HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: vetter@SSD.intel.com (Jeff Vetter)
Subject: listings for high tech IPOs and small caps???
Originator: vetter@sabre
Organization: Intel Supercomputer Systems
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:20:14 GMT

Where is the best place to get a complete listing of 
small cap high tech companies? 

How about high tech IPOs? Is there a concise listing
for high tech companies on the verge of going public?
-- 

	- Jeff -

Jeffrey Vetter - Software Engineer                         vetter@ssd.intel.com
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: bible@iastate.edu (Anthony E Bible)
Subject: California Economy
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:32:10 GMT

	Since I started reading this group there have been several heated
exchanges about the prospects for California real estate and economy in
general.  I'm not really interested in a re-hash of that or 
I-told-you-so's or ...  (but fully expect to see same) but, I just read a 
post on alt.california that I thought might be of interest to this group.  I 
do not know if it's proper to re-post someone else's stuff so I just cut the 
pertinent part.

===============================================================================

I used a U-Haul to move from San Rafael (north of SF) to
Denver. It cost me $1,400 for the trip. My grandmother left
LA about two months later in the same size truck and it cost
her $2,100. I have a friend who moved from Denver to LA (the
wrong direction) and he rented the same size truck from
U-Haul. This truck cost him $240!

===============================================================================

	I should add that this post was in response to someone who was moving
*to* California.  However, I do not recall ever hearing the U-haul costs being 
less for moves to California.  Does the sizable difference in costs indicate a
rather significant exodus from the state or is this just a short term event?  
Is the difference localized to Colorado or is it true for other states too?
Any theories on where everyone is going?


Regards,
tony
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: American Association of Individual Investors (AAII)
Date: 21 Jul 92 18:24:42 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Jul18.224135.16891@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> fod@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Frank O'Donnell) writes:
>tchang@athena.cs.uga.edu writes:
>
>>Does anyone ever heard about the 'American Association of Individual Investors'
>There are to my knowledge two national, nonprofit associations
>that cater to individual investors -- the AAII, as you mention,
>and the National Association of Investors Corp. (NAIC).  The

The American Investors Alliance (AIA) in Ft. Lauderdale (F.L., in FL).
Less general education, more company analysis.  Call information.

	 George Tucker        tucker@tcville.hac.com
6/28/92 - (Daryl) Gates of Hell leaves City of Angels.
   "    - World-class earthquake hits Southern CA
Newsgroups: misc.invest,sci.econ
From: jld@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (J. L. David)
Subject: Re: Should we limit the shorts life time.
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 14:08:26 GMT
Followup-To: misc.invest

In article <sehari.712013741@vincent1.iastate.edu>, sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
> ---
> 
>   One of the reasons that stock market crashes is the frenzy of shorting
> by big investors. 

Prove it.  Show us the studies, the data.  Every crash study I've ever seen
comes to the same conclusion:  The suckers who bought the asset at inflated
prices panic and try to sell off the asset at the same time.  When you do that
there are no buyers.  Crashes happen in markets where shorting is not possible
as well.  Not only that, try shorting during a crash.  You can't because of
the "uptick rule."  Ever hear of it?  You can only short stock on a uptick -
which means (usually) 1/8 point higher than the previous trade.  There are
no upticks during a crash.

> For example, Mr. Ross Perot have shorted $1M of citibank.

A spit in the bucket.  Last time I looked, Citibank had a market capitalization
of over $300,000,000.  $1M of trading in Citibank is probably done within 1
hour of the opening of the stock every day.  Even if Perot could short $1M
on an uptick, it would be lost in the noise.

> The funny thing is these "Market Terrorists" do not have to cover their shorts.

Not true.  If the supply of borrowed stocks dries up (and it has happened)
you can have your position closed against your will.  Short sellers are
not "Market Terrorists," simply people with a different opinion.

> I was wondering would be a good Idea to tell people "you can not sell things
> that you do not own, or buy a put option, or write a call option". At least,

No, it isn't a good idea if for no other reason that it would impede liquidity.

> they should limit the time they should cover their shorts.  This would
> make an individual investor on the same footing as large investor.  So, 

Huh?  How would this put the individual investor on the same footing as the
large investor?  Anyone with a margin account can short.

