HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: The Big Boom
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:03:12 GMT

In article <9210142111.AA18140@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "17%" Horne") writes:
>Newsgroups: misc.invest
>Path: idbsu!guinness!mica.inel.gov!ux1!fcom.cc.utah.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!u
>From: dbk@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Don Katz)
>Subject: Re: Depression (Was: Income & Wealth & A Light!)
>Message-ID: <1992Oct14.173638.10239@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu>
>Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, University of Wisconsin
>References: <9210141508.AA01400@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com>
>Date: Wed, 14 Oct 92 17:36:38 GMT
>Lines: 21
>
>
>>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
>

Actually, I agree with all this.  The question is where do you put your money ???
(or more importantly, where should I put MY money ? :-)

Mark

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: nfs@volkl (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: December Banking Surprise
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 17:46:57 GMT

In article <5274@bacon.IMSI.COM> jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
>
>Anyway, here's my speculation: CCI -> $20 after January 1.

Which year might that January be in? ;-)

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu
From: aa536@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alayne M. Whaley)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Closed Mutual Funds (Why?)
Date: 12 Oct 1992 14:11:19 GMT
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Reply-To: aa536@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Alayne M. Whaley)
NNTP-Posting-Host: slc5.ins.cwru.edu


In a previous article, smm1@troy.uucp (22142-michelson) says:

>>Followup: They said Mutual Beacon is open and has the same objective
>>as Mutual Shares. I've not looked at this one much, any opinions?
>>
>
>I think it's very similar (like, almost identical) in performance. 

OK...Twentieth Century Ultra probably should have been closed to new
investors.  In the case of Mutual Beacon, and Mutual Shares, what's
the point of closing them, if they are going to have the same objectives
and same performance?  Are two separate funds that much more able to 
achieve those objectives than one fund?

 
-- 
Alayne M. Whaley            ! "Roller coasters make me dizzy.
aa536@cleveland.freenet.edu !  Cotton candy makes me sick.
-----------------------------  I wish I had some bromo-fizzy.
Don McLean's - Circus Song     That would do the trick" 
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: cthorne@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Charles E Thorne)
Subject: Re: U.S. Bail Out!
Organization: The Ohio State University
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1992 13:12:05 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.182004.21297@cbnewsi.cb.att.com> ca@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (christopher.arnone) writes:
>> >Here is a chart of tax revenues as % of GDP.  Taken from the September
>> >19th issue of The Economist.  These figures are approximate.

>> >	       1991    1980
>> >	       ----    ----
>> >Sweden		52	49
>> >[various developed countries]
>> >United States	30	29

>> Do these figures count state and local taxes?  Total government
>> spending in the U.S. at all levels is between 45-50% of GNP,
>> from the various estimates I've seen.

>	Of course it doesn't.  Take a typical high tax state like NY.  Consider
>the sum of federal, state, and city taxes.  Also take into account the sales,
>gas, excise, property taxes and FICA and you will see that we are on par with
>respect to tax levels with other nations in the industrialized world.  Of course
>the difference here is that most typical working people very little in return
>from the government.

In the U.S. as a whole, local and state expenditures exceed federal expenditures.  Most school, highway and infrastructure in general is paid locally.  The
worst part of this is that Federal regulatory requirements have drastically
increased local expenses (such as water and sewer treatment) without any funds
to pay for these costs.

Charlie
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu
Subject:      Re: Income & Wealth & The Blind
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:02:56 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA02045; Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:15:49 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA25341; Tue, 13 Oct 92 11:12:55 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 2498; Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:11:43 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 2652; Tue, 13 Oct 92 12:11:42 MST
X-To: misc.invest.usenet

Newsgroups: misc.invest
cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!network.ucsd.edu!news!nosc!spectra!ohumukin
From: ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini)
Subject: Re: Income & Wealth
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation

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.

        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.

     >   Maybe, I think that it is more attributable to lack of
     >   education on how to manage money.  Ask 10 people if they
     >   understand how compound interest works and what it means
     >   in 1,5,10,20 years.  You may be amazed at how many people
     >   have no idea how it works.

