HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: sveta@titul.obninsk.su (Shirina Svetlana)
Subject: WANTED: Looking for the partners in collection commercial offers for the russian weeklies "Bulletin of prices"
Reply-To: sveta@titul.obninsk.su
Organization: JSC TITUL
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 92 13:12:19 +0300

>From sveta Thu Jul 23 12:05:15 MSD 1992
Gentelmens!

We are looking for partners in collection commercial offers
for the russian periodical edition (weeklies) "Bullitin of prices".
"Bullitin of prices" is weekly collection of classified sale offers
of goods and materials.


General manager     Sergey Kononenko

P.S. We'll be very much obliged to all who inform us:
which groups of USENET or any other mail (if exists) we can
place that announcement in? (i.e. which group will be more
effective for that announcement).

TITUL publishers
box 5055
Kaluga region
Obninsk, Russia
249020






Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: Morningstar HELP!
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 18:34:37 GMT

fsbern8@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ambady Suresh  (Sverdrup)) writes:

>In article <barrett.712417355@cc.gatech.edu>, barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett) writes...
>>TW.A51@isumvs.iastate.edu (Jim Berg) writes:
>>>Could someone please post to me or the list what the meaning and
>>>scale of the "Morningstar Ratings" is.....
>>funds every quarter or so.  They call their ratings "risk-adjusted
>>performance" ratings.  That means that a low-risk, low-return fund
>>and a high-risk, high-return fund will both get an average rating,
>>because that is what they are expected to return given the risk
>>they take.  The ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5 and are only 
>>applied to funds which have a 3-year history (thus all the NA entries).
>	Thanks for sharing these ratings with us. Is 1 the best or the 
>worst rating ? Being an amateur, I can only guess...   Suresh

Sorry for not including that info.  1 is the worst.  5 is the best.
I think they are looking at the last 3 years worth of performance,
but I'll double check that...


------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- Why settle for anything less?--------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)| "When I need a little free advice
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |    about Saddam Hussein, I turn to  
                                        |    country music." -Bush, Oct 1990
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: hamachi@adobe.com (Gordon Hamachi)
Subject: Real Estate News Summary Goes Away
Organization: Adobe Systems Incorporated
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 00:22:20 GMT

By popular demand, future real estate news summaries will appear in  
misc.invest.real-estate.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: capskb@alliant.backbone.uoknor.edu (Keith Brewster)
Subject: Re: Business Week Recommendation
Organization: University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 20:35:44 GMT

In article <1992Jul23.134803.5923@Happy-Man.com> Irving_Wolfe@Happy-Man.com writes:
>We stopped subscribing to Business Week in 1974, when they ran a 
>big, very scary issue on the coming death of capitalism right near 
>the market's trough -- for those who don't remember, it fell a lot 
>that year, and then recovered.  Discouraging people from buying 
>shares when they are as under-priced as they've been any time in my 
>life hardly constitutes giving one's readers valuable information.  
>

Yes, not to flame Business Week too much, but I read somewhere (I think it
was a Barrons interview -- yes, their competitors) that there was a negative
correlation between Business Week covers and the economic future (most of the
time when the cover said "Confidence in President Slipping", e.g., there was
a recovery and vice-versa).  Same goes for NewsWeek.  I don't know how well
they do on individual company recommendations.

BTW, last time I was in Wisconsin (Jan), Pik 'N Save was, indeed, a
warehouse-type grocery store.

kb


Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: nfs@dynamic (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: Should we limit the shorts life time.
Originator: news@ernie.Princeton.EDU
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 02:00:31 GMT

In article <1992Jul27.235552.25685@gumby.dsd.trw.com> suhre@meltami.dsd.trw.com (Maurice E. Suhre) writes:
>In article <1992Jul26.151003.27958@Princeton.EDU> nfs@dynamic (Norbert Schlenker) writes:
>>You can't, because of the stupid uptick rule.
>
>I thought that the "stupid uptick rule" evolved from studies of the 1929
>crash.  Somebody decided that shorting into a declining market just made
>the situation worse.

So true.  But do tell me why there is no corresponding "stupid downtick
rule" which would allow you to buy new long positions only on downticks!

