into the Apple Stores, I specifically have asked if and when Final Cut Pro will work on the iPad. Honestly, I wish Apple would buy, or develop a very strong partnership with Adobe, personally -- since they make really strong professional programs. So you can see my perspective on it.
Thank you for bringing up this point. I just pulled up iMovie and Final Cut and watched the difference in % CPU and Real Mem in the Activity Monitor. I realize the points you've brought up to a degree; my point is Final Cut Pro is one of Apple's strongest programs that I know of. I hope it is optimized for iPad one day.
Final Cut Pro approaches twice (and can go to three times) the Real Mem used by iMovie and I see iMovie appears to use more % CPU to finalize a project (while Final Cut uses more % CPU for certain tasks.) As the devices are made more powerful, I do not believe inclusion of stronger programs on smaller devices is totally outside the realm of possibility. That seems to be the nature of application design; upgrades, optimization, and larger processing power allowing for more powerful applications in the long run.
ARM Holdings: Learning From My Mistakes [View article]
A few of the short calls that are incorrect are failing to see the fact some large investors actually want to own these companies.
The basic metrics, such as P/E are fine guidelines; however you can not totally account for those buyers who want to have control, with less regard for the cost. It only applies to a few companies, though if you're basing a continuous stream of criticism against it; it is sort of like the person outside of the auction house saying "Picasso, I wouldn't pay $1 for that garbage," while people are inside bidding millions.
Perhaps IBM was removed because they were deeply involved in Germany, through Dehomag (their German subsidiary.) AT&T may have seemed like a good substitute because of its accomplishment in digital computing, compared to IBMs punch card system... though I'm just speculating on that.
A Closer Look Into Buffett's Bond Comments [View article]
Thanks for commenting Jonathan, I believe 5% allocated to university bonds is acceptable (I'd only allocate 1% to century bonds, cumulatively) -- though I'd not jump in all at once, especially since rates can go up.
I understand & appreciate your point of view, if you have time you might be able to clarify, are you in interest rate swap investments, or I would presume not CDs. I do like some bank loan funds, though I keep them to a minimum.
My opinion is, the aforementioned schools have such low acceptance rates, that there is no shortage of students willing to apply, and work to pay tuition. Though, personally I believe a stronger system would allow the best schools to educate more students and reduce the costs. Still, Cooper Union just stated they will begin to charge tuition: http://nyti.ms/17OBvc4 so, anything can happen.
I have my eye on the Stanford 2042 bonds (cusip: 854403AD4) 4% coupon, though just a 3.6% yield currently -- again total allocation to all university bonds would not exceed 5%, which is fairly conservative in my opinion. I like to see the income roll in, and I've found it can support more speculative investments. I agree, the for-profit education field is no-man's land though -- they simply are not being managed effectively.
A Closer Look Into Buffett's Bond Comments [View article]
Great insight as always southgent.
I agree with Warren Buffet on the two points: "if stocks go down 20% in the next month they are not going to be bothered… I would have them having enough cash on hand so they feel comfortable"
I also agree with him, you and Tim, on a certain level of understanding and caution. I also agree with Buffett not to have a set 30% or 40% in bonds. Though I believe bonds do have a place, and again whether the consumer price index exceeds the 4.69% coupon or not, it does not matter, because of the allocation; that is my opinion.
Going to Tim's remark about forbidding 100 years from now; the fact is if anyone allocates to such a long-term bond, it obviously is not about the face value in 2112. It is about a small amount of income, as part of a larger picture.
Say a $100M portfolio got 10 or 20 of the bonds, and someone said, 'oh my gosh, no way, $20,000 in 2112 won't even buy you a keg of whatever people are drinking a hundred years from now...'
Well, I hope you see the point, such a minimal allocation is just a drop. What you do with the buckets of capital is obviously a different story. I believe some to quality mutual funds that include equity, fixed income and a mix are ok.
I hope to buy more bonds and more stocks, every year. So when rates go up, I hope to get those also. That's just my perspective on it. It is all about allocation, the points about rates going up are very important, again very important, I've heard them from wall street managers for years, and they've been wrong.