           Yes, Kawika.  I continue to be amazed.
           YOU amaze me.
           Good luck in the coming years.

           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.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Brokers to be taxed on UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS--prop. legislation
From: gary@cdthq.UUCP (Gary Heston)
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 19:19:24 CDT
Organization: Garys' Home for Obsolete Computers

This is a summary of an article in _Forbes_ magazine, Oct. 12, 1992,
page 74, titled _Nose under tent?_

"... 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.

But the associations' efforts to stop the bill aren't getting far. Tax 
sources expect the bill to pass, if not this year, then certainly next.

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?"

Needless to say, I disagree with this legislation. Since I hadn't
seen any mention of it here, I thought I'd toss it out for review.

Gary Heston, at home....
gary@cdthq.uucp
From: jdg+@CS.CMU.EDU (John Greiner)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Jenny Craig
Date: 16 Oct 92 17:47:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: cs.Bw86qu.D62.2
Distribution: na
Organization: Carnegie Mellon University

This month's Money has a recommendation for Jenny Craig
    price beat down on news about fraud among competitors
    P/E around 7
    dividend 4.6%
    recommended by manager of good Strong Common Stock Fund
    no debt
    $50 million cash

Unfortunately, our library doesn't have their annual report.
I'd like to hear any other information.  Also, could somebody give me their
phone number or address, so I could ask for an annual report?
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini)
Subject: Re: Income & Wealth & The Blind
Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 92 21:37:57 GMT

In article <9210131812.AA25341@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu writes:
>Newsgroups: misc.invest
>Path: idbsu!guinness!mica.inel.gov!ux1!fcom.cc.utah.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!
> cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!network.ucsd.edu!news!nosc!spectra!ohumukin
>From: ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini)
>Subject: Re: Income & Wealth
>Message-ID: <1992Oct12.233845.20297@spectra.com>
>Organization: Spectragraphics Corporation
>References: <9210081412.AA09400@inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com> <1992Oct9.220710.6459@ads.
>
>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.
>
>        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.

	It's just this kind of pessimistic attitude that caused
	the depression to be the GREAT depression.

>     >   Maybe, I think that it is more attributable to lack of
>     >   education on how to manage money.  Ask 10 people if they
>     >   understand how compound interest works and what it means
>     >   in 1,5,10,20 years.  You may be amazed at how many people
>     >   have no idea how it works.
>
>           Yes, Kawika.  I continue to be amazed.
>           YOU amaze me.
>           Good luck in the coming years.
>
>           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.

	What do you propose as a solution? Sorry if I missed it in
	a previous post my node wipes out everything in 2 weeks.
From: bkottmann@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil (Brett Kottmann)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Another Voice on U.S. National Debt
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:01:54 EST
Organization: Logicon Technical Services, Inc.

In article <1992Oct9.131657.25840@cactus.org>, tony@cactus.org (Tony J. Hurson) writes:
> 
> Here is another opinion on the U.S. government's deficit and debt. It
> comes from a October 3rd 1992 editorial in "The Economist":
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...No responsible politician would ignore what the deficit is doing to
> America's economic health. In the 1970s, national savings averaged 
> almost 20% of GDP; now they are below 15%, the lowest proportion of 
> any OECD country bar Greece. America has a public debt of $4 trillion,
> with an annual interest bill running at $200 billion. Whereas the
> administration would once have got the economy out of recession by
> raising spending and cutting taxes, that is no longer an option. Those
> handicaps are chiefly the legacy of Ronald Reagan, who wanted to have
> his cake, eat it, and not pay for it later; but creeping entitlements
> have kept the deficits growing. 

	This is untrue.  Reagan could not stop congress from spending as much
as it wanted to.  In fact, his tax compromise (84?) was based on congress'
promise to lower spending, which they still haven't done.
	Reagan's policies were good ones.  Ones that caused the economy to
boom.  Congress took it as an opportunity to spend even more money.

> Three fifths of federal spending goes on entitlements: social security
> (pensions), Medicare, farm subsidies, food stamps. As the population 

	Most politically "untouchable" for congress.

