dizzyfingers

Is Alpha Now Illegal?

I think the only way to judge whether we really have been a success is at the last moment of life. Might that be true also of investing stragegy, and everything else is just...hope?


On Nov 30 09:21 AM RiskAverseAlert wrote:

> Boy, does not the "It's more about earning a return -- period" sentiment
> speak volumes about a climate perfectly poised to deliver a black
> swan event right up the poop shoot!
>
> Which thought dovetails your alpha discussion...
>
> What of the time element need be considered in calling this or that
> strategy legitimately alpha? Are annual time frames for measuring
> performance best suited, or might 3-5 year time frames better qualify?

Economic Recovery? Commodity Charts Don't Think So

Excellent article. Thanks.

Food stamps, rebranded as "nutritional aid," now help feed one in four U.S. children, and one in eight adults - even as welfare rolls have stayed virtually flat.

Untrusting investor: Your last two paragraphs: right on, excellent analysis. I too believe we're seeing the twililght (or the approaching dark) of the end of US world power, at least in its post-WWII incarnation. Right now it looks like what comes next is Communism. I hope not, but I don't yet see critical-mass of public opinion that would signify otherwise.


On Nov 29 02:57 PM untrusting investor wrote:

> Windsun33,
> Ok, nice theoritical idea ... but it just ain't happening and has
> not been happening for decades now. The facts are pretty clear. Namely
> larger US business has been cutting US jobs for decades and they
> will continue to do so. To wit, outsourcing, offshoring, plant closures,
> service business such as call centers closed, etc. And not only have
> they been cutting jobs, but they have effectively been reducing average
> US wage incomes for several decades now.
>
> If one does not believe that, then ask the many thousands of IBMers
> that have been permanently laid off as their jobs go to India and
> China, or the hundreds of thousands of auto workers as their jobs
> have gone to Mexico and elsewhere, or the millions of textile jobs
> that have gone to Vietnam and China, or the tens of thousands of
> IT jobs that have gone offshore, or hundreds of similar industry
> examples such as electronic manufacuring in Taiwan or Korea or Japan
> instead of the US.
>
> Corporate America simply does not care about jobs. Their focus is
> on profit and return on investment. Capital and technolgy are easy
> to move and they will gravitate to the lowest cost labor countries
> and the countries with the least regulatory and environmental cost.
> They have been doing so for decades now and they certainly will continue
> to do so for the foreseeable future.
>
> If you believe that somehow the private sector busiiness will somehow
> create more American jobs going forward, then you have to explain
> some of the following:
> 1) US labor rates - how is an American business going to compete
> with developing countries that have a wage rate of $1-2/hour vs American
> wage rates of 5-20x greater?
> 2) US healthcare costs - how is an American business going to compete
> with other developed countries that have healthcare costs that are
> anywhere from a minimum of 2-10x less than US companies and employees?
>
> 3) US military costs - how is an American business going to compete
> with other countries when the US military budget is greater than
> ALL other countries in the world put together. How can
> US business and employees continue to pay for this overhead burden
> which is grossly non-competitive with any country?
> 4) Environmental costs and regulation - US environmental costs and
> regulations are far more costly than in any developing countries.
> How is US business supposed to compete with this added overhead burden
> and consumer cost?
>
> And many many similar structural issues in the US economy. The fact
> of the matter is that US business is simply not competitive on a
> cost basis with virtually any emerging country economies. So, until
> you solve those issues, it is simply not logical to expect that US
> private businesses will create significantly more jobs in the US.
> Why would they when they can use the same capital and the same technologies
> in much lessor cost other countries to produce the same good or service
> and thereby increase their profitability and return on investment.
>
>
> The US is no longer in the post WW2 era where most of the rest of
> the world was totally destroyed and thus the US was virtually the
> lone unblemished survivor and could take advantage of their competitive
> advantages to essentially profit from rebuilding the rest of the
> world. Today the rest of the world has been rebuilt and they now
> are in a postion to outcompete the US and increase their relative
> standard of living, while the relative standard of living of the
> US falls and begins to mean revert towards the rest of the world.
> And unfortunately that is exactly what is happening in the US today
> and will continue to happen unless major structural changes are forced
> on the US economy. And any major structural changes in the US will
> involve a fight to the death between the have's (who benefit from
> the oligarchical-political system) vs. the havenot's being the vast
> majority of average Americans, who are experiencing the fallout from
> the massive structural issues in the US now.

