Charles Margolis's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/1603141/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1448801/comments?source=feed#comment-19061041 19061041 Tue, 21 May 2013 03:14:53 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1448571/comments?source=feed#comment-19058541 19058541 Tue, 21 May 2013 00:31:53 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1447081/comments?source=feed#comment-19029921 19029921 Mon, 20 May 2013 11:55:09 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1445931/comments?source=feed#comment-19014761 19014761
Interesting article.]]> Sun, 19 May 2013 23:04:51 -0400
Interesting article.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1439721/comments?source=feed#comment-19007451 19007451
Looks like you may have meant to post this link in the comments above, but it got posted down here. The title of the article is amusing:

"Samsung admits paying students to lambast rival phones in fake web reviews"

I had not heard about that, wow. Now I understand why you said, what you said. At first I did not get it.

Yeah, when the rival company needs to do that (if it is true) then you know something is up. Here is another article on it from the BBC: http://bbc.in/1199zgo it appears they were trying to criticize HTC (a Taiwanese manufacturer, and promote Samsung)]]> Sun, 19 May 2013 19:19:08 -0400
Looks like you may have meant to post this link in the comments above, but it got posted down here. The title of the article is amusing:

"Samsung admits paying students to lambast rival phones in fake web reviews"

I had not heard about that, wow. Now I understand why you said, what you said. At first I did not get it.

Yeah, when the rival company needs to do that (if it is true) then you know something is up. Here is another article on it from the BBC: http://bbc.in/1199zgo it appears they were trying to criticize HTC (a Taiwanese manufacturer, and promote Samsung)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1439721/comments?source=feed#comment-18981531 18981531
http://bit.ly/109LRhI

The program could definitely be optimized, is what I'm saying. I've worked with it since it was first introduced, it is an excellent program. I have worked on international news stories, and have begun editing at airports, and I would really like to be able to do that with an iPad, or even an iPhone if that's all I had... one issue is battery life running such a program, though its just another obstacle to try to solve... so far I think the company is good at solving problems, not perfect of course.

It definitely depends on the complexity of the project you are working on. Specifically the number of tracks of video being layered, and an editor's specific style. The complexity of the effects you are trying to implement. Look at the section on GPU http://bit.ly/12jK2jC "you can work with richer effects in real time." That is awesome.

Version 10.0.8 seems to be working fine on a 2.3 GHz computer. Though, the original versions of the program, which were the industry standard at the time worked very well on 500 MHz Power Mac G4... there are obvious differences in a desk top and iPad or iPhone... I'm just saying this is the direction I think the company should go in. Since it is one of their strongest programs... I believe some of the issues have been resolved since that YouTube skit -- I agree though, if it's not broke don't fix it!]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 11:20:31 -0400
http://bit.ly/109LRhI

The program could definitely be optimized, is what I'm saying. I've worked with it since it was first introduced, it is an excellent program. I have worked on international news stories, and have begun editing at airports, and I would really like to be able to do that with an iPad, or even an iPhone if that's all I had... one issue is battery life running such a program, though its just another obstacle to try to solve... so far I think the company is good at solving problems, not perfect of course.

It definitely depends on the complexity of the project you are working on. Specifically the number of tracks of video being layered, and an editor's specific style. The complexity of the effects you are trying to implement. Look at the section on GPU http://bit.ly/12jK2jC "you can work with richer effects in real time." That is awesome.

Version 10.0.8 seems to be working fine on a 2.3 GHz computer. Though, the original versions of the program, which were the industry standard at the time worked very well on 500 MHz Power Mac G4... there are obvious differences in a desk top and iPad or iPhone... I'm just saying this is the direction I think the company should go in. Since it is one of their strongest programs... I believe some of the issues have been resolved since that YouTube skit -- I agree though, if it's not broke don't fix it!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1439721/comments?source=feed#comment-18973041 18973041
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.]]> Sat, 18 May 2013 00:42:57 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1439721/comments?source=feed#comment-18970371 18970371
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.]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 21:57:41 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1439721/comments?source=feed#comment-18970191 18970191
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.)]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 21:52:44 -0400
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.)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1439721/comments?source=feed#comment-18969901 18969901
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.]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 21:35:59 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1439721/comments?source=feed#comment-18969681 18969681
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.]]> Fri, 17 May 2013 21:21:44 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1439721/comments?source=feed#comment-18918291 18918291
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.]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 17:31:08 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1439721/comments?source=feed#comment-18897221 18897221
It is really difficult to understate the importance of Final Cut Pro. It revolutionized the film industry.]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 10:50:33 -0400
It is really difficult to understate the importance of Final Cut Pro. It revolutionized the film industry.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1439721/comments?source=feed#comment-18897111 18897111
Do you really think a company that announces it plans to return $100B to shareholders is in trouble? http://bit.ly/17gGOk8]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 10:46:48 -0400
Do you really think a company that announces it plans to return $100B to shareholders is in trouble? http://bit.ly/17gGOk8]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1432441/comments?source=feed#comment-18814991 18814991
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.]]> Tue, 14 May 2013 12:50:50 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1427181/comments?source=feed#comment-18725531 18725531
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.]]> Sun, 12 May 2013 01:35:14 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410521/comments?source=feed#comment-18638211 18638211 Thu, 09 May 2013 14:48:38 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410521/comments?source=feed#comment-18631671 18631671
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.]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 12:51:53 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410521/comments?source=feed#comment-18607711 18607711
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.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 22:37:34 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410521/comments?source=feed#comment-18604711 18604711
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.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 21:03:32 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410521/comments?source=feed#comment-18600521 18600521 Wed, 08 May 2013 18:47:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410521/comments?source=feed#comment-18600341 18600341
re: "... virtually assures you of taking large losses..."

