HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: "Market efficiency" (Was Re: Rationality of the stock market (NOT!))
From: cctr114@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz (Bill Rea)
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:28:12 GMT
Organization: University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]

Ajay Shah (ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu) wrote:
> watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:
> 
> >cs101a64@dcl-nxt03.cso.uiuc.edu (cs101 student) writes:
> 
> >>Wall Street can never seem to realize that the  
> >>popular opinion of a stock is already be reflected in its stock price  
> 
> >Well, I guess Wall Street has a lot to learn about the stock market.
> 
> 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.

It seems to me that it takes some time for the market to adjust to a new
piece of information. I have seen several examples recently on our own
market where a favourable peice of news has resulted in a stock price rise
of about 25%. But this it has taken about 3-4 weeks for the stock to
reach a new trading range. Similarly I have seen some bad news cause a stock
price to drop about 50% but it took about 2 months for the stock price to
drop down into a new trading range. So while the markets may be broadly
efficient, there would appear to be times then this isn't so.  In
the cases where good news comes, not everyone has the cash on hand to
immediately move in and buy, similarly when bad news comes not everyone
will immediately dump their stock, a decline can turn into a stampede
if people panic at too big a price drop.

--
                                                                     ___
Bill Rea                                                            (o o)
-------------------------------------------------------------------w--U--w---
| Bill Rea, Computer Services Centre, | E-Mail   b.rea@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| University of Canterbury,           | or     cctr114@csc.canterbury.ac.nz |
| Christchurch, New Zealand           | Phone (03)-642-331 Fax (03)-642-999 |
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jb6k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joel Bloch)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: tax loss selling
Date: 12 Dec 92 05:57:03 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.Ef_UjDO00WBKM1fLd3
Organization: Doctoral student, English, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

When is the date for closing out a short position and reporting it on
this year's income tax?
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: "Market efficiency" (Was Re: Rationality of the stock market (NOT!))
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 06:16:41 GMT

dbk@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Don Katz) writes:

>I think the market efficiency argument is overrated. 
>The current market price is determined by the average valuation 
>assigned to a stock by the whole universe of buyers and sellers. 
>These buyers and sellers follow a diverse set of strategies. 

These are good points. The value of a stock/company/commodity
can be determined by fundamentals -- i.e. the present value
of all expected future earnings, averaged over a probability
distribution of potential futures  -- but also simply by
whatever people is willing to pay for it. For example, 
what is the fundamental value of a tulip bulb?

The efficient market hypothesis may be true to a large extent,
but why these phenomena?

* 1637 - tulips sell for 5,500 florins. The next year they sell
  for 50. 

* 1980 - silver reaches a peak of $50. Subsequently it falls
  to $5.

* October 1979. The Fed changes its policy from controlling
  interest rates to controlling money supply growth.
  Gold keeps going up for several months after that.

* Oct 19 1987. During the weekend, Baker tells the world
  that we are going to let the dollar go, because the
  Germans aren't loosening monetary and fiscal policy
  as Baker demanded. That Monday, the stock market drops 508 points.

This does not sound like a very efficient system to me.


-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu



Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: alie@csl.dl.nec.com (Andrew Lie)
Subject: Re: Free Stock Newsletter By E-mail
Organization: NEC America, C & C Software Development Lab
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 19:36:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.175718.22849@eng.umd.edu>, georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:
|> In article <Bz3tIn.Lq@cs.uiuc.edu> watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:
|> >
|> >Most small, free newsletters don't intend to stay that way.
|> >If a stock is thin enough, even a relatively small buyership
|> >can affect the price.
|> 
|> So what? That's got nothing to do with anything, and neither did you
|> bubble-sort algorithm. I don't understand your negative attitude. 
|> 
|> This newsgroup is flooded with repetitive questions from beginners and
|> others needing financial advice. Someone offers to give them advice
|> by way of a free newsletter, and all you see is the down side of it.
|> 
|> The guy is offering us his advise for free. I'm willing to listen, and
|> unless he says something stupid, I'll keep listening.
|> 
|> Please respond to me by e-mail. Others on the newsgroup would rather not
|> hear you whine, I'm sure.       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> 

Oh, come on. I don't think Larry is whining. He simply offers his opinions.
Some of the beginners may learn from what he said, too.