>I understand that the program trading is exempt from the uptick rule.
>Anybody know for sure?

Yup, they're exempt.  If it wasn't, program trading wouldn't be possible.
Another example of one rule for the rich and another for the unwashed.

Norbert

-- Due to stupid posting software, email replies should be addressed to: --
                            nfs@cs.princeton.edu
From: J056600@LMSC5.IS.LMSC.LOCKHEED.COM
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Fundamentals, my dear Watson, fundamentals!
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:43:46 GMT
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.

From: prabhak@cs.umn.edu (Satya Prabhakar)
In <1992Jul31.171217.20302@cs.umn.edu>, Satya Prabhakar writes:

(tirade deleted)

>>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.

Yes, the market may be overvalued by historical standards, and many of your
above arguments against a high market are fair.  However, you left out one
*very* important consideration:  interest rates.  As long as the Fed keeps
easing, and as long as money markets are paying only 3.5% and showing no signs
of rising, I expect the migration to equities to continue.

I can see a sharp correction (maybe 10 to 15%) when short-term rates start
rising considerably.  I think if a 3-month T-bill (now around 3.25%) gets back
to over 4% and is steadily rising, the hefty flow from cash to equities may
begin to reverse itself.  If we get 3-month rates in the 6% to 7% range, as we
had for much of the 1980s, then even more money will come back from overvalued
stocks.  Also, by this time, the bond investors will have already fled the bond
market, as rising rates are eroding their principal.  Of course, under such a
scenario, the rush to return to cash may be so great that it collapses under
its own weight and cash rates might fall again.

As for me, I am sticking with the stock market as long as cash rates remain
below the rate of inflation + taxes.  I once saw a model which modifies the
effective P/E of the market based on the Prime Rate.  That is, in a "neutral"
interest rate environment (Prime around 8% or 9%), a P/E of (say) 16 in the
S&P 500 can be unmodified.  However, a Prime of 6% (and still in a downtrend!)
might modify that "adjusted" P/E from 16 to about 12.  That will generally
cause a rise in the S&P until the "adjusted" P/E is around 16.  In this
scenario, the "adjusted" P/E is relatively static.  This is just a theory, of
course, but it generally makes sense to me, though it certainly must be used
only in conjunction with other factors.

Tim Irvin   j056600@lmsc5.is.lmsc.lockheed.com
****************************************************************************
The Federalist Papers:  Cliffs Notes for Constitutional study.  Use it.
From: dfavor@logan.tivoli.com (David Favor)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: SAVING FOR COLLEGE EDUCATION
Date: 21 Jul 92 12:17:06 GMT

In article <22462@oasys.dt.navy.mil>, shaver@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Bryan Shaver) writes:
|> 
|> 
|> All:
|> 
|> I am interested in saving for my daughter's college education.... I
|> saw somewhere, the acronym UGMA or UGTA or something like that a long
|> time ago.  As I recall, this was a method of investing for your child
|> on a tax free basis, with the funds being turned over to your child
|> at a certain age or something like that.
|> 
|> Anywho, if anyone does have any more information on this subject, I'm
|> sure it would be of interest to the misc.invest audience.  You can also
|> mail me directly if you wish.
|> 
|> Thanks!
|> 
|> 
|> BDS
|> 
|> "An Investment in Knowledge Pays the Best Interest"   - Ben Franklin

------- tax free investing for children

do to so much abuse the IRS squashed most of these shelters in 1986.

------- tax free investing for children after 1986

you may want to puruse the book "More Wealth Without Risk" by Charles Givens.
there is a section of strategies geared toward building a child's college fund
and also some very creative ways to employ your children. if I recall the tax
code allows you to pay children and spouse up to $3000/year. they still pay
federal tax on this money, but no social security/medicare. you then deduct
this money from your income as an expense.

------- small business

for the preceeding to work you must start some form of small busines so you
have legitimate work that your children/spouse can engage in for payment. there
are sections in the same book on this topic. so don't pay your children any form
of allowance. start a small business and put them on the payroll. teach them how
to use money. you may be surprised at the results. 

