sorsorday

Why the Home Buyer Tax Credit Is a Bad Idea

The 4 year old's income must come from somewhere, so either the 4 year old needs to pay the tax on that (which probably exceeds the 8000 tax credit) to admit he/she has the income or he/she cannot claim the tax credit because his/her income does not exist.

p.s. if the house is sold by his/her parent, he/she cannot claim the credit either. It's specified that the house cannot be sold by relatives in the rule.

On Oct 22 04:49 PM optionsgirl wrote:

> I don't understand the part about the 4 year old. Is it illegal for
> a four year old to own assets? No. Does a 4 year old with sufficient
> assets have to file a tax return? Yes. Is it illegal for a 4 year
> old to purchase property? No. My understanding is a minor may purchase
> property but a contract a minor signs isn't enforceable. Therefore,
> the minor's fiduciary would sign the contract ( most likely a parent,
> guardian, trustee, etc.). So, what is it about the 4 year old that
> makes it illegal for the tyke to take the tax credit?

China Natural Gas: Deeply Undervalued

"A simple discounted cash flow valuation with a very conservative earnings growth of just 15% per year for the next five years and an 11% discount rate, returns a fair value of $19 - $20 per share."

I have no idea how your math works. Can you show how five years of earning (eps 0.86?) give a value of $19-20???

Rational Market Theory and Black Swans in Healthcare Reform

Black swan has a lot of properties, but the important one is that it's an unlikely event. Another important one is that the event happens is independent of its possibility to happen again, so the author used stock traders as an example. However, a patient who has existing condition is likely to get sick and needs more medical expense in the future, this is not a black swan. Insurance is not a medical coverage right for people, it's a deal between the insurance company and the individuals. Individuals get protected from an unexpected event while the insurance company get the premiums by taking the risk. This is a fair deal. When an individual has existing condition like cancer, there will be tremendous medical expense ahead. Insurance company would be insane to enter a deal with that individual because it's a 100% loser game. Government insurance means forcing the government, thus the tax payers to enter a loser game.


On Aug 17 01:09 PM Michael Steinberg wrote:

> Black swan is appropriate because the insurer does not know which
> specific policy holder will turn bad, just like a bank does not which
> specific or how many borrowers will be affected by an outlier event.
> The difference is that despite actuarial and underwriting work in
> both scenarios, only health insurers can rescind policies; banks
> can only foreclose. In essence, private health insurers can pick
> off their black swans one by one. They are removing risk after the
> fact.
>
> The uninsurable should be given credit for credible coverage by the
> insurance system as a whole. While not black swans at the time they
> become uninsurable, they were for the most part black swans at birth.

5 Reasons Pfizer Shouldn't Buy Wyeth

You can say the same thing for all business transaction. In 99.999% of the time, the management knows the most about the transaction they involved. However, it doesn't mean they make the best choice and it doesn't mean others cannot comment on it with a reasonable analysis.


On Jan 26 05:51 AM donzelion wrote:

> I'm cautiously optimistic about this merger, but I plead (and vehemently
> affirm) ignorance - because:
>
> (1) Do I know more than Pfizer management about what's in Wyeth's
> pipeline and what the potential value could be? (Anybody who knows
> better than Pfizer management is entitled to an opinion; anyone else
> is an arm-chair quarterback)
>
> (2) Do I know more than Pfizer management about what the potential
> costs and cost savings from the merger? (mergers destroy shareholder
> value - in the sense that one $110 billion company + one $60 billion
> company will not result in one $170 billion company...but that's
> a pretty weak concept of shareholder value...)
>
> (3) Do I know the full scope of the opportunities out there? Pfizer
> could buy 10-50 companies for the money they're looking to spend
> on Wyeth. But that doesn't mean they should...
>
> Two turkeys together may not fly like an eagle - but if you take
> the worst word processor (Microsoft Word version 3.0) and mix it
> with the worst spreadsheet (Excel v. 2.0), use consistent icons and
> keyboard shortcuts - you can take over the world. For a time.