Seeking Alpha

Paul Wagner

View as an RSS Feed
View Paul Wagner's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • In The Next Correction, Will You Be A Winner Or A Loser? [View article]
    Glenn Abrett. "No one has a clue as to when a correction might occur." Actually, everyone 'has a clue' when a correction might occur. Some people interpret the clues better than others. Luck doesn't involve clues.
    Sep 18 08:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • In The Next Correction, Will You Be A Winner Or A Loser? [View article]
    If an investor has a small enough portfolio he can easily track the following metrics on each of his positions and on his portfolio as a whole on a quarterly basis: net sales per share, net profit per share and dividend per share. Multiply each per share value by the number of shares held to determine "MY" sales, my earnings, my dividends.

    Thinking like a business owner instead of as a stock market investor is always beneficial, but particularly important when the market is driving the market price of the shares down.

    Keep your eye on your companies and not on the market. Keep your neuroses out of it. :=)>

    Tracking can be done easily in Excel.
    Sep 17 08:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Unthinkable, Unimaginable And Unspeakable: Why Wall Street Clings To The Herbalife Myth [View article]
    Glenn Abrett...while you're at it, you may as well include in your list of poisons: sunlight, aspirin, alcohol, wheat, peanuts, breathing, salt, sitting at a computer and a host of other things we love and cherish and benefit from, including life itself, which regrettably always causes death.
    Sep 17 08:00 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Unthinkable, Unimaginable And Unspeakable: Why Wall Street Clings To The Herbalife Myth [View article]
    Like, Bryce I have no dog in this hunt. If I'm a regulator, I have to ask the key question: did Herbalife break its contracts as a matter of course. Overselling unrealistic expectations is probably not a crime. If it is, then every gym or marketer of effective exercise machines or legitimate diet regimen is breaking the law with the full knowledge that most people won't achieve the results that are at the heart of the sizzle they sell.

    I read the author's article twice and did not see any language suggesting that Herbalife broke any of its contracts. He seemed to focus on the explicit falsity in how Herbalife describes its business. He also dealt at length with the failure rate. To a regulator, 1% of distributors being successful may be a large number. One per cent is a small success rate, but it would be a big failure rate if we were talking about airplane flights, for example. One per cent of Americans is ~ 3 million. A tiny fraction of Americans die each year in car accidents or drug overdoses or school shootings, but the numbers are huge despite and considered tragic, with justification.

    I trust no one thinks I'm defending the snakes that knowingly prey on unsuspecting or poorly advised individuals. I'm not and have nothing in common with such people, no matter their favorite flavor of nefarious exploitation.
    Sep 16 08:20 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 4% Rule Examined [View article] Google, you know you've become a credible cultural phenomenon when you've spawned a verb.
    Sep 15 08:09 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The 4% Rule Examined [View article]
    Me, too, Robert. 2000 and 2008 gave me a lot of perspective. It always boils down to in whom you've invested. That's why I never ever invest in index funds. In most every hamlet or town there are a couple of businesses that are doing very well, a few that are doing okay and the rest are barely hanging on. An index fund proponent would have you investing in all of them, because you're not smart enough to tell which one will be around in 5 years and prospering. I'm not smart enough to understand that concept, so I would do the dumb thing and just invest in the one or two that would be missed if they went away. And that's why I sleep well.