At some point rates will likely go up -- though, by the time they do I believe proper, conservative allocation to the mix can be helpful. When rates go up, of course the prices will go down, however as I said in the article, given the allocation, I'd want to buy more of the mutual fund, presuming it is still well rated, still holds bonds I like, etc. Because I'd hope those managers will go with the flow, use income generated to buy the new higher yield, higher rated bonds, as I intend to do with funds allocated to bonds; as I intend to do with funds allocated to stocks.
A Closer Look Into Buffett's Bond Comments [View article]
"A 3.5% yield with 2% inflation gives you a 1.5% real rate of return."
It depends on what you do with the income. If you use it to attempt to increase overall yield, you may be able to do better than that.
"If that beats stocks over the long-term than we will have serious problems in this country."
If you use the income to go into some high-yield, and some equity, you will gain more exposure to stocks, over time. I reinvest dividends, most often, I use fixed-income to go into high yield, and I want to use high yield income to go into stocks.
"I would sell all the bonds I possibly could at that rate and on those terms, and I think that the logic behind buying them is highly flawed."
You are not accepting some of the points I have tried to explain to you. What would you do, once you've sold all your bonds? Throw those funds into stocks? I work from the point of view that the market can go up, it can go down. I believe in balanced exposure, and proper allocation, I believe 0% to fixed income makes very little sense. Though I do not prescribe to 30%, 40% to bonds either.
"... the logic in ignoring the time value of money and interest rate risks will likely lead market participants to huge losses"
Huge losses are only 'huge' if you put more into an investment than you care to lose. I like stocks and bonds, Tim, I hold more stocks by far -- I like streams of income from long-term and short-term bonds. I like using the income to go into more stocks and more bonds. If I pulled out of all my bonds, I would not be able to continue to use that income for this purpose.
Additionally, by the way I appreciate your thoughts, though I believe you are missing some of the points, I calculate precisely whether a certain investment in a bond is acceptable. I hope everyone does that, and I write that it is important to consult financial advisers, because it is, obviously; the point is, if you A: calculate if a bond's income & maturity are acceptable and B: consider the fact that the issuer, could in a worst case scenario, default -- then allocate properly -- and have a strategy (notice that word is in bold in the article, because it is 'what matters most') then I believe you will do ok.
Tim, think of it this way, some towns and some people, have hardly anything, unfortunately. Some towns and some people are in debt up to their hats. If they had some bonds generating cash, that would actually not be so terrible. I think you're distressed because you may be overlooking my points on 'strategy' & 'allocation.'
In deed, you can lose on stocks as well. For instance you wrote about Citi (C) ... at one point some owners who got in at the wrong time were down over 90%. Counting for the reverse split, and price since 2000, many investors are down well over $200 a share on it. So it's great the market is skyrocketing, though I maintain bonds have a place. I do not believe they are necessarily 'terrible' if they are part of a layered portfolio. They can generate funds than can be used to go into higher yield / quality corp. bonds or treasuries when rates do go up, in addition to stocks or ETFs or whatever investors want.
A Closer Look Into Buffett's Bond Comments [View article]
Got to say I like the monthly coupon and the yield. I also respect the fact that they did not sink to the bottom of the ocean like some businesses did a few years ago. Though I'd emphasize, allocation in amounts that would not sink a portfolio if they do get hit hard -- I also like to balance their newer monthly coupon, call protected bonds with their subordinate debt, which yields more.
Apple Solved Its First Problem [View article]
If you have some sort of issue, you are welcome to try to express it.
As it stands, your criticism was itself what you accuse my article of being. So just spit it out, what is the issue, likely it has something to do with Apple. You are welcome to attempt to explain yourself.
Apple Solved Its First Problem [View article]
Hope you get a chance to read the articles about Rochdale. One is linked in this article, makes a great case for allocation strategy over trying to time the market.
Apple Solved Its First Problem [View article]
I hope you get a chance to read my previous Apple article. I say to each their own, though if you really like Apple you might check Morningstar:
http://bit.ly/10KWUOl
that is the shareholder page. It shows major holders, you might like (VTI) for instance too, it holds 12.5M shares of Apple. Keep overall direction of the market in mind though. That's just one of my core principles, to keep in mind the market can go up or down. I also, personally like some exposure to bonds, preferably a fund that generates some cash each month, (HYB) is an example. (Those are Junk Bonds, I like to balance high yield with investment grade bonds, (BND) is an example. Keep in mind these are just examples not recommendations, please.)
