HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gary@cdthq.UUCP (Gary Heston)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 18:59:43 CDT
Organization: Garys' Home for Obsolete Computers

dhesi@cirrus.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes:

> In <1992Oct12.150420.29711@odi.com> ed@odi.com (Ed Schwalenberg) writes:
> 
>      One of the all-time easiest paths to fraud is to set up a
>      mail-order (or 800-number) business, take zillions of orders...
>      Half of the zillions of customers will just lose, while the other
>      half will ask that the charge be reversed, leaving the bank
>      holding the bag.
> 
> Why is this easy?  This can only happen if the bank is unwise enough to
> credit a new merchant's account immediately, without waiting for credit
> card holders to be billed and allowing some time to verify the
> correctness of the charge.  Do banks really do this?  Why?  It seems
> pretty dumb.

Oh? You expect a business to wait 30 days after depositing the
charge slip for it to clear? The bank will only verify that it's 
a valid charge card number, and at that point the money (less 
discount) is spendable. It's this easy because that's the only
way it would work; if you were running a business, would you 
take credit cards if it meant locking up the cash for 30 days?

> It would make more sense if during the first 6 months (or 12 months) of
> operation the merchant got credited only after enough of a delay to
> weed out any bad charges.  Only a well-established merchant should get
> immediate credit.

Actually, there's this thing called a "credit check" that's supposed
to weed out the bad risks; they're generally not worried about 
individual charges. Someone who's setting up a business in a home 
they've lived in for several years shouldn't have *any* trouble 
getting a charge-handling account; however, banks are frequently 
stupid. 

Gary Heston, at home....
gary@cdthq.uucp
From: ywang1@husc8.harvard.edu (Yongkang Wang)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Infor Wanted: Federal Reserve Bank
Date: 14 Oct 92 18:25:42 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Oct14.142542.16385
Distribution: usa
Organization: Harvard University Science Center

Hi,

Does anyone know the domain name of the following institutions:
 
   the Federal Reserve System, Washington, DC
   the Federal Reserve Bank of Minnesota,   
 
If you do, please email me. Thanks.
From: bruce@zuhause.MN.ORG (Bruce Albrecht)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re:  Incentives offered by banks to use their credit cards
Date: 12 Oct 92 04:55:54 GMT
Organization: Society to Stamp Out Bogus Organizations

In article <1992Oct8.174154.14866@ccd.harris.com> tsp@controls.ccd.harris.com (Timothy S. Pillsbury) writes:
>
>Just a side note on the citidollars, I've accumulated many many many of them
>and never used a single one because the stuff in the catalog they send out
>is overpriced junk to begin with. The quality is not very good, and the price
>that is advertised seems to offset any advantage you might have seen from
>your citidollars.
>
>This practice is probably their standard; to let you think you're getting a
>good deal because you are taking their offer, when in reality they
>are ripping you off. Beware of any other incentive packages you see as well.

The Discover rebate isn't all that much, but at least you get a check at the
end of the year.
--
bruce@zuhause.mn.org
Youth is wasted on the young.
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Brokers to be taxed on UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS--prop. legislation
Date: 15 Oct 1992 19:17:04 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <1992Oct14.212044.2319@cbnews.cb.att.com> ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>      All net gains by the fund are reported to the IRS and to you,
>      and you must declare these gains as either capital gains (if
>      long term) or ordinary income (if short term.)
...
>      So, in a real sense, you are taxed on your unrealized gains in
>      your shares of the fund.

Not really.  The funds are required to pay out those gains to shareholders,
so the gains are realized.  This is true even if you have automatic
reinvestment; that's just a shortcut that's equivalent to purchasing new
shares on the same day as the distribution.

Thus, they force you to realize some gains whether you want to or not.  But
they don't tax you on unrealized gains.
-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: guido@island.COM (Guido Marx)
Subject: Re: investing for November elections
Organization: Island Graphics Corp.  San Rafael, Ca.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:25:33 GMT

In article <8190128@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM> rauchfuss@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Brian Rauchfuss) writes:
>
>These banking surprise rumors seem strange; banks that survived the initial
>real estate crash are raking in money from the high yield curve, bank profits
>have been going up.  It seems that if a troubled bank has made it this far, it
>would not die, but get better.