Actually if you are comfortable with the amount you are investing in a given bond; it is doubtful you will sustain "large losses." That bond could go down 99.9% and be worth one penny and I would not be taking a very large loss on it.

The mutual fund I got, could go down 99.9%, I'd not be taking a large loss on it. Because it is allocated to properly. No one position or one sector's demise will sink a diversified portfolio.

re: "I have no idea why someone would feel compelled to invest in those bonds.."

It is because they are rated well, I like the institution and I want income from them every 6 months for the next 99 years.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 18:44:40 -0400
re: "... virtually assures you of taking large losses..."

Actually if you are comfortable with the amount you are investing in a given bond; it is doubtful you will sustain "large losses." That bond could go down 99.9% and be worth one penny and I would not be taking a very large loss on it.

The mutual fund I got, could go down 99.9%, I'd not be taking a large loss on it. Because it is allocated to properly. No one position or one sector's demise will sink a diversified portfolio.

re: "I have no idea why someone would feel compelled to invest in those bonds.."

It is because they are rated well, I like the institution and I want income from them every 6 months for the next 99 years.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410521/comments?source=feed#comment-18594371 18594371
I like the fact that schools like Bowdoin, Harvard, Princeton, Brown, MIT, Tufts, GW and few others I invest in, have been around for a long time. I also like the fact they are removed from the climate surrounding U.S. businesses, which I have exposure to. The fact these schools have been around for a long time, and will supposedly be around for longer makes them appealing to me. Simply put, Bowdoin would not have issued these bonds if interest rates hadn't gone so low. If a school issues muni bonds there is most often a 5 bond limit which is usually $5,000 (I don't see many schools issuing zero coupons.)

I was not looking to put $5,000 into fixed-income. I realize, theoretically I could have made more going into a higher yield, near-term bond, however I wanted something more 'permanent.' Something about the thought that, that small amount will, hopefully be around for a long time; the result of the work it took to make the money will hopefully continue to yield for 99 years is a novelty. That sums it up, and that is all it is; again I would not allocate more than 1% of a portfolio to such novelties, though if the yield on those goes up a lot I'd certainly consider more (still not more than 1% of a portfolio.) Keep in mind, I have BRKB stock too, I hope it does well -- though I purposefully allocate to non Berkshire investments, in order to diversify. Regards.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 16:15:21 -0400
I like the fact that schools like Bowdoin, Harvard, Princeton, Brown, MIT, Tufts, GW and few others I invest in, have been around for a long time. I also like the fact they are removed from the climate surrounding U.S. businesses, which I have exposure to. The fact these schools have been around for a long time, and will supposedly be around for longer makes them appealing to me. Simply put, Bowdoin would not have issued these bonds if interest rates hadn't gone so low. If a school issues muni bonds there is most often a 5 bond limit which is usually $5,000 (I don't see many schools issuing zero coupons.)

I was not looking to put $5,000 into fixed-income. I realize, theoretically I could have made more going into a higher yield, near-term bond, however I wanted something more 'permanent.' Something about the thought that, that small amount will, hopefully be around for a long time; the result of the work it took to make the money will hopefully continue to yield for 99 years is a novelty. That sums it up, and that is all it is; again I would not allocate more than 1% of a portfolio to such novelties, though if the yield on those goes up a lot I'd certainly consider more (still not more than 1% of a portfolio.) Keep in mind, I have BRKB stock too, I hope it does well -- though I purposefully allocate to non Berkshire investments, in order to diversify. Regards.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1413471/comments?source=feed#comment-18590401 18590401
I see what you are saying though, I've never used a DRIP automatically, through Compushare or whatever... I just checked DPS on Morningstar: http://bit.ly/15IfoGD Vanguard Wellington has $15M of their corp. bonds... I think the fund is only open to Vanguard clients currently... their institutional shares were closed in February, to new investors... I like Coke & Pepsi... I'm going to look into DPS more, though like exposure through Wellington (and Vanguard Wellesley.) Not that those funds are immune to downfalls of course, I'm just liking balanced funds currently given the market is very high and unpredictable.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 14:57:49 -0400
I see what you are saying though, I've never used a DRIP automatically, through Compushare or whatever... I just checked DPS on Morningstar: http://bit.ly/15IfoGD Vanguard Wellington has $15M of their corp. bonds... I think the fund is only open to Vanguard clients currently... their institutional shares were closed in February, to new investors... I like Coke & Pepsi... I'm going to look into DPS more, though like exposure through Wellington (and Vanguard Wellesley.) Not that those funds are immune to downfalls of course, I'm just liking balanced funds currently given the market is very high and unpredictable.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410521/comments?source=feed#comment-18576251 18576251
Mr. Siegel is certainly optimistic -- though I put far more faith in great investor's thoughts, like Berkshire's. I do not know Mr. Siegel's track record, I believe his description of the bond bubble may not fully be taking into account inflation, and he may be guessing the rates will rise sooner than some analysts.