Apple Solved Its First Problem [View article]
Seems to me the company is very profitable. I hope you get a chance to read my previous articles on Apple. When it was at $580, I thought the chart looked problematic.
Investors and consumers alike will need to judge and reevaluate based on newer products. The company has been slow, or patient on this front, though they clearly have been working on their strong suits. I believe there is a lot to like about the company. I believe one good way to get balanced exposure to the company is through a mutual fund -- and as I wrote, obviously it is important to understand it could go up or down.
Though $162, which was one number tossed around by the article I cited at the beginning, would bring the dividend yield to 7.5%. I simply do not see that happening, at the current rate. The article I cited pointed to Apple's ROIC going down, however the chart I pulled up seems to indicate it is a trend across the tech.industry. So whilst comparing Apple to Microsoft and Google based on ROIC, I think it is important to bring that up.
Apple Solved Its First Problem [View article]
Professionals absolutely would use Final Cut Pro on an iPad, and I believe some would use it on an iPhone if they could.
It seems the devices running on the A6 and A6X are faster than the old G4 desktops. Final Cut worked great on the G4. There are obvious differences, though my point is professionals would benefit from top of the line applications on portable devices. Of course the iPad would have advantages over the iPhone; though anyone with a portable projector or mini projector, could hook their iPad or iPhone up to it and see things such a focus issues adequately.
Just some of my thoughts on it, when I've gone into the Apple Stores, I specifically have asked if and when Final Cut Pro will work on the iPad. Honestly, I wish Apple would buy, or develop a very strong partnership with Adobe, personally -- since they make really strong professional programs. So you can see my perspective on it.
Apple Solved Its First Problem [View article]
Thank you for bringing up this point. I just pulled up iMovie and Final Cut and watched the difference in % CPU and Real Mem in the Activity Monitor. I realize the points you've brought up to a degree; my point is Final Cut Pro is one of Apple's strongest programs that I know of. I hope it is optimized for iPad one day.
Final Cut Pro approaches twice (and can go to three times) the Real Mem used by iMovie and I see iMovie appears to use more % CPU to finalize a project (while Final Cut uses more % CPU for certain tasks.) As the devices are made more powerful, I do not believe inclusion of stronger programs on smaller devices is totally outside the realm of possibility. That seems to be the nature of application design; upgrades, optimization, and larger processing power allowing for more powerful applications in the long run.
Apple Solved Its First Problem [View article]
It is really difficult to understate the importance of Final Cut Pro. It revolutionized the film industry.
Apple Solved Its First Problem [View article]
Do you really think a company that announces it plans to return $100B to shareholders is in trouble? http://bit.ly/17gGOk8
ARM Holdings: Learning From My Mistakes [View article]
The basic metrics, such as P/E are fine guidelines; however you can not totally account for those buyers who want to have control, with less regard for the cost. It only applies to a few companies, though if you're basing a continuous stream of criticism against it; it is sort of like the person outside of the auction house saying "Picasso, I wouldn't pay $1 for that garbage," while people are inside bidding millions.
Why Passive Index Investing Is Merely An Illusion [View article]
http://soc.att.com/10A...
Perhaps IBM was removed because they were deeply involved in Germany, through Dehomag (their German subsidiary.) AT&T may have seemed like a good substitute because of its accomplishment in digital computing, compared to IBMs punch card system... though I'm just speculating on that.
A Closer Look Into Buffett's Bond Comments [View article]
A Closer Look Into Buffett's Bond Comments [View article]
I understand & appreciate your point of view, if you have time you might be able to clarify, are you in interest rate swap investments, or I would presume not CDs. I do like some bank loan funds, though I keep them to a minimum.
My opinion is, the aforementioned schools have such low acceptance rates, that there is no shortage of students willing to apply, and work to pay tuition. Though, personally I believe a stronger system would allow the best schools to educate more students and reduce the costs. Still, Cooper Union just stated they will begin to charge tuition: http://nyti.ms/17OBvc4 so, anything can happen.
I have my eye on the Stanford 2042 bonds (cusip: 854403AD4) 4% coupon, though just a 3.6% yield currently -- again total allocation to all university bonds would not exceed 5%, which is fairly conservative in my opinion. I like to see the income roll in, and I've found it can support more speculative investments. I agree, the for-profit education field is no-man's land though -- they simply are not being managed effectively.