This sounds reasonable, but there are several underlying assumptions
which may not be true.  The biggest problem may be that a great number
of banks HAVEN'T made it.  They are now insolvent, but haven't yet
been closed by regulators for political reasons (there isn't enough
money in the insurance fund, and politicians don't want to vote
a lot of money for a banking bailout right before an election).

The second assumption is that real-estate prices have
bottomed out.  Here in California, I wouldn't want to bet that
this is the case (especially in southern California).  

As an industry, bank profits are up.  But that still doesn't mean
that there aren't a lot of banks that are in a lot of trouble.  I
read an article in the L.A. Times this weekend which stated that it
would require $87 billion to bail out the banks which are currently
insolvent (and this figure goes up each day these banks continue to
operate) and that there are at least 1000 other banks that are in
danger of failing.  Unless we see a strong upsurge in the economy,
many of these banks ARE going to fail.

Guido


Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk)
Subject: Re:  Effects of the U.S. Debt
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 04:15:00 GMT

In article <1992Oct6.215328.13160@dg-rtp.dg.com> madry@mirage.rtp.dg.com (Beth Madry) writes:

>An estate is made up
>of assets that have
>already been taxed once 
>Since these have been taxed once, it is double taxation to tax 
>them at all when they can no longer be owned by the original 
>owner due to death.  These should not be a source of any income
>to the government.  Senator I. Wannaspend needs to learn that
>he has no money to spend, though that might be the dream.
>Unless we don't elect I. Wannaspend :}
>

this is false.

the central point of passing assets through an estate instead of by
direct gift is the fact that, as the us law is currently set up,
assets inherited through an estate are vaslued to the recipient at the
value on the date of death. much CAPITAL GAINS are passed tax free.

this is why for people of relatively modest assets (< $600,000), they
can be passed completely tax free, no matter what their original cost.
on the other hand, as soon as you get over 600,000, careful; estate
planning is needed to avoid the high estate taxes which kick in at
this point.

-- 
arthur wouk 
internet: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu
From: zaphod@lamar.ColoState.EDU
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: HarleyDavidson (again)
Date: 7 Oct 92 17:11:41 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO  80523



Last week I posted requesting information on Harley Davidson stock (HDI)
and received one e-mail.  (I appreciated that).  Does anyone else have any info
or recommendations???

thanx
M

xxmike Kennedy
ps  I bought some and am thinking about more.
From: aron@garnet.berkeley.edu (Aron Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: The end of media generated recession is close.
Date: 7 Oct 1992 15:47:41 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: garnet.berkeley.edu

In article <5388@gold.gvg.tek.com> johna@psdcae1.gvg.tek.com (John Abt) writes:
>BTW, on the "liberal" media: in the past 2 elections, 80% of
>the newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidental ticket.
>Oh, and doesn't Rush Limbaugh, that cultural elitist, have
>the largest radio audience?

  In all fairness, newspaper editorials endorsing political candidates 
often reflect the views of newspaper owners, rather than those of
the editorial staff.  The claim that the print media has a "liberal"
bias is usually focused on perceptions that the selection and content 
of news articles reveals such bias. 

  Some of us believe that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" when
applied to candidates for political office are used as shortcuts
by the lazy and the hasty to avoid in-depth, critical discussions of 
candidates' past actions and current pronouncements.

-- 
Aron Roberts  Workstation Software Support Group . 221 Evans Hall
              University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720
              aron@garnet.berkeley.edu . ucbvax!garnet!aron
              aron@ucbgarne.bitnet . (510) 642-5974 . fax: (510) 643-5385
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: sood@moon.ral.rpi.edu (Deepak Sood)
Subject: Re: 2oth Century
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY
Distribution: misc
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:16:32 GMT

I had invested in 20th Century Ultra at the beginning of the year.
The NAV was 18.40 and has dropped continuously since then. It was
around 14.30 the other day. 

