HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kristoff@net.bio.net (David Kristofferson)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: 401k plan administrator info needed
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:30:38 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Biology

I'd like to hear from anyone whose company is using either Fidelity or
Vanguard to administer directly their 401k plan.  How has service
been?  What are the fees like?  What options do they give plan
participants?

For those in the San Francisco area, does anyone have any experience
with Plan Designs (San Mateo) or Pacific Consulting Group (Aptos) as
401k administrators?
 
				Sincerely,

				Dave Kristofferson

				kristoff@net.bio.net

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: dwang@ADS.COM (David Wang)
Subject: Re: Income & Wealth (Was: Effects...Debt)
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mtn. View, CA (415)960-7300
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:47:01 GMT

Unfortunately, big consumer debt ran up in the '80s include lots of 
Japanese and European imports.  We had a huge trade deficits...  So,
carrying this line of argument further, one can argue that the current
recession is a by product of consumer spending part of their own 
wealth from the '90s during the '80s.

One can argue that the Japanese and European manufacturers have
benefitted from our consumer binges in the '80s.  But that doesn't
necessarily implied that the "wealthy" in the US somehow shared the
profits, except thru ownership of foreign corporation.  Again, my
argument is that focusing on relative "wealth" concentration is
only 2nd or 3rd order effects.  

It is not the "wealthy" or corporations' faults that the US consumers
went on spending binges in the '80s.  A better solution to the 
problem is to change the US population to save more and spend less.
And the best way to start is for the governement to have a smaller
claim to everyone's pocketbook!

DW
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: frazier@kona.cs.ucla.edu (Gregory Frazier)
Subject: Re: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Renting vs. Owning
Organization: UCLA, Computer Science Department
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
Distribution: misc
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 17:40:34 GMT

Mitch Giesy (mitch@giesy.mitch.b17a.ingr.com) wrote:
: Is there any question that owning a house is far more
: financially beneficial than renting? This discussion has thus far
: overlooked the following simple facts:
: 
:            A home is an appreciably asset. A [constantly increasing]
:            portion of a monthly mortgage payment goes toward the
:            owner's equity in the home. This is an investment. What is
:            the amount of a rent check that accumulates for the renter? Zero.

Hold on, here!  First, renting is generally cheaper than
a mortgage payment.  If you invest the difference, you
can accumulate wealth as a renter.  Second, depending on
the real estate market and the property you are purchasing,
you could end up losing out big-time on a property.  Yes,
I agree that in general buying is better than rening, and yes,
I do intend to own a house some day, but home buying isn't such
a wonderful investment that I would choose it over a stock
fund (for example) - unless this happened to be a home a particularly
wanted to live in.  I strongly agree with the life-style comment -
an investment is something you sell when you think its value has
peaked, and this is not how I intend to treat my home.

--
"They thought to use and shame me but I win out by nature, because a true
freak cannot be made.  A true freak must be born." - Geek Love

Greg Frazier	frazier@CS.UCLA.EDU	!{ucbvax,rutgers}!ucla-cs!frazier
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: dwang@ADS.COM (David Wang)
Subject: Re: Income & Wealth & The Blind
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mtn. View, CA (415)960-7300
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 22:55:27 GMT

In article <9210131812.AA25341@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
>In article <1992Oct9.220710.6459@ads.com> dwang@ADS.COM (David Wang) writes:
>>But, where is it written in stone that people have to BUY ?!  What
>>happen to living within your mean?  It is not my fault or your fault
>>that someone decided to borrow to buy something they couldn't afford.
>
>        It's not a question of blame.
>        It's a question of mechanism.
>
To understand how we can get out of this mess requires an
understanding of how we arrive at this point.  Otherwise, we are
simply treating the symptoms and not the diesease itself.  

It still seems logical to at least attempt to identify what are the primary
causes of our economic difficulties.  One plausible thesis is proposed
by an article in this week's Barron re. the long term cyclical trend
of debt in the US.  In this view of the world, when debt level as a
whole in society is low (relative to GDP), it is stimulative to the
economy by acquiring more debt.  At some point in the debt
accummulation cycle, too much debt eats up too much cash flow, and the
debt burden becomes excessive and starts to choke off economic growth.

If this theory is correct, then moderating the consumption habit and
debt acquisition in the future may also moderate the debilitating
effects of debt liquidation.  Another implication is that "wealth
distribution" have only secondary or third level of importance in
creating our current problems.


>        Truly, the mindset you ( and Kawika ) are demonstrating
>        in your posts, shows me just why we're going to have to
>        do the 1930s thing
>
>                 aaaalllll
>                      oooovvvvveeeeerrrrrr
>                                         again.
>
??????? i fail to follow that line of argument .....