> when Mr. Perot or people like him decide to run against an incumbent President,
> they could not sell things that they do not own, bring the market down,
> and influence the democratic process this way.
> 

Yeah, right.  The only way that he could even have a hope of succeeding is
if the market was grossly overvalued and liquidity was poor.  Even if
Perot took his entire $3B and used it to short stocks, he'd have trouble
having much of an effect.  Around $5B of stocks change hands on the NYSE
alone on an average day.  Throw in the NASDAQ and the AMEX and you are
probably up to $10B.  Sure, shorting $3B in one day MIGHT have a profound
short-term effect, but nobody is that cocky or stupid.

I just don't think you realize how miniscule even Perot's money is compared
to the size of the U.S. stock market.

Jeff David
From: gwang@hendrix (George Wang)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Fundamentals, my dear Watson, fundamentals!
Date: 31 Jul 92 18:16:04 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana

prabhak@cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:

>OK, maybe I am a little pissed becuased I shorted the market by
>buying index puts and the market shot up (over the last week) in
>a rather belated response.

>But what I don't get is this: What the hell do investors see in
>the economy to bid up the prices so much?

> * Recession is still plaguing the country.
> * US trading partners are in a full-swing recession which will
>   affect foregin earlings of most companies.
> * The market has already discounted increased future earnings.
>   Don't argue with me now, the Dow is at record levels and so
>   are the PEs.
> * Inflow into stock funds is slowly and steadily dropping.
> * Unemployment is very high and will therefore affect consumer 
>   spending.

>What in the glorious heavens do you see in this situation to want to put
>more money into stocks?, I ask.

Perhaps people don't like the low percentage yields offered by money
market accounts and other cash instruments? Until the interest rates
goes up, I think people may still seek equities and bonds for higher
yeilds...



-- 
 George Wang - Computer Engineering                       T     T         
 University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign               |  T  |        
 INTERNET: gwang@uiuc.edu or gwang@ntupub.ntu.edu          \_|_/         
 Graduate Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering         -
From: nfs@dynamic (Norbert Schlenker)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Should we limit the shorts life time.
Date: 26 Jul 92 15:10:03 GMT
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU

In article <sehari.712086539@vincent1.iastate.edu> sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
>By increasing the supply of the shares in the market, you bring the
>prices down, as it is predicted by the law of supply and demand.

A questionable proposition, since someone has to buy the shares from
Perot.  But even assuming your contention is correct, does Ross
Perot's short position of 50,000 shares significantly affect the
"supply" of Citicorp shares?  It's a tiny fraction of those
outstanding.

>If total number of shares of say company A is 10 and one person shorts
>2 stocks of A, the total supply is 12 now.  That is an investor, who invested
>in this company and bought 2 stock and is not willing to sell at current price
>would deposit his stock with his broker.

So there's your solution.  If you want to make the shorts scream, just
don't leave the stock on deposit with your broker.  Put the
certificates in your safe deposit box and make Perot buy back his
short position for $100 a share.  (Only 1/2 a :) here - I happen to be
long 200 shares of a very thinly traded stock myself and my broker
only has 66 shares on hand, according to my most recent statement.  I
am tempted to ask for a certificate so that my broker buys in the
welsher who shorted the shares to me.  That will fix him.)

>Options, which acts as an insurance for some investors; could be bought
>and sold by people, who are interested in this type of transaction.

You are assuming that options are cheap and as efficiently priced as the
underlying stocks.  That isn't true.

>However, you can drive the prices down by aggressively
>shorting stocks.

You can't, because of the stupid uptick rule.

>This is what I call "Market Terrorism".

No, no, no.  You have it backwards.  Squeezing shorts is market
terrorism.  Shorting stock is patriotic.

>The shorting, therefore, hurts the people whom the stock market was
>created for in the first place, the real investors who invest in the
>businesses and companies.

Bosh.  Shorting stock is a way of keeping over-optimistic investors'
feet on the ground.  Shorting stock just moves your sale date forward
a little - it's no big deal.