Maybe it is to your surprise, but I personally found your postings to be more
negative than his.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: antonio@qualcomm.com (Franklin Antonio)
Subject: series EE bond question
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 01:36:50 GMT

The interest rate most often mentioned/quoted for these things is the
rate that one gets for holding 'em long term, ie min(6%,85% of 5yr Treas).

What is the rate i would get if i bought an EE bond right now and held it the 
minimum time, (ie 6 months) ?  I looked in the official redemption table,
but it cleverly does not contain this information.  It only tells me what
i would get if I cashed in a bond today that I bought 6 months ago.
Looks to be about 4.2% per annum.  Is the minimum-term rate the same for new
bonds now?  

Newsgroups: misc.invest,misc.taxes
From: pearson_steven@tandem.com (Steven R. Pearson)
Subject: Re: Wash sale - a sneaky way around?
Organization: Tandem Computers Inc.,  Cupertino, CA
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 22:46:06 GMT

In article <1992Dec11.113730.1@vaxb.acs.unt.edu>, ff76@vaxb.acs.unt.edu (Jhinuk Chowdhury) writes:
> 
>   I have been wondering about this.  
> 
>   Suppose, I bought 100 shares of a security for $30 each, say, on 
> November 1, 1992.  On December 10, the price of the security falls to 
> $21.  If I were to sell those shares on December 10, my net tax-
> deductible captital loss would be $900 (100 x ($30-$21)).  (I am 
> ignoring commisions for the sake of simplicity.)  However, because of 
> the wash sale rule, I wouldn't be able to buy back those shares within 
> 30 days. 
> 
>   Now, suppose I did the following instead:
> 
>                              Amount      Mkt Value        Gain (Loss)
>                              ------      ---------        -----------
> BUY Nov 1  : 100 sh @ $30    $ 3,000      $ 3,000            -
> 
> BUY Dec 10 : 100 sh @ $21    $ 2,100      $ 4,200            -
>                                        [200 sh @ $21]
> 
> SELL Dec 11: 100 sh @ $21    $ 2,100      $ 2,100          ($ 900)
>                                        [100 sh @ $21]       using 
>                                                       first-in first-out  
> 
>   I have  essentially worked around the wash sale rule, haven't I?  I 
> am not "buying back a security that I sold for a loss within 30 days."  
> Does the wash sale rule deal with a condition such as this?  Perhaps, 
> it does and I am not aware.  Surely, the IRS couldn't be duped that 
> easily.

Sorry, no dice.

First, if you use FIFO, your example is incorrect, you would sell the
shares of Nov 1 (100 @ 30) which were purchased first, not those of Dec 10.
You would  have a loss, but you couldn't realize it for tax purposes because of
the wash sale rule (you replaced the shares on Dec 10, which is within 30 days
ON EITHER SIDE of the sell date).

If you instead sold particular shares purchased on Dec 10, then don't have a loss.
All you have is a round trip commission to pay the broker :-(

-steve p.  (opinions mine, no warranty, standard disclaimers)
From: gpalo@digi.lonestar.org (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: "Don't Become Fixated on Mutual Funds"
Date: 11 Dec 92 22:01:25 GMT
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX

In article <1992Dec9.122603.1866@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil> jberlin@falcon.aamrl.wpa
fb.af.mil  (Jim Berlin) writes in part:

>especially the big institutions.  Above all, the first and best investment,
>according to Lynch is a house.  Since reading his book, my results in the past
                       ^^^^^^^^
>three years have been pretty good, to whit:

   [Impressive list of stock gains deleted]


How has your house been doing lately?

Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: klur@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (david.s.klur)
Subject: Re: 1992 DJIA average contest
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 00:16:42 GMT

>I am not sure if I'll have InterNet access in the next two weeks
>so this a repeat of the postings:
>
>2250	jld1@iwtgp.att.com (Jeffrey L David)
>2545	roy@math13.math.umbc.edu (Roy Edwards)
>2710	pagel@cheesehead.sharebase.com (Tom Pagel)
>2750	lynch@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Howard Lynch)
>2800	C_FREEMAN" <CFREEMAN@doc.bmd.trw.com>
>2816	intrepid!gary@uu.psi.com (Gary Funck)
>2889.48	aboufade@math.rutgers.edu (Edward F. Aboufadel)
>3136.44	farrenko@meteor.wisc.edu (Joe Farrenkopf)
>3226	prm@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Paul R McMullin)
>3257.88	marn@SEAS.UCLA.EDU (Jure Marn)
>3372	tjochem@IUS4.IUS.CS.CMU.EDU (Todd)
>3421	stgprao@xing.unocal.com (RichardOttolini)
>3488	Andrew Philpot <philpot@ptolemy.arc.nasa.gov>
>3600	Joseph Chan <joseph@milton.u.washington.edu>
>3750	bbramski@nis.naitc.com (Bob Bramski)
>4029	weitek!lupin@Sun.COM (Edward Lupin)
>4200	dbrown%gr@cs.utah.edu (Don Brown)
>4500	<BKOTTMANN@FALCON.AAMRL.WPAFB.AF.MIL> (Brett Kottmann)
>3263	MEAN
>
>P.S. Interestingly enough, we are fairly close to the mean prediction now.
>A forecasting method called DELPHI uses the mean technique.

Yes, but in the DELPHI method, you ask for independent forecasts
from "experts".  A sampling from the net does not ensure that your
responses are from "experts" - sorry, netters!   


--
David Klur 	           | "There are two types of people in this world... 
AT&T			   |  Those that think there are two types of people,
dklur@attmail.com 	   |  and those that know better."
Me? Speak for AT&T?!?      |    -- Tom Robbins, "Still Life with Woodpecker"
From: ltaylor@blinky.East.Sun.COM (Laura Taylor)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Market Trends
Date: 16 Dec 1992 17:55:09 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Distribution: world
Reply-To: ltaylor@blinky.East.Sun.COM
NNTP-Posting-Host: blinky.east.sun.com
Keywords: IBM


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
From: paul@panix.com (Paul Gatker)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Anyone familiar with Fidelity Select Telecom fund?
Date: 21 Dec 92 01:32:43 GMT
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC


 I was thinking of investing in the telecommunication industy and was
wondering if anyone had any info on Fidelity's select telecom mutual fund?

 The only info I have is that there is a minimum $2500 investment requirement,
and something like a 2% fee. I'm not if the fee is a load, or an annual 
handling charge.

 I think there are great investment possiblities in this area. This would
also include cable, microwave, cellular, and relevant software/hardware.

 Of course the major companies have high p/e's, but that doesn't mean they
can't double or triple in the "90's"!

 

 Thanks for any info/opinions.
-- 
*******************************************************************
paul@panix.com                                    COMPULITE GRAPHICS
Brooklyn NY usa                                Design & Consultation
********************************************************************
Newsgroups: misc.invest,misc.consumers,misc.entrepreneurs,sci.econ,misc.legal
From: rvkl60@aus18a25.sps.mot.com (Tom Mathes)
Subject: Re: ***(NEW EDITION) JAPANYES;VERY POPULAR PAPER ON JAPANESE BUSINESS STRATEGY (1of2)
Organization: Motorola Inc, Austin, Texas
Distribution: na
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 21:00:30 GMT

In article <1992Dec10.003933.28315@fx.com> raphael@fx.com (Glen Raphael) writes:
>>The dumper usually has very deep pockets and a long-term vision which
>>is shared with his financial backers.  The "dumpee" can only fight this
>>if he also has deep pockets and/or his backers will let him operate at
>>a loss for some period of time.  Unfortunately, in the US, so much
>>emphasis is placed upon short term profits that this is not allowed, and
>>the dumpee concedes the market.  At that point, the dumper raises his
>>prices to a level that could not have been sustained if competition
>>existed.  
>
>That's the theory. But can you find ANY example of it ever happening anywhere
>in this century?  I thought not.