Food stamps, rebranded as "nutritional aid," now help feed one in four U.S. children, and one in eight adults - even as welfare rolls have stayed virtually flat.

Charity is not government welfare, and vice versa. Probably people would be better off going to charititable institutions, because they ARE charitable (in spirit as well as in deed) and not 'owned' by the government, which is corrupt and heartless -- and that caused the problem, in fact. Charities are home-town folks; they know what's happening.


On Nov 29 02:20 PM chris coonan wrote:

> It is not either or???? People need aid ahead of getting the next
> opportunity. If there are no opportunities, would you rather they
> starve in the streets of America? I don't understand the logic. Obviously,
> people who were working, and layed off would rather work, than to
> get food stamps....but cutting food stamps doesn't eliminate the
> layed off worker!!!
>
> Just use deduction and figure this out. We are in a very bad way
> right now. It is not being called a Depression, but I am tending
> to think it actually is. Gov't statistics are being manipulated and
> people in large numbers are not being counted in the rolls of the
> unemployed.
>
> If a family needs food, and have no income, and can't get employed,
> it is society's duty to provide aid and charity. The cold hearted
> bastards that say no on this site are really depressing. I do not
> understand the lack of compassion.

Food stamps, rebranded as "nutritional aid," now help feed one in four U.S. children, and one in eight adults - even as welfare rolls have stayed virtually flat.

Instead of handing out gifts, why not hand out food? Gifts may seem like fun but they don't fill hungry bellies.


On Nov 29 01:06 PM chris coonan wrote:

> I am disgusted by some of the comments I am seeing on this post.
> I think you are heartless if you make fun of people on foodstamps,
> especially children on foodstamps. American's are better than this.
>
>
> I volunteered at the Salvation Army to hand out gifts to poor people.
> There are a lot of families that can't afford gifts for their own
> children. If you are an investor on Wall Street you must know that
> there are some hard luck stories, and even people with educations
> fall victim to the economy. Businesses in bankruptcy, investments
> that fail. What do you think happens to the children of those people?
>
>
> I would guess that the vast minority of people getting food aid are
> scammers.
>
> I know some very close people, who are on Food Stamps right now,
> and they are people who you would never guess a year ago, would ever
> be in this situation right now. Never.
>
> So I am disgusted at some of the heartless bastards on this site.
> The fact that you made a million on the stock trade apparently made
> you a cold hearted bastard and inhumane.

Food stamps, rebranded as "nutritional aid," now help feed one in four U.S. children, and one in eight adults - even as welfare rolls have stayed virtually flat.

What a lot of mind-numbing words Kimball uses to say something that's very simple: He wants the government to redistribute wealth. It's happening! I see large houses of empty and probably squatters will soon move in. Great. That solves the problem. It's called Communism and your plan sounds like their 5-year plans. It sure helped Eastern Europe. You must be very happy. Congratulations.


On Nov 29 03:16 PM untrusting investor wrote:

> Kinetic63,
> A very good post of Kimball's summary of the income distribution
> problem in the US. This issue has been developing in the US for decades
> now and continues to grow worse year by year.
>
> We would certainly agree with Kimball's comments that it has become
> a major structural problem within the US economy. It is a solveable
> problem, but not with the existing political, lobbyist, public company,
> wall street, big money oligarchical pseudo capitalist environment
> that continues to dominate every major economic decision in the US
> today. Until there is some real political change (not just Republican
> or Democrat as they are both part of the problem), we hold out little
> hope for real structural changes in the US.
>
> As we have posted before, we believe that a good starting point would
> be to create tax incentives, such as a US small corp., that provided
> ultra low tax rates (such as 5%) for US business that meet strict
> criteria such as 95% US employees and 95% US content (parts, assemby,
> materials, etc.). Then let US business make the decision whether
> lower taxes are better than other alternatives such as imports, offshoring,
> etc. But since an approach like this does not benefit the tiny minority
> of existing power brokers and politicans, then something like this
> will never even be considered.

