mediapro

Investors Appear Less Enamored with Dividend Paying Companies

The "doubts that have already started to set" are from naysayers who lost the last election.

Take a peek back at the past Captain and First Mate(s). The Captain was off the ship and on his ranch most of the time, taking more vacation time than any President in history and notoriously asleep by 9 PM. One mate wrote a book exposing early the machinations happening in the looney bin and the other wrote a three-page "plan" too late to make any difference.

I'll give these guys a little bit more slack before I join the crybabies on the right to tighten the noose. At least this Captain can string two sentences together without sounding like an idiot.


On Mar 13 12:37 PM henarl wrote:

> One wonders if Obama is a talented enough mariner to take over the
> ship of state in the midst of a hurricane, especially with Geithner
> as his chosen first mate. Doubts have already started to set and
> one also wonders if there are enough lifeboats to save the passengers.

Efficient Markets Present Opportunities for Savvy Buyers

People are bandying about alternative meanings of Efficient Market Theory (and there is enough historical data to class this economic explanation as a theory). Some are calling it wrong, and that markets are inefficient, because of government intervention. Some misuse the word "rational" in place a efficiency.

If everyone will dust off their Burton Malkiel ("A Random Walk Down Wall Street), he effectively, efficiently and expertly deals with why this approach to long term investing is the best and safest strategy for investors.

His historical analysis, dating back well into the ups and downs since well back into the 1800's, factors in all of the comments about investor psychology, market conditions, access to information, etc. Though impossible to summarize his analysis in a post, basically he proves conclusively:

1. Technical analysis, reading tea leaves, hoping that the past movement in stock patterns predicts the future is simply wrong. For every guru (whether its the current doom machines like Rubini or the tech gurus of the late 1990's) with a system or explanation, there are always unforeseen counter forces moving patterns back to the mean.

2. We have always experienced market bubbles and we always will. These don't point to inefficiencies in markets, simply a demonstration of the greater fool who tries to guess or time the market.

3. Any historical analysis of asset classes and ROI comes up with roughly the same conclusion: stocks = ~8-11%; bonds = ~4-6%, etc. His recommendation about diversification clearly extends beyond investments in the stock or bond markets.

4. As boring as the approach seems, the only logical way to invest is broad diversification, dollar cost averaging when this is feasible, and stock investment predominantly in broad indexes that track the various market caps. In fact he suggests that the Wilshire 5000 is the best predictor of long term return of stocks.

I know. The counter to EMT is that in the long term we'll all be dead. Though I'm one of the current suffering along with all of you, I'm willing to admit that I'm not smart enough, unable to collect and absorb information that result in enough correct guesses to win the lottery, and unwilling to risk losing all my investment when a formerly "safe" company goes belly up.

I've ridden that rollercoaster since before 1987, and the worst that I can say is that I've lost no more money than the "active investor".

As for evaluating market inefficiencies and government ideology, it was the ideological mess of supply-side, Friedman shock economics and the Laffer Curve that got us into this mess, discounting all of the micro reasons (repeal of Glass Steagall, deregulation, creative debt obligations, etc.) driven by the theorectical approach, so I wouldn't recommend ever trying to figure out any magical answer to running an economy or market investing.

The End of Brand Advertising

Hi Bob.

You should read the balance of comments to get your answer to the poster's logic.

The most reasonable conslusions and take-aways are combined in other posters' comments. Yes, Time has a measurable demographic, but is the ROI between .25/CPM and $25/CPM worth the extra investment? Another poster has the right answer:

It takes a balanced mix of media and strategy (branding vs. product advertising and promotion) to make the perfect soup.

And another poster had the added insight:

Too many of us old guys were raised in the legacy media world of limited choices. I marvel at the young tech savvy that track the metrics and trends in the online world.

Overall, I agree that the author used the headline for effect, not to present a sound argument with a single conclusion. But he should be excused for not getting it right because he stimulated an interesting discussion.


On Dec 29 11:26 AM Bob Lunn wrote:

> The world is changing. However, in your first paragraph I believe
> you are comparing Apples to Oranges. Readers of Time have certain
> demographic characteristics that an advertiser might deem worth spending
> $25 per 1,000 readers to reach. I doubt the same concentration of
> target demographics is available per 1,000 viewers of MySpace. <br/>
>
> As on-line targeting methods improve, you will see CPM rates go up.
> But in order to get advertisers to pay those higher CPM rates, the
> on-line advertising business needs to have the services of an independent
> tracking service that provides the needed reach/ frequency numbers.
> No one in their right mind is going to trust individual companies
> numbers.

