dealfinder500's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/272603/comments http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/28404?source=feed#comment-596367 596367 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:37:15 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/27213?source=feed#comment-572784 572784

On Jul 02 09:50 PM herbert hoover wrote:

> Right, becasue it's so fair to charge $3 to check your acccount balance.]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 03:12:18 -0400

On Jul 02 09:50 PM herbert hoover wrote:

> Right, becasue it's so fair to charge $3 to check your acccount balance.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/27213?source=feed#comment-572291 572291
Most banks also do allow you to tie in a savings account as overdraft protection. The main bank I use now (ING) will actually cover the amount (up to a certain amount) and charge you interest.

When you open a bank account you know what the penalties are for writing a check for more than you have in there. If you don't agree with the terms, then don't open the account - it's as simple as that.

I remember a lady telling me recently how she racked up $500 in overdraft fees from her bank. She was waiting for her tax refund to show up in her account. At her work there was an ATM machine and so she was checking her balance every 5 minutes! The ATM wasn't owned by her bank and so she was charged a $3 fee each time she accessed her account. She soon was overdrawn but kept checking, and before you know it she was overdrawn for almost $500. I felt sorry for her but really it was her own stupidity. The bank did end up getting rid of the overdraft fees.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:06:30 -0400
Most banks also do allow you to tie in a savings account as overdraft protection. The main bank I use now (ING) will actually cover the amount (up to a certain amount) and charge you interest.

When you open a bank account you know what the penalties are for writing a check for more than you have in there. If you don't agree with the terms, then don't open the account - it's as simple as that.

I remember a lady telling me recently how she racked up $500 in overdraft fees from her bank. She was waiting for her tax refund to show up in her account. At her work there was an ATM machine and so she was checking her balance every 5 minutes! The ATM wasn't owned by her bank and so she was charged a $3 fee each time she accessed her account. She soon was overdrawn but kept checking, and before you know it she was overdrawn for almost $500. I felt sorry for her but really it was her own stupidity. The bank did end up getting rid of the overdraft fees.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123634-atlas-pipeline-partners-l-p-q4-2008-earnings-call-transcript?source=feed#comment-443929 443929 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 09:30:55 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127817-using-drips-for-faster-compounding-of-dividends?source=feed#comment-440499 440499
But I have found some very good plans. Not all plans require you to register the stock in your own name before you can invest. For example, I enrolled in DUK's plan, and though I do have some shares in my brokerage account, I did not want to pay a fee to have it registered in my name, and I simply had to do a initial investment with DUK of at least $250. The only fee involved in the plan is a (currently) 5¢ commission (per share) when selling the shares. PFE also has a very good plan (though I believe it required an initial investment of $500).

If you are a long-term investor, a DSPP might be a very good idea, especially if you can only put in a little bit at a time. ]]> Thu, 26 Mar 2009 00:09:20 -0400
But I have found some very good plans. Not all plans require you to register the stock in your own name before you can invest. For example, I enrolled in DUK's plan, and though I do have some shares in my brokerage account, I did not want to pay a fee to have it registered in my name, and I simply had to do a initial investment with DUK of at least $250. The only fee involved in the plan is a (currently) 5¢ commission (per share) when selling the shares. PFE also has a very good plan (though I believe it required an initial investment of $500).

If you are a long-term investor, a DSPP might be a very good idea, especially if you can only put in a little bit at a time. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105061-should-we-really-bail-out-the-big-three-automakers-with-73-20-per-hour-labor?source=feed#comment-302983 302983
Most likely that guy doesn't get the $11 all to himself. It probably goes to the company, and he probably gets $10/hr or less.

But in the unlikely event that the guy did own his own garbage company and drove the truck himself and was the only worker, that $11 has to cover the cost of maintenance on the truck, gas, a place to process the trash, and then unless he has his own landfill he'll have to pay for someplace to put it, not to mention he'd have to pay the full SS tax on his income.

So your illustration really isn't comparable.


On Nov 11 08:49 AM pockyclips 2020 wrote:

> Sounds expensive, but let's crunch some numbers. I pay some guy
> $11.00/month to pick up my trash 4 times. It takes him about 45
> secs to pick up my trash.
>
> Let's see; $11/4 =$2.75 per pick up. x 60 min/hr = $165/hr. x
> 60/45 = $220 per hour. This guy is non-union and more likely than
> not an illegal alien, so the trash hauler is making a mint. $73/hr
> doesn't look so bad viewed in this context.]]> Tue, 11 Nov 2008 10:59:38 -0500
Most likely that guy doesn't get the $11 all to himself. It probably goes to the company, and he probably gets $10/hr or less.

But in the unlikely event that the guy did own his own garbage company and drove the truck himself and was the only worker, that $11 has to cover the cost of maintenance on the truck, gas, a place to process the trash, and then unless he has his own landfill he'll have to pay for someplace to put it, not to mention he'd have to pay the full SS tax on his income.

So your illustration really isn't comparable.