>           Everything is there.  The numbers are in place.  The
>   mechanisms.  The whole thing.  I have no doubt we are, and have
>   been in, a depression.  I also have little doubt that the
>   incredible greed, lack of balance, and short-sightedness, demonstrated
>   here, in our government, and in our voters, will make it into
>   an Apocalypse.

You prognosis of what may happen might be correct, but without a
better understanding of the true causes, we will have no better
luck in preventive future disasters.


Xref: sparky misc.invest:12678 soc.culture.usa:7807
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: misc.invest,soc.culture.usa
Subject: Re: GM to file for chapter 11 Bankruptcy (at least that's the rumor!)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:44:19 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <1992Oct15.155812.19650@novell.com>, bradley@novell.com (Brad Soe) writes:
> In article <1992Oct15.015415.4826@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Stupendous Man) writes:
...
>>	GM did an IPO last year that raised 2.2 BILLION dollars.  It's all
>>gone.  Gone.

	The above was in a recent Wall Street Journal.  Can't remember which
one, but it was in the last week or so.

>>	They're taking a hit (loss) on almost every car they sell in the name
>>of the great god of market share.  Why?  Who knows.  Their parts divisions are
>>bleeding millions of dollars a day.  It's not pretty.

	The above is straight from the hors...oops...very lovely engineer who
is a wonderful wife's mouth. :D

>>	The news that they will sell off the parts divisions is, IMO, the first
>>step.  If that doesn't work they'll sell off Oldsmobile.  If that doesn't
>>work...chapter 11.
> 
> Can you tell me where you got this info? Please make references. I would
> like to read about it. I am not an investor in any US auto company, just
> curious.

	The parts division sell off was also discussed in the WSJ.  They were
talking about how companies like SEARS and MARIOTT were shedding divisions to
enhance their profitability/lower costs.

Brett--------------------------------------------------------------------------
	"Why the courts don't tell a husband who has been living off his wife
to go out and get a job is beyond my comprehension."--Joan Lunden
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: markb@col.hp.com (Mark Barrett)
Subject: Re: Mortgages and interest rates
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 19:41:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: HP Colorado Springs Division

   I am essentially in the same position.  I have a house under construction
with a current construction completion deadline of 65 days.  Next week I am
locking the loan with the anticipation of nailing 8% no points on a 30 year
loan.  I have been agonizing over this for months and look forward to putting
that worry aside.  When I started this I was looking at 8.5%, therefore 8% is
a nice bonus.  I have always intended to lock in prior to the election.  I 
think I will just make it despite the fact that the construction process has 
taken about twice as long as I expected.

Mark Barrett
From: tut@cairo.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: December Banking Surprise
Date: 9 Oct 92 19:14:44 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems Inc., Mountain View, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: cairo

There was an AP wire story about this printed in yesterday's IBD.
It's hard to know if this is Bush campaign propaganda; the source is
a "banking analyst" at Veribanc Inc. of Wakefield MA.  Overall this
is not as bad as I expected.

"Using government financial data current through June 30, [Veribanc]
 said 58 commercial and savings banks with $24.3 billion in assets
 will be subject to immediate federal seizure after stricter financial
 standards go into effect on Dec. 19.

"Nationally there are 12,000 banks with $3.7 trillion in assets [so
 this represents .66% of banking assets].

"On June 30, the 58 banks held $1.24 billion in deposits over the
 $100k insurance limit, said [Veribanc].

"The FDIC does not make public its own version of [this] analysis,
 but before 1992 began it said it expected 200 banks with $116
 billion in assets to fail [representing 3.14% of banking assets].
 So far, 83 banks with $27.8 billion in assets have failed."
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca
Subject: Re: Brokers to be taxed on UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS--prop. legislation
Organization: Memorial University. St.John's Nfld, Canada
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 10:33:29 GMT

In article <1992Oct14.212044.2319@cbnews.cb.att.com>, ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
> In article <1992Oct14.092847.22989@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> markr@mcil.comm.mot.com writes:
>>>"... a provision in the Revenue Act of 1992 (H.R.11) now being 
>>>considered in the Senate. If passed in its current form, the law would
>>>force Wall Street firms to pay taxes on unrealized gains in their
>>>security trading positions. ....firms would pay Uncle Sam as much as
>>>$4 billion over a 5 year period. Firms with big trading operations ...
>>>Commercial banks that do a lot of trading ... would be hurt... ."
>>>
>>>"The Securities Industry Association is up in arms over the bill, calling
>>>it "discriminatory and anticompetitive". The association pointedly notes
>>>that nowhere else in American industry is Congress trying to tax 
>>>unrealized gains.
>>>
>>>Here's a scary thought. If Washington begins to tax Wall Streets' 
>>>unrealized gains, will the taxmen use the precedent to do likewise to
>>>other businesses--and individuals?"
>>
>>Even more scary.  Our 'representatives' (and I use the word lightly), have
>>...  They will tax our assets, our pension plans,
>>our 401(k)'s, our IRA's, our stocks, our bonds, our inheritances, & everything
>>else they can get their hands on.
> 
>                       If you have it, they will come!
> 
> In some ways, we are alredy taxed on unrealized gains:
>      (shows how)

You don't know the half of it :-)  ...

