HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk)
Subject: Re: snapple IPO
Summary: not unusual behavior
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:53:14 GMT

In article <UfA99Yi00iV1A1Kgp1@andrew.cmu.edu> Joel Bloch <jb6k+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>There was an interesting news item on the Snapple IPO that illustrates
>the problem small investors have with IPOs. CNBC said that institutional
>investors got all the stock and traded it among themselves until it
>reached $28. The public got in at 28$ and drove the stock to $33. Then
>there was more dumping and the stocking went down to about $28-29. That
>means all the institutional investors made money and few of the public
>could unless they got in and out between $28 and $33.

this is not a new phenomenon. if you were old enough to remember back
to the 60s (or many periods since, and probably before, but i was not
aware of those) popular ipos are always oversubscribed by institutions
and preferred customers of the houses bringing out the stock. retail
customers never get a chance on the first big move; they are allowed
in only to absorb the loss in the 'distribution' phase.	 distribution
phase is a technical term for taking the suckers.**

after the heated trading period is over, many such ipos drop back to
original price or lower. a bit of patience is rewarded by a chance for
whatever long term profits there are in the ipo. (as i recall the sun
micro ipo, a few years ago something like this happened. anyway, since
the market didn't undertand what sun was doing, there was a long
period after the ipo for long term investors.)

-----
***
the best guide to wall street remains 'where are the customer's
yachts?'
-- 
arthur wouk 
internet: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu
From: josephk@aludra.usc.edu (Joseph Kim)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Why is Borland downgraded?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 11:36:19 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

In article <FOX.92Dec16205734@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>
>But hasn't Borland software *always* been cheap?  Doesn't a price
>war put more pressure on Borland's competitors than on Borland?

Their database products, which constitute 60% of their sales, are not 
cheap.  They had price advantage on their programming tool products
(the infamous Turbo Pascal), but hte competition picked up on the
trick long time ago.  Just look at the way Micro$oft is selling Access
for $99 for the limited time.  What goes around comes around.

Joseph

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: weiser@pogo.den.mmc.com (Matt Weiser)
Subject: Re: Body Shop (from "Don't Become Fixated
Organization: Martin Marietta WIS
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 16:35:21 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.133400.25880@cbnews.cb.att.com>, lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
<Stuff Deleted>
> the UK but this is balanced by increased sales overseas. One article
> was by Peter Lynch (or maybe just quoting him) saying how he became
> interested in Body Shop when his daughters came home from the mall
> raving about it. They have several stores in our area (I'm in the
> same county as Lynch).

I was at Cherry Creek Mall last night, (THE upscale mall in the Denver
area, for those outside of Colorado) and the Body Shop was swamped.
I sat there and watched for a while.  Nice looking packages, definitly
playing up the natural trend in the market.  The one thing that really
got me was the cash register -- a line of about 5 to 8 at all times!

If this is going on other places, I can't help but think the US market
will make up for the UK sales problems.  I can also see a pretty good
expansion potential if they have decent management.  The post X-Mas
sales will tell more about the company than what I saw.  Their
products will make a nice, trendy gift, but time will tell if this
type of response keeps up.  *Ack* - Kiwi lip balm, the same size as
Carmex ($.89/jar) sells for $4.35!!!

Matt Weiser
weiser@pogo.den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: cs101a64@ih-nxt05.cso.uiuc.edu (cs101 student)
Subject: Re: "Market efficiency" (Was Re: Rationality of the stock market (NOT!))
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 17:36:05 GMT