------- assistance setting this up

if you want assistance setting up a small business and structuring it to generate
tax benefits and build a college fund you may want to consider joining the Givens
Organization. they will assign a consultant for you to make use of for 6 months.
this is plenty of time to create this type of financial plan.
From: dfavor@logan.tivoli.com (David Favor)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Charles J. Givens
Date: 25 Jul 92 12:43:00 GMT

> This is dangerous!!!  Insurance companies are not stupid.  If they're
> giving you the option of increasing your deductable, then it's probably not
> a good thing for you to do.  I know that there are some cases where you
> want a high deductable (if you can't *afford* to pay the higher insurance,
> for example), but if you get in a car accident or whatever, rest assured
> that this strategy will have cost you money, not saved you money.  With a
> $500 deductable, you effectively have *no insurance* for an insured
> accident that costs $500 to fix.

I always take the maximum deductible on a vehicle. the reason for this is
that most insurance companies have an unwritten policy of dropping any client
that makes 2 claims in less than 3 years. this policy is enforced by software
and includes all claims.

for example, 2 towing claims and you're dropped by most companies. guess what
else happens... if an individual is dropped and they attempt to get other
insurance... usually they go in a high risk pool, or are uninsurable.

I take the maximum deductible and NEVER-NEVER-NEVER file claims. I reserve
insurance to cover large $1000+, or total loss, situations. in this manner
I always insure I have the lowest premiums and remain insurable.

and you are right "Insurance companies are not stupid", they are gambling
establishments. they gamble that you will never make a claim. if an individual
begins making claims, any claims, then the odds that the insurance company
will lose money on this individual increse. when these odds become unnacceptable
then the individual is dropped. nothing personal, just standard house rules.
From: v070km6q@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (John B Schutkeker)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Nikki Mutual Fund?
Keywords: stocks, foreign
Date: 31 Jul 92 19:46:00 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul30.155011.17043@schbbs.mot.com>, morrison@next3.corp.mot.com (Darren Morrison) writes...

>I have not had any luck finding a mutual fund that invests in 1) only the  
>Tokyo market and 2) Nikki indexed stocks in proportion to the percentage  
>of their market capitalization.  Does anyone have any information about  
>this type of a mutual fund?

I'm not aware of any Nikkei index fund, but an (excellent) no-load fund that
invests in the Japanese market is Scudder's Japan Fund.  The number at
Scudder is 1-800-225-2740.  For some bizarre reason, the Japan fund is
listed under "J" in the newspaper mutual fund charts, rather than being
listed under "Scudder," where it belongs.

>Now that the Nikki Index has hit a 6 year low, I would like to buy into  
>the Tokyo stock market.  It looks like a good, but risky, opportunity for  
>growth over the next 3 to 5 years.

I have been paying quite close attention to the Japanese market for the
last several months, and, although quite low, it looks like the time to
buy is not quite yet.  The Wall St. Journal predicts that the Nikkei
will bottom out at about 12,000 - 13,000, and that the Japanese market
has yet to become aware of just how bad certain parts of it's economy are,
such as real estate and pension fund equity holdings.  

My understanding is that the market shrugged off the recent drop in Japanese
interest rates, and that the less recent government capital spending program
for economic stimulation was, at least partially, hamstrung by their
government planners.  It looks like it may take one more round of either of
those stimulation measures to get their economy fired up again.

But when it takes off, just watch the fireworks!

For a 3 - 5 year time frame, no problem, it will come back; it's just that
it will most likely get worse before it gets better.  I'm looking for the
bottom within six months, but that's just my inexpert opinion.

>	"When blood is in the streets - its time to buy!"

Ain't it the truth.  Someone else's loss is your (our) gain.

							-- John Schutkeker
From: colburn@oswego.Oswego.EDU
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Buying stock w/o a broker
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:42:43 GMT
Reply-To: u6k75@lfkw2.bgm.link.com
Distribution: usa
Organization: SUNY Oswego
Originator: colburn@penelope.oswego.edu

I'm looking for a list of companies that allow you to buy stock directly from
them, including your first share.  I'll post the results if I get any replies.
The companies I currently know of are:
	Exxon	800-252-1800
	Proctor & Gamble	800-742-6253
	Texaco	800-283-9785

I'm also interested in info on a broker that has a low (<$20) commission when
you only purchase one share.

