HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mrand@sdf.lonestar.org (Marc Randolph)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Free Stock Newsletter By E-mail
Date: 19 Dec 92 02:22:07 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Best lil' ol' Pubnix in Texas

In article <1992Dec16.184557.12251@mobil.com> etpeters@dal.mobil.com (E. T. Peterson(Eric)) writes:
>In article <BzC0Fw.24J@sdf.lonestar.org>, I wrote: 
>|> In article <Bz3tIn.Lq@cs.uiuc.edu> watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>|> >[...]
>|> >There are no funds averaging > 20% over 10 years.
>|>            ^^
>|>    I hope you meant to type "several" rather than "no".  CGM and 
>|> Sit New Beginning, as well as a few others, have returned just over 20% 
>|> avg over the past 10 years.
>
> [...]
>So would you say the return is 20% per year or 11.6% per year?
>Which method of calculation applies to the above mentioned funds?

    I guess I should have quoted my source.  Those are avg annual returns,
assuming reinvestment, etc. according to Morning Star.  In other words,
if you invested $1000 ten years ago, you would have over $6200 now.
From: josephk@usc.edu (Joseph Kim)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Quaterdeck Office Systems
Date: 18 Dec 92 18:41:42 GMT
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

Anybody know the reason for the large drop in Quaterdeck Office Systems
(QDEK)?  I believe it dropped about 25%.  Is this a buy opportunity,
or sign of them filing for bankruptcy?

Joseph
From: chedley@carthago.intel.com (CHEDLEY_AOURIRI)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Free Stock Newsletter By E-mail
Date: 13 Dec 92 20:39:07 GMT
Reply-To: chedley@carthago.intel.com (CHEDLEY_AOURIRI)
Distribution: na
Organization: Intel-Corp,_Hillsboro,_Oregon

In article <1992Dec12.014214.3482@Happy-Man.com>, irving@Happy-Man.com (Irving_Wolfe) writes:
|>... 
|> That's fine.  And you can read my advice free too, right here, you
|> just won't get the stock list.  But if you are really a beginner,
|> you'd better get some good advice from someone who can't possibly
|> be out to make a buck from you before you invest.  Go get and read
|> Benjamin Graham's _The Intelligent Investor._  He has no conflict
|> of interest, since he's dead, but he sure does have a lot of
|> wisdom.  He may even bring you to the position of being able to
|> _tell_ when someone says something stupid!
|> -- 

I second Irving and absolutely agree with him on this one.

For less than $20 (paper back), Benjamin Graham's book is the
best investment book you can buy to become an "expert" in the field
of investment wisdom and advice...

-- 
..CHEDLEY..
..!{uunet|tektronix|ogicse}!littlei!chedley    chedley@carthago.intel.com     
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Disclaim: The above statements and opinions are strictly mine,
and do not represent any company or organization's position.
......................................................................
From: paul@hsh.com
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Interest rate and related indices predictions
Date: 14 Dec 92 20:01:56 GMT
Organization: HSH Associates

In article <1992Dec11.212850.14324@adobe.com>, uday@adobe.com (Uday Kurkure) writes:
>      Where can I find the predictions for interest rates and related
>      indices? In particular, I'm interested in 11th District index.
> 
>      I was told by a bank official that real estate loan interest loans
>      based on 11th district index are likely to remain flat or head
>      downwards for next 2-3 years. Therefore refinancing the existing
>      adjustable rate mortgage is not really advisable.
>      Any comments?

So, in other words, you wanna know whether you should refi?  :-)

"The Cost of Funds is the interest paid by savings institutions for their
various sources of mortgage funds.  The greatest source of mortgage funds at
Eleventh District savings institutions is money deposited in checking and
savings accounts.  Other sources of funds include loans through the credit
programs of the Federal Home Loan Bank (called 'advances') and money borrowed
from other financial intermediaries. 

"The cost of funds index is not an interest rate.  Since deposits are the 
major funds component of the index, much of the interest costs come from 
rates paid on fixed-rate deposits of long-term maturity.  The interest rate 
paid by an institution on such deposits will not be affected by changing 
market interest rates until the deposit matures.  Consequently, the cost of 
funds index does not move up or down as rapidly as market interest rates such 
as the prime rate, discount rate, or Treasury bill yields." -- 'An Explanation 
of Cost of Funds Indexes Used in Adjustable-Rate Mortgages,' a brochure from 
the Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, 11/90

(The 11th District, as you may know, is comprised of FHLB-member institutions 
in California, Arizona, and Nevada.)