In article <1992Dec15.234247.22230@cs.yale.edu> blenko-tom@CS.YALE.EDU  
(Tom M. Blenko) writes:
> Well, if you go back in the earlier literature, it isn't
> that inefficiencies are non-existent, it's just that
> they are too small to exploit for profits. And then there
> have been inefficiencies found that have been published
> -- and low and behold they disappear! There's no way to
> prove there *aren't* inefficiencies -- but if they are
> exploitable, you can expect them to disappear. There may
> be players out there using closely-held information
> about inefficiencies to generate profits -- and the
> result is a market in which that inefficiency has been
> eliminated.  
   If the stock market is efficient, then Dan Quayle is a world champion  
speller.  Although I agree with efficient-market that news of a company is  
reflected in the stock price quickly, the basic fundamentals are often  
overshadowed by recent news.  IPO's can rise on a rumor even though their  
fundamentals may be shaky (price/book ratio in the double-digits, big  
losses, huge debt, lack of diversification, product is a new gizmo may not  
take the world by storm, etc.).  Excellent growth companies (such as  
Diebold in the 1970s) bid up to outrageous valuations can be trashed when  
earnings growth slows even a bit or when an earnings report falls a few  
pennies short of analyst's expectations (Home Depot is next).
   Furthermore, many market inefficiencies have been found.  Simply buying  
the stocks with the lowest PEs or price/book ratios has been a proven  
method to outperform the market.  However, using these strategies is too  
simple for most Wall Streeters (they think they have to know every detail  
about a company except for the design of the floor tiles) and involves  
buying laughingstocks (no pun intended).  If you were a mutual fund or  
pension fund manager, what would your clients think of you if you owned  
stocks like British Steel, Travelers, and Aetna and picked these stocks  
simply on the basis of price/book ratio, PE, and yield?  They would drop  
you like a hot potato in favor of a manager who bought stocks like Phillip  
Morris, Home Depot, Microsoft, and WalMart.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: bucknerb@bnr.ca (Brent Buckner)
Subject: Re: "Market efficiency" (Was Re: Rationality of the stock market (NOT!))
Organization: Bell-Northern Research, Ontario, Canada
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 19:06:52 GMT

>In article <1glo96INNaip@almaak.usc.edu>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay
>Shah) wrote:
>> 
>> The concept of efficient market broadly means : "all available
>> information is reflected in the price".  This means that unless you
>> hold special information which the market does not yet know, you can't
>> make money in "responding to news".  By the time you heard that
>> Microsoft is in FTC trouble, that information is already incorporated
>> in the price.
>> 
>> "Information" above can be defined in many ways.  The most primitive
>> kind of information is the history of price and returns.  Such
>> information is very widely available.  It is easiest to test for
>> market efficiency w.r.t. historical price information, and (as far as
>> I know) nobody has yet found a chink in the efficiency armour enough
>> to make money on (and there have been hundreds of attempts at testing
>> market efficiency, in markets all over the world).
>> 
>> In a world with efficient markets, there is virtually no role for
>> stock picking.  

Are we in such a world?  Consider
"The Super-Investors of Graham-and-Doddsville" by Warren Buffet.
Consider Warren Buffet himself, _since the time that he was
identified as a premier value investor_.  Consider Sir John Templeton.
Consider that Malkiel found inefficiency in the closed-end fund area.
Consider the long-standing record of low-P/E stocks outperforming
the overall market with no demonstrable increase in risk.

>> A lot of the advice that folks like Peter Lynch dish
>> out are very suspect when you assimilate the notion of efficient
>> markets.  

Of course, once you assimilate the history of Peter Lynch himself,
you become suspicious of the advice of folks claiming that the
market is so efficient that "there is virtually no role for
stock picking".

-- 
at Bell-Northern Research
voice:        (613) 765-2739
Canada Post:  P.O. Box 3511, Station C, Ottawa, Canada, K1Y 4H7
I do not claim that BNR holds these views.  
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: paul@panix.com (Paul Gatker)
Subject: Triple Witching this Friday!
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 07:15:15 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC

 Does anyone expect any _unusual_ happenings coming up Friday? It being
the third Friday of the month and options _and_ futures are coming due
on the same day. 

 Does the year always end with a triple witching?
 Why is it called a triple witch day? Is their a third thing that comes
due besides options and futures? Pork bellies perhaps?   :-}

 
-- 
*******************************************************************
paul@panix.com                                    COMPULITE GRAPHICS
Brooklyn NY usa                                Design & Consultation
********************************************************************
From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: IBM Turnaround?
Date: 17 Dec 1992 12:01:26 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

Personally I think the mainframe in it's IBM incarnation is a dying
area of business, but think of this: a well-packaged IBM mainframe
running AIX (which is now available on all IBM computers ranging from
PS/2 to the mainframes) would be a decent competitor to the high-end
Sun or HP Unix server.

