elcopone

Market Cycles: A Look at the Historical Evidence

Very interesting article. Thanks.

Employment Report: The Never-Changing Story

John - You are missing the point. What direct relationship does an athelete have with the average worker? None. Now what relationship does a CEO have with the workers of his company? An unbreakable inter-dependent relationship. You don't see how comparing atheletes salaries to CEO's is terrible comparison?

Was Carl Pavano overpaid? Absolutely. Hindsight is 20/20 and in baseball there are clear winner and losers. They even keep a record of every pitchers wins/losses to boot. So of course it's easy to see if he was "worth it". But did Carl's contract cost anything to society. No, virtually nothing. It costs George Steinbrenner. That's basically it. If fans were so outraged they should stop buying tickets, $14 beers and replica jerseys. Then you would see salaries brought in.

When a CEO slashes workforce and pay so that he can get his $100M bonus by hitting profit objectives, yes I would say there is a costs to society there. Big difference from an athelete.

You are right, Costco is a good example of the right thing to do. But they are the exception, not the norm.


On Jul 07 02:05 PM John Galt wrote:

> Elcopone-
>
> Would Juwan Howard be any worse of a basketball player if he signed
> a 30 million dollar deal instead of a 100 million dollar deal? How
> about the ex Yankee Pitcher Carl Pavano who signed a 70 million dollar
> deal and was injured and hardly pitched?
>
> The argument that CEO's make 250 times the average worker, therefore
> they are overpaid... Tiger Woods makes 250 times the average worker
> for playing golf and doing commercials, is that outragous? Couldn't
> you complain that Tiger would be just fine making 5 million bucks
> per year?
>
> Not all CEO's make 50 or 100 million dollars...
>
> Let's look at Costco's CEO which Mark brought up. The CEO is in charge
>

Employment Report: The Never-Changing Story

Wow, wow, wow! What a fantastic article and amazing responses to the discussion on executive comp. I am totally in agreement with you. Exec comp and corporate governance is out of control and is a huge problem. Would a CEO do any less of job making 20 million as opposed to 40 million? Of course not! The only one who would argue that is the CEO and his cronies on the board. The entire governence structure needs a major overhaul. And I am in total agreement with you on athletes and celebs. That is a poor comparison to executive comp. The dollar amounts they make may seem rediculous when looked at, but there comp is based on simple supply/demand economics. As long as people are willing to pay high ticket prices, purchase 19.99 DVD's and will wait in line for next $180 pair of Air Jordans, then why shouldn't they reep the rewards?

However giving a CEO a $50M paycheck while he lays off 10% of the workforce and cuts workers pay by 20% is simply taking money from the middle-class/poor and giving it to someone who is probably already wealthy beyond belief. It's outrageous and needs to change.

The Coming Economic Collapse, Part 2

What about the fact that average executive earns 100 times the average worker? If this multiple was even close to rational, real incomes would have risen significantly. This multiple has been increasing dramaitically as well during the time frame you quote.

It seems incomes have risen...for the executives. While everyone else struggles. I wonder if this was accounted for, would all these be irrelevent points?

Increase in Housing Transactions Does Not Equal Recovery

While far from "bullish", the mere fact that first-time homebuyers and investors are even willing to purchase is certainly a positive, right?

I have no doubt the problems in the real estate market are deep but from my vantage point (here in So. Fla), things do seem to be thawing a bit. It's not like it's red hot, but here is what's going on:

1. A return to fundementals (location! location! location!). In the glory days, you could pick a spot on the map in any hot market and do fine. Now, buyers are being much more selective in their locations. So it's not uncommon to see properties in one desireable development selling (with multiple bids above asking price) while properties in another less desirable development 2 miles away can't even get 1 bid.

2. Most of the foreclosed properties on the market are stripped, poorly maintained and need a ton of work. This is less than desireable to most homebuyers. So when a well-maintained home comes on the market (in a desireable location), you see people bidding up the price of the home. I think there are some foreclosed homes that will just never be sold.

So what these two points mean is that the bloated inventory number is made up of relatively few "desireable" homes. So those desireable homes are fetching far greater prices than similar "undesirable" homes. To me the inventory number is inflated by these homes that will never sell anyway. So why count them? They are better off demolished.

In any event, the point is that generallizing an entire country's RE market as doomed is just way too general. It'ws back to fundementals for real estate and the people who maintain their home and bought in a good location will be fine.

Sucker's Rally Approaching an End

Interesting commentary and debate going on. Just judging by this discussion here, there seems to be more Bull sentiment than I have seen in recent months. The Bears are no longer dominating the discussion as they have for a while now. Take it for what you will.

I will add that it's important to not lose sight of the fact that the stock market does not move based on fundementals, technicals, or reality. It's a perception market. And if the perception is that the economy is improving, whether true or not, it will move the market up.

Meet Mr. Market: Jim Cramer

Oh wait, after reading your bio..."Todd worked in a variety of intriguing roles, such as postdoctoral scholar of hearing physiology, software support technician, and as data base manager and webmaster for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration", what exactly qualifies you to call anyone out on anything investing related???

"Todd currently presides over a long-only asset management firm, which he founded in 2006. Using a value-driven approach, Todd oversees over $32 million in separately managed accounts" Wow $32 million! You are a great success! I wonder what your performance has been like to garner a whole $32 million?

Wait, wait, wait, I get it now... You're bitter cause Cramer is out there for the little guy and makes self-proclaimed money managers like you useless! You probably watch his shows to get ideas for own fund!

Meet Mr. Market: Jim Cramer

Mr. Kenyon is obviously one or more of the following:

- Jealous of Cramer for his success
- Doesn't understand what Cramer would say about his own mistakes and what he tries to do with his show
- Has no clue how an investor/trader would use Cramer's show
- Secretly works for The Motley Fool
- Secretly works for the Chinese (Cramer insists on calling them Communists and is not recommending any China stocks at the moment)
- Secretly works for News Corp. (Parent to FoxNews)
- Is so bitter that he will actually spend time trying to discredit someone else without even providing his own credentials
- Has no interesting ideas of his own so he is relegated to trying to discredit others
- Thinks he will gain publicity for himself by making unsubstantiated claims against a popular money manager

So Todd, which one is it?

Preparing for the Fall

What an overly simplistic, dumb, and irresponsible view of the market and the world.

If you are so sure the market is about to tank, then why not recommend shorting the market??? The fact that you recommend cash and not shorting clearly shows that you don't even have enough confidence in your own theory to invest in it!