					Thanks!

+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Bret Colburn                                                   |
|  CAE Link - Link Flight Simulation Division                     |
|                                                                 |
|  u6k75@lfkw2.bgm.link.com     or     colburn@oswego.oswego.edu  |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+
From: bhoughto@sedona.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: General Dynamics common stock
Keywords: P/E, stock buyback
Date: 28 Jul 92 20:31:24 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Intel Corp., Chandler, Arizona

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..."
From: proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: British Pound rates
Keywords: Exchange Rates
Date: 25 Jul 92 19:49:47 GMT
Distribution: misc.invest
Organization: Informix Software, Inc.

In article <Brx4oo.DB1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> hkk38381@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Arthur Kwok) writes:
>rot@mickie.id.macsch.com (Rohit Thukral) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Jul24.162517.3719@cco.caltech.edu>, watson@sampson.ccsf.caltech.edu (Stephen H. Watson) writes:
>>|> 
>>|> I.e., is the dollar going to get weaker against the Pound anytime
>>|> soon, or is it expected to strengthen?  (Just a simple question :-).
>>|> 
>
>>The major central banks have been buying up dollars ever since
>>German interest rates went up. I suspect that this monetary
>>intervention will continue to support the sagging dollar.
>>I wouldn't rush out to buy pounds today.
>

Isn't in almost axiomatic that there can be no rational concensus that
the pound can be expected to (a) go up, or (b) go down, because if there
were, then the pound would immediately (a) go up, or (b) go down as
people acted on this expectation?

(Sneaking suspicion that while I am constructing "proofs" that there
 is really no stategy for making money on the stock market, at roulette,
 in currency futures, others are doing exactly that. Surely the only
 `strategy' is `be better at predicting the future than everyone else,
 but with no more information than they have', i.e. `have good hunches'.
 Doubtless this *is* the way to make money, but it is not clear how to
 put it into practice.)

Of course, those that guess right will likely talk about the success of
their "method", while those that guess wrong will probably be less vocal
about it, which will tend to generate the impression that there are
indeed "systems" that "work".

And now, back to your regularly scheduled requests for free, realtime,
stock quotes ...

Paul
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: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 14:04:59 GMT
Followup-To: misc.invest

In article <sehari.712270458@marge.ecss.iastate.edu>, sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
> 
> From: jld@cbnewsc.cb.att.com (J. L. David)
> 
> >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. ...
> 
> I already did prove with the example in my last posting.  Also, if it wasn't
> so, SEC would not not restrict the shorts on the down tick.
> 
Ah, a typical Babak argument:  I said so, therefore I have proved it.  Your
example proves nothing.  I said show me some data.  Show me one crash that
has been caused by short sellers.  Not some theoretical construct.  You still
haven't explained why crashes are just as common in markets where short
selling isn't possible (e.g. Real Estate).

As for the SEC, since when are they the all-knowing source of market 
knowledge?  The SEC restriction is to keep short selling from exacerbating
a bad situation.  It does nothing to *prevent* crashes.

It still remains for you to prove your original assertion.

Jeff David
From: rot@mickie.id.macsch.com (Rohit Thukral)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: British Pound rates
Keywords: Exchange Rates
Date: 27 Jul 92 16:42:00 GMT
Reply-To: rot@mickie.id.macsch.com
Distribution: misc.invest
Organization: MSC, Los Angeles

In article <1992Jul25.194947.23456@informix.com>, proberts@informix.com (Paul Roberts) writes:
|> Isn't in almost axiomatic that there can be no rational concensus that
|> the pound can be expected to (a) go up, or (b) go down, because if there
|> were, then the pound would immediately (a) go up, or (b) go down as
|> people acted on this expectation?
|> 

The market consensus for exchange rate movements is reflected in
the forward rates for various currencies. The forward rates reflect 
all available information about currencies. They are indeed a rational
consensus. However, there is no guarantee that exchange rate movements
will be accurately predicted by forward rates.