I agree with the sentiments that bond investors should be cautious, though, I believe a certain allocation to bonds (that represent quality and yield, possibly Berkshire for quality and (GS) monthly coupons for yield, for example) can be used to allocate to these 'newer higher coupon' bonds in the future, when rates go up. Though, the closer we get to rates going up -- obviously less should be allocated to this sort of strategy, just my opinion.]]> Wed, 08 May 2013 10:28:23 -0400
Mr. Siegel is certainly optimistic -- though I put far more faith in great investor's thoughts, like Berkshire's. I do not know Mr. Siegel's track record, I believe his description of the bond bubble may not fully be taking into account inflation, and he may be guessing the rates will rise sooner than some analysts.

I agree with the sentiments that bond investors should be cautious, though, I believe a certain allocation to bonds (that represent quality and yield, possibly Berkshire for quality and (GS) monthly coupons for yield, for example) can be used to allocate to these 'newer higher coupon' bonds in the future, when rates go up. Though, the closer we get to rates going up -- obviously less should be allocated to this sort of strategy, just my opinion.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1413471/comments?source=feed#comment-18572131 18572131 Wed, 08 May 2013 09:12:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1410521/comments?source=feed#comment-18559831 18559831
Based on my own views and Munger's statements I thought to invest in companies that make jewelry; they take precious metals and make them more valuable. That turned out well -- I picked up gold, silver and platinum though when they took their nosedive recently. So, I believe Berkshire's views are helpful -- though I may do something different; their comments certainly help me choose proper allocations (ie: closer to the minimum in bond funds currently, rather than larger allocations -- larger amounts to businesses like (TIF) last year, followed by small allocations to precious metals upon major declines.)]]> Tue, 07 May 2013 20:44:01 -0400
Based on my own views and Munger's statements I thought to invest in companies that make jewelry; they take precious metals and make them more valuable. That turned out well -- I picked up gold, silver and platinum though when they took their nosedive recently. So, I believe Berkshire's views are helpful -- though I may do something different; their comments certainly help me choose proper allocations (ie: closer to the minimum in bond funds currently, rather than larger allocations -- larger amounts to businesses like (TIF) last year, followed by small allocations to precious metals upon major declines.)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1399001/comments?source=feed#comment-18450641 18450641
"Coca-Cola had gone up a couple bucks per share relatively quickly after my purchase, and thinking that the company had become slightly overvalued, I sold out to buy JP Morgan."

I bought Coke in 93' sold it in 97' ... now I hold it, profit take on it here and there; however I want permanent exposure to it. I hold two Coke century bonds the KO 96' and CCE 93' ... though I like to see it in funds, like Wellington (big holder of their bonds), etc.

Look at what SunTrust just did: http://bloom.bg/124oRmT

Can you believe that? Just set dividends to pay to cash -- and you'd think they'd have been golden... have to wonder if they are kicking themselves right now?]]> Sat, 04 May 2013 20:46:15 -0400
"Coca-Cola had gone up a couple bucks per share relatively quickly after my purchase, and thinking that the company had become slightly overvalued, I sold out to buy JP Morgan."

I bought Coke in 93' sold it in 97' ... now I hold it, profit take on it here and there; however I want permanent exposure to it. I hold two Coke century bonds the KO 96' and CCE 93' ... though I like to see it in funds, like Wellington (big holder of their bonds), etc.

Look at what SunTrust just did: http://bloom.bg/124oRmT

Can you believe that? Just set dividends to pay to cash -- and you'd think they'd have been golden... have to wonder if they are kicking themselves right now?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1399001/comments?source=feed#comment-18446401 18446401
IE: Coca-Cola goes up $2, you want the profit from the stock, so you sell it, but you still have your mutual fund you picked with KO in it, so you do not lose exposure. Morningstar shows the largest funds holding the stock & the bonds: http://bit.ly/115LLZu]]> Sat, 04 May 2013 15:25:05 -0400
IE: Coca-Cola goes up $2, you want the profit from the stock, so you sell it, but you still have your mutual fund you picked with KO in it, so you do not lose exposure. Morningstar shows the largest funds holding the stock & the bonds: http://bit.ly/115LLZu]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1399981/comments?source=feed#comment-18446201 18446201 Sat, 04 May 2013 15:14:46 -0400