IBM showed very good abilities in it's RS/6000 launch and in battering
Microsoft technically with OS/2 (well, beating Microsoft technically
is hardly difficult to do).  But still, those are signs of life.

There is no possibility of returning to the market share of the early
70s, but thats not the same as "going under".

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@rcf.usc.edu
From: josephk@usc.edu (Joseph Kim)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: _Securities_Analysis_
Date: 14 Dec 1992 13:08:27 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: aludra.usc.edu

Anybody care to post synopsis of _Securities_Analysis_ by Graham and 
Dodd?  I already read the _Intelligent_Investor_ by Graham, and want
to know if the two overlap.  I already know Graham is good stuff,
so please do not post anything like, "just buy and read it."

Joseph Kim
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: ortega@cactus.org (Paul Ortega)
Subject: Personal Finance newsletter and IBM
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 05:16:10 GMT

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.


-- 
Paul Ortega			|  "If one could be punched out through
2015 Cedar Bend Dr., #1105      |   a modem, rec.arts.comics.misc 
Austin, TX 78758		|   would be a hell of a lot different."
(512) 832-9197			|      -- Perry Stokes
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: etpeters@dal.mobil.com (E. T. Peterson(Eric))
Subject: Re: Triple Witching this Friday!
Organization: Mobil Exploration & Producing Technical Center(MEPTEC), Dallas. 
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:21:22 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.071515.15282@panix.com>, paul@panix.com (Paul Gatker) writes:
|>  Does anyone expect any _unusual_ happenings coming up Friday? It being
|> the third Friday of the month and options _and_ futures are coming due
|> on the same day. 
|> 
|>  Does the year always end with a triple witching?

There is always a "triple witching" in Mar, June, Sept, and Dec.

|>  Why is it called a triple witch day? Is their a third thing that comes
|> due besides options and futures? Pork bellies perhaps?   :-}

1) Equity options (stocks and index), 2) stock index futures, 3) options
on stock index futures.

*********************************************************************
Eric Peterson                  The sooner you fall behind,
Research Geophysicist          the more time you'll have to catch up!
(214) 951-3251
etpeters@.dal.mobil.com
*********************************************************************
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: oasis@jcwrs.watson.ibm.com (GA.Hoffman)
Subject: Buying an English Stock?
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 92 23:32:44 GMT
Organization: IBM T.J. Watson Research Center

How do I go about buying an English stock .. more or less a penny stock?

thx, g
.


-- 
gary a hoffman
RISC Systems, Watson Research
From: doug_d@sdd.hp.com (Doug Deprenger)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: "Market efficiency" (Was Re: Rationality of the stock market (NOT!))
Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:59:30 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard, San Diego Division
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: hpsdl126.sdd.hp.com