In Canada a few years ago interest reporting rules were changed such that 
accrued interest on bonds like savings bonds etc. (NOT bond funds, but the 
original bonds themselves) is taxed YEARLY _even if it is compounded and not 
paid to the bondholder in that year_.

Wanna' bet that this hasn't been brought up at the international convention 
of tax collectors as a wonderful 'revenue enhancement device' ???

John Garland
jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: McAldon International Inc. <mcaldon@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Date: 06 Oct 92 22:45 PDT
Subject: Re: taxquestion
Nf-ID: #R:1992Oct6.182018.27748@ncsu.edu:-879734201:cdp:1426500277:000:592
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mcaldon    Oct  6 22:45:00 1992


|I have recently inherited some real estate in Taiwan. Being a 
|U.S. citizen I will have to sell them within one year. 
|I live in North Carolina and am wondering if I bring the 
|procedes from the sale of the land into the states what kind of 
|taxes will I be looking at? Am I even in the right newsgroup?
|Any responses are welcome.

I don't believe you will owe any taxes on an inheritance.  You might
post your query in misc.taxes.    DMcKenzie

|    mcaldon@igc.org     | Opinions dispensed herein not guaranteed |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
From: fred@walter.UUCP (Fred Walter)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Cost-Benefit analysis of Renting VS. Buying
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 23:00:07 GMT
Organization: GRW Enterprises

I'm going to write myself a little spreadsheet to help with a $$ cost-benefit
analysis of renting vs. buying. Here's what I've thought of including :

Renting
-------
 Cost    : - rent amount (keeping in mind that this amount will increase
             every year, whereas the mortgage monthly payment won't necessarily)
           - utilities (if not included in the rent amount)
           - personal property insurance for my belongings

 Benefit : - interest/etc earned on amount that would have been
             my downpayment/etc had I purchased a house
           - amount (if any) that the costs of renting is less than
	     the costs of buying
           - interest/etc earned on the above

Buying
------
 Cost    : - mortgage
           - utilities
           - property taxes
           - maintenance costs
           - personal property insurance for my belongings
           - added insurance for the house (fire/etc)

 Benefit : - could rent out a room (or two or ...)
           - eventually the house will be paid for; so the amount (if any)
             that the costs of buying is less than the costs of renting
           - interest/etc earned on the above
           - property (in theory) will appreciate in value

If I get fancy I may try to see what happens if I have to move after a year
or 5 or 10 or ...

Is there anything that I am forgetting ? Has someone already done this ?
If so, where can I get a copy ? Please respond via email to make sure that
I see your response (post too if you want). If I get any new info I'll post
a summary after a couple of weeks.

BTW - I live in Canada and mortgage payments are *not* tax deductable here,
which is why I didn't include them in the benefits of buying section.

	Advance Thanx,
	fred
--
Fred Walter fred@walter.UUCP fredw@mks.com F.WALTER1(GEnie)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: suhre@meltami.dsd.trw.com ()
Subject: McClellan Oscillator Alert
Originator: suhre@meltami.dsd.trw.com
Reply-To: suhre@meltami.dsd.trw.com ()
Organization: TRW Space & Defense
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 23:37:57 GMT


Richard Mogey, Executive Director of the Foundation for the Study of
Cycles, is a big proponent of the McClellan Oscillator.  He has done a
great deal of research on it in conjunction with Sherm McClellan.

The McClellan Oscillator is customarily computed after the NYSE has
closed and the advance/decline stats are available.  Research shows
that the market has *always* experienced a decline after a reading of
-125 has been reached.  Such declines have been preceded by a reflex
rally prior to the decline.  In all but one case, the decline has been
significant (whatever that means :-).  The research went all the way
back to the 20s (I think) and the data was adjusted for the fact that
there were less stocks trading then than there are now.

So much for background.  On Monday, 10/5, the DOW dropped about 100
points and then recovered 80 to close down about 20.  The closing
McClellan oscillator did not reach -125, but the intraday low was
-132.  Richard says that this is uncharted territory, but given the
observation that almost everything is at an extreme, prudence would
suggest that the reflex rally should be a time for selling and that 
it will very likely be followed by a substantial decline.