Rohit Thukral

-- 
#include <StdDisclaimer.h>
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: barrett@cloudgen1.gatech.edu (James Barrett)
Subject: Re: Morningstar HELP!
Organization: Georgia Tech College of Computing
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:42:35 GMT

TW.A51@isumvs.iastate.edu (Jim Berg) writes:
>Could someone please post to me or the list what the meaning and
>scale of the "Morningstar Ratings" is.....

Morningstar is a paper about mutual funds.  They publish ratings of
funds every quarter or so.  They call their ratings "risk-adjusted
performance" ratings.  That means that a low-risk, low-return fund
and a high-risk, high-return fund will both get an average rating,
because that is what they are expected to return given the risk
they take.  The ratings are on a scale of 1 to 5 and are only 
applied to funds which have a 3-year history (thus all the NA entries).

Hope that helps!

------------------OS/2 v2.0 -- Why settle for anything less?--------------------
James C. Barrett (barrett@cc.gatech.edu)| "When I need a little free advice
Georgia Tech College of Computing       |    about Saddam Hussein, I turn to  
                                        |    country music." -Bush, Oct 1990
From: rbeville@tekig5.pen.tek.com (Robert E Beville)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: finbooklist.3 novice reading
Keywords: for beginner investors
Date: 29 Jul 92 18:31:41 GMT
Distribution: usa


	Here is the third part of the NOVICE INVESTOR READING LIST:

	Darrell Huff         HOW TO LIE WITH STATISTICS          Norton
	Michael Wheeler     LIES, DAMN LIES & STATISTICS         Dell
	Michael Assel       MONEY SMARTS                         Playboy !
	Roger Klein &
	William Walman      THE BEAT INFLATION STRATEGY          Pocket Books
	John W. Hazard      CHOOSING TOMORROWS GROWTH STOCKS TODAY
	.							 Paperback Lib.
	Claude N. Rosenburg THE COMMON SENSE WAY TO STOCK MARKET PROFITS
	.							 Signet
	Catherine Cook DeCamp THE MONEY TREE			 Signet
	Martin J. Mayer     DON'T BANK ON IT                     Pocket Books
	C. Norman Stabler   HOW TO READ THE FINANCIAL NEWS       Perennial Lib.
	Larry Burkett       WHAT HUSBANDS WISH THEIR WIVES KNEW ABOUT MONEY
	.							 Victor Books
	Napoleon Hill       THINK AND GROW RICH                  Crest Books
	Richard Ney         THE WALL STREET JUNGLE               Avon
	Richard Ney         THE WALL STREET GANG                 Grove Press
	C. C. Haxzard       CONFESSIONS OF A WALL STREET INSIDER Playboy Press
	Cohen & Zinbarg     INVESTMENT ANALYSIS & PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT
	.							 Dow-Jones
	Ray Dirks           HEADS YOU WIN, TAILS YOU LOSE        Bantam
	Paul Ashley         YOU AND YOUR WILL                    Mentor
	Sidney Margolis     THE INNOCENT CONSUMER vs. THE EXPLOITERS
	.							 Pocket Books

	I've got to stop this session, here are a few amendments to the
	previous lists:
	Publisher of "The Plungers and The Peacocks"  is Putnam
	Publisher of "Extaordinary Popular Delus..."  is Harmony Books
	Publisher of "Security Analysis",  Graham, Dodd, Cottle is McGrawHill
Newsgroups: misc.invest,sci.econ
From: rexm@trailboss (Rex Mammel)
Subject: pick of the day 
Organization: U S WEST Advanced Technologies
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:57:13 GMT


Among the initial public offerings from 
high tech companies Optical Data systems is 
proving to be especially interesting to 
me.  Now trading at 14 was issued at 12.

Looks to pick up market share in the token ring 
hub business while IBM and Cnipcom spend the 
next year getting a product designed and to
market.

-- 
Mayuko: Yes! Yes! Noise war. We have noise war!
---------------=================>>>>>> * <<<<<<=============--------------------
Newsgroups: misc.invest