In article <gilman-161292092745@143.48.10.10>, gilman@cshl.org (Michael Gilman) writes:
|> In article <1glo96INNaip@almaak.usc.edu>, ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay
|> Shah) wrote:
|> > 
|> > The concept of efficient market broadly means : "all available
|> > information is reflected in the price".  This means that unless you
|> > hold special information which the market does not yet know, you can't
|> > make money in "responding to news".  By the time you heard that
|> > Microsoft is in FTC trouble, that information is already incorporated
|> > in the price.
|> > 
|> > "Information" above can be defined in many ways.  The most primitive
|> > kind of information is the history of price and returns.  Such
|> > information is very widely available.  It is easiest to test for
|> > market efficiency w.r.t. historical price information, and (as far as
|> > I know) nobody has yet found a chink in the efficiency armour enough
|> > to make money on (and there have been hundreds of attempts at testing
|> > market efficiency, in markets all over the world).
|> > 
|> > [anti-chartism paragraph deleted]
|> > 
|> > In a world with efficient markets, there is virtually no role for
|> > stock picking.  A lot of the advice that folks like Peter Lynch dish
|> > out are very suspect when you assimilate the notion of efficient
|> > markets.  Wall street types hate the proposition, because it
|> > eliminates the need for expensive investment managers and newsletters
|> > and thus directly endangers their livelihood.
|> > 
|> This, of course, is the basic argument in favor of indexing: since the
|> market is so efficient, at least for large well-followed companies, you
|> cant beat it by stock-picking, so why pay for it?
|> 
|> But, heres a dumb question: Why couldnt you improve your return vs S&P 500,
|> for example, by simply eliminating the stocks of dying companies (IBM??)
|> that are still large but are almost certainly headed down the tubes? I
|> guess the argument would be that grim company prospects are already fully
|> incorporated in the market price. But, still, spotting losers in dying
|> industries would seem to be simpler than picking winners in growing
|> competitive industries.
|> 
   I believe this is the strategy Fidelity Disciplined Equity uses.

   doug
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: lam@ai-pluto.JPL.NASA.GOV (RLam)
Subject: investment FTP site
Reply-To: lam@ai-pluto.JPL.NASA.GOV
Organization: NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 18:29:42 GMT

Hi,

   Is there any ftp site which has investment shareware? Thanks in advance.


Ray Lam
lam@ai.pluto.jpl.nasa.gov
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: ghuntres@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gary  huntress)
Subject: Sorry, my fault...
Summary: hosed again 
Keywords: IBM plunge
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 03:42:24 GMT


I really want to appologize to everyone for todays plunge in IBM stock.
It was all my fault.  I bought some on friday, so obviously it was 
headed for the dumper.  'cheez, you'd think I'd learn after buying
Westinghouse at 23 (down from 27) - currently at 12.

There, I feel better now.   Hmmm, maybe a couple of calls, after all
its got nowhere to go but up! :-)))))

Gary "buy hi sell lo" Huntress
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: ioguo@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (OA Guo)
Subject: Re: Sorry, my fault...
Summary: hosed again
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Keywords: IBM plunge
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 16 Dec 1992 10:21 EDT  

In article <1992Dec16.034224.3595@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>, ghuntres@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gary  huntress) writes...
> 
>I really want to appologize to everyone for todays plunge in IBM stock.
>It was all my fault.  I bought some on friday, so obviously it was 
>headed for the dumper.  'cheez, you'd think I'd learn after buying
>Westinghouse at 23 (down from 27) - currently at 12.
> 
>There, I feel better now.   Hmmm, maybe a couple of calls, after all
>its got nowhere to go but up! :-)))))
> 
>Gary "buy hi sell lo" Huntress

	Please, Gary, tell us what you going to buy next. :)))

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OA Guo                        |My statement does not reflect NASA's point of
NASA - Lewis Research Center  |view.  Nor should NASA's statements reflect
Cleveland, Ohio               |my point of view.
From: davisje@smsun45.crd.ge.com (jonathan e davis)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Invest in Rock Band!!
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:01:26 GMT
Organization: GE Corp. Research & Development, Schenectady, NY

In article <92350.16260932GCHRG@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU> 32GCHRG@CMUVM.CSV.CMICH.EDU writes:
>Trigger Happy is one of the hottest bands in Detroit.
>However, we need $$ to really make it.  Interested
>in making an investment ($100-$5000)?  We'll take
>whatever you can give.  We have good credentials and a good
>following.  Thanks, peace, and please help us!!!
>
>           Derek Thomas, TRIGGER HAPPY


Hmm... That's one of the shortest prospectuses I've ever read.