    When there are big market swings and I "lose" or "make" more in a day than I made in a year in the 1980's, or more than I paid for either of our first two houses or more than a college education for one of my kids, I marvel at the organism known as a stock market. I'll never understand all its mysteries, but I have great respect for its endurance and the role it has played in making our standard of living what it is.
    Sep 15 07:55 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 4% Rule Examined [View article]
    rednoseplaya...I demand to know the bio of anyone who can write: "All thongs being constant....". It's an image thing.
    Sep 15 06:06 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 4% Rule Examined [View article]'re right about the debate, but perhaps you have also missed the point. While it's axiomatic that if you sell shares you will have less dividend income it's also true that if you sell shares you will NEED less dividend income. I made so much money between 1997 and 2000 that I have no idea if I even generated any dividend income. I think I had a little Wal-mart back then, but most of my money was made trading Ebay and Amazon and EMC and Nvidia with greater fools -- and they were everywhere and a lot more foolish than me. And even since then, I really haven't paid much never mind to dividends because they have made such a small contribution to my wealth, such as it is. Believe it or not, until earlier this year when I made an Excel spreadsheet, the only dividends I even kept track of were those in my taxable accounts. Actually, Fidelity tracked them and I reported them to the IRS.

    Lately, as I've been faced with the remote possibility that I am not immortal, I've been looking to reposition my portfolio so that my wife can handle my accounts without me, should the grip reaper find out where I live and tap me on the shoulder first. So, I've been chowderizing my portfolio in the larger of two tax-deferred accounts we have.
    Sep 15 05:09 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 4% Rule Examined [View article]
    Robert. I had a feeling you had stopped caring. :=(>
    Sep 15 04:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The 4% Rule Examined [View article]
    "Paul, you would care if your portfolio experienced capital *losses*"

    Not so, Robert. My portfolio frequently produces capital "losses" and so does yours. Neither of us cares. You don't care because your dividend income isn't touched by frequent periods where share prices decline. I don't care for the same reason and also for my understanding that, over time, my growing companies will produce frequent capital gains and that the net will be a gain, not a loss. It takes no more faith on my part than that required of you to believe your companies will raise their dividends. There is too much history to ignore. Faith would be required to believe otherwise.

    Think about it: if there wasn't the dependable, historical fact that profitable, growing companies produce capital gains over time, then there would be no such thing as equity investing. All investing would involve debt, not equity, because the risk of loss is less, the income received is a contract right, and in the event of default, creditors can successfully force the company into bankruptcy where its future is directed under the supervision of a court and where creditors can supplant pre-bankruptcy owners.

    None of those rights or advantages of debt are available to equity holders. Yet a robust market for equity ownership exists. There must be a reason and the reason is growth in value. And rising dividends and capital gains are both rewards for investing in the right companies.
    Sep 15 02:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Your Guide To The Best And Worst Stocks In The Dow [View article]
    Market Map...can you provide a source for your statistic? Thanks.
    Sep 14 11:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • These 7 Growth Stocks Have The Potential To Make You Rich [View article]
    I've taken a major position in GIL...for more on Gildan see my article at
    Sep 14 08:09 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The 4% Rule Examined [View article]
    salmoned.. Maybe I did miss the point: I have heard the expression "less is more", but I thought it applied to interior decorating or something. Silly me.
    Sep 14 06:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 4% Rule Examined [View article]
    David: "The correct answer is "You wouldn't NEED to sell any, but you could if you wanted to."

    Now, if in 1970 I had bot 100 shares in your most precious holding (not), I would NEED to sell some and my share of ownership (as the author pointed out as being relevant, though I don't think it is) would decrease. But, I wouldn't lose any dividend income when I did and I would stay rich for the rest of my life.
    Sep 14 04:46 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The 4% Rule Examined [View article]
    David: "So, answer me this, Grasshopper. Why would you need to sell a single share of JNJ in your portfolio, when the company is giving you $204k in dividends?"

    The issue isn't about "need" so much as about possibility. If you want to capture, say an extra $500,000 this year by selling 5000 shares, you are reducing your dividend income by 7% but you're also now able to buy a lot of land in Mississippi to raise more cattle on, avoiding a mortgage on the property and giving ol' #49 more ways to contribute to America's food supply.

    Whether it's buying more land, buying cattle, buying Detroit or taking soccer buddies to the World Cup doesn't really matter. It's just a matter of being able to use the money the market is dangling in front of you now for your right to income in the future.
    Sep 14 02:46 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment