cross's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/437358/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/1460341/comments?source=feed#comment-19219141 19219141 Markets have had a historic rise here since October or so. I'm particularly impressed with the sharp rise that occurred in April and the first half of May. The economic data does not support these prices. To argue that it does is to argue that the data six months ago supported prices at that time and the truth is that our economy is pretty much just meandering upward as it was late last year.
What to do if you have funds/stocks you are looking at? Build some cash and wait. Small moves, don't go big short, don't sell your holdings, patience, IMHUMBLEO.]]> Fri, 24 May 2013 15:20:31 -0400 Markets have had a historic rise here since October or so. I'm particularly impressed with the sharp rise that occurred in April and the first half of May. The economic data does not support these prices. To argue that it does is to argue that the data six months ago supported prices at that time and the truth is that our economy is pretty much just meandering upward as it was late last year.
What to do if you have funds/stocks you are looking at? Build some cash and wait. Small moves, don't go big short, don't sell your holdings, patience, IMHUMBLEO.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436201/comments?source=feed#comment-19060301 19060301 "Nobody can own an "index", you can only own a fund replicating one, and nobody on wall Street goes broke collecting fund fees."

Well, of course. Yes, no one can own the S&P 500, owning a weighted position in each of the 500 members is impractical. I assumed a level of experience in you and other readers so that I wouldn't have to point out such an obvious distinction. Perhaps in your case, I was wrong.
"nobody on wall Street goes broke collecting fund fees."
You seem to be unacquainted with fee structures charged. The fees charged to manage an index fund are substantially less than other hand-picked funds. Please don't embarrass yourself by asking how that could be. Wall Street may not go broke but it would be substantially smaller should investors migrate towards index funds over mutuals and individual stocks.
Chowder, your opinion that you own the "creme de la creme" of the S&P 500 is what? It's your opinion and nothing else. Ten years ago/twenty years ago there were also opinions about individual stocks about what was the "best of the best": Bank of America, AIG, GM, come to mind, all members of the Dow 30.
People flocked to give their money to Bernie and Allen, why? Because they had an "opinion", just like you, that they were the creme de la creme of investment advisors.
Your choice of investments is just your opinion and nothing else. It may be good, bad, informed or ignorant but it's just your internal opinion.
I suspect that you would never make an objective analysis of where you've been, where you are and how you get to where you want to be because you don't really want to know.
Bob Wells, of course you are never going to find an index that closely replicates what you are doing. I never suggested that. If you are following a sensible DRIP program, tho, one that sticks with companies that meets some obvious criteria: steadily raising their dividend, reasonable payout ratios, reasonable earnings growth, just about all those picks would be in the S&P 500.
You all seem convinced that you have the magic formula, that you have picked the creme de la creme and are, of course, outperforming the market but none of you seem to be up to putting in the minimal effort into establishing if that is really true. That's not a real good sign.]]> Tue, 21 May 2013 02:06:39 -0400 "Nobody can own an "index", you can only own a fund replicating one, and nobody on wall Street goes broke collecting fund fees."