Obviously, then, any "predictions" about this index will necessarily depend on 
what interest rates in general do.  Given the COF's makeup, you now know
which rates in particular will heavily influence the 11COF.  So should you
grin -- or grimace -- when long-term CD rates rise? <hehehe> 

------

Paul Havemann, VP        HSH Associates           (201)838-3330 | 1-800-UPDATES
      The Nation's Largest Publisher of Mortgage Information
Internet: paul@hsh.com   Compuserve: 70410,3507   America On-Line: HSH Assoc
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: dbk@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Don Katz)
Subject: Re: "Don't Become Fixated on Mutual Funds" - Peter Lynch
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, University of Wisconsin
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 92 17:30:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.194349.5676@cbnews.cb.att.com> lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
>In article <1992Dec9.192118.22637@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> dbk@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Don Katz) writes:
>>I am also a value investor by self-definition. I own TelMex (purchased 
>at 45) and Glaxo (purchased at 18). I consider both to be reasonable 
>investments at current levels......
>
>  
>I agree completely. However the problem with value investing and what
>I've read of Peter Lynch (the discussion started with his article) I
>can never figure out when to SELL. For example you've lost 30% on
>your investment in Glaxo since the beginning of the year, a miserable
>performance when many of the major averages are at record high levels?
>How do you decide when to sell? wouldn't a stop-loss have saved you a
>lot of money on Glaxo instead of riding it all the way down from 35? 
>

I have a rule of thumb which has served me fairly well. I sell when I
believe the conservatively estimated 4 year return from holding the
stock is less than or equal to the safe rate of return from short-term
investments. At that point, the stock appears to me to be
significantly overvalued. Since I am a part-time investor, I let Value
Line do the work for me when possible, and sell when the price is more
than the low price VL estimates for 3-5 year hence. That works well
for volatile stocks like System Software or Silicon Graphics, it is
probably too agressive for low volatility stocks like Glaxo. I also
consider taking profits when stocks split.

In Glaxo's case, I would have seriously considered selling at a price
of about 40 (45 is the VL estimated 3-5 year price at the low end). It
only got to 35. I did sell some at 24 on the way up, just prior to
their 2:1 split :-) I'm no technician, that's clear.

I would of course rather not have ridden it down from 35 to 25, I am
no fool. But I did not foresee the drug stock carnage. In general I
prefer to error on the side of holding good stocks (that is, stock in
solid growing companies), rather than turning over my portfolio too
frequently. If I sell a good stock, that means I have to find another
one to invest in - and due to time constraints I often don't have one
picked out.

Don


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Katz                                .         Physical
                                       .- / \ -.      Sciences
University of Wisconsin - Madison   ./'  /+-+\  `\.       Laboratory   E-MAIL
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: etpeters@dal.mobil.com (E. T. Peterson(Eric))
Subject: Re: S&P index options ?
Organization: Mobil Exploration & Producing Technical Center(MEPTEC), Dallas. 
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:11:51 GMT

In article <92Dec13.212133edt.2777@helios.physics.utoronto.ca>, jli@helios.physics.utoronto.ca (Jin Li) writes:
|> 
|> >Does anyone out there know if there's a significant difference between the
|> >options on the S&P 5000 and the S&P 100?
|> 
|> >I'm thinking about buying some puts on a broad stock market index to hedge
|> >against a "correction", and it seems the most heavily traded options are all
|> >S&P 100.  But the most widely quoted index, and the one I've been watching
|> >for years, is the S&P 500.  For options, does it really matter which one
|> >you hold?
|> 
|> >russg
|> 
|> It does matter which one you hold in the purpose of hedging. S&P 500 option
|> is Europen, which means that you can only exercise the option at the    
|> exercise(or expiration) date.  S&P 100 option is American which allows you to 
|> exercise the option at any date before the expiration date.   Index options
|> usually are used by portfolio managers to limit their downside risk. 
|> Flexibility is a very important factor to be considered. 
|> 
|> Ted Liu, MBA

However, since options almost always have some time value prior to expiration,
you can sell them for more than you would get by exercising them.  So I think
this is not much of a factor.  The S&P 100 is traded much more heavily, so
you will get better prices when buying and selling, because the bid-ask spread
is smaller.  So I would agree with Ted, and go with the S&P100 options. 