A Credit Default Swap Primer

To Toddc and Paulk8756:

Though your comments were totally off-post to the article, which adequately explained the CDS ponzi system, I can't let your Republican talking points about this being a Democratic Fannie/Freddie-initiat... cause to the problem.

As the author rightly points out it was Gramm who literally inserted the regulation exemption for the Commodity Futures market.

We bought whole hog into a ton of manure that the way for all to get wealthy is to let the market work, cut taxes such that capital flows towards those with the capital, and get out of the way. That's exactly the picture that McCain has espoused and bullied around for 26 years (remember the Keating Five?)

Now for some shocking realities:

1. The top 1% control 40% of all financial wealth in the U.S. The top 20% another 52%, leaving the rest of us (80%) America's financial wealth at a whopping 8%.

2. In terms of inherited wealth only 1.6% inherit moe than $100,000. 91.9% receive nothing. Yet the "death tax" is the highest priority on the ultra-conservative agenda.

Now for some sobering reminders:

Under Clinton we enjoyed a $287 Billion SURPLUS that's now a $600 Billion deficit and national debt that has grown from $5.7 Trillion to 9/7 Trillion in just seven years.

It wasn't because Clinton was an economic genious. He simply chose folks who shared his philosophy of government and its role. I'll put my money in the hands of the guys that believe that it's the government's job to invest in the 80% of us that need practical ways to grow our own wealth (smart energy policy, infrastructure development, education).

Let's hear less grandstanding, yes, but let's hear more truth as well.

NBC Refuses Pickens Plan Ad

While I applaud your can-do and hope eventually that we won't be talking about carbon-producing vehicles -- their are better future alternatives -- cos100 pointed out correctly that even the home delivery option requires two investments -- a nat gas storage capability and in-garage unit that costs an additional $1600 - $2000 AND takes the 16 hours for a re-fill. Honda and soon Toyota are forward-thinking companies that have stepped up to the plate, and they are to be applauded.

My point was that a nat gas conversion and delivery system depends on many variables before diffusion can extend down to the individual vehicle -- early adopters as yourselves aside. Pickens simply points out that the Port of Long Beach and now the Port of Los Angeles are two high-impact, immediate examples of those with the resources and desire to move ahead with conversion. Since trucking is the other carbon-belching major problem, that's the direction to place the initial emphasis.

NBC Refuses Pickens Plan Ad

I'll try to get this away from a political discussion, back to the intent of the article. Most posts have been posturing who's the best conservative/libertari... or liberal/moderate democrat.

"Clearlead" said:

Gore is correct that America needs to use its natural gas for power generation that can fuel electric cars that cause less pollution than using this fuel directly for transportation uses (just b/c Iran is doing it, doesn't make me think that it necessarily the way to go).

Though I'm suspicious of Pickens as a person, he is VERY clear about his intent for Nat Gas vehicles. Natural gas is the natural fuel for heavy duty moving equipment and trucks. His more modest approach is to divert the nat gas fuel away from electric production and initially into heavy duty equipment. That's where the 20% reduction in oil comes from.

Unless Detroit et.al. rush to remanufacture and we have thousands of new re-fueling stations -- neither very likely in the ten years envisioned by the plan -- this approach seems sound.

How You Can Invest in the Pickens Plan

This plan is a fascinating combination of existing technology.

While, I agree with the sentiments of "mertenfam" and "user 199792", I must respond to one comment by "Breadnight".

Pickens is very clear about the initial thrust of natural gas usage and vehicle conversion. If you read the full plan, he takes the Port of Long Beach model for converting heavy equipment and eventually the highway trucking system as the most reasonable, short-term (10 year) solution to converting electricity generation from natural gas and shifting that supply to the heavy equipment users. Unless there is a rush by auto manufacturers or passenger engine re-tooling and scads of refueling stations (neither very likely within this frame), there should be a modest uptick in nat gas demand, but the shift in power generation usage to wind would more than likely offset extremes in the gas market.