Sure can.  The video game market is a small example (check out
what Nintendo charges; the prices for games never change).  We 
have that happening the themarket for lithography equipment in semi-
conductors.  We seem to get the Japanese latest/greatest machine 
about a year after the Japanese first get it.  That often puts us
at a manufacturing disadvantage.

>Apple made the PowerBook 100 and the PowerBook 140 in Fremont, California.
>
>Ever wonder why Apple had to make the PowerBook 170 in *Ireland*?
>
>Because a stupid US law wouldn't let them import flat gas-plasma displays to
>California at the world market price. So once again we destroyed US jobs
>and hurt US consumers in the name of economic competitiveness...Sigh.

You're right; the government was stupid in not slapping tarriff on
any imported product with the screens.

We need a government with some sense about the way the real world
works, not the stupidity of the Bush administration.  Free markets
are dead; the Bush people never knew it.  I'm thankful that Bush 
lost.  Either Perot or Clinton were better options.

Paul Tsongas is right: The Cold War is over.  Japan and Germany won.

>Read _The Fair Trade Fraud_ by James Bouvard.

Read "Head to Head - The Coming Economic Battle Among Japan, Europe, and
America", by Lester Thurow, William Morrow & Co., 1992.  Dr. Thurow
is the Dean of the MIT Sloan School of Management.  The man talks more
sense in just a few pages than a free-marketeer can say in entire book 
of outdated drivel.

Free-market laissez-fair Anglo-Saxon capitalism is dying.  The
mercantilistic capitalism practiced by Germany and Japan, along
with other Asian and European countries, is winning.  We have to
adapt to the way things are going, not change others to the way
that looses.

Tom Mathes                                e-mail : rvkl60@email.sps.mot.com
Motorola Inc. / MOS Memory Products Div.  phone  : (512) 928-7627
Austin, Texas
From: rmandel@bu.edu (Richard Mandel)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: "Market efficiency" (Was Re: Rationality of the stock market (NOT!))
Date: 18 Dec 92 14:26:27 GMT
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5


[deleted]
: 
: People have long said that the market over-reacts either on the upside
: or downside to good or bad news so there's an opportunity to profit
: if you take this into account. Problem is: consider IBM. IBM dropped
: 6 3/4 on Tuesday in reaction to bad news. If you bought Wednesday A.M.
: assuming the 6 3/4 was an over-reaction you lose 4 1/4 more points on
: Wednesday. What about buying this morning? Is the 11 points in two days
: an over-reaction so you should buy? Or does the stock have further
: to fall. Hard to say.

A rule of thumb that I read of in a recent Barrons is as follows:
	When stocks take a big hit after earnings disappointments, one
month later the stock will be down an additional amount approximately equal
to the initial decline.  Three months after the initial disappointment
the stock will have recovered 5% of the total loss.

	If IBM follows the average course of over-reaction it should then
continue to decline for a while longer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Mandel			|	E-mail address: rmandel@acs.bu.edu
Boston Univ. School of Medicine	|	Phone No. 617-638-4512	
Boston, MA 02118		|	Fax No. 617-638-4085
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.invest,misc.consumers,misc.entrepreneurs,soc.college,soc.college.grad
From: kd1hz@anomaly.sbs.com (Michael P. Deignan)
Subject: Re: Lawyer for refinancing?
Organization: Small Business Systems, Incorporated, Smithfield, RI 02917
Distribution: na
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 04:54:28 GMT

kizior@rtsg.mot.com (Paul Kizior) writes:

>Is a lawyer needed for a refinancing of a home mortgage?

Yes. 

At my refinancing, I signed no less than 30 documents. Now, I understand what
most of them are, and what the terms are, etc., but hell, for $75, I had my
attorney there "just in case".

Think of it this way... Would you normally sign documents making yourself
liable for perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars without having a
lawyer present?

What makes a refinancing any different than a "regular" closing? Nothing.

