HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re:  Concentration of wealth
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:34:34 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <9210070100.AA14479@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>, GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne) writes:
> References: <23179@optima.cs.arizona.edu> <1992Oct2.052830.3539@cs.sfu.ca> <2323
>>The trend in the US in the 80's is far from clear.  The statistical
>>abstract of the US provides data on total wealth and top wealth-
>>holders:
> 
>           From "Field Guide to the U.S. Economy"  ( Center for Popular
>      Economics, 1984 )
> 
>         i)   Percentage of total assets owned by top 100 firms in U.S.
> 
>                        1961 - 44%
>                        1984 - 61%
> 
>          And remember, the 80's were merger mania.  The number would
>       most likely be substantially higher now.  If you'll look closely

	A smaller number of companies is indicative of increased global
competition.

>       you'll see that the downturn in our economy has produced EXACTLY
>       the desired effects that a society, dominated by an inequity of
>       wealth, would require.  Sears - wasting its debt-burdened
>       divisions, downsizing and market share loss by major companies,
>       disvestment of huge real-estate holdings, etc.

	Those divisions are not debt burdened.  Sears itself is in trouble.  It
needs cash.

...
>>As far as whether the government acts as a tool to concentrate
>>wealth, there is a calculation I would like to see.  Government
> 
>            Federal tax rate during 1930's was around 4%.  Is there
>      any doubt in your mind that the government now exerts substantially
>      more control ( thus distorting free markets ) than 60 years ago?
> 
>            There's absolutely no doubt in *my* mind that the U.S.
>      GDP growth for the past 4-5 years is due solely to the federal
>      deficit.  I doubt any GDP growth can be maintained without a
>      constantly escalating deficit now.

	Deficits do not fuel economic growth.  Certainly not with what our
deficits pay for!  (Pork, non-transferrable military technology, subsidizing
poverty, etc.)

>            What would really be amusing is if the Federal debt had
>      actually been buffering an on-coming depression.  I can see it
>      now -  " Saved by the Deficit! "

	Bailing water _into_ a sinking ship?

	The debt is neither as bad as people seem to think, nor as hard to get
rid of.  Reducing government spending will do wonders.

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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: samaddar@siemens.com (Sumitro Samaddar)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Effects of the U.S. Debt
Date: 6 Oct 92 21:33:05 GMT
Reply-To: samaddar@siemens.com

ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini) writes:

>	Just a note.  If you incorporate, $300-500, and make your
>	spouse vice-president and your children directors, if you
>	die, and the estate is under the corporation name, the
>	estate stays with the corporation and you pay no inheritance
>	tax on it and the corporation, your family, keeps the property.

Are the titles (VP/directors) relevant here? Don't the stockholders
own a company? So, if you make (you and) your family the stockholders,
when you die, your stocks have to be explicitly transferred to other
stockholders. Won't that transfer attract any tax?

Sumitro
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: suhre@meltami.dsd.trw.com ()
Subject: Social Security is a Tax?
Originator: suhre@meltami.dsd.trw.com
Reply-To: suhre@meltami.dsd.trw.com ()
Organization: TRW Space & Defense
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 00:00:06 GMT


An article, which expired before I got around to followup said
something like "no one every claimed Social Security was anything but a
tax".

My memory and understanding aren't perfect, but I remember when the SS
wage base and rates were raised to "accommodate the baby boomers".  I
also remember the words "Social Security Trust Fund".  The deductions
show up as FICA on my payroll stub, not as a "payroll tax".  In short,
the impression is given that the money is collected for future benefits
else why were contributions raised to accommodate the baby boomers?

In short, SS is in fact a tax, but it is concealed.  The Social Security
Trust Fund is non-existant, at least in the sense of a Trust.  The money
was spent by the government and what SS has is a bunch of IOUs.  Swell.