Well, of course. Yes, no one can own the S&P 500, owning a weighted position in each of the 500 members is impractical. I assumed a level of experience in you and other readers so that I wouldn't have to point out such an obvious distinction. Perhaps in your case, I was wrong.
"nobody on wall Street goes broke collecting fund fees."
You seem to be unacquainted with fee structures charged. The fees charged to manage an index fund are substantially less than other hand-picked funds. Please don't embarrass yourself by asking how that could be. Wall Street may not go broke but it would be substantially smaller should investors migrate towards index funds over mutuals and individual stocks.
Chowder, your opinion that you own the "creme de la creme" of the S&P 500 is what? It's your opinion and nothing else. Ten years ago/twenty years ago there were also opinions about individual stocks about what was the "best of the best": Bank of America, AIG, GM, come to mind, all members of the Dow 30.
People flocked to give their money to Bernie and Allen, why? Because they had an "opinion", just like you, that they were the creme de la creme of investment advisors.
Your choice of investments is just your opinion and nothing else. It may be good, bad, informed or ignorant but it's just your internal opinion.
I suspect that you would never make an objective analysis of where you've been, where you are and how you get to where you want to be because you don't really want to know.
Bob Wells, of course you are never going to find an index that closely replicates what you are doing. I never suggested that. If you are following a sensible DRIP program, tho, one that sticks with companies that meets some obvious criteria: steadily raising their dividend, reasonable payout ratios, reasonable earnings growth, just about all those picks would be in the S&P 500.
You all seem convinced that you have the magic formula, that you have picked the creme de la creme and are, of course, outperforming the market but none of you seem to be up to putting in the minimal effort into establishing if that is really true. That's not a real good sign.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436201/comments?source=feed#comment-19030421 19030421 I'm not suggesting that you "withdraw" anything. "Alpha" is simply a measuring technique and an extremely simple one. Do most/all of your holdings sit in the S&P 500? Well there you go. That should be your comparison index.
You talk in your article, Chowder, about the folly of trying to beat the index "every" year. I agree and if you reread my 'rambling, non-answer" I think I emphasized that. One year of data over a 30 year investment horizon is not enough to help you shape your strategy.
You also say in your article that Wall Street loves investors who invest in indexes. Completely the opposite is true. If everyone simply owned indexes rather than individual stocks, Wall Street would go broke.
Calculating the growth in your dividends y/o/y is useful but, by itself, it could give one a distorted view of what is going on. It's not necessarily a good measure of the health of your portfolio but might only reflect higher payout ratios. Your AFL, with its 30% payout ratio might be evolving into a T with a 60% payout.

'Alpha' is simply a metric. It gives one the opportunity to ask "what if" and is not an endorsement of one method over another. As I've said above, I've had a lifetime of investing but have only started calculating relative performance in the last few years. I wish I had done so from the beginning, it would have told me more precisely how I was doing.]]> Mon, 20 May 2013 12:05:01 -0400 I'm not suggesting that you "withdraw" anything. "Alpha" is simply a measuring technique and an extremely simple one. Do most/all of your holdings sit in the S&P 500? Well there you go. That should be your comparison index.
You talk in your article, Chowder, about the folly of trying to beat the index "every" year. I agree and if you reread my 'rambling, non-answer" I think I emphasized that. One year of data over a 30 year investment horizon is not enough to help you shape your strategy.
You also say in your article that Wall Street loves investors who invest in indexes. Completely the opposite is true. If everyone simply owned indexes rather than individual stocks, Wall Street would go broke.
Calculating the growth in your dividends y/o/y is useful but, by itself, it could give one a distorted view of what is going on. It's not necessarily a good measure of the health of your portfolio but might only reflect higher payout ratios. Your AFL, with its 30% payout ratio might be evolving into a T with a 60% payout.

'Alpha' is simply a metric. It gives one the opportunity to ask "what if" and is not an endorsement of one method over another. As I've said above, I've had a lifetime of investing but have only started calculating relative performance in the last few years. I wish I had done so from the beginning, it would have told me more precisely how I was doing.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436201/comments?source=feed#comment-19015601 19015601 You know, indexes have to achieve long term alpha too or they would cease to exist. Their comparative 'index' is called inflation. I'm guesstimating here but I would think since the S&P 500 came into being in 1957 the nominal rate of return has been around 11% with inflation running @ 3-4% perhaps yielding a real return of @ 7%. The index must, over the long term, have a positive real return or there would be no reason to invest.
Chowder's goal of $10,000 a month in div income has no context and that makes it rather meaningless, it's just a number he arbitrarily picked and without some idea of what $10,000 a month is going to buy you in 20 years, it's just a number. I'm retired now and take in @ $5,000 a month from all sources. If you had told me 20 years ago I would be making 5K a month in my retirement I would have been ecstatic, but the reality is that 5K in a West Coast City is adequate but certainly not spectacular.
The interesting thing about tracking your return (both realized and unrealized) is that you quickly see that there is a sweet spot for investors that should serve as a real goal: +2-3 points of alpha over the index. If the S&P were to maintain that average nominal return of 11% going forward, your goal should be perhaps 13-14% returns before inflation.
Why not a goal under 11%? Because then you would have been better off just buying the index.
Why not a goal of more than 13-14%? Because then you would be engaging in risky market timing moves or focusing on too few issues resulting in a lack of diversification, and so on.
The idea of tracking one's alpha is just a thought I put out there and I largely agree with the DRIP method as a way to achieve whatever goal you may have.