The company has had a tremendous input in terms of investors since
they showed profit last year. I am not sure if they can show a profit
this year.


 
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "Equity" Horne")
Subject:      RE: Infesting in the November elections
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:01:37 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA24252; Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:15:31 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA18303; Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:12:35 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 3674; Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:11:19 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5118; Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:11:18 MST
X-To: misc.invest.usenet


In a previous article, guido@island.COM (Guido Marx) says:

>The second assumption is that real-estate prices have
>bottomed out.  Here in California, I wouldn't want to bet that
>this is the case (especially in southern California).

        What is thhiiisssss?  Oh, Guido.  How could you?
   Have you, TOO, abandoned the "California Real Estate Will Escalate
   To The Stars" platform?

        Truly, there are tears in Mudville tonight.

        Yes, I suspect you're right.  I suspect they haven't even
   *begun* to fall yet.

>As an industry, bank profits are up.  But that still doesn't mean
>that there aren't a lot of banks that are in a lot of trouble.  I
>read an article in the L.A. Times this weekend which stated that it
>would require $87 billion to bail out the banks which are currently

        From "Banking Economics" magazine, I've found a seldom printed
   graph.  Extrapolating from it, I estimate we'll see around 100 billion
   in losses next year.  What's really sad, is that the trend to date is
   still upward.  Mr. Sam has thoughtfully sought to protect us from this
   mentally distressing knowledge by quoting "Number of Banks failed" rather
   than "Amount of Assets Seized", and displacing seizures onto, ahem,
   non-political years.

        On CNN, around two months ago, was a former banking auditor
   who claimed we were heading towards a ( his estimate ) 500 billion
   bailout.  At the time, I thought the number was ludicrous.  Now,
   it looks accurate to me.


>
>Guido
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Zweig "Super Model" signal
Date: 9 Oct 92 16:47:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <IepNroa00UhW42kIZw@andrew.cmu.edu> jb6k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joel Bloch) writes:
>He's down to 30% stocks from 60% a couple of weeks ago. That includes a
>put position.

Zweig is 20% in "larger" stocks and 30% in "smaller" stocks
witha 20% put position, to be exact.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "Spiral" Horne")
Subject:      Russia's Deflationary Warheads
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 08:02:09 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA08916; Mon, 12 Oct 92 07:11:25 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA02330; Mon, 12 Oct 92 07:08:32 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 1682; Mon, 12 Oct 92 08:07:19 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 4545; Mon, 12 Oct 92 08:07:18 MST
X-To: misc.invest.usenet



        We should have learned
               About capitalism
        We should have learned about
               About supply and demand

        Oh, this ain't working
            That's the way it goes BOOM!
        Aluminum for peanuts
            Shipping Steel by sea

        We got move this cobalt and platinum
           We selling nickel for freeeee
        We got to move this zinc and aluminum
           Cause we're a state in-dus-tryyyyyy
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: wicklund@intellistor.com (Tom Wicklund)
Subject: Re: Investment Foreclosure - Can they take personal property too?
Keywords: Foreclosure.
Organization: Intellistor, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 21:22:31 GMT

In <ldk77aINNode@spim.mti.sgi.com> alvin@zany.mti.sgi.com (Alvin Oga) writes:

>THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE:

>2.  ALL PROPERTIES WILL SELL AT THE RIGHT TERMS...
>	forget the price !!!!

This assumes, of course, that one has an extra $25,000 or more to
cover the difference.  A property won't

>CAUTION:  If you owe the banks $ 100,000 in loans, but the house is
>	only worth $ 80,000 and you sold it at $ 80,000....
>	THEN THE IRS THINKS/CLAIMS THAT YOU HAVE
>	AN EXTRA $ 20,000 OF INCOME !!!!!!
>		(called 'debt relief'...call your CPA....)
>	Talking about rubbing salt in a bleeding/homeraging wound.

Huh?  This might be true if you then don't repay the extra $20,000 on
the mortgage (but in that case the bank won't release its interest
in the property so the sale won't go through or the bank will hold you
in default).