All IMHO, of course, and usual disclaimers.
-- 
Maurice Suhre
suhre@trwrb.dsd.trw.com
From: vandezande@inland.com
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Income & Wealth (Was: Effects...Debt)
Date: 13 Oct 92 15:44:23 CST
Organization: Inland Steel Company; East Chicago, IN

In article <1992Oct12.130729.4428@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne) writes:
> 
> When the U.S. increased protection for steel and autos in the 70's, instead of
> becoming more competitive, the steel and auto companies increased their prices
> (and profitability) rather than becoming competitive with imports.  If this 
> isn't "big" money or the "wealthy" being helped, I'm not sure what is.
> 
	At the time, the integrated steel companies were selling for less
than the cost of producing, to match the price of imported product.  Part
of this was due to aging inefficient facilities, part to highly paid inflexible
labor, and part to dumping.  Add inefficient management to that list, assign
various proportions of blame to each, and you've covered just about every
position taken by actors, analysts, and kibitzers.

	Now, yes the prices were raised, and yes the profits increased when 
"temporary" import quotas were imposed, but nobody got rich (trust me on that).
Instead, the profits were plowed into facility modernization and environmental
control.  For decades, our stock has drifted with the business cycle between
around 20 and 30, currently 16 something (years low).  Dividends have never
been above 5 or 6%, even when inflation was high.  This is typical for the
"survivors" (Inland, Beth, Armco, National).  Others went belly up, non-union
mini-mills hit the big time, and maybe you can figure out USX (I'll grant
you, buying an oil company instead of modernizing steel was shameless, but
not typical of the industry).

	What was the other option?  Lose 300,000 jobs and $50 billion in
capital (last number a guess) in a very few years.  Tough choices.

								Joe V.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: jparcel@sph.unc.edu (JAMES PARCEL)
Subject: Re: Mutual funds with no-fee IRAs
Keywords: IRA, mutual funds, fees
Organization: UNC School of Public Health
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 22:24:20 GMT

In article <5b9ea36d.1b2f0@digital.sps.mot.com> chen@digital.sps.mot.com (Jinfu Chen) writes:

>In article <1992Oct7.141329.2196@news2.cis.umn.edu> janardan@myria.cs.umn.edu (Ravi Janardan) writes:
>>Does anyone have a list of mutual funds (if any)
>>that do not charge a set-up fee or an annual
>>maintenance fee for IRAs under 10K? (Schwab has such
>>a thing but only for amounts >= 10K.)

>GT Global's funds don't have any annual fee for IRA.  However, their funds
>have heavy front-end load (7.5%).

>I believe Janus also has no annual fee for IRA **IF** you pay them $100 (or
>$500?) one time fee.

Yes, Janus has a no annual fee IRA when the one-time fee.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "17%" Horne")
Subject:      The Big Boom
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 15:05:06 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA07507; Wed, 14 Oct 92 14:14:37 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA18140; Wed, 14 Oct 92 14:11:43 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 3232; Wed, 14 Oct 92 15:10:26 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 0488; Wed, 14 Oct 92 15:10:25 MST
X-To: misc.invest.usenet

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: dbk@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Don Katz)
Subject: Re: Depression (Was: Income & Wealth & A Light!)
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, University of Wisconsin
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 17:36:38 GMT


>My question, not really addressed in the Barron's article - what
>investment stance should one take to conserve one's capital as the US
>launches down the slippery slope? Are bonds the appropriate investment
>vehicle because long-term interest rates will fall and the real rate
>

         That surely is what the article implied to me.  Personally,
    I'm not touching bonds for anything.  If the government is truly
    monetizing 30 billion next year, with a total money supply of
    280 billion, that's over a 10% increase, with a matching increase
    in GDP of *maybe* 1-2%.  Big inflation.

        I'm trying to decide if the government is either

       a) incredibly stupid and desperate, cutting rates hasn't worked,
          so start printing!

       b) They believe they can induce a controlled inflationary burn-off
          ( not while they're still borrowing 300 billion a year, they
            can't! )

       c) Expect to have used up the supply of bond buyers

      Ask Norbert.  He's figured all this out from the bottom up,
      not the top down like me. :)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: sbale@netcom.com (Swamy S. Bale)
Subject: Re: Symantec..
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 19:13:13 GMT