]]> Sun, 19 May 2013 23:45:33 -0400 You know, indexes have to achieve long term alpha too or they would cease to exist. Their comparative 'index' is called inflation. I'm guesstimating here but I would think since the S&P 500 came into being in 1957 the nominal rate of return has been around 11% with inflation running @ 3-4% perhaps yielding a real return of @ 7%. The index must, over the long term, have a positive real return or there would be no reason to invest.
Chowder's goal of $10,000 a month in div income has no context and that makes it rather meaningless, it's just a number he arbitrarily picked and without some idea of what $10,000 a month is going to buy you in 20 years, it's just a number. I'm retired now and take in @ $5,000 a month from all sources. If you had told me 20 years ago I would be making 5K a month in my retirement I would have been ecstatic, but the reality is that 5K in a West Coast City is adequate but certainly not spectacular.
The interesting thing about tracking your return (both realized and unrealized) is that you quickly see that there is a sweet spot for investors that should serve as a real goal: +2-3 points of alpha over the index. If the S&P were to maintain that average nominal return of 11% going forward, your goal should be perhaps 13-14% returns before inflation.
Why not a goal under 11%? Because then you would have been better off just buying the index.
Why not a goal of more than 13-14%? Because then you would be engaging in risky market timing moves or focusing on too few issues resulting in a lack of diversification, and so on.
The idea of tracking one's alpha is just a thought I put out there and I largely agree with the DRIP method as a way to achieve whatever goal you may have.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436201/comments?source=feed#comment-19011811 19011811 As to what you just said re: someone's financial goals:
"That may be below "average" in wealth-growth performance, but so what?" and
"I'd suggest that 30 years later, if such an investor has met their goals, the benefits along the way - the journey - will more than compensate for slight shortfalls vs. the "average."
Those are awfully careless statements to make. Two percentage points below the average of an index over a lifetime of investing is simply a god-awful return. You could hire a stock broker and pay full commission to do that for you. Investors who build portfolios over the long term are making a sacrifice, they are deferring consumption and over the long term, slight shortfalls in performance add up to big money.
I'm not criticizing the DRIP method of investing. I think it can be a great way of building a retirement income. Measuring alpha achieved or lost is not some exotic, high-risk concept that stands in opposition to the DRIP method; it's simply establishing an outside measurement of how you are doing. i'm kind of shocked that first of all some long term investors are not doing this, and secondly, are actually kind of hostile to the idea.
One more time: if you are several years into a long-term investment scheme and have underperformed a comparative index, you should be taking a long, hare look at the what and how of your methods.
How can you do this if you haven't taken the basic measure?]]> Sun, 19 May 2013 21:03:12 -0400 As to what you just said re: someone's financial goals:
"That may be below "average" in wealth-growth performance, but so what?" and
"I'd suggest that 30 years later, if such an investor has met their goals, the benefits along the way - the journey - will more than compensate for slight shortfalls vs. the "average."
Those are awfully careless statements to make. Two percentage points below the average of an index over a lifetime of investing is simply a god-awful return. You could hire a stock broker and pay full commission to do that for you. Investors who build portfolios over the long term are making a sacrifice, they are deferring consumption and over the long term, slight shortfalls in performance add up to big money.
I'm not criticizing the DRIP method of investing. I think it can be a great way of building a retirement income. Measuring alpha achieved or lost is not some exotic, high-risk concept that stands in opposition to the DRIP method; it's simply establishing an outside measurement of how you are doing. i'm kind of shocked that first of all some long term investors are not doing this, and secondly, are actually kind of hostile to the idea.
One more time: if you are several years into a long-term investment scheme and have underperformed a comparative index, you should be taking a long, hare look at the what and how of your methods.
How can you do this if you haven't taken the basic measure?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436201/comments?source=feed#comment-19005501 19005501 "It's a heckuva lot better than comparing yourself to an index."