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: sdl@linus.mitre.org (Steven D. Litvintchouk)
Subject: Re: Should I seek "safe" investments?
Organization: The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, MA
	<1992Jul22.150219.1559@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:36:27 GMT


In article <1992Jul22.150219.1559@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> mer6g@fuggles.acc.Virginia.EDU (Marc Rouleau) writes:

> mbb@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (martin.brilliant) writes:
> >Given that history, and given that I am investing a sum of money now
> >with no expectation of having to draw on it within five years, is
> >there any reason why I should not put it all in equities?  Is there
> >any reason not to put it in an aggressive equity porfolio?
> 
> I've been wondering the same thing.  Why should I diversify if I'm
> investing money for the long haul?  I'm getting ready to start a
> monthly 403(b) investment, and since I won't be able to touch it
> for thirty years I wonder why I shouldn't invest 100% of it in (an)
> aggressive growth mutual fund(s).

If your 403(b) offers investment in a mutual fund *family*, you can
often exchange investments between different funds in that family,
even though you can't withdraw the money entirely from that
arrangement.  If so, it still makes more sense to switch from funds
that are unlikely to rise much, to funds that are more likely to rise.
I don't think the stock market has much further to rise before
correcting.  And aggressive funds will fall the most.  On the other
hand, interest rates are likely to rise.  So you could put your 403(b)
money in a money market fund, and switch to an aggressive fund later
when its price is lower and offers a better bargain.


--
Steven Litvintchouk
MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road
Bedford, MA  01730

Fone:  (617)271-7753
ARPA:  sdl@mitre.org
UUCP:  linus!sdl
	"Where does he get those wonderful toys?"
Newsgroups: misc.invest,sci.econ
From: cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Should we limit the shorts life time.
Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, University of Ottawa
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 03:55:07 GMT

In article <sehari.712013741@vincent1.iastate.edu> sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
>---
>
>  One of the reasons that stock market crashes is the frenzy of shorting
>by big investors.  For example, Mr. Ross Perot have shorted $1M of citibank.
>The funny thing is these "Market Terrorists" do not have to cover their shorts.
>I was wondering would be a good Idea to tell people "you can not sell things
>that you do not own, or buy a put option, or write a call option". At least,
>they should limit the time they should cover their shorts.  This would
>make an individual investor on the same footing as large investor.  So, 
>when Mr. Perot or people like him decide to run against an incumbent President,
>they could not sell things that they do not own, bring the market down,
>and influence the democratic process this way.

1)  Has Mr. Perot been ASKED to cover the short position?
2)  Do you think that anybody is worried that he couldn't cover the
short position?  I expect that he does other business with the
brokerage that holds the corresponding LONG position, and there's
probably enough in his account to cover the short.
3)  Changing the system so that "fake" things like options were made
illegal would fundamentally change the system.  The problem that you
(and many other people) have with things like options is that they
allow speculation (aka "gambling") to be done more easily.  (They also
make other more "legitimate" things easy, but that's another story.
Cutting out commodity futures would hurt farmers...)  

This assumes that speculation is of no societal value.  It may be of
LITTLE value, but it does have some value, for instance, in promoting
things like market efficiency.

4)  Precisely HOW does the short-selling of $1M worth of Citibank
stock influence (a) the stock market and (b) the democratic process?
(Where (b) is the IMPORTANT issue...)
-- 
Christopher Browne
cbbrowne@csi.uottawa.ca
University of Ottawa
Master of System Science Program
From: jdavidso@teknowledge.com (Jim Davidson)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Mortgage Mutual Funds
Date: 29 Jul 92 20:01:49 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Cimflex Teknowledge Corporation, Knowledge Systems Division
In-reply-to: nfs@dynamic's message of 29 Jul 92 02:11:10 GMT

In article <1992Jul29.021110.9975@Princeton.EDU> nfs@dynamic (Norbert Schlenker) writes:

> In article <1992Jul27.075831.1@uwovax.uwo.ca> singer@uwovax.uwo.ca writes:
> >.......
> >I wonder if the U.S. mortgage funds are doing as well, and whether there
> >has been any recent publications analysing these kinds of securities for
> >this kind of time.--
>
> U.S. mortgages are fundamentally different from Canadian mortgages.  
> are written on 30 year terms (yes, some terms are shorter) at interest rates
> fixed for the entire term, and with prepayment privileges.  
> ........
> The difference in prepayment privilege makes U.S. mortgages a much
> riskier investment, which makes U.S. GNMA funds much riskier than the
> average Canadian mortgage fund.