In article <1992Oct13.165042.24168@news.csd.sgi.com> hajadi@goofy.csd.sgi.com (Ivan Hajadi) writes:
>
>
>
>i read from news paper that Symantec will report a loss this quarter.
>is the report out already ?  if so, can one tells me what the loss is ?
>
>thanks.
>
>
>
>--
>
>/* Ivan, hajadi@sgi.com */

I don't think they have already reported. But yesterday Symantec announced
it has reached an agreement with a Chinese company to do business in China.
Their stock was up 1 7/8 since two days. At the time of writing it was
8 1/8.

swamy
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: jackson@bluemoon.rn.com (jack cole)
Subject: Re: Janus Fund phone number?
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 19:20:34 EDT

philco@microsoft.com (Phillip Cooper) writes:

> I was wondering if someone could post the general phone number
> for Janus.  I need to get a prospectus from them.
> 
> Phil Cooper
> 


1-800-525-3713



Jackson
From: Michael.Powell@Eng.Sun.COM
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Answers to many FAQ on stocks, bonds, etc.
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:44:40 GMT
Reply-To: Michael.Powell@Eng.Sun.COM
Distribution: usa
Organization: Sun Microsystems Laboratories, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
NNTP-Posting-Host: calliope

Wandering through my local bookstore, I stumbled across an unexpected source
of more information than I thought I wanted to know about how stocks, bonds,
etc., work.  E.g., When you sell stock short, who gets to vote the shares: The
guy you borrowed them from, the guy you sold them to, you, nobody, or what? (*)
It is a study guide for the Qualification Examination for General Securities
Registered Representative (Test Series 7), which is given by NASD.  There may
be other versions available, but the one I found was by ARCO.  (ARCO seems to
be like Schaum's Outlines, and it was right next to them in the book store).

The exact title is:

Registered Representative / Stockbroker : NASD Series 7 Exam, written by
Philip Meyers and Peter Solomon, published by Prentice Hall, $35.

The narrative is dry (Just the facts, ma'am), but well-organized, and you can
even try out the test questions to see if you have what it takes to be a stock
broker.

How do IPOs work?  What's the difference between the NYSE and NASDAQ?  How
are different bond prices quoted?  How does margin work?  It's all in there.

Enjoy.

(*) The answer is: The guy you sold them to gets to vote.  He doesn't know he
bought shorted shares.  You probably borrowed the shares from someone who had
them in a margin account, and it's standard to sign away voting rights for
shares in margin accounts.  (Interesting how people shorting a stock and people
buying it on margin are willing to cooperate in this scheme, isn't it?)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: nmodi@klinzhai.rutgers.edu (Nirav Modi)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Latest Fortune magazine
Date: 15 Oct 92 13:43:38 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

Hi 
	The  latest fortune magazine is related with personal investment. 

	One thing,  I would like to know that nearly everybody  has
	picked Phillip Morris as one of the best stock to buy. 
	
	What is your opinion?
	
	Thanks
Nirav
-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Nirav B. Modi			Email Address: nmodi@klinzhai.rutgers.edu
(908)699-1124(Home) 		(908)932-4786(School)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: gunner1+@pitt.edu (Jayant Rajgopal)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: 20th Century---the real story
Date: 16 Oct 92 13:03:06 GMT
Distribution: misc
Organization: University of Pittsburgh

In article <31602@alfred.Teknowledge.COM> tbarnes@teknowledge.com (Terry A Barnes) writes:
>and Giftrust I believe).  Ultra is now much too large to be an effective small
>company fund.  If Vista also grows too large (I don't know its current size),
>then they will probably open a new fund...
>

I might have missed some of this thread, but why don't the folks at 20th Century
close Ultra to new investors.  Janus Venture which is also a small company stock
fund did exactly that a couple of years back.  I've got money in both of
these and Venture has taken nowhere near the beating that Ultra has.  I had a
monthly plan with Ultra which I have just discontinuued after watching my
investment go down 18%. However, I still believe that 20th Century is one
of the better run companies, so I guess I'm just going to let my money 
sit there for a while and see what happens...
 
>			Terry Barnes
>-- 

--jr--
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: BUSH CREEK DEVELOPMENTS
From: barbon_m@eis.dofasco.ca
Date: 14 Oct 92 10:36:08 GMT
Organization: Dofasco Inc, Hamilton, Ont. Can.
Nntp-Posting-User: barbon_m

Can you repost the information on BUSH CREEK Development.