MD
-- 
--  Michael P. Deignan                      / Sex is hereditary. If your 
--  Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com            /  parents never had it, chances 
-- AT&TNet: +1 401 273 4669               /   are you won't either...
-- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347              /
From: jerryw@cs.umd.edu (Jerry Wieber)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Stoneridge Resources
Date: 17 Dec 92 04:48:56 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U of Maryland, Dept. of Computer Science, Coll. Pk., MD 20742

In article <1992Dec16.214805.18123@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> vkb@blitzen.cc.bellcore.com (@U) writes:
>I own some Stoneridge Resources (NYSE: SRE) stock and they stink. 
[...]
>The company was in the Orange Juice business and now they are
>buying up all sorts of insurance.  I particularly don't like
>that!

Sounds like they lost their orchards in Huricane Andrew, doesn't it? :)

-Jerry
-- 
                                                           __________ 
 UUCP:     uunet!cs.umd.edu!jerryw   SPOKEN: Jerry Wieber  |/ `-.    | U of Md
 INTERNET: jerryw@cs.umd.edu                                     \_|.|-,  
                                                                    ` - 
Xref: sparky misc.invest:15148 misc.taxes:3847
From: donna@wyse.wyse.com (Donna Diloreto x2231 dept302)
Newsgroups: misc.invest,misc.taxes
Subject: Re: Cafeteria Health-Care Program: HELP?
Date: 18 Dec 92 17:51:09 GMT
Followup-To: misc.invest
Organization: Wyse Technologies San Jose, Ca

In article <1992Dec17.230042.2523@panix.com> eck@panix.com (Mark Eckenwiler) writes:
>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).

-- Christophe writes:
>>Sorry, but that's not how it works.  The employer is risk-free.  If you
>>leave your job, the employer is required to charge you for the FULL
>>AMOUNT that you signed up for in year ($520 minus contributions to
>>date, in the example you show); you do not get anything for free.  If
>>your final check isn't enough, I don't know if the employer is required
>>to extract it from you in other ways, or if they just don't contribute
>>it to your account, but nothing goes into your account without you
>>paying for it.

I agree with Mark above, but not with Christophe.  We just had our HR
benefits meeting this week, and the VP if HR says what Mark said:
	- if you leave after 4 weeks, having put in $40 in that time,
	  but have filed $520 worth of MEDICAL expenses, then the
	  company is out of pocket.

If, however, if it was the other way around where the employee put in $520
and left before filing the full $520, then the employee is out of luck.

Donna

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: cs101a64@ih-nxt04.cso.uiuc.edu (cs101 student)
Subject: Re: What is wrong with MicroSoft ?!!!
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 21:29:48 GMT

In article <Bz5q64.658@acsu.buffalo.edu> elkordy@acsu.buffalo.edu (Mohamed  
Elkordy) writes:
> Microsoft took about $6.00 dip in the last two days,  any body knows why  
?!
> 
> 
> elkordy
Maybe there is nothing wrong (or hardly anything wrong) with Microsoft.   
Perhaps so many people were so eager to buy Microsoft that they payed many  
times book value for it.  Then one piece of news disappoints everyone, and  
the stock is trashed.  If this same event happened to British Steel (which  
sells for under 30% of book value), its shareholders wouldn't be fazed,  
because expectations for British Steel are extremely low.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: cs101a64@ih-nxt04.cso.uiuc.edu (cs101 student)
Subject: Re: "Don't Become Fixated on Mutual Funds" - Peter Lynch
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 20:48:06 GMT

In article <Bz2Fo3.Kzv@taligent.com> cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus)  
writes:
> In article <1992Dec9.151301.8923@agora.com> conway@agora.com writes:
> >2. Body Shop (pink sheets)     Recent Price: 2 3/4
> 
> OK, I have to ask: What are "pink sheets"?  How are they different, if
> at all, from stock?
> --
> -- Christophe
> 
> "I draw the line at Styrofoam packing kernels, you sick pervert."
The pink sheets are pink because they are stained with the blood of  
investors (Just kidding!).  Seriously, the pink sheet stocks (also called  
penny stocks) are the stocks of companies with insufficient assets to be  
on the regular NYSE, AMEX, NASDAQ, and OTC exchanges.  For this reason,  
pink sheet companies are either very new and small or about to go  
bankrupt.  The pink sheets are notorious for extreme risk and ties to the  
mob.  Thus, they are not for conservative investors or socially conscious  
investors.
Newsgroups: misc.invest