On Nov 11 08:49 AM pockyclips 2020 wrote:

> Sounds expensive, but let's crunch some numbers. I pay some guy
> $11.00/month to pick up my trash 4 times. It takes him about 45
> secs to pick up my trash.
>
> Let's see; $11/4 =$2.75 per pick up. x 60 min/hr = $165/hr. x
> 60/45 = $220 per hour. This guy is non-union and more likely than
> not an illegal alien, so the trash hauler is making a mint. $73/hr
> doesn't look so bad viewed in this context.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105061-should-we-really-bail-out-the-big-three-automakers-with-73-20-per-hour-labor?source=feed#comment-301962 301962
It makes you wonder if these companies would be in this mess now if they had done something like that years ago. ]]> Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:26:42 -0500
It makes you wonder if these companies would be in this mess now if they had done something like that years ago. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/102081-why-i-prefer-dividend-paying-stocks?source=feed#comment-291419 291419
If I invested money in a local company I am going to expect to get something in return. Now it may take a while for that company to generate a profit, but once that company becomes successful, I'm going to expect to get some payout from my investment.

I would not want to own part of a company knowing that they are never going to give me any cut of the profits. Why would anyone want to own a company that doesn't give them anything in return? Why would anyone want to buy that from me?

But obviously, since it appears most stocks pay very little or nothing in dividends, most people don't share the same view as I do. ]]> Mon, 27 Oct 2008 10:02:35 -0400
If I invested money in a local company I am going to expect to get something in return. Now it may take a while for that company to generate a profit, but once that company becomes successful, I'm going to expect to get some payout from my investment.

I would not want to own part of a company knowing that they are never going to give me any cut of the profits. Why would anyone want to own a company that doesn't give them anything in return? Why would anyone want to buy that from me?

But obviously, since it appears most stocks pay very little or nothing in dividends, most people don't share the same view as I do. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98491-credit-crisis-sharpens-anger-over-ceo-pay?source=feed#comment-273587 273587 Sat, 04 Oct 2008 17:37:42 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/97885-dollar-goes-down-along-with-bailout-plan?source=feed#comment-269239 269239
When I questioned one person about their mortgage payment (more than 1/2 their income), they told me that they deserved such a nice house, after all they've been through. Another person had 3 car payments ranging from 500-800, and they deserved them because they worked hard at their job. Ironically, that person made monthly bonuses the year before and the first couple months of this year, and just one of those bonuses was enough to pay off the entire debt. But, surprise, surprise!! They spent it on vacations and such. Didn't save a penny of it. Now they are out of work. Guess they must not have worked that hard, huh? :-)

So yeah, most people put themselves in that type of situation because of their own poor choices. ]]> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:36:29 -0400
When I questioned one person about their mortgage payment (more than 1/2 their income), they told me that they deserved such a nice house, after all they've been through. Another person had 3 car payments ranging from 500-800, and they deserved them because they worked hard at their job. Ironically, that person made monthly bonuses the year before and the first couple months of this year, and just one of those bonuses was enough to pay off the entire debt. But, surprise, surprise!! They spent it on vacations and such. Didn't save a penny of it. Now they are out of work. Guess they must not have worked that hard, huh? :-)

So yeah, most people put themselves in that type of situation because of their own poor choices. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/97885-dollar-goes-down-along-with-bailout-plan?source=feed#comment-269213 269213
These people should loose their homes if they can't pay. And the government shouldn't bail them out. Last year I almost got a mortgage. I have been wanting my own home for a long time. I got pre-approved, and could have gotten a nice house. But I didn't. Why? Because as much as I hated to admit it, I couldn't really afford at the time. So currently I'm living with my parents and saving up every penny I can. And then when I get enough saved up, I'll go and put a 20% down payment on a house. Personally, I think that every home buyer should be required to put at least 10% at a bare minimum down on a house. If you can't save that up, then you aren't ready to own a home.

I'm all for helping out the unfortunate family who's been paying their bills regularly for years, then suddenly the husband looses his job and after months of not being able to find a job they can't make ends meet. (there's a difference between being not able and not willing - and working at McDonald's could at least be a temporary thing. Might even teach you a little humility). People like that should be helped. But those who took a loan much higher than their means, and got all the extras, I say repo the house and the boat and the cars. Make them go rent. The taxpayer shouldn't have to help someone who doesn't even want to help themselves.]]> Mon, 29 Sep 2008 23:15:37 -0400
These people should loose their homes if they can't pay. And the government shouldn't bail them out. Last year I almost got a mortgage. I have been wanting my own home for a long time. I got pre-approved, and could have gotten a nice house. But I didn't. Why? Because as much as I hated to admit it, I couldn't really afford at the time. So currently I'm living with my parents and saving up every penny I can. And then when I get enough saved up, I'll go and put a 20% down payment on a house. Personally, I think that every home buyer should be required to put at least 10% at a bare minimum down on a house. If you can't save that up, then you aren't ready to own a home.

I'm all for helping out the unfortunate family who's been paying their bills regularly for years, then suddenly the husband looses his job and after months of not being able to find a job they can't make ends meet. (there's a difference between being not able and not willing - and working at McDonald's could at least be a temporary thing. Might even teach you a little humility). People like that should be helped. But those who took a loan much higher than their means, and got all the extras, I say repo the house and the boat and the cars. Make them go rent. The taxpayer shouldn't have to help someone who doesn't even want to help themselves.]]>