IVW Forum Topics
- All Comments on IVW
- General Discussion on IVW
- Investing Changes Under a New Tax Regime [view article]
- Growth vs. Value Performance [view article]
- P/E Divergence Between Growth and Value Stocks: The Wrong Way [view article]
- US Stocks: A Historical Look at Market-Cap and Style, 1997-2007 [view article]
- Exchange-Traded Funds and Closed-End Funds by Asset Class, Type and Provider [view article]
- Top 50 ETFs by Revenue Per Fund [view article]
- Recent Key ETF Performance [view article]
- Fee Cuts Solidify Vanguard's Position as the ETF Cost Leader [view article]
- Value Stocks Reassert Leadership [view article]
- The Party Rolls On; Until the Next Correction [view article]
- Risk-Return Balance Across iShares ETFs [view article]
loading ...Recent IVW Articles
- Second-Quarter Market Review: A Tale of Two Monsters
- Common Wisdom Unwound: Large Cap Growth Now
- WSJ Gets It Wrong on Fidelity's Underperformance
- Investing Changes Under a New Tax Regime
- Growth vs. Value Performance
- P/E Divergence Between Growth and Value Stocks: The Wrong Way
- US Stocks: A Historical Look at Market-Cap and Style, 1997-2007
- Portfolio Review: Romey Favors U.S. Dollar
- Global Equity Returns YTD, By Style
- Recent Key ETF Performance
- Full List of Articles »
Investing Changes Under a New Tax Regime [view article]
JOHN MCCAIN IS WHO I TRUST HE KNOWS HOW TO BALANCE THE BUDGET YOU HAVE CONGRESS TO BLAME THEY COULD DO SOME WORK DON'T BLAME BUSH FOR ALL ReplyInvesting Changes Under a New Tax Regime [view article]
the historical evidence doesn't support Xyrus or Nate C's viewpoint - as usual, political passion neutralizes otherwise normal or above-normal IQ levels ... www.nationalreview.com...For the facts, here is the first part of the article ...
June 27, 2005, 9:02 a.m.
The Rapidly Declining Deficit
How’s it happening? Look to the tax-rate cuts of 2003.
By Michael T. Darda
According to the Treasury department, the U.S. government took in a single-day record $61 billion in tax receipts on June 15. This surpassed the previous single-day high of $56 billion set on December 15, 2000. The recent surge in tax revenues is not just a one-day event. Fiscal year to date, total government receipts are up 15.5 percent, the fastest rate of increase on a comparable FYTD basis since 1981. The difference between the growth rate of tax revenues and the growth rate of government spending has widened to 8.4-percentage points, the largest since late 2000 when the budget was in surplus.
Not surprisingly, the recent tidal wave of tax receipts has ignited a furious debate about whether or not the Bush tax cuts are responsible for stimulating economic activity enough to actually boost overall tax-revenue collections. Classical economists refer to this as the Laffer curve, or the revenue-reflow, effect. In simple terms, if a tax cut stimulates the underlying activity being taxed, a revenue reflow will result. The reflow can offset or even surpass the volume of revenues that would have been collected under the higher tax rate and smaller tax base. Pro-growth tax-rate reductions on labor and capital in the 1920s, 1960s, 1980s, and then again in 1997 and 2003 all exhibited revenue-reflow effects, although some were stronger than others.
Despite the avalanche of historical evidence, some economists and policymakers question the validity of incentive-based revenue reflows and assert instead that the recent surge in tax-receipt growth has been caused by an increasing fraction of the workforce being ensnarled by the alternative minimum tax (AMT). They also argue that annual comparisons were made extremely easy due to the huge drop in revenues due to the 2000-02 stock market implosion and the 2001 recession that accompanied it. While there is some truth to these claims, they overlook several key facts. ... Reply
Investing Changes Under a New Tax Regime [view article]
yes-as you say the sheeple are marching to slaughter but keeping their eyes on yesterdays sport scores. at least they kow whats important. ReplyInvesting Changes Under a New Tax Regime [view article]
I agree with Xyrus. Ron Paul is the only candidate that would have balanced the budget. The rest are just crooks and liars that tell the sheeple what they want to hear. ReplyInvesting Changes Under a New Tax Regime [view article]
It doesn't really matter who gets elected, taxes HAVE TO raise. You can probably count on the raises being investment related at the very least.Or rather, either taxes have to raise or government spending needs to be DRASTICALLY reduced. Which do you think is more likely to happen?
On one side we have McCain, who really has all of the financial know-how of an amoeba. I wouldn't trust that guy to balance his own checkbook, let alone approve national budgets. He rattles on and on about earmarks and pork. That's less than 1% of government spending. The cash suckers are the military and social programs. Well he certainly wants to keep military spending high, and there's no way he's going to get a social cut through a democratic congress (not to mention he'd be eaten alive by the media for cutting social programs in a down market). Regardless, he can want to cut taxes all he wants. It's not going to change the fact that our government is flat broke, and we're crossing the $10 trillion dollar mark in debt.
