pacalis

Does Steve Jobs Deserve Fortune's "CEO of the Decade" Award?

True, but if you look at the Technology Review 35 Innovators you'll find most have done graduate work.

On Nov 06 08:48 PM None-Too-Great Hits wrote:

> I too have often wondered how the Stanford officials on the podium
> felt when Steve mentioned that he had never graduated from college
> himself. Yesterday I was looking a CNN/Fortune's article on the top
> 40 execs under the age of 40, and a good portion of them are only
> high school graduates with perhaps some college.

Cramer Does It Again with CIT Call

If you care about dividend yield you should have discussed a dividend yield strategy. For example, I hold cash until I can realize x divided yield from company abc. That seems to me to be a good general approach. However that's completely different from the "win some lose some" approach that DCA takes to supposedly address price volatility.

On Nov 05 03:41 PM consumeronstrike wrote:

> Some people want to gamble and some people want to invest. I would much rather spend my time buying pieces of solid companies and building up my dividend income over time than speculating on price movements.

Cramer Does It Again with CIT Call

You're right about it being basic - it was proven to be myth in 1979 by George Constanides in the Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis titled "A Note on the Suboptimality of Dollar Cost Averaging as an Investment Policy."

I have a few things to say about your example which is so typical of DCA examples...

1. You neglect transaction costs which necessarily drive up your cost basis.
2. You lost fifty percent of your investment in period 1. Sorry, but that's not a good thing. This is where we get into the psychology of it - a 50% loss is not a DCA opportunity. It's a 50% loss. If you've got a stock that's so volatile that its moving about so much to make DCA work you've probably got a different problem.
3. Remember that the long term trend of the market is expected to beat the return of a a risk free asset, so on the whole a dollar cost averaging policy will result in buying more expensive stocks over time, not cheaper ones.

On Nov 04 08:12 PM consumeronstrike wrote:

> Dollar cost averaging is so basic it doesn't need to be defended.

Cramer Does It Again with CIT Call

LOL, you watch too much TV.

Dollar cost averaging is not an academically sound principle. It is a scam that brokers use to increase the number of buy transactions around a position, thus increasing their fees while minimizing the psychology of loss.


On Nov 04 03:49 PM DonFurio wrote:

> CNBC commentators are not allowed to own stocks.
> No one forced you to buy NYX or SHLD. Besides these companies are
> not bankrupt and have a chance to come back, are you dollar cost
> averaging?

Cramer Does It Again with CIT Call

DonFurio - you're "eliminate suckers" approach is a good idea but not very practical. The game is stacked and there are a s@#tload of idiots out there - that's why investment advisers are regulated. And that's why someone who has the power to manipulate markets and also gives investment advice should be regulated.

Also your view of "proper research" is a bit naive - you ignore the plain fact that there's a huge industry that directs investments for other people and organizations. So, not a perfect world, but Cramer still makes it worse.

On Nov 04 09:48 AM DonFurio wrote:

> "Cramer should be taken off the air. If what he's doing isn't illegal
> it should be."
> - so does that mean you want to ban Fast Money and the other CNBC
> shows where people talk about stocks? You've got to be kidding me,
> where is everyone's personal responsibility? Do you want BO's cronnies
> to wipe you after you take a dump too...
>
> No one is forcing you to buy anything. If someone is too stupid not
> watch something on TV and buy it without doing to proper research,
> then that is their OWN fault.
>
> On Nov 03 08:55 PM pacalis wrote:

Cramer Does It Again with CIT Call

Cramer should be taken off the air. If what he's doing isn't illegal it should be.

It seems absurd that if you're an investment adviser to a few small businesses you need to be regulated, and have a fiduciary duty, but if you're a stock pumping dirt bag on TV, with a few million idiot viewers, you can say whatever the hell you want. Buy BUY BUY!!!

Of course an argument could be made that Cramer simply makes the market more efficient by reallocating "idiot capital."

America, The Nanny State

You should read that report again.

The US came first in only one of four quality categories - preventative care. It comes in last in chronic care, mistakes and coordination of care. It lagged all other countries in the study in IT. It also fails on access and those other issues. But in sum, it's quality score was 5 of 6.