Also, is there any new developments?

-- 
Max Barbon
(dofasco!barbon_m)       			1330 Burlington St East
Fax (416)-548-4100				Hamilton, Ont. L8N 3J5 Canada
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: scott@phylo.life.uiuc.edu (Scott Howard)
Subject: Scudder Development Fund Commentary
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 13:33:57 GMT

This fund is not for the faint of heart, or short term investor!

I wish I had the foresight to wait to enter the fund myself, after getting
absolutely reamed ($10 loss per share) this year. The prospectus currently
offered on it, while not necessarily intentionally misleading, does paint
a much rosier picture of its performance than what reality would dictate.
Most Mutual Fund trackers predict that the Development Fund is one of
the Five Most Vulnerable Open-Ended Mutual Funds during a Bear Market,
along with 20th Century Ultra.

As a counter aside, it will probably be a great fund to get into
when the market bottoms, and it has provided me with a nice opportunity
to take a capital loss (on paper) to balance out the nice gains their
Bond Funds have made this year. 

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: 20th Century---the real story
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Distribution: misc
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 05:20:44 GMT

In article <Bw0KEs.Ho1.1@cs.cmu.edu> tjochem+@CS.CMU.EDU (Todd Jochem) writes:

>> In fact, 20th Century ranks 25th out of 25 as
>> an overall fund family and only 4th for Growth funds (according to
>> Money Magazine 8/92).

>Was 20th Century really RANKED 25th out 25?? My interpretation of that article
>was that because 20th Century's global stock fund was so new, Money didn't give
>it a ranking. This in turn messed up their overall fund family score. I belive

You're right.  They did not give 20th Century an overall score.  I am
not sure why.  There were two funds without overall scores, and they
put them at the bottom of the list.  I looked too quickly.  The 4th
for Growth funds is right though.  --Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
From: mincy@think.com (Jeffrey Mincy)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Cost-Benefit analysis of Renting VS. Buying
Date: 14 Oct 1992 17:57:00 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
NNTP-Posting-Host: mjolnir.think.com

In article <1992Oct14.105515.21900@uklirb.informatik.uni-kl.de> lott@uklira.informatik.uni-kl.de (Christopher Lott AG Rombach) writes:
>In article <719017207fred.fred@walter.UUCP> fred@walter.UUCP (Fred Walter) writes:
>>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 :
>
>I am extremely interested in how your numbers turn out.
>
>My off-the-top reaction is something like this. Your mortgage payments
>over 30 years at current rates will cost you somewhere between double and
>triple the cost of the house.  ...

>The point I'm trying to make is that a house is not an investment.
>Don't let anyone kid you that it is - and I don't think you have
>the view that it is, based on your (impressively analytical) approach
>to this decision.  A house is a lifestyle choice.  You live the way
>you want to, and you pay for the privilege.

Of course a house is an investment.  After 30 years of renting you have
nothing.  After 30 years of paying a mortgage you own a tangible asset,
that has value and that can be converted to cash.  

>It would be neat if you could build a general model for making such a
>decision that took into account the following variables:
...
>A simple equation would yield the cost of the house after X years.
>Things get interesting when you try to find the break-even point.
>I would estimate values for all variables assuming poor interest rates
>for the next few years, and then vary the annual appreciation rate.

The proper way to do the analysis is to estimate the expenses for each
year, for however many years (as you've done), and then figure out the 
present value of that cash stream.  You should do the expenses in after 
tax dollars.  Then you estimate the value of the house (less capital gains
taxes) at the end of the period and convert that number to a present value.

For example, if you have rent payments that start at $500/month and
increases 4% per year, for 30 years, then that cash stream has a present 
value of 102.5K at 8%.  That number represents the true cost of renting
over that time period.  