*********************************************************************
Eric Peterson                  The sooner you fall behind,
Research Geophysicist          the more time you'll have to catch up!
(214) 951-3251
etpeters@drsol1.dal.mobil.com
*********************************************************************
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: cs101a64@dcl-nxt04.cso.uiuc.edu (cs101 student)
Subject: Re: Value stocks (Was: S&P index options ?)
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:32:38 GMT

In article <1992Dec14.225759.21646@mobil.com> etpeters@dal.mobil.com (E.  
T. Peterson(Eric)) writes:
> In article <Bz9pAv.AuH@news.cso.uiuc.edu>,  
cs101a64@eng-nxt11.cso.uiuc.edu (cs101 student) writes:
> 
> OK, you weasled your way out of that one!  Try this test:
> 
> Pretend it is August 25, 1987 (get a financial newspaper from then).
> Pick 5 stocks that were "value" stocks in August 1987 according to
> your criteria (don't cheat by checking their performance during the
> crash).  Then look at their prices after the crash.  I bet every one
> of your picks declined during the crash!
What August 1987 publications are still available in the library that list  
all the stocks that sold for less than 2/3 of book value then?
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: cfwpm@ux1.cts.eiu.edu (Bill McGown)
Subject: Flooding in NE.. Pump Stocks?
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 22:28:04 GMT
Organization: Eastern Illinois University

With all the flooding going on in the North East do you think
that it might have an effect upon a pump manufacturer like
Goulds Pumps? It has come from a low of abt. 19 (3-4 months
ago) to around 24 this week.  

Bill.

-- 
**************************************************************
W. P. (Bill) McGown                     Eastern Ill. Univ
cfwpm@ux1.cts.eiu.edu                   Psychology Department
                                        Charleston, Il. 61920
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: dbk@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Don Katz)
Subject: Re: "Market efficiency"
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, UW-Madison
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 92 16:56:29 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.233131.1489@cbfsb.cb.att.com>, chandrab@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (b.chandramouli) writes:
|> 	Tobias in his "The only investment guide you ever want (or something
|> close to this title)" :
|> 
|> 	Value (worth)  of a stock is what the buyers are willing to pay 
|> 		for it.
|> 
|> 	What a buyer wants to pay is what the buyer things the stock is worth.
|> 
|> This circular definition is inherent to the way valuation of a stock 
|> is done. This is not just true for stock valuation. Similar circular
|> concepts are inherent in the valuation of real estate, collectibles etc.
|> May I extend this to say that whereever there are Supply and Demand
|> forces are acting to set the price of anything, circularity is inevitable?

I disagree strongly. Stock has an intrinsic value based on either its value as ownership in a company (and therefore its value if the company is sold, and the value is realized), or as the source of an on-going and increasing stream of dividends.

Don

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Katz                                .         Physical
                                       .- / \ -.      Sciences
University of Wisconsin - Madison   ./'  /+-+\  `\.       Laboratory   E-MAIL
3725 Schneider Drive              /'    /-+-+-\    `\                  ------ 
Stoughton, WI 53589             //     /+-+-+-+\     \\              psl::dbk
                               <======| P  S  L |======>     dbk@psl.wisc.edu
Phone: 608-877-2242 (FAX: -2201)      +---------+          dbk@wiscpsl.bitnet
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: pearson_steven@tandem.com (Steven R. Pearson)
Subject: Re: Schwab and Mutual Fund Investing
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc.,  Cupertino, CA
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:25:38 GMT

In article <v#f2b-h@rpi.edu>, floydb@rpi.edu writes:
> 
> In what way does Schwab make money, other than on other business
> transacted by clients? If they don't charge commissions for 
> MM Fund investments it would seem they aren't making any money
> on individuals solely interested in MM Fund investing through
> them.
> 
> Correct?

I'm sure they get a cut on MMF investments too.  On the MMF they run, they
get the entire management fee.  If they offer other MMFs that they do not run
themselves, surely they get a cut of the management fee from whoever does
operate the fund.  Some or all of their other costs for handling MMFs may also
be paid for out of the funds themselves as fund expenses.
-steve p.  (opinions mine, no warranty, standard disclaimers)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky)
Subject: Re: Why is Borland downgraded?
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 20:51:08 GMT

watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:

[stuff about Blorland's prices deleted]
> 
> How good are Borland's recent products? Has anyone tried out
> Quattro Pro and compared it to Access?  What about their
> other products?