Now ask, why is the US so good in early stage diagnoses? Because the insurance companies want to test your s@#t in your 20s so they can deny you coverage in your 50s.

PS:
Knock knock, who's there?
Taxes....
Taxes who?
Who cares!!! US pays more per person Mr. Quinn!!!

On Nov 03 02:28 PM James Quinn wrote:

> I read the findings. The report is geared to say that because we
> don't have universal care, that puts us in last place. Only one category
> did the US happen to come in 1st: QUALITY.


> The report does not take the taxation of the citizens into account
> either.
>

America, The Nanny State

No, Obama's plan is a disaster. But it's not like those 1990 pages are government - they're the work of insurance companies, pharma, and other corporate interests.

The way I see it there are two arguments:
1. Government is so inefficient that allowing waste through insurance company profits and missing under-served persons provides the best public outcomes per spent dollar.
OR
2. The single payer option creates such monopsony power that we can drive down prices and pay for universal coverage providing the best public outcomes per spent dollar.

The current plan seems to increase inefficiencies while not creating any buyer power - it fails on both counts. It's like a love child getting Einstein's looks with Marilyn Monroe's brain.

On Nov 02 03:17 PM James Quinn wrote:

> So adding 1,990 pages of government rules and regulations while insuring
> 46 million more people is going to cost less?

America, The Nanny State

So you want more of the system that makes fat people, requires more working hours, has less vacation... and I miss the point?

Your arguments are the usual populist ideas - the US must be best because...
1. faster care - faster care is not an end goal, health outcomes are. If another country has "fast enough" care and it has better outcomes it wins - and nearly all OECD countries have better outcomes than the US for less money.
2. American's are less healthy - yes they are. Obviously this is a chicken and egg problem, but it doesn't speak well to our current system does it?
3. Innovation - There are lots of stories (myths) about this but American innovations from pharma haven't show up in the GDP numbers for at least decade and during that decade there has been a long standing argument about declines, not gains, in pharma productivity. And on the whole Biotech's a money loser - every year we spend more on R&D than the whole industry makes. Want a current example, look at whose making H1N1 vaccine - only 3 of 15 potential suppliers are US based.

Still, these are your points and nothing James Quinn mentioned.

On Nov 02 04:10 PM John Galt wrote:

> > Pacalis The US pays more - it doesn't matter if Europe pays via
> taxes and VAT and the US pays out of a paycheck into insurance plans.
> The US pays more per person.
>
> Now I don't know what the horror in 8 weeks of vacation is, but the
> US pays more relative to GDP.
>
> - I don't think you get the point.
> A) People in the US receive better faster care
> B) People in the US are less healthy/more obese than Europe.
> C) Our investment in health capital (and Europeans piggy backing
> off our innovation) make their systems easier to run.
>
> Would you expect Mcdonalds to cost more than Ruths Chris Steakhouse?
> If an operation is done quickly in hospital A and that same operation
> is done in 3 months in Hospital B... which do you think will cost
> more? Who do you think has more health problems, the 220 pound fast
> food eating American or the healthier European?
>
> "Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his
> own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his
> history. "

America, The Nanny State

The US pays more - it doesn't matter if Europe pays via taxes and VAT and the US pays out of a paycheck into insurance plans. The US pays more per person.

Now I don't know what the horror in 8 weeks of vacation is, but the US pays more relative to GDP. So not only are we working harder, but we pay even more in healthcare FOR working harder. If we took those 8 weeks vacation, GDP would drop and we would pay EVEN MORE relative to other countries as a percentage of GDP. Double whammy.

On Nov 02 02:41 PM James Quinn wrote:

> They are taxed out the yazoo and wait in lines for months to get
> care. Get ready for a VAT to pay for the unexpected overruns in the
> new healthcare plan. Do you realize that Europe is socialist? Everyone
> is equal. No one tries to do better than anyone else. Eight weeks
> of vacation, 35 hour mandated workweeks, and $7 a gallon gasoline
> to pay for it.
>
> By the way, they are more bankrupt than us.

America, The Nanny State

Just because the first 1000 words in your article lack any degree of logic does not mean that I believe in the health plan. It just means that your logic is inconsistent or wrong.

But, OK, if you don't want to address those things, we can move to your first chart that shows that the US pays more for healthcare as a percentage of GDP than other nations like Canada. Yet, many of these other nations are more "NANNY" than the US. If "NANNY" is so bad, why are other nations paying less?


On Nov 02 12:38 PM James Quinn wrote:

> Oh yes, that outdated Constitution. Always getting in the way of
> socialists. You maybe should quote from your Communist Manifesto,
> since that is where this healthcare bill fits.
>
> It's articles like this that tell the truth you don't want to hear.
> Three different numbers of uninsured all from Democrats. You will
> use whatever number works to sell your plan to the attention deficit
> public.
>
> What does healthcare have to do with public safety? We didn't have
> public healthcare in the 1950s and the system worked just fine. The
> problems and costs skyrocketing began in 1965 with Medicare and medicaid.
>
>
> Please provide your solution to the $100 TRILLION of unfunded liabilities
> even before this new entitlement.

America, The Nanny State

So your first point was that healthcare rights were not in the declaration of independence because, perhaps, it's important to rely on documents that pre-date modern medicine. None the less it does say: "to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their SAFETY and happiness." So how is universal healthcare inconsistent with public safety again?

Your second point was that Obama said that there are more "than thirty million American citizens who cannot get coverage" and "reform is obviously essential for the 46 million Americans who don’t have health insurance” so "Who’s lying? Who’s exaggerating? Who’s misleading the American public?"

Well, 46M is greater than 30M so I don’t see your problem there. And “cannot get coverage” is a subset of “don’t have health insurance” so I don’t see you problem there. In short, I have an answer for you, it seems that it’s articles like this that mislead the American public.

Google Should Make Apple Beg for Maps Navigation

Dea, I already accept everything you wrote in your last email, with two exceptions.

1. There is no "ad hominem attack" in my last response. Quote the comment if you feel differently.
2. That the impact of google on iphone is near zero and won't change over time. This doesn't make sense given the current state of google related apps accross all smart phones and the developing ecosystem of googles new product introductions.

The argument that apple could switch to Bing anytime and that would hurt google is correct but meaningless to the consumer. No one is buying phones for default search providers. They are buying phones on the basis of service, basic phone functions and then google app integration, exchange integration, itunes integration etc..

Google Should Make Apple Beg for Maps Navigation

Dea, On Oct 30 12:28 PM dea_sys wrote:

> Pacalis, is it a good strategy to begin one's argument with a
> dismissive insult to those with opposing views?

Strategy in a comments section about an apple product? That's funny.
> Now, about your points: #1: If Google "turns off its APIs,"
Not my point. My point was about control. See my later comment.

And yes, Apple could switch to Bing default. But that only affects some the mobile portion of google search (about 6% of search revenues). Moreover, mobile search is growing in developing faster in developing nations where Apple isn't the leader in smartphone adoption.

#4: There is no evidence that Google is "disrupting"
> Apple at this time; quite the opposite actually. In fact, Google
> has recently reiterated its whole-hearted support for Apple.

I sincerely believe you are very wrong here. Apple makes money on is proprietary OS, phone hardware, apps and complementary access to ATTs infrastructure. Google is threatening every one of those revenue streams by offering lower cost, and open, alternatives. For a disruption a product or service does not need to be as high quality as the incumbent, in fact it typically isn't, it just needs to address under-served markets at much lower cost. Google is doing this in spades.

Google Should Make Apple Beg for Maps Navigation

On Oct 30 10:48 AM disposableidentity wrote:
> (And right now there's no sign they want to do Apple any harm anyway.)

No, ignoring everything else I wrote, still none at all...


October 29, 2009
Google Launches Music-Specific Search Result Pages
businessinsider.co...

"Users can now search either by band, song title, or even just parts of lyrics stuck in their head. They'll be presented with complete playable tracks provided by partners such as MySpace, Lala, or imeem."