It's worth pointing out that there are now a number of American mutual funds
that invest in adjustable rate mortgages.  T. Rowe Price and Benham are two
companies that offer no-load versions of these.  Some of the full-service
brokerages have these, in load funds.

Compared to GNMA funds, the ARM funds tend to have more stable prices.  This
is because the ARM rates tend to track prevailing interest rates.  The risk of
pre-payment is still there, but again it's somewhat lower.

In exchange for all this safety, you get a lower rate of return in an ARM
fund than in a GNMA.  Typical yields are probably a couple of points lower,
although I haven't checked lately.

-Jim
From: bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Charles Schwab Mutual Fund Clearing House
Date: 27 Jul 92 20:49:11 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson

This sounds very interesting--as a Schwab account holder I will
look into this.

It seems to me that there is one possible downside to letting
Schwab manage all your mutual funds.  Couldn't the failure of
Schwab somehow make you lose all mutual fund investments they
held?  If they pool people's money and have the mutual fund
shares in their name, rather in the individual customers'
names, I could see how this could happen.  I like the thought
of being diversified among different mutual fund companies
so the failure of one can't somehow be so catastrophic.  Of
course, if one fails it may mean that times are so bad that
the others are going to, too.

I'm not heavy into doom-and-gloom, just cautious the way
our country seems to be borrowing without any regard for
paying it off.
--
Dave Bakken                               Internet: bakken@cs.arizona.edu
Dept. of Computer Science; U of Arizona   Voice:    +1 602 621 4089      
Tucson, AZ 85721; USA                     FAX:      +1 602 621 4246
The fact that you're paranoid doesn't prove they're *not* out to get you.
Newsgroups: misc.invest,sci.econ
From: ngrjn@milton.u.washington.edu (V Nagarajan)
Subject: Re: Should we limit the shorts life time.
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 01:21:14 GMT

In article <1992Jul26.004109.21389@tfs.com> eric@tfs.com (Eric Smith) writes:
.
.
.
>
>As a general rule, selling any stock short is a sucker bet, unless you
>have inside information, which might be illegal.
>
>If a stock is grossly overpriced, it got that way for a reason, however
>crazy that reason might be.  Whatever causes a stock to become grossly
>overpriced can cause it to become even more overpriced.  If a stock
>becomes very risky, and seems like a good short because it might go
>broke, it will have a very low price to discount that risk.  Selling
>short at that price is even riskier than buying the stock then would be.

	This kind of thinking belongs right up there with `if it's going
	to happen it'd have happened'. True, going short is a risky proposition
	and theoretically your losses can be UNlimited. But it could be
	done if you charted the course of a stock VERY carefully and followed
	any news that might affect the share prices closely. Wildly
	fluctuating stocks are the ones to go after if you know what you're
	doing.

							- Nagarajan
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: prabhak@cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
Subject: Re: Short Interest on NYSE and NASDAQ Way High
Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, CSci dept.
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:24:25 GMT

In article <xhzx#yb@rpi.edu> floydb@sun01.admin.rpi.edu (Barry B Floyd) writes:
>prabhak@cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar) writes:
>
>>Recent WSJ reports that NASDAQ and NYSE short interest ratios
>>have hit an ALL TIME HIGH. Short interest has been a fairly
>>good indicator or key market turns - it's value is derived 
>>from the logic that the shorting has already been done and
>>these have to be covered sometime.
>
> 
>It has been said that NYSE 'member' short interest is
>a good indicator of what is to come, they supposedly know
>what they are doing. However, some have said that the
>average investor doesn't know what they are doing, so
>the NASDAQ short interest 'non-member' ratio is 
>a good contrarian indicator. Then there are followers of
>the ratio of member activity to public activity. 
> 

Do you know what the member short interest is? I agree
with your statement of the member ratio being of greater
relevance.

But NASDAQ public short ratio is close to 7. That is
about 1200-1400 million shares shorted. Isn't that a 
hefty amount that can turn the market on short covering?