In the other corner we have Barack "The Messiah" Obama. He certainly is a charismatic character, but charisma doesn't balance budgets. Universal Healthcare? How? Where is the money going to come from? In a couple more decades we won't even be able to handle our current social programs. Raise taxes? That's going to require quite a raise, as we can't even cover what we are currently spending. We could cut military spending (like get out of Iraq); that would get us closer to a balanced budget, but we'd still need tax raises to cover the bill.
In truth, I don't envy the position either would have after the disaster of the last 8 years or so. The most likely candidate that would have had the brass ones to do what is necessary for balancing the budget was Ron Paul. Now, it's 6 one way half-dozen the other. No matter who gets elected you can count on more taxes on the rich and more taxes on investments. By that time the poor won't really have any money to tax, since it will be all spent on food and gas. Best case, count on the rates before Bush made his idiotic decision to cut taxes while increasing spending further burying us in the whole with our future sugar daddy China.
~X~ Reply
Growth vs. Value Performance [view article]
what went up the most during the bull went down the most during the bear. imagine that... if you read anything more into this stuff than that you need to get your own social life. ReplyGrowth vs. Value Performance [view article]
Again, these guys certainly know how to report what is going on in the market. I would like somebody to tell me horizon when value stocks like BAC, C, PFE, WFC are going to perform... Investors are looking for stocks that have some growth potential this year, not 2 years from now. Growth fund has stocks that will likely perform better this year. If you are active investor, then you probably notice that there are a lot of bets on growth stocks already. That includes mid caps and small caps. I think market is getting a little bit more sure footed and start to invest beyond large cap value stocks. ReplyGrowth vs. Value Performance [view article]
To me, it seems that Value just has a higher Delta than Growth. I'm not sure what kind of social life these guys have, but I sure like the stuff they come up with.Thx jegan ;-) Reply
Growth vs. Value Performance [view article]
useless data ReplyGrowth vs. Value Performance [view article]
The lack of clarity amongst the great growth stock boom leading up to the dot com bust was not so out of the ordinary, history has shown other so called stocks of unprecedented promise metting simular fates when highly speculative attitudes failed to recognise speculation alone doesn't cut it.Trends into and out of corrections are also speculative short term, my feeling is with safety of returns for pensions at the formost of investors minds, and the not so distant memerios of October 2001 to march 2003 also taking effect, unless you are very good at picking growth stocks at reasonable prices thus allowing for safety margin (remembering the greater the enthusiasm the market has for these hot stocks, and the faster it rises in price compared with actual growth in earnings, the greater the disapointment the market shows when earnings disapoint) then I think value will take the honors. Reply
P/E Divergence Between Growth and Value Stocks: The Wrong Way [view article]
the yield risk premium is pointing to 20% lower levels. nickgogerty.typepad.co... ReplyP/E Divergence Between Growth and Value Stocks: The Wrong Way [view article]
value is out of favour and has been sold relentlessly over the past 12 months by the majority of investors. "growth" will follow and come crashing down - once the herd starts realizing that there ain't no v-shaped economic recovery anytime soon, but rather, a prolonged subpar growth environment that squeezes profit margins and incomes alike.regarding value stocks' valuation, apart from finance and homebuilding, these stocks are pretty cheap. the graph obviously is distorted by low profits/losses by banks, insurers and homebuilders.
there are sectors out there that offer stable, and mostly safe dividends of 6-10% which have been beaten downalong with everything else.
these will be stocks to shine over the coming 2-3 years when most money for investors from the stock market will come from dividends rather than (almost non-existant) stock price appreciation Reply
P/E Divergence Between Growth and Value Stocks: The Wrong Way [view article]
Historical records show that growth stocks over promise and under deliver in comparison to good dividend paying, well managed value stocks that show a more sustainable growth pattern over many years and even decades.In reference to your graph and I'm little confused as to which stocks are in focus, but in general a flight to quality may be in play as investors run to the rocks for safety.
Please add to my knowledge if I'm missing something. Reply
P/E Divergence Between Growth and Value Stocks: The Wrong Way [view article]
Some of this is due to the way the S&P Indices are formulated, which tends to prevent re-classification of stocks from growth to value and back. This reduces losses due to arbitrage and portfolio turnover for tracking funds, which is usually a good thing, if it doesn't get in the way of keeping the index focused. ReplyP/E Divergence Between Growth and Value Stocks: The Wrong Way [view article]
Interesting point. Agree that this discrepancy is most likely because of the falling earnings in financials, at least in the short term. I also think that there is a component from Baby boomers shifting to Value stocks over Growth stocks.. Reply