>Christopher Lott    lott@informatik.uni-kl.de    +49 (631) 205-3334, -3331 Fax
>Post: FB Informatik, Bau 57/525, Universit"at KL, 6750 Kaiserslautern, Germany

-- 

-- jeff
mincy@think.com
From: doug.hewko@synapse.org (Doug Hewko) 
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: technical books
Date: 15 Oct 92 07:32:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SYNAPSE BBS - GATINEAU, QUEBEC - 819-561-4321
Reply-To: doug.hewko@synapse.org (Doug Hewko) 

From: .doug.hewko@synapse.isis.org
.
Can anyone recommend exception technical finance books?   When I say
"technical", I do not necessary mean technical analysis.  I am
referring to books written for the academic or professional.  Right
now, the only technical literature I receive is the "Journal of Finance
and Quantitative Analysis".

               Doug
---
 . 1st 1.01 #574 . Every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.
                            
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: dmw@taurus.ece.cmu.edu (Hank Walker)
Subject: Re:  Owning vs. Renting
Originator: dmw@taurus.ece.cmu.edu
Reply-To: dmw@ece.cmu.edu
Organization: Electrical and Computer Engineering, Carnegie Mellon
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 16:45:54 GMT


A lot of the analysis of whether renting or buying makes sense depends on
where you live.  I have observed that for the same housing unit, rents seem
to vary by maybe 2-3X across the US (excluding anomolies like Manhattan),
while house prices vary by 4-5X.  Admittedly comparisons are difficult, for
example in most of CA lots are measured in square feet, while we use acres
or fractions thereof around here.

If you live in an area where housing prices are ridiculously high, you are
probably better off renting, since the house is in my opinion overpriced.
But in large areas away from the East and West coasts, you can buy a small,
three-bedroom house in a reasonable neighborhood for about the cost of a
Lexus LS400 with all the options.  If you can get ahead of the mortgage
enough to pay it off in 10-15 years, I think you will be far ahead of
renting, when all other expenses are included.  An additional bonus is that
in these areas housing prices are relatively stable, so while you probably
won't make much from appreciation, you won't lose either.

P.S. Someone said it was unfair for homeowners to get interest and tax
deductions, while renters do not.  In fact the landlord is getting the
deductions, which lowers their operating costs, and is theoretically passed
on as lower rent.  So any "unfairness" is caused by landlord profit, not tax
law.  In fact the renter is better off in that landlord maintenance is tax
deductable, while homeowner maintenance is not.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: chandrab@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (b.chandramouli)
Subject: Re: Cost-Benefit analysis of Renting VS. Buying
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:00:30 GMT

In article <719017207fred.fred@walter.UUCP> fred@walter.UUCP (Fred Walter) writes:
>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 :
>
..
>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
>--

	I wrote a program which takes the following parameters and calculates
the rate at which the house should appreciate for the house owner to break even.
One important parameter it takes is the number of years house ownership.
The program was written for American Tax situations, hence needs to be
rewritten for Canada. Here is the list of parameters.

	Mortgage Amount
	Down Payment Amount
	Annual Property Tax
	Rent that the owner would normally pay 
		for housing (not necessarily for that same house)
	Annuity Factor (This is the factor by which you divide the
				mortgage amount to get monthly payment)
				This factory can be obtained using the
				annuity() C math library function. The 
				three inputs to this function are 
				a) Interest Rate b) No. of payments a year
				c) Number of years of mortgage (15, 30 etc.)
	
	Marginal Tax Rate
	Rate of Return on investment based on the owner's
		investing philosophy (aggressive, conservative, CD only
						money market only etc.)
	Years Of holding of the house
	Rate of Property Tax increase
	Rate of Rent Increase
	Increased Annual maintenance expense for the house
	Standard Deduction
	Non-house itemized deduction Amount

	(The program assumes a 6% broker's fee while selling the house)

Just recently I had a use for this program when I evaluated an offer I put
on a house. The following were the input in the same order as above:

	67600 16900 2100 800 150.31 31 8 2 5 3 500 5200 5000
(Some key parameters: rent=800, years of holding=2 annuity factor=150.31
		based on a 7% 7/23 type of loan, rent increase=3%
		property tax increase=5% )

The output was -.028.

So, if I hold the house for 2 years, even if the house depreciates by
.028% I breakeven. This pretty much made the decision for me in favor of
a buy.

chandra