I have Quattro Pro for Windows. I think it's an excellent product with
some interesting innovations/variations on the typical spreadsheet
theme. I haven't tried Access but the word-of-mouth on it is very
good as are the early sales figures.
 
> -Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu

Paul


 __________________________________________________________________________
     Paul S. Kedrosky              __/ "In a certain village in La Mancha,
    pkedrosk@business.uwo.ca      __/ which I do not wish to name, there
   University of Western Ontario __/ lived not long ago a gentleman..."
  (519) 679-2111 x5174          __/  
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: pkedrosk@student.business.uwo.ca (Paul S. Kedrosky)
Subject: Re: Personal Finance newsletter and IBM
Organization: University of Western Ontario
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 14:34:50 GMT

ortega@cactus.org (Paul Ortega) writes:

> From Dick Davis Digest, August 31, 1992:
> 
> Personal Finance, 24 issues, $118, 8/12/92 - IBM (IBM 92 3/4 NYSE)
> After years of tremendous growth, IBM has drastically downsized
> and emerged as a much-leaner and more competitive company.  With
> a dividend yield of more than 5%, the stock offers
> enormous total return potential.  We're buyers under 100 and
> agressive buyers in the 90 area.
> 
> 
> From New York Times News Service, December 17, 1992:
> 
> New York - Institutional investors, who at one time owned more 
> of IBM than any other stock, continued their panicked flight
> Wednesday, selling huge blocks of the shares and sending the price
> down $4.25 to $51.875.
> 
> Combined with a $6.75 drop Tuesday, IBM's investor's have lost
> more than $6 billion, or 17.5 percent, in two days.  The stock
> now lies at its lowest level since 1981.
> 
> On both days, Richard Grasso, the New York Stock Exchange
> president, led a group of officials who gathered at IBM's
> trading station on the exchange floor to assure an orderly
> opening despite onslaughts of sell orders.
> 
> !!!!
> 
> Where do some of these analysts get their ideas?!?  I'm
> really going to look at analysts predictions with a 
> jaundiced eye after this.

I worked as a junior analyst with a brokerage firm for a lttle while
and these kind of fliers were a source of continuing amazement for me. IBM in
particular seemed to have its devoted followers who didn't really
understand the fundamental problems with the company's business and
were recommending the stock on a largely technical basis or on the basis
of past IBM success. That's an awfully dangerous path as the above
market letter shows. IBM, or at least its markets, has changed a lot
in the past 10 years.

I think a lot of it comes down to having people as analysts in
technology-related industries who don't really understand the
underlying technologies. Sounds silly doesn't it? I mean, it's common
sense that if you're an analyst following a technology company like
IBM you should have a strong understanding of the nuts and bolts of the
tehnologies so you can interpret the impact of product and startegy
announcements. Well that is not always the case: many analysts of
these tech stocks that I met saw the problem of following these
companies as being no different that following any other company with
a product. And then, when faced with new products and what have you
they retreated to parroting the company's PR line or sticking to
the Street concensus on the stock. Scary stuff.

Paul


 __________________________________________________________________________
     Paul S. Kedrosky              __/ "In a certain village in La Mancha,
    pkedrosk@business.uwo.ca      __/ which I do not wish to name, there
   University of Western Ontario __/ lived not long ago a gentleman..."
  (519) 679-2111 x5174          __/  
Newsgroups: misc.invest,misc.taxes
From: eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler)
Subject: Re: Cafeteria Health-Care Program: HELP?
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:00:42 GMT
Organization: Superseding Information, Inc.

In <1992Dec14.163128.361@hsh.com>, paul@hsh.com sez:
>As I understand the rather skimpy explanation she was given, this is in
>addition to her current medical coverage.  Under this "supplemental" plan, up
>to $2500 of *pre-tax* salary is placed into various Reimbursement Accounts to
>cover such things as medical/dental/vision deductibles and other
>out-of-pocket expenses.  One Reimbursement Account can cover at-work
>child-care expenses (which would be useful). 
>
>The catches that I am aware of:  the Big One is that any funds left in the
>Reimbursement Accounts are _forfeit_ --gone forever-- if not used by the end
>of the year (that's my wife's money, NOT the employer's).