If you sell the property for $80,000 and had bought it for something
like $120,000, you have a loss of $40,000 minus accumulated
depreciation.  If it's a former residence which you've been renting
whether or not you can take an investment loss depends on how long you
rented it, how much of that time it was on the market, and a hefty
grey area of the tax law factor.

>Minimizing damage to your credit would depend upon:

Definately minimize credit damage -- talk to the lender and try to
work something out.
From: shw@elroy.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Stephen H. Watson)
Subject: Re: 2oth Century
Organization: Image Processing Applications and Development Section, JPL
Distribution: misc
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 00:17:18 GMT

James Coombs writes:
>In article <1b4mpkINN35d@gap.caltech.edu> watson@ccsf.caltech.edu (Stephen H. Watson) writes:
>>In article <1992Oct8.212833.21428@cs.brown.edu>, jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs) writes:
>>|> In article <MFSJBD.92Oct8090724@dante.nmsu.EDU> mfsjbd@nmsu.EDU (Jeff Davis) writes:

>>|> > IN mutual Fund forecaster it ranked 2oth Century Ultra as the TOP
>>|> >predicted growth fund for the next 5+ years. 

>>|> According to Hulbert, MFF has an inferior record.  As for 20th Century
>>|> Ultra, well, how can you trust a small-company fund that has allowed
>>|> itself to grow 7-fold?  $330 million on 10/31 1990 and $2,148 in 1991.
>>|> Well, you can't, and a recent column in Fortune confirmed my
>>|> suspicion:  they are now investing in larger companies.  In short, they
>>|> have sacrificed their investment mission to their greed.  

>>In fact, the prospectus for ALL 20th Century funds clearly states
>>that as the size of a fund increases, the size of the companies
>>in which it will invest increases also...Or didn't you read that
>>part?

>And how does the prospectus change things?  Because their prospectus
>covers the possibility of growing large, should we then say, "Fine, you
>are still the same fund because your prospectus covers this growth"?
>Whatever the prospectus permits, the fact is that the fund is changing,
>and these changes make past performance even less reliable as an
>indicator of good management.  The company's willingness to take in
>funds and change its investments with the influx makes it impossible
>for the intelligent investor to plan a portfolio that includes Ultra as
>a small-company fund.  I hope that you are happy that their prospectus
>includes a plan for greed.  --Jim
>jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields

I agree that the fund may be changing, and that it may make it
more difficult for the average investor (myself included) to
make decisions based upon past performance.  However, I was 
pointing out that the fund investing in larger corporations
as fund size increased was provided for in the prospectus, and
so shouldn't be a big surprise to anyone, and in fact I believe
that such behaviour is even to a certain extent anticipated.  
I'm a mathematician, not an investment counselor/business-degree
type, but it seems that as a fund increases in size, it would
have to invest in larger companies in order to show a net
gain (Magellan buying a few thousand shares in some start-up
company is not going to make a dent in its $20B assets...)
Someone correct me if I'm wrong on that point...

Second, what is all this about greed?  Are you only greedy if
you buy shares in a large company?  Besides, the fund is
SUPPOSED to make money.  That's why I give them mine...(although
I own 20th Century Growth, not Ultra).

Stephen H. Watson
Views expressed here are the authors, not those of NASA, JPL or
Caltech.

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: yoon@meaddata.com (Yoonho Ha)
Subject: Worldwide Funds
Organization: Mead Data Central, Dayton OH
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 12:39:52 GMT

Can someone recommend a worldwide fund with a good track record and doesn't
require much of an initial investment.

-- 
|Yoonho Ha                       (513) 865-1305| If at first you  |
|Mead Data Central            Data Enhancements| don't succeed,   |
|9555 Springboro Pike         yoon@meaddata.com| redefine success |
|Miamisburg, Ohio 45342 ...!uunet!meaddata!yoon|                  |
|______________________________________________|__________________|
From: pub@riscee.pko.dec.com (Publius)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Income & Wealth (Was: Effects...Debt)
Date: 8 Oct 92 18:42:11 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Maynard MA

In article <ld8tkcINNrev@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> tut@cairo.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill) writes:
>
> ...  I remember
>reading back in the late '80s that over 50% of consumers had negative
>net worth.  (This situation might be better now, since consumer debt
>has been in a downtrend for a few years.)