Jon Davis                                     E-mail: davisje@crd.ge.com 
GE Corporate Research & Development Center    Phone:  (518) 387-5487
Schenectady, NY
Newsgroups: misc.invest,misc.taxes
From: cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)
Subject: Can I "Double Fund" an IRA?
Organization: Taligent, a little subsidiary of two really big companies.
Distribution: usa 
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 19:17:52 GMT

IRAs for 1992 need to be opened by April 15, 1993.  IRAs for 1993 can be
opened starting January 1, 1993.  Is there any reason I can't open an
IRA on (say) April 1, 1993, and put $2,000 for 1992 AND $2,000 for 1993
into it at the same time?
--
-- Christophe

"I draw the line at Styrofoam packing kernels, you sick pervert."
From: drhall1@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Doug R. Hall)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Buying New Stocks On The Day They Go Public
Date: 15 Dec 92 15:59:41 GMT
Reply-To: drhall1@PacBell.COM (Doug R. Hall)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Pacific * Bell, San Ramon, CA

In article <BzA9Ix.A5K@cs.uiuc.edu> watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:
>[stuff deleted]
>You also have to keep on good terms with your broker. 
>Immediately turning around and selling the IPO at the
>end of the day would be a sure way to ensure that your broker
>never gives you another "hot" IPO again (although he may
>be quite willing to pass on all of the dogs).
>

I thought that the broker made money on the churn, so he would make two 
commissions in one day rather that over several months. The broker doesn't 
doesn't make more money if your stock makes more money, nor does he lose money
if your stock loses money. Am I right?


>-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: roth@feline.cs.wisc.edu (Bill Roth)
Subject: Re: IBM Turnaround?
Organization: University of Wisconsin, Madison -- Computer Sciences Dept.
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:09:07 GMT

IBM is not dead. Nor are they dying. However they are, to anthopomophize,
about 100 lbs. overweight. They are essentially in the same position
that GM is in. There will be purges for the next couple of years,
but in the end that will be a leaner, more successful company. Don't
be surprize if that become the dominant player in the unix market.

br

-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Roth, University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept.
Internet: roth@cs.wisc.edu. BITNET: ROTH@WISCPSL. HEPNET: PSL::ROTH
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: tax loss selling
Date: 13 Dec 92 19:08:37 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio

In article <1992Dec11.223614.17792@tandem.com> pearson_steven@tandem.com (Steven R. Pearson) writes:
>In article <1992Dec11.135337.14196@athena.mit.edu>, proto@mtl.mit.edu (Proto) writes:
>> 
>> In July I bought 200 shares of a stock for $10.25.  The price has recently
>> risen to $15.75, and I expect it to continue rising.  My broker has  
>> advised me to sell now and buy it back on Dec 31.  He claims the price
>> will drop a lot because of 'tax loss selling'.  I don't understand this 
>> at all, for two reasons:
>> (1) One can take a tax loss only if the price has fallen a lot this year,
>>     not true for this stock.
>> (2) Why would someone wait until Dec 31 to sell at a loss if (s)he can
>>     sell now at the higher price?
>> 
>> Of course the broker will get a round-trip commission for this.
>> I would appreciate any help as I am very new to investing in stocks.
>
>Well, actually losses don't have to be from this year.  If the stock was popular
>at $25 a year or two ago, there could be tax loss selling.  On the other hand, the
>wisdom these days for many folks with the means to own lots of stock is to defer
>losses and take gains this year (because Clinton may raise taxes, goes the theory).
>Either theory could lead to selling or not selling, and prices could go up, or down.
>
>In any case, you are correct to be concerned about a broker who wants you to
>turn over your portfolio without a VERY VERY VERY good reason.  Taxes
>do not usually qualify.  The pros almost always say make investment decisions
>for investment reasons first, and tax reasons only if you are otherwise on the
>fence.  In your case, it sounds like you are in a "let your winners run" situation.
>Ask your broker to explain his/her logic to you.  If you don't like the story,
>consider getting a new broker (or, at least be forewarned that the advice you get
>in the future may be equally justified...).

This sounds like good conservative advice.  If it were I, I'd dump
the broker without looking back.  That sounds like out and out
churning, and I wouldn't want any broker like that.

If you really buy into "everyone sells on dec 31" then if you like
this stock and think it will contimue to go up, buy some more on Dec 31.

-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: misc.invest