A Closer Look Into Buffett's Bond Comments [View article]
I agree with Warren Buffet on the two points: "if stocks go down 20% in the next month they are not going to be bothered… I would have them having enough cash on hand so they feel comfortable"
I also agree with him, you and Tim, on a certain level of understanding and caution. I also agree with Buffett not to have a set 30% or 40% in bonds. Though I believe bonds do have a place, and again whether the consumer price index exceeds the 4.69% coupon or not, it does not matter, because of the allocation; that is my opinion.
Going to Tim's remark about forbidding 100 years from now; the fact is if anyone allocates to such a long-term bond, it obviously is not about the face value in 2112. It is about a small amount of income, as part of a larger picture.
Say a $100M portfolio got 10 or 20 of the bonds, and someone said, 'oh my gosh, no way, $20,000 in 2112 won't even buy you a keg of whatever people are drinking a hundred years from now...'
Well, I hope you see the point, such a minimal allocation is just a drop. What you do with the buckets of capital is obviously a different story. I believe some to quality mutual funds that include equity, fixed income and a mix are ok.
I hope to buy more bonds and more stocks, every year. So when rates go up, I hope to get those also. That's just my perspective on it. It is all about allocation, the points about rates going up are very important, again very important, I've heard them from wall street managers for years, and they've been wrong.
At some point rates will likely go up -- though, by the time they do I believe proper, conservative allocation to the mix can be helpful. When rates go up, of course the prices will go down, however as I said in the article, given the allocation, I'd want to buy more of the mutual fund, presuming it is still well rated, still holds bonds I like, etc. Because I'd hope those managers will go with the flow, use income generated to buy the new higher yield, higher rated bonds, as I intend to do with funds allocated to bonds; as I intend to do with funds allocated to stocks.
A Closer Look Into Buffett's Bond Comments [View article]
It depends on what you do with the income. If you use it to attempt to increase overall yield, you may be able to do better than that.
"If that beats stocks over the long-term than we will have serious problems in this country."
If you use the income to go into some high-yield, and some equity, you will gain more exposure to stocks, over time. I reinvest dividends, most often, I use fixed-income to go into high yield, and I want to use high yield income to go into stocks.
"I would sell all the bonds I possibly could at that rate and on those terms, and I think that the logic behind buying them is highly flawed."
You are not accepting some of the points I have tried to explain to you. What would you do, once you've sold all your bonds? Throw those funds into stocks? I work from the point of view that the market can go up, it can go down. I believe in balanced exposure, and proper allocation, I believe 0% to fixed income makes very little sense. Though I do not prescribe to 30%, 40% to bonds either.
"... the logic in ignoring the time value of money and interest rate risks will likely lead market participants to huge losses"
Huge losses are only 'huge' if you put more into an investment than you care to lose. I like stocks and bonds, Tim, I hold more stocks by far -- I like streams of income from long-term and short-term bonds. I like using the income to go into more stocks and more bonds. If I pulled out of all my bonds, I would not be able to continue to use that income for this purpose.
Additionally, by the way I appreciate your thoughts, though I believe you are missing some of the points, I calculate precisely whether a certain investment in a bond is acceptable. I hope everyone does that, and I write that it is important to consult financial advisers, because it is, obviously; the point is, if you A: calculate if a bond's income & maturity are acceptable and B: consider the fact that the issuer, could in a worst case scenario, default -- then allocate properly -- and have a strategy (notice that word is in bold in the article, because it is 'what matters most') then I believe you will do ok.
Tim, think of it this way, some towns and some people, have hardly anything, unfortunately. Some towns and some people are in debt up to their hats. If they had some bonds generating cash, that would actually not be so terrible. I think you're distressed because you may be overlooking my points on 'strategy' & 'allocation.'
In deed, you can lose on stocks as well. For instance you wrote about Citi (C) ... at one point some owners who got in at the wrong time were down over 90%. Counting for the reverse split, and price since 2000, many investors are down well over $200 a share on it. So it's great the market is skyrocketing, though I maintain bonds have a place. I do not believe they are necessarily 'terrible' if they are part of a layered portfolio. They can generate funds than can be used to go into higher yield / quality corp. bonds or treasuries when rates do go up, in addition to stocks or ETFs or whatever investors want.
A Closer Look Into Buffett's Bond Comments [View article]