I suspect that this situation is much worse now than it was in the late
'80s, due to the deterioting real estate market in the last few years.

Regards,
-- 
-- Publius
Disclaimer: These opinions are mine, all mine, mine alone.
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Companies buying back their own shares
Date: 12 Oct 92 21:46:01 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Oct12.214601.26204
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio

In article <1992Oct12.183702.24372@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> keith@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Keith Hawkins) writes:
>In article <1992Oct08.171058.11772@eng.umd.edu>, anth@eng.umd.edu
>(Anthony G. Bradford) writes:
>|> 
>|> When companies buy back their own shares is this always considered a
>|> good sign??
>
>And on a similar note,  how does this action differ from a reverse stock
>split,
>which is generally considered to be a "BAD" sign?  

No, not always bad.  Not even Generally bad.

Often a penny stock has grown considerably, say from 10 cents all
the way up to $1.   That's pretty good improvement, but the price is
too low to get bankers and  investment newsletters and ratings
services interested in you.  Many investment ratings folks won't
look at a stock that's under $5.

So they may reverse split because they have done well and think they
deserve to be listed as a real stock and not a penny stock.  If they
do a 1:10 reverse split their shares will now be worth $10, and
that's starting to look real.

It is primarily a paper transaction, and has little effect on their
balance sheet and on their earnings.
----
A buy-back directly changes the amount of cash a company has, does
have an effect on all per-share financials,  and could be a good
sign (We think there's no better investment than our undervalued
shares) or a bad sign (We think the price is so low, someone could
buy us out and fire all the officers and board, so the buy back is
to reduce the cash the company has, make us less attractive to buy,
and, we hope, give the officers job security.)
-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: 2oth Century
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Distribution: misc
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:36:20 GMT

In article <BvvEoG.CnL@news.cso.uiuc.edu> acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng) writes:
>
>In article <1992Oct8.212833.21428@cs.brown.edu>, jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs) writes:
>>According to Hulbert, MFF has an inferior record.  As for 20th Century
>>Ultra, well, how can you trust a small-company fund that has allowed
>>itself to grow 7-fold?  $330 million on 10/31 1990 and $2,148 in 1991.

>If I remember it right, the first issue of MONEY this year recommended
>20th Century (and Berger 100, ...) as THE fund to invest in.  If even
>10% of its subscribers acted on that, I would not be surprised of the
>big influx.  Hey, we are just like a bunch of ants, rushing from 

The 7-fold growth was 12 months ago, even before the huge rush of money
that most funds saw early this year.  --Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: tut@cairo.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Income & Wealth (Was: Effects...Debt)
Date: 8 Oct 92 17:57:32 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo

dwang@ADS.COM (David Wang) writes:
> 
> An other obvious obstacle to consumer spending is the high level of
> consumer debt as a percentage of income.  This factor is far more
> important than wealth disparity.  Still another obvious obstacle is
> a pervasive uncertainty of job security.  I would think these 2
> factors alone far outweight the wealth disparity factor quoted.

Umm, do you have a thinking cap available?  Put it on and consider
what effect personal debt has on a person's net assets.  I remember
reading back in the late '80s that over 50% of consumers had negative
net worth.  (This situation might be better now, since consumer debt
has been in a downtrend for a few years.)  Also consider the effect
of job loss on personal wealth.  Some other determinants of wealth
are income levels, investment returns, and real assets.
Newsgroups: misc.invest,misc.enterpreneurs
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Re: Getting a merchant visa account
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 21:38:03 GMT

I'd suggest getting a copy of Merchant Card Status, ISBN 0-915516-71-3
from Para Publishing ($14.95, 800/PARAPUB).  While it will be oriented
towards small presses, the information should be useful for most anyone.
--
-- Christophe

"He presented it with a length of string, and then passed on to the
Statue of Corrupted Endeavor, there to await the arrival of autumn."
Newsgroups: misc.invest