On the other hand, if your wife leaves her job during the year, she
can nevertheless be reimbursed (under health care, NOT dependent care)
up to the *full amount she would have paid into the account over a
full year*.  (Dependent care is pay-as-you-go, at least here.)  Thus,
if she agreed to have $10/week deducted for medical, and left after
only 4 weeks of January, she would pay only $40 for having as much as
$520 of free NON-taxable benefits; of course, she would have to incur
the costs in that 4-week period (which isn't so hard to do).

The theory here is that just as the employee bears the risk of
forfeiting excess, so the employer (who must pay the difference in a
shortfall situation) bears a risk to offset the tax benefits of the
program.


>  Another is that,
>since the RAs are funded with pre-tax dollars, her Social Security benefits
will probably be reduced by the use of this plan.

I suspect that the difference is negligible.  Besides, you're almost
certainly better off taking a *certain* dollar now instead of waiting
for decades for a dollar that might not be payable under a changed SS
system. 

>  And, of course, payouts
>from the Cafeteria Benefits plan are _not_ deductible from income taxes. 

BFD.  The income put into the account pre-tax is shielded from
federal, state, city, and FICA taxes, which clearly gives you a better
benefit than the highly restricted medical deduction, or the
lower-benefit child care credit via Form 2441 (aka schedule 2 of the
1040A).

Assuming you can estimate your minimum expenses with any reasonable
degree of certainty, pre-tax spending accounts are a major win.

-- 
			Sold by weight, not by volume.
  Some settling of contents may have occurred during shipment and handling.

	   Mark Eckenwiler    eck@panix.com     ...!cmcl2!panix!eck
From: edb@hpgrla.gr.hp.com (Ed Beshore)
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 23:43:51 GMT
Subject: Re: ESOP - Can they really do this????
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, Greeley, CO
Newsgroups: misc.invest

HP just recently made such a change, now requiring employees to hold
on to their original shares for 2 years to get matching shares.  The
original shares, however are your from day one, HP just won't help.

There is advantage to having employees as stockholders.  They are
much more liable to make concessions, work longer, harder, etc. if they
own part of the company.
From: proto@hri.com (Rich Proto)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Market Trends
Keywords: IBM
Date: 16 Dec 92 18:30:44 GMT
Reply-To: proto@hri.com
Organization: Horizon Research, Inc.

In article <1gnqhuINNll2@seven-up.East.Sun.COM>, ltaylor@blinky.East.Sun.COM (Laura Taylor) writes:
> 
> Why are so many of the high-technology stocks going down just
> because IBM is? It looks as though a huge lot of high-tech
> stocks are following IBM's fall. I am wondering if they will
> rebound at some point even if IBM continues to fall.
> 
> /laura

High tech stocks as well as the entire NASDAQ market have had a pretty good
run-up since Oct 1. I think what we're experiencing now is a normal, healthy
pull back, rather than a move in sympathy with IBM. In fact, the overall
market has thus far behaved quite well the last two days, considering the big
drop in IBM.

Hopefully the market will resume its upward climb after this friday's triple
witching expiration and we'll have a nice end of the year rally/January
effect, although some will argue that the January effect came early this year.

Xref: sparky misc.invest:15196 misc.consumers:20997
From: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Newsgroups: misc.invest,misc.consumers
Subject: Re: EARN MONEY STUFFING ENVELOPES
Date: 20 Dec 92 19:35:03 GMT
Reply-To: gld@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu (Gary L Dare)
Organization: The Bates Motel

ar017@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Nolan Whitaker) writes:
> 
>For those of you are unaware of the "stuffing envelopes" scam:
> 
>1)      You send for info
>2)      Info tells you to send $10, etc for instructions
>3)      Instructions tell you to place an ad like you responded to
>        and hope some other dope responds as you did
>4)      You lose $$$


This is a regular feature on WCBS local news consumer/scambusting
feature, "Shame On You".  One lawyer had suggested that this idea 
was originally started by a tabloid (this is speculation) to move 
ad space, and has avalanched into a runaway virus that has been 
a benefit to the same tabloids beyond the wildest dreams of the 
conceiver.  Just open one of them up to see all the suckers who
are trying to at least make their money back ...

gld
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Je me souviens ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gary L. Dare
> gld@cunixd.cc.columbia.EDU 		Support NAFTA
> gld@cunixc.BITNET			 Eat Mexican  (El Teddy's ad)
Newsgroups: misc.invest,misc.taxes