No, actually, it isn't. It doesn't have that external check that gives all the numbers some context. Once again, if, over an extended period of time, you are underperforming a broad index, then you have a flaw in your methodology, either in your initial picks or the period of time you hold those picks, and it should give you little solace that you are achieving your "goals". As in the example I cited above, an index outperforming a DRIP program by two full percentage points will provide significantly more income at the time of withdrawal.
I posted my figures for 2.5 years. They are certainly not remarkable but they do give me a fuller picture of what it is I"m doing and . . .
It's really easy to do. Once you have it set up it takes about 5 minutes to update your results. You simply take the starting value of the portfolio in a given period, monthly, quarterly, yearly, Plus additions to cash (div's reinvested + new cash), plus adding back any cash withdrawals you have made = your ending value. Compare this to, for me the S&P 500, gain/(loss) in the same period, and you have your alpha.
I'm certainly not opposing Chowder's or your investment methods I'm just simply pointing out that it's useful to have an external metric to 'check' your work.]]> Sun, 19 May 2013 17:32:36 -0400 "It's a heckuva lot better than comparing yourself to an index."

No, actually, it isn't. It doesn't have that external check that gives all the numbers some context. Once again, if, over an extended period of time, you are underperforming a broad index, then you have a flaw in your methodology, either in your initial picks or the period of time you hold those picks, and it should give you little solace that you are achieving your "goals". As in the example I cited above, an index outperforming a DRIP program by two full percentage points will provide significantly more income at the time of withdrawal.
I posted my figures for 2.5 years. They are certainly not remarkable but they do give me a fuller picture of what it is I"m doing and . . .
It's really easy to do. Once you have it set up it takes about 5 minutes to update your results. You simply take the starting value of the portfolio in a given period, monthly, quarterly, yearly, Plus additions to cash (div's reinvested + new cash), plus adding back any cash withdrawals you have made = your ending value. Compare this to, for me the S&P 500, gain/(loss) in the same period, and you have your alpha.
I'm certainly not opposing Chowder's or your investment methods I'm just simply pointing out that it's useful to have an external metric to 'check' your work.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436201/comments?source=feed#comment-19000491 19000491 Selecting stocks for their dividend stream in the absence of all else seems a bit like driving a car with total focus on the gear shift (hey, I'm in fourth gear, I must be doing ok!).
Over the long term you should at least be matching a corresponding, wider index of stocks and if you don't know if that is the case, well, you don't really know if you have an effective strategy. ]]> Sun, 19 May 2013 14:01:24 -0400 Selecting stocks for their dividend stream in the absence of all else seems a bit like driving a car with total focus on the gear shift (hey, I'm in fourth gear, I must be doing ok!).
Over the long term you should at least be matching a corresponding, wider index of stocks and if you don't know if that is the case, well, you don't really know if you have an effective strategy. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436201/comments?source=feed#comment-18927101 18927101 It's not difficult to calculate relative gain over a given period; simply starting value, + money added (div's and new money) + money withdrawn (added back) = your gain/loss when compared to the ending value. Compare this gain/loss to the gain loss in the index. If you do this calculation over several years and the results are underperforming your target index, It should give you pause. ]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 22:19:51 -0400 It's not difficult to calculate relative gain over a given period; simply starting value, + money added (div's and new money) + money withdrawn (added back) = your gain/loss when compared to the ending value. Compare this gain/loss to the gain loss in the index. If you do this calculation over several years and the results are underperforming your target index, It should give you pause. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436201/comments?source=feed#comment-18909261 18909261
"It's (your portfolio) designed to beat it (the index) over the long term."

So which is it? Do you care about alpha or not?
If you have "designed" your portfolio to beat the market over the long term, has it? How do you know? By how much has it beat the market? Enough to justify the extra time, effort, commissions paid?
Determining whether or not you have "beat the market" involves more than just saying you have. It involves simple math.
I track my alpha on a monthly basis and have for about three years. I can tell you definitively that in 2011 I had (- 2.12%) alpha vis-a-vis the S+P 500, 2012 (+ 2.53%) and so far in 2013, (+1.96%.)
It's a worthwhile exercise because it answers the question: is what I am doing worth the extra time, effort and, yes, commissions generated. It's really pretty simple: if over the long term you are underperforming a major index that aligns with the sort of investments you are making then you should be willing to examine the premise with which you are investing:
"High Quality + High Current Yield + High Growth Of Yield = High Total Return.

Book it!"

How can you be sure if you haven't run the numbers?]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 14:35:05 -0400
"It's (your portfolio) designed to beat it (the index) over the long term."