> ages and grows frailer, payroll and income taxes cannot keep pace with
> the headlong expansion of these programmes. They are growing at three
> times the rate of inflation. By one estimate the gap between what 
> Americans pay in taxes now and what they expect to reap in future 
> benefits is a cool $14 trillion. Their children will be paying. 

	Not really.  Either we pay it now or the children will simply default
on debt that isn't theirs and tell the aged (who borrowed it) where to put it.

> The article then goes on to fault both the Bush and Clinton campaigns
> for ignoring the dangers of the deficit/debt problem, or for proposing
> superficial solutions to it. Ross Perot, for all his faults, is credited
> with a credible plan.

	Maybe.  Of course Reagan's plan would have solved the problem also if
congress had lived up to their end of the deal.

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,soc.culture.usa
From: irving@Happy-Man.com (Irving_Wolfe)
Subject: Re: GM to file for chapter 11 Bankruptcy (at least that's the rumor!)
Reply-To: Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com
Organization: Happy Man Corp., Vashon Island, WA 98070-7399
Date: Sat, 17 Oct 1992 01:36:36 GMT

In <STEVE.92Oct16113131@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu> steve@cucbs.chem.columbia.edu (Steve Stuart) writes:

>1) The bonds are actually GM Acc. Corp.  Is this some previous
>spin-off, or is it tied to GM Corp itself?

General Motors Acceptance is the company's finance arm.

>2) If it is tied to GM, how can the S&P rating be A-?  It never
>occurred to me that I couldn't trust an "official" rating, or that an
>A- rated company could be in danger of declaring chapter 11!

Even if GM filed for bankruptcy -- and I'm NOT saying this will
happen, though the company gets Solid Value's lowest rating for
financial strength (0 on a 0-9 scale) -- the finance company might
not file, theoretically.  It would all depend on whether people
were still willing to lend it money.

The rating services do something very strange in the case of
financial companies: they allow the financing of long-term assets
like equipment loans, auto loans, etc. with short term debt,
without significantly penalizing the finance company for the
extreme risk involved.  Thanks to the government's ill-advised
bailout of bad savings-and-loan managements and stupid
savings-and-loan shareholders at taxpayer expense (with no taxpayer
benefit), apparently the rating firms no longer believe an
imprudent financial structure creates any real risk.  In GM's case,
no doubt the ill-advised Chrysler bailout, which greatly weakened
Ford and GM and saved no jobs at all, suggests to the rating
agencies that surely GM would receive a bailout too, so who cares
if its capitalization is insanely risky?
-- 
 Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com      Happy Man Corp.  206/463-9399 x101
 4410 SW Pt. Robinson Rd., Vashon Island, WA  98070-7399   fax x108
 We publish SOLID VALUE for the intelligent investor.   NextMail OK
Info free; sample $20.  Send POSTAL addrs: Solid-Value@Happy-Man.com
From: jberlin@falcon.aamrl.wpafb.af.mil
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Brokers to be taxed on UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS--prop. legislation
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:07:51 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: USAF AL/CFH, WPAFB, Dayton, OH

> 
> 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
> 

    It is already here.  I have some zero coupon bonds in my kids' names.  They
 are sold at deep discount and the interest compounds until maturity, when
 you receive the face value of the bond.  I receive a 1099 form yearly that
 list 'OID' on the bonds, which is taxable interest for the year.  'OID'
 stands for 'Original Issue Discount'.  Well, I guess in a way, it is 
 income for the year, at least it saves paying a big chunk in taxes at
 maturity.  My guess is that so many people try to avoid the tax entirely,
 that IRS is enhancing revenue this way.  It is probably a matter more of
 noncompliance than revenue enhancement that triggered this.
-- 

  Jim Berlin
 
"The opinions and views expressed here are strictly my own and do not 
necessarily reflect the official position of either the U.S. Air Force 
or its contractors."
From: ROMANSKI@UCF1VM.BITNET
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Heating Oil Options?
Date: 15 Oct 92 17:47:50 GMT
Article-I.D.: UCF1VM.92289.124752ROMANSKI
Organization: University of Central Florida--Computer Services