Veering off subject slightly, consider the following recent proclamations:

1.  Mogey thinks the McClellan Oscillator has given a sell.  (see above)

2.  Wm O'Neil thinks 10/4 was the bottom of the market and we are going
to have a rally (got that from my broker).

3.  There is a fairly convincing article in the current Barron's showing
that we are heading for a depression.  (That's the D word, not the R
word :-)

4.  The last guest on Wall Street Week thought that the recession was
over and the economy was recovering, even though no one seemed to be
noticing.  Said that the economy would continue to recover making the
next President look like a hero.  Thought that now was a good time to
buy growth stocks.

This is the sort of stuff I used to see in the NoLoadFund*X newsletter
under the heading of "Buy, Hold, Punt?"  :-)

Usual disclaimers.
-- 
Maurice Suhre
suhre@trwrb.dsd.trw.com
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: fritz@fc.sde.hp.com (Gary Fritz)
Subject: Re: Janus Worldwide Fund 
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:34:38 GMT

carol lee stimmel (stimmel@virga.ucar.edu) wrote:
: I am seeking information and opinions regarding investing in a global
: fund -- specifically the Janus Worldwide Fund.  
: 
: email is fine.

Please post, or summarize!  I have also been considering Janus WWF.
We've got a fair chunk of $$ in Janus 20 which has been stagnating for
the past 10 months.  And the direction the market is likely to head
in the next year makes me very nervous to leave it there.  The WWF
seemed like a reasonable place to move some/all of it.

Gary
From: dbk@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Don Katz)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: 2oth Century
Date: 14 Oct 92 14:03:41 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, University of Wisconsin

In article <1992Oct14.025841.6320@netcom.com> mbk@netcom.com (Miles Kehoe) writes:
>>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?
>
>There are some problems with BIG funds - I *think* it was Peter
>Lynch who remarked (no, I'm *not* a name-dropper, I read a book
>I ratehr enjoyed that he wrote!) that as funds get larger, both
>the FUND's rules and the SEC's rules work against them. 
>
>He related that most funds limit their investments to a relatively
>small number of issues so they can watch them VERY closely. I think
>Magellan when he was there allowed him to have 35 or so but he
>said that was unusual - most only allow a fund manager to own
>20 issues. 

This is patently false. When Lynch ran Magellan, he was well known for
owning small amounts of a ridiculous number of issues (over a 1000 if
I recall correctly) - he liked to have a little money if any stock he
was interested in; it helped him keep tabs on it.

Furthermore, I rarely read a fund annual report which lists fewer than
100 issues. Janus 20 fund is *unique* because it invests in a short list
of 20-30 issues.

I agree, however, that a very large fund can't invest in small companies,
and that, other things being equal, a small fund will be a better
investment. Unfortunately, small funds are usually new or have poor
records (otherwise they would become big). So the normal choice is
between a medium to large size fund with a history of skilled
investment management - like 20th Century funds - and smaller new
funds with a history too short to be useful in evaluating them.

>So - anyone know a good aggressive yet SMALL fund?

Robertson Stephens Growth Fund would be my pick, or check out Oberweis
Emerging Growth Fund - look for small small-cap funds
that are down 10-20% this year, and you'll find what you're
looking for. These are good funds - just a bad market environment for
this kind of fund.




-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Katz                                .         Physical
                                       .- / \ -.      Sciences
University of Wisconsin - Madison   ./'  /+-+\  `\.       Laboratory   E-MAIL
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: wsm26@cas.org (Wayne Mills)
Subject: Re: Article from LA Times on Direct Investing (10/4/92)
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:17:29 GMT

"...buys one share or 100 through the NAIC."  was stated in the article.
Just to prevent this from misleading anyone, let me clarify that (a year
ago when I was an NAIC member) they would only allow you to send enough
money to cover one share, plus $10 to cover price fluctuations.  You
were then free to buy more shares whenever your DRP plan was formally
established with the company.

They explained that this was because some of the companies only accepted
a maximum amount of money from NAIC per month.  Therefore, in order that
they might be able to get the largest number of investors started in that
stock in any one month, they wanted only enough money from that investor
to get that initial share.

I might also note, so that I don't mislead anyone, that some companies
require more than one share to enter their DRP plans.  In this case I'm
sure NAIC would accept enough money to buy that number of shares, whatever
it might be.

Also, last I knew NAIC was only working with about 60 companies which 
would allow NAIC to purchase the share and transfer it to the individual
through their Low-Cost Investment program.  Does anyone know if this
number has grown appreciably in the last 12 months?

---------------

    Woody:  Would you like a beer, Mr. Peterson?
    Norm:   No, I'd like a dead cat in a glass.

---------------
Wayne Mills
BITNET: <wsm26@cas.bitnet>  or  <wsm26%cas.bitnet@cunyvm.cuny.edu>
INTERNET: wsm26@cas.org
UUCP: ...!osu-cis!chemabs!wsm26
Newsgroups: misc.invest,sci.econ