So which is it? Do you care about alpha or not?
If you have "designed" your portfolio to beat the market over the long term, has it? How do you know? By how much has it beat the market? Enough to justify the extra time, effort, commissions paid?
Determining whether or not you have "beat the market" involves more than just saying you have. It involves simple math.
I track my alpha on a monthly basis and have for about three years. I can tell you definitively that in 2011 I had (- 2.12%) alpha vis-a-vis the S+P 500, 2012 (+ 2.53%) and so far in 2013, (+1.96%.)
It's a worthwhile exercise because it answers the question: is what I am doing worth the extra time, effort and, yes, commissions generated. It's really pretty simple: if over the long term you are underperforming a major index that aligns with the sort of investments you are making then you should be willing to examine the premise with which you are investing:
"High Quality + High Current Yield + High Growth Of Yield = High Total Return.

Book it!"

How can you be sure if you haven't run the numbers?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436201/comments?source=feed#comment-18908281 18908281 Thu, 16 May 2013 14:16:55 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1436201/comments?source=feed#comment-18902131 18902131 Is your strategy beating the market?
If, over the long term, you have constructed a dividend-paying portfolio that reinvests, raises and grows and yet generates negative alpha, what have you really accomplished? You could have done better just buying your comparative index.
The name of this forum is 'Seeking Alpha".
I assume that means positive alpha.]]> Thu, 16 May 2013 12:23:22 -0400 Is your strategy beating the market?
If, over the long term, you have constructed a dividend-paying portfolio that reinvests, raises and grows and yet generates negative alpha, what have you really accomplished? You could have done better just buying your comparative index.
The name of this forum is 'Seeking Alpha".
I assume that means positive alpha.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1430161/comments?source=feed#comment-18774241 18774241 The goal of the concurrent development of electric vehicles and alternatives to carbon based energy is to 'close the circle'; to have a means of transportation that uses electricity produced by wind, solar, nuclear and geothermal. Will it ever be totally, 100% achieved? No.
That doesn't mean it's not a worthy goal. Perhaps in ten years we will have vehicles that run seven, eight hundred miles on a single charge of electricity provided just about entirely from clean energy.
The article is a snapshot of what is now, not what is possible. There was much criticism when automobiles powered by oil were first introduced, they were noisy, they broke down, there was little in the way of infrastructure to make practical use of them. This article could have been written a hundred years ago about the automobile and have been just as wrong!!!
Jobs and Wozniak started Apple Computer in a garage. Judging by that fact alone one could conclude that it wasn't much of an enterprise, not such a great idea and had little chance of success.
I wouldn't touch Tesla at 80 + bucks a share but given the progress made by the company on the chief obstacle to acceptance of the electric vehicle: range. I might be very wrong. ]]> Mon, 13 May 2013 14:43:27 -0400 The goal of the concurrent development of electric vehicles and alternatives to carbon based energy is to 'close the circle'; to have a means of transportation that uses electricity produced by wind, solar, nuclear and geothermal. Will it ever be totally, 100% achieved? No.
That doesn't mean it's not a worthy goal. Perhaps in ten years we will have vehicles that run seven, eight hundred miles on a single charge of electricity provided just about entirely from clean energy.
The article is a snapshot of what is now, not what is possible. There was much criticism when automobiles powered by oil were first introduced, they were noisy, they broke down, there was little in the way of infrastructure to make practical use of them. This article could have been written a hundred years ago about the automobile and have been just as wrong!!!
Jobs and Wozniak started Apple Computer in a garage. Judging by that fact alone one could conclude that it wasn't much of an enterprise, not such a great idea and had little chance of success.
I wouldn't touch Tesla at 80 + bucks a share but given the progress made by the company on the chief obstacle to acceptance of the electric vehicle: range. I might be very wrong. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1421181/comments?source=feed#comment-18702161 18702161
I've read that statement several times and still do not know what it means. Either higher salaries/benefits attract more/higher quality employees or it does not. Which is it?]]> Sat, 11 May 2013 01:13:35 -0400