Has anyone out there invested in Heating Oil Options? Did you do well with
them? Someone has been talking to me about the subject, but I'd like more
opinions. NO BROKER PITCHES PLEASE!
Thanks in advance.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: ajg@controls.ccd.harris.com (Arnold Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Companies buying back their own shares
Organization: Harris Controls and Compositions
	<1992Oct08.171058.11772@eng.umd.edu>
	<1992Oct9.003102.13644@gumby.dsd.trw.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:39:35 GMT

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Goldberg                            Email:  ajg@ccd.harris.com
Phone: (407)242-5051                       Snail:  Harris Controls
Fax  : (407)242-4262                               407 John Rodes Blvd.
                                                   Melbourne, FL 32905
The opinions expressed are my own and do not in any way represent Harris 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: hajadi@goofy.csd.sgi.com (Ivan Hajadi)
Subject: Symantec..
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:50:42 GMT




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 */

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: fod@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov (Frank O'Donnell)
Subject: Re: Agencies that Reduce C-Card debt
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 03:07:49 GMT

greg@cherokee.b23b.ingr.com (Greg Moritz) writes:

>Actually, I have know of such an agency.  It was called Consumer Credit
>Counseling Services or something like that.  The counselee had to put up
>about $25 if they could do so, but it could be waived.  The credit card
>companies pay for most of the funding.
>
>...
>
>The agency makes the claim that your credit is unaffected.  I don't know
>about this.  True, you have no blemishes on your credit report as a 
>result of this activity, but the individual credit cards know your
>history.  I don't know if they would re-issue you a card.

I have a friend who went through the Consumer Credit
Counselors experience about a decade ago.  After getting
his debt paid off, he slowly built credit back up
by only judicious use of credit cards and, I think,
a credit union loan or something like that.  He said
that his credit now seems to be fine and that he gets
come-ons for Amex Platinum Cards and whatnot quite
frequently.  On the other hand the specific creditors
who took arranged payments during the CCC period
seem somewhat wary of him.

Frank
frank@jplpost.jpl.nasa.gov
From: jackson@bluemoon.rn.com (jack cole)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: re-statistical analysis of stocks
Date: 14 Oct 92 01:04:15 GMT
Organization: Blue Moon BBS ((614) 868-998[024])

Yes , control charts work!  You use the standard 
control chart signals to determine in/out of control.
 out of control high signals buy, while out of 
control low signals a sell.

Jackson
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk)
Subject: Re: Federal Reserve: 'monetizing' debt
Summary:  maybe yes
Keywords: monetization of debt, open market operations
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 00:09:01 GMT

In article <thompson.718927938@kiyotaki.econ.umn.edu> thompson@atlas.socsci.umn.edu writes:
>mccabe@gdls.CSCTMD.COM (Harold McCabe) writes:
>
>>I recently read one economist who said that the US Federal Reserve was
>>getting ready to monetize the US debt, to the tune of about $30 billion, in
>>1993.  Forgetting whether this prediction is true or not, I would like to
>>know just *how* the Fed monetizes debt.  The result of my initial investigation
...
>>to adjust the money supply for seasonal variations.  How can one determine the
>>difference between normal Fed operations on the open market, and when the
>>Fed is 'monetizing the debt?'
>
>You can't.  Although the motivation behind various kinds of open
>market operations might differ, the net effect is the same.  If the

although the opinion expressed in the last two lines is correct, there
is some possibility that ousiders, viewing the system might be able to
observe the monetization.

why do i say that? because i have seen a statement in the financial
post, the canadian financial daily, to the effect that OUR fed is
alreadmy monetizing the debt. this was not stated by the paper itself,
but was attributed to some financial person  in canada. the latter was
urging thew canadian equivalent of the fed to do a little inflating on
its own, in this statement.

so, how could an outsider see something we cannot see from inside the
system?
-- 
arthur wouk 
internet: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Getting a merchant visa account