Satya Prabhakar

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: kev@osf.org (Kevin Till)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Buying stock w/o a broker
Keywords: Results
Date: 27 Jul 92 18:49:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Open Software Foundation


	According to the "Directory of Companies Offering DRP".
you can buy stock directly from the following companies:

	Central Vermont Public Service		802-773-2711
	Exxon					800-252-1800
	W.R. Grace				212-613-7147
	Johnson Controls			414-287-3956
	Kroger Co.				513-762-4808
	PCM Capital				305-933-5858
	Proctor and Gamble			800-742-6253
	Questar					801-534-5804
	Texaco					800-283-9785


	Enjoy!

-- 
Kevin T. Till	
System Engineering
Open Software Foundation
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: lipinski_todd@macmail1.rtsg.mot.com (Todd Lipinski)
Subject: Re: Answer to: "What is MacFrugal?"
Organization: Motorola,Inc
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 22:42:23 GMT

In article <1992Jul22.185029.23011@porthos.cc.bellcore.com>
keith@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Keith Hawkins) writes:
>In article <MARVIT.92Jul22111220@cattell.psych.upenn.edu>,
>marvit@cattell.psych.upenn.edu (Peter Marvit) writes:
>|> In article <1992Jul12.021817.6602@news.nd.edu>
>|> dkulkarn@haydn.helios.nd.edu (Dinesh Kulkarni) writes:
>|> 
>|> 	   In last week's Business Week, MacFrugal (NYSE) was recommended.
>|>    So I was following its price over the last week.  On Friday, the
|> : Psychology Dept.,  University of Pennsylvania
>
>
>If I'm not mistaken,  (the ultimate disclaimer)
>MacFrugal is the new corporate name for 
>what was formerly known as Pic N' Save.
>
>Which is a discount department store kind of
>like Marshall's or Bradlee's for those who are 
>familiar with those chains.
>

The Pic N' Save chain that I know of (at least in Milwaukee WI) is a discount
grocery store similar to Cub Foods or Omni in the Chicago area.  I have never
heard of MacFrugal, so I don't know any more on this subject.  I have not been
to Milwaukee in a while, so I don't know if the Pic N' Save has changed names
either.

Todd
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: cs6@TorreyPinesCA.ncr.com (Eric Sit 3611)
Subject: Re: General Dynamics common stock
Keywords: P/E, stock buyback
Organization: NCR (Torrey Pines Development Center)
Disclaimer: This posting does not neccessarily reflect the opinions of NCR.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 92 19:23:53 GMT

In article <12543@inews.intel.com> bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton) writes:
>In article <4921@gdls.UUCP> mccabe@gdls.UUCP (Harold McCabe) writes:
>>P/E ratio stays about the same, I figured that the stock should go higher
>>than the $72/share because 1/(1-.3) = 42%, so that the stock would
>>actually be worth $66/share + 42% = $94/share.  Is this line of reasoning
>>correct?
>
>Nope.
>
>Just because the company owns the shares doesn't mean
>the stock isn't outstanding.
>
>				--Blair
>				  "...it's surprisingly hard to justify
>				   the use of the word 'outstanding' in a
>				   context that includes General Dynamics..."

I recently read a book on the basic principles of accounting.  
According to the book, when a company buys back its own stock,
the shares purchased become treasury stock and are not considered
outstanding.  When calculating P/E, the number of shares outstanding 
would indeed drop by the shares purchased by the company.



Eric
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: bfschler@lynx.cat.syr.edu
Subject: ???  Help - T Bill question  ???
Organization: Syracuse University
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 23:40:55 EDT

Hi,
I've got a T-Bill question concerning the primary and secondary
markets in T-Bills.

Once a week, an individual can send Uncle Sam a check for $10,000 to
purchase a T-Bill at the average rate for that auction. Uncle Sam will
send you back a check which represents the discount, about 3-4 hundred
dollars right now (?) for a 3% to 4% interest rate.

I'm looking in the WSJ at the T-Bill bid and ask quotes. If I'm reading
this properly (and not totally lost {:-) ), someone is willing to sell a
Bill which matures 8/6/92 for a discount of %2.97. I think this translates
to $9703.

This person probably bought his bill 8/6/91 for about $9500. So he's willing
to earn $203.

If I bought his Bill for $9703 and waited 3 weeks for Uncle Sam to send me
$10,000, I would make $297.

This sounds too good to be true. So I must be doing something wrong!! 

What's wrong with my scenario??
Thank's in advance for any help you can give.

-Barry

Newsgroups: misc.invest