I've read that statement several times and still do not know what it means. Either higher salaries/benefits attract more/higher quality employees or it does not. Which is it?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1421181/comments?source=feed#comment-18658491 18658491 Shouldn't that benefit of a higher quality employee be added to the calculus of whether or not mandated health care is 'worth it'?]]> Thu, 09 May 2013 23:13:35 -0400 Shouldn't that benefit of a higher quality employee be added to the calculus of whether or not mandated health care is 'worth it'?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1389491/comments?source=feed#comment-18337241 18337241 Although, I can see how a conservative would think that.]]> Wed, 01 May 2013 19:49:27 -0400 Although, I can see how a conservative would think that.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1378791/comments?source=feed#comment-18181251 18181251 Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:57:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1378791/comments?source=feed#comment-18179721 18179721
That's funny. I didn't think Immelt and bush got along.]]> Sat, 27 Apr 2013 20:32:20 -0400
That's funny. I didn't think Immelt and bush got along.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1378791/comments?source=feed#comment-18170201 18170201 It's also important to note the experience of German economy during the 30's. They were mired in a depression every bit as bad as the United States by 1932 and in four short years had full employment and a booming economy. How did this happen?
When Adolf Hitler, who knew nothing about economics, came to power in 1933 he wanted a big, well-equipped military and didn't care how he got it. He printed money, borrowed money and built his army. The stimulus that occurred quickly lifted the German economy, and by 1936, the last 'free and fair' election in the Third Reich, Hitler was re-elected with over 90% of the vote. He was a hero. Had he died six years into his twelve year run, I suspect there would be statues of him everywhere in Germany.
The point is that contracting government during a time of contraction doesn't make things better, it makes them worse. ]]> Sat, 27 Apr 2013 11:23:58 -0400 It's also important to note the experience of German economy during the 30's. They were mired in a depression every bit as bad as the United States by 1932 and in four short years had full employment and a booming economy. How did this happen?
When Adolf Hitler, who knew nothing about economics, came to power in 1933 he wanted a big, well-equipped military and didn't care how he got it. He printed money, borrowed money and built his army. The stimulus that occurred quickly lifted the German economy, and by 1936, the last 'free and fair' election in the Third Reich, Hitler was re-elected with over 90% of the vote. He was a hero. Had he died six years into his twelve year run, I suspect there would be statues of him everywhere in Germany.
The point is that contracting government during a time of contraction doesn't make things better, it makes them worse. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1378791/comments?source=feed#comment-18168051 18168051 I think that policy makers had just that in mind both when stimulus was proposed and enacted and the QE programs were enacted by the Reserve. ]]> Sat, 27 Apr 2013 10:11:58 -0400 I think that policy makers had just that in mind both when stimulus was proposed and enacted and the QE programs were enacted by the Reserve. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1362731/comments?source=feed#comment-18079441 18079441 Do you have any original thoughts?
I didn't think so]]> Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:05:17 -0400 Do you have any original thoughts?
I didn't think so]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1362731/comments?source=feed#comment-18049571 18049571 I lost my a** with bush and got rich enough to retire with Obama.]]> Wed, 24 Apr 2013 17:01:09 -0400 I lost my a** with bush and got rich enough to retire with Obama.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1362731/comments?source=feed#comment-17992501 17992501 Tue, 23 Apr 2013 15:09:31 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1351131/comments?source=feed#comment-17858811 17858811 This can be useful info and what it tells me is that the stock, in that twelve week flow and ebb, was benefiting and then paying the price for what may have been 'irrational exuberance' (sorry Alan).
If you are playing this stock long with the expectation that it's going to return to those levels anytime in the next several years, you might be disappointed. Perhaps a more reasonable expectation would be a slow workup to the high 500's with some sharp increases in the div and buybacks.
I own it, I hedge it, I lose money (not too much so far) and will swing in and out of it in the anticipation of it being range bound over the next several months. ]]> Fri, 19 Apr 2013 22:19:23 -0400 This can be useful info and what it tells me is that the stock, in that twelve week flow and ebb, was benefiting and then paying the price for what may have been 'irrational exuberance' (sorry Alan).
If you are playing this stock long with the expectation that it's going to return to those levels anytime in the next several years, you might be disappointed. Perhaps a more reasonable expectation would be a slow workup to the high 500's with some sharp increases in the div and buybacks.
I own it, I hedge it, I lose money (not too much so far) and will swing in and out of it in the anticipation of it being range bound over the next several months. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1354201/comments?source=feed#comment-17832931 17832931 Look at the world as it is: Europe is in recession; Southern Europe is in a depression; Japan's growth is just about nil, China's growth down sharply (although 7% is still robust) and the United States is stumbling along at 2% trend line growth. Add to this the new technologies/discoveries here in North America.
