Seeking Alpha

curreyr

curreyr
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View curreyr's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Stress Free Portfolio Project: Introduction [View article]
    Looks to be an error in your KO numbers in the table.

    Also why the 3x concentration? (just curious your opinion on it).
    Mar 14 09:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Stress Free Portfolio Project: Introduction [View article]
    I "traded" tesla. Got in at ~50 out at ~$100. Was genius for a few days ...
    Mar 14 07:48 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Debunking The 'Dividends Don't Add Shareholder Value' Myth [View article]
    "history of predictable and increasing dividends"
    Too late to edit ... that should have been:
    "history of reliable and increasing dividends"

    Historical results don't necessarily imply predictable results, it can however provide confidence of reliable results. In fact people win Nobel prizes for it ...
    Mar 14 07:01 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • My Transition To Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) [View article]
    "then complain that they must take the minimum distribution late in life and start paying taxes on it"
    I didn't pen the article, but agree.

    "When my Dad complains about taxes, I just tell him its the price you pay for your success. He still thinks candy bars should only cost 5 cents."
    Hehe, yup.

    I made a comment earlier about considering current taxation vs. expected taxation. It should be considered, and the "expected" is at best an educated guess.

    In my 20's, I "deferred" 15% of my income to a 401k (match was up to 5%). At the time, I was check-to-check, renting, and had an effective rate of ~9% tax (the deferral would have little effect too). That is now rolled-over into a trad. IRA, it's done well, but I now know the withdrawal is likely to be at an effective of 18%. Hindsight? probably. Sour grapes, not so much, it is what it is.
    Mar 14 06:52 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Debunking The 'Dividends Don't Add Shareholder Value' Myth [View article]
    The problem I have with your formula isn't the math, it's the determination of value.

    Value is a matter of perspective. It is _this_ that makes a market. Two different perspectives result in a trade.

    If one doesn't apply a value to a history of predictable and increasing dividends, that's their choice.
    Mar 14 05:43 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Stress Free Portfolio Project: Introduction [View article]
    Re: "cash holding"
    I understand your rational, especially that it fits your comfort level.

    I personally prefer a 2-3x average holding size as a minimum (e.g. for your holdings ~10%). When it exceeds that I can hunt for 1 more holding or re-investment into existing holdings. I then allow additional income to collect and repeat. In a serious correction/crash, it may all get deployed (I did that in 08/11 and was a bit nervous for the next 4-6 months).
    Mar 14 03:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Debunking The 'Dividends Don't Add Shareholder Value' Myth [View article]
    "assuming a stock trades at book value"
    Can you give an example?
    Mar 14 03:20 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My Transition To Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) [View article]
    as10675,

    In general, I agree with what you're saying except that your basing from AGI and not taxable income.

    AGI could include items that are not part of taxable income (e.g. tax-free munis) or are taxable in other schedules (divs, long cap gains). It also is reduced by deductions, exemptions, credits.

    For a retiree facing RMD, the impact is they may have a comfortable retirement with a reasonably low taxable income that begins climbing due to the RMD. It isn't that their income diminishes necessarily because of the extra tax burden rather they don't need/desire the additional income yet have to absorb the taxes.
    Mar 14 03:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What's Your (Dividend Growth) Number?: Part 2 [View article]
    "Everything is ultimately taxed when withdrawn from a regular or Roth IRA."
    Withdrawls from a Roth are not taxed ... the tax was paid on the way in.
    Mar 14 02:58 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My Transition To Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) [View article]
    rashbaugh, yea never said if it was resolved ... so, you could be correct!
    Mar 13 08:21 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How You Can Invest Like Warren Buffett [View article]
    I'm one, hate the taxes, no complaints about the weather. Actually, was complaining about the lack of rain, got 6 weeks recently. Clear and 80's this weekend sounds good. (zip == 96003)
    Mar 13 08:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Telltale Chart: Fact Or Fantasy [View article]
    An outcome isn't determined until it's observed.
    (my apologies about this gross simplification to theoretical physicists)
    Mar 13 08:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My Transition To Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) [View article]
    rashbaugh,

    unmarried ... $5,081.25 plus 25% of the excess over $36,900 (until $89,500)

    a trust ... $3,140.50 plus 39.6% of the excess over $12,150 (no limit).
    Mar 13 07:42 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • My Transition To Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) [View article]
    "What is UBTI? Well, it is definitely the amount stated by the MLPs as being UBTI on their K-1s, but apparently some tax advisors have taken the position that the "business" of the MLP is "unrelated to" the "business" of the IRA, so all of the income (distributions) is UBTI. Whether the IRS views it this way or not, I don't know, but I don't want to get mixed up in a fight over it."

    My understanding, not withstanding other "advisors", is that upon sale of the MLP, the distributions, in totality, 'at that point' become UBTI. This might be what you are describing as well.

    "the MLP is "unrelated to" the "business" of the IRA"
    This is an important point IMO. People refer to "their" IRA, which isn't exactly true. The IRA is its own thing, has a custodian (aka broker), an owner (typically an individual), and beneficiaries. This "thing" could have it's own taxes to pay ...

    "Whether the IRS views it this way or not, I don't know, but I don't want to get mixed up in a fight over it."

    I completely agree! Why bother, the distributions are already tax advantaged, no need to have it in an IRA.
    Mar 13 06:51 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My Transition To Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) [View article]
    One thing I think has been mentioned but worthy of re-iteration.
    If you are under 59 1/2 and doing a conversion, make sure you pay the tax from funds outside of the Trad. IRA. Otherwise the tax dollars spent from within the Trad. IRA are considered an unqualified distribution from the Trad. IRA and may be subject to the 10% early distribution penalty.

    You may be able to withdraw from a Roth without penalty to cover the taxes if previous contributions there are qualified (sufficient and in place over 5 years).
    Mar 13 01:36 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
689 Comments
945 Likes