Food stamps, rebranded as "nutritional aid," now help feed one in four U.S. children, and one in eight adults - even as welfare rolls have stayed virtually flat.

On Nov 29 03:16 PM untrusting investor wrote:

> Kinetic63,
> A very good post of Kimball's summary of the income distribution
> problem in the US. This issue has been developing in the US for decades
> now and continues to grow worse year by year.
>
> We would certainly agree with Kimball's comments that it has become
> a major structural problem within the US economy. It is a solveable
> problem, but not with the existing political, lobbyist, public company,
> wall street, big money oligarchical pseudo capitalist environment
> that continues to dominate every major economic decision in the US
> today. Until there is some real political change (not just Republican
> or Democrat as they are both part of the problem), we hold out little
> hope for real structural changes in the US.
>
> As we have posted before, we believe that a good starting point would
> be to create tax incentives, such as a US small corp., that provided
> ultra low tax rates (such as 5%) for US business that meet strict
> criteria such as 95% US employees and 95% US content (parts, assemby,
> materials, etc.). Then let US business make the decision whether
> lower taxes are better than other alternatives such as imports, offshoring,
> etc. But since an approach like this does not benefit the tiny minority
> of existing power brokers and politicans, then something like this
> will never even be considered.

Food stamps, rebranded as "nutritional aid," now help feed one in four U.S. children, and one in eight adults - even as welfare rolls have stayed virtually flat.

But it wasn't the government that drove those industries out. It was citizens who wanted clear air, clean water, less environmental impact, higher minimum wages, more benefits, more regulation, shorter hours, more days off, and a litany of things that finally drove businesses away. So now those jobs are gone, and we're left with McDonalds and Burger King. The "problem" of "income distribution" is that people who create jobs, i.e. investors and corporations, are being made scapegoats for the consequences of demands made by voters during the last several decades; more government regulation of everything, less freedom to create new business that creates new jobs, more regulation, higher taxes. Multinational companies are leaving the US for business-friendlier places, and so are American companies. It's time for Americans to stop whining about 'them" and look in the mirror. It's not 'they" but "we" who are the problem.


On Nov 29 11:18 AM La Marque wrote:

> This is what happens to a country when it outsources its basic manufacturing
> industries such as textiles and other labor intensive ones.
> We are on the verge of eliminating the middle class by putting as
> many as possible on some form of government income with its attendant
> rules of how much one can have in assets.

Food stamps, rebranded as "nutritional aid," now help feed one in four U.S. children, and one in eight adults - even as welfare rolls have stayed virtually flat.

...so I guess government programs haven't changed much, or have gotten worse, since the 60s... Shameful but not surprising.
And does anyone in congress care?


On Nov 29 09:02 AM yellowhoard wrote:

> This is a subject near and dear to my heart.
>
> When my wife and I were married 25 years ago, we had very little
> and were forced to live on hamburger helper and macaroni and cheese
> for the first three years of marriage until we had saved enough for
> a down payment on our first home.
>
> We lived on the edge of the hood and shopped at a grocery store that
> had around 90% minority shoppers. Probably 3 out of every 4 shoppers
> was obese. Their carts were full of carbohydrates and they paid in
> food stamps. In the parking lot outside the grocery, I was routinely
> offered food stamps at 25 cents on the dollar from those who were
> looking for drug money or had taken food stamps instead of cash to
> settle a transaction.
>
> It was appalling.
>
> Bill Buckley wrote an interesting article in National Review around
> that time which I agree with entirely. He suggested that the government
> set up food pantries and end food stamps.
>
> Anyone could come in and get basic food stuffs. Flour, dehydrated
> milk, beans and vitamins, would be available to anyone that showed
> up.
>
> The idea is that nobody will starve, but they won't be dealing food
> stamp currency for discretionary money or be getting fat off of Doritos.
> I'm guessing that the cost of this program would be a fraction of
> the current program and the obesity problem in the inner cities would
> disappear.

Food stamps, rebranded as "nutritional aid," now help feed one in four U.S. children, and one in eight adults - even as welfare rolls have stayed virtually flat.

OK, we don't accept them as the "new norm" and then what?