The price of a gallon of gasoline in the futures must be @ a buck a gallon, right? In North Dakota, a state swimming in oil, you must be able to fill up for .50 a gallon.
The fact is that in spite of all the negative news, that should be impacting the price of oil, the price of a gallon of gas is sitting not too far from its all-time high. How could this be and what does this imply for the future? The world is consuming 1,000 barrels a second, 24/7 and that rate will increase as economies recover, overwhelming supplies.
If you had to make a guess, looking twenty years out, do you think that the price of a barrel of oil will appreciate at a faster rate than average inflation, the same, or slower? The answer to this big question will tell you whether or not alternative energy will thrive or die. I think the answer is rather obvious.]]> Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:57:05 -0400 Look at the world as it is: Europe is in recession; Southern Europe is in a depression; Japan's growth is just about nil, China's growth down sharply (although 7% is still robust) and the United States is stumbling along at 2% trend line growth. Add to this the new technologies/discoveries here in North America.
The price of a gallon of gasoline in the futures must be @ a buck a gallon, right? In North Dakota, a state swimming in oil, you must be able to fill up for .50 a gallon.
The fact is that in spite of all the negative news, that should be impacting the price of oil, the price of a gallon of gas is sitting not too far from its all-time high. How could this be and what does this imply for the future? The world is consuming 1,000 barrels a second, 24/7 and that rate will increase as economies recover, overwhelming supplies.
If you had to make a guess, looking twenty years out, do you think that the price of a barrel of oil will appreciate at a faster rate than average inflation, the same, or slower? The answer to this big question will tell you whether or not alternative energy will thrive or die. I think the answer is rather obvious.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1352571/comments?source=feed#comment-17806541 17806541 Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:07:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1351131/comments?source=feed#comment-17793961 17793961 He's been with AAPL a long time in various responsibilities so to compare him to Scully, who came on board from Pepsi is pretty much an apples (pun intended) to oranges comparison. He's been CEO since January, 2011. The price of the stock was @ 325 when he took over.
Re: APPL itself. It takes years to develop ideas into products. In a lot of ways what is going on at APPL still reflects the vision of Steve Jobs. I don't know if Cook is going to be successful or not but I hope you are not short AAPL simply out of some personal animus toward the guy in charge. That is a recipe for investment disaster ]]> Thu, 18 Apr 2013 13:12:47 -0400 He's been with AAPL a long time in various responsibilities so to compare him to Scully, who came on board from Pepsi is pretty much an apples (pun intended) to oranges comparison. He's been CEO since January, 2011. The price of the stock was @ 325 when he took over.
Re: APPL itself. It takes years to develop ideas into products. In a lot of ways what is going on at APPL still reflects the vision of Steve Jobs. I don't know if Cook is going to be successful or not but I hope you are not short AAPL simply out of some personal animus toward the guy in charge. That is a recipe for investment disaster ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1351131/comments?source=feed#comment-17792131 17792131 Those who think that the stock is going up, up, up, are probably wrong.
Those who think that the stock is going down, down, down are also probably wrong.
(although, as of this writing, I'm the one who has been wrong!)
My thoughts]]> Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:30:55 -0400 Those who think that the stock is going up, up, up, are probably wrong.
Those who think that the stock is going down, down, down are also probably wrong.
(although, as of this writing, I'm the one who has been wrong!)
My thoughts]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1347591/comments?source=feed#comment-17791411 17791411 Are your children planning to do anything for themselves in their lifetimes?]]> Thu, 18 Apr 2013 12:21:15 -0400 Are your children planning to do anything for themselves in their lifetimes?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1347591/comments?source=feed#comment-17737361 17737361 I wrote an article as an entry to a 'Marketwatch' contest that focuses on this issue:
http://on.mktw.net/15f...
Me? I am retired on the low-end of comfortable. I'd have to live to be very, very old to die rich.]]> Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:33:38 -0400 I wrote an article as an entry to a 'Marketwatch' contest that focuses on this issue:
http://on.mktw.net/15f...
Me? I am retired on the low-end of comfortable. I'd have to live to be very, very old to die rich.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1341781/comments?source=feed#comment-17668361 17668361 Mon, 15 Apr 2013 19:10:36 -0400