On Nov 29 08:26 AM Archman Investor wrote:

> It's pretty sad isn't it? But one has to think to themselves :"Why
> the spin or rationalizations or name changes?"
>
> Simple.
>
> The powers that be are doing everything they can to settle Americans
> into a new mindset. A mindset of "This is the new, accepted norm
> of the country."
>
> Remember, the top 10% of this country controls 90% of it's net worth,
> and by all accounts it is getting worse.
>
> Who is to blame? It seems everybody I guess. Gov't is in collusion
> with Wall Street and the financial media. Our citizens seem to accept
> this as normal now, even as the nation's largest employer Wal-Mart
> doles out an average of $9 / hour wage. Who lives on that? Adults
> living on $9 / hour in the US?
>
> And then there are the White House dinner party crashers. These supposedly
> "wealthy" individuals who are in line to appear on the next "Real
> Housewives of Washington", yet they crash a White House dinner so
> they get recognized?
> In my business I have met and known many "real" wealthy people. Net
> worths ranging from 2 million to 800 million. If there is one thing
> I know about the "true" wealthy: They have no interest in flying
> above the radar and want to keep their lives private. Again, these
> reality shows are just another symptom of a much larger cultural
> disease this country is suffering from.
> (How did everyone just like that off topic rant? Sorry folks)
>
> Getting back to unemployment and food stamps (I call it for what
> it is- nutritional aid? What a joke.) I wonder how far all this will
> go before people wake up and stop accepting these things as the new
> norm?

Food stamps, rebranded as "nutritional aid," now help feed one in four U.S. children, and one in eight adults - even as welfare rolls have stayed virtually flat.

Yes, and do food stamps cover food items like vegetables, fruits, and other really healthy foods, or is it mostly fats and junk? I'm just askin' 'cause I don't know - yet.


On Nov 29 08:12 AM chris coonan wrote:

> I like how the government puts a spin on the program...by changing
> the name, to souind positive. The government, engaged in massive
> propaganda.

Food stamps, rebranded as "nutritional aid," now help feed one in four U.S. children, and one in eight adults - even as welfare rolls have stayed virtually flat.

I'm not so sure it is only "the poor" collecting food stamps. Lots of folks in big homes have lost their jobs. Their kids have to eat! Don't be such a chauvenist.


On Nov 29 08:11 AM chris coonan wrote:

> An astounding statistic. America should not be proud of the disparity
> between rich and poor, have and have nots. For a quarter of children
> to be in poverty is really a social crime.

NRF's much-awaited Black Friday survey confirms the expected: more people spent less. 195M people went shopping over the four-day weekend, vs. 172M last year, but average spend fell to $343 from $373. "Shoppers proved this weekend that they were willing to open their wallets for a bargain," NRF says, noting the surge in numbers was likely due to cash-strapped shoppers visiting stores early to get the best deals.

I bought a gift for my friend's granddaughter, a beautiful handmade dress, on the internet. Total: $8.50 plus $3.00 shipping. It's adorable, completely unlike the dreck in the stores.

Barron's thinks Pepsico (PEP) is cheap at just 15x 2010 earnings, near the bottom of its 10-year range and at a discout to rivals like Coca-Cola (KO) which command a multiple of 17. Noted fund-manager Mario Gabelli thinks shares could trade 50-60% higher in coming years, which, "with the dividend, gives you a pretty good return."

Wasn't it just a couple of years ago that Indra boasted owners of Pepsi stock would soon be getting $100 per share under her management?
I don't think she's forgotten. I've heard that now that she's been such a success at Pepsi (wink wink), she wants to go on to Washington and fix things there.
Gee... I can hardly wait.

Ben Bernanke may not have an easy go at his nomination hearing this week. "I absolutely will not vote for Mr. Bernanke. He is part of the problem," Sen. Bernie Sanders told This Week today. In an unusual move so close to the hearings, Bernanke spoke out this weekend against attempts to strip the Fed of its powers.

What happens if the Fed is stripped of its power?
Would it be worse than what we have now?
Would it not alert Washington that citizens will no longer stand for the corrupt congress we have now? However, that assumes of course that it's congress that would have to act, which is probably the least likely thing to happen.