HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: wb8foz@skybridge.SCL.CWRU.Edu (David Lesher)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: IBM Turnaround?
Date: 20 Dec 1992 02:35:25 GMT
Organization: NRK Clinic for habitual NetNews abusers - Beltway Annex
Distribution: usa
Reply-To: wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu (David Lesher)
NNTP-Posting-Host: skybridge.scl.cwru.edu

Others said:
# >>RIP IBM
# >
# >WHOA!!  The company is hurting badly, but it's a long ways from dead.
# >They have lots of money still, and they also can refocus.

Well said.
I BeaM is likely the ONLY folks that could afford to bleed red
as long as they will need to, and still recover.

Which does not say they will do so, only that, to quote "The
Search for the Holy Grail": 
	I'm not dead yet!
--
A host is a host from coast to coast..wb8foz@skybridge.scl.cwru.edu
& no one will talk to a host that's close..........................
Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433
is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433
From: tucker@shiva.edsg.hac.com (George Tucker)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Sorry, my fault...
Keywords: IBM plunge
Date: 17 Dec 92 23:13:56 GMT
Reply-To: tucker@shiva.UUCP (George Tucker)
Organization: Hughes Aircraft Co., El Segundo, CA

In article <1992Dec16.034224.3595@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> ghuntres@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gary  huntress) writes:
>
>I really want to appologize to everyone for todays plunge in IBM stock.
>It was all my fault.  I bought some on friday, so obviously it was 
>headed for the dumper.  'cheez, you'd think I'd learn after buying
>Westinghouse at 23 (down from 27) - currently at 12.

Hey, thanks for taking my place in the spotlight.
I wondered why I was suddenly making money.

	 George Tucker        tucker@shiva.hac.com
	Signature line awaiting FDA approval.

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: adkins@singha.eng.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth C. Adkins)
Subject: IBM Turnaround?
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Distribution: usa
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:52:52 GMT

What is the net's general opinion on IBM.  Do people think
they're going to be able to turn things around?  Is the stock
drop a true reflection of their drop in value?  I can't 
imagine that IBM is in such trouble that the stock won't ever
rebound to prices of last year.  Responses from people inside
IBM would be especially helpful.

Ken
-- 
                                            ____________
Kenneth C. Adkins                          /           /  
               -------8888888888===========------------ 
adkins@ee.eng.ohio-state.edu               \___________\  
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: ajg@controls.ccd.harris.com (Arnold Goldberg)
Subject: Re: Sorry, my fault...
Organization: Harris Controls and Compositions
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 22:46:17 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 92 03:42:24 GMT, ghuntres@nyx.cs.du.edu (Gary  huntress) said:


Gary> I really want to appologize to everyone for todays plunge in IBM stock.
Gary> It was all my fault.  I bought some on friday, so obviously it was 
Gary> headed for the dumper.  'cheez, you'd think I'd learn after buying
Gary> Westinghouse at 23 (down from 27) - currently at 12.

Gary> There, I feel better now.   Hmmm, maybe a couple of calls, after all
Gary> its got nowhere to go but up! :-)))))

Well, you've said what I've wanted to say many time right after I 
bought a stock, but was ashamed to.


Thank you, I feel much better now!! 
:)


--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: yhari@uncc.edu (Yog Hari)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Body Shop (from "Don't Become Fixated
Date: 16 Dec 92 16:45:24 GMT
Reply-To: yhari@uncc.edu
Organization: University of NC at Charlotte

In article 22043@cbnews.cb.att.com, lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
>In article <265@emtek.UUCP> werner@emtek.UUCP (Werner Ehlenberger) writes:
>>> > >2. Body Shop (pink sheets)     Recent Price: 2 3/4
>>> > >
>>> > >retail stores in the U.S.  Traded on London Stock Exchange.
>>> > 
>>
>>
>>Is there any way to buy the stock in the US, if it is traded on the
>>London Stock Exchange?
>
>  
>I've always heard people say any full-service broker can buy foreign
>stocks. I use Schwab, however, so I called them and they told me they don't
>trade foreign stocks but that Body Shop is indeed traded
>in the Pink Sheets. Current price is 2 7/8-3 1/8 and I was told they
>require that you buy at least 500 shares. 
>
Ditto for my broker at A.G. Edwards.  The problem with these stocks is how do you follow them?

Yog.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Buying New Stocks On The Day They Go Public
From: gary@cdthq.UUCP (Gary Heston)
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 92 21:19:47 CST
Organization: Garys' Home for Obsolete Computers

georgec@eng.umd.edu (George B. Clark) writes:

> 
> Yesterday, I heard on the radio that a restaurant whose stock was made
> public at an offering price of $13 had doubled by the end of the day.
> 
> I suspect this behavior is true of many new issues. Their price runs up
> the first day or two simply because they are brand new, which attracts
> lots of attention.
> 
> If an investor makes a habit of buying these stocks the day they 
> go public, and then selling them the day after they go public,
> he or she might make lots of money.

Of course, the *popular* IPOs are already fully subscribed by 
institutional investors--just try getting some of that stock at
the offering price!

Yes, there is money to be made, but not by small investors. It's
better to wait a few weeks until the price drops back down, and
then buy if you want the stock. Otherwise, unless you have a few
hundred million to throw around, forget it.

Gary Heston, at home....
gary@cdthq.uucp
From: wtwitty@netcom.com (Pacific Systems)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Where can I get cost-of-living data?
Date: 17 Dec 92 03:23:03 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)

In article <1992Dec16.032554.27273@cs.wisc.edu> roth@feline.cs.wisc.edu (Bill Roth) writes:
>I would like to know where I can data on the relative cost of living
>differences in major cities around the country. I would like to know,
>with some degree of accuracy, either statistical or scientifical,
>what the cost-of-living differences between Madison, WI and Austin, TX
>are.
>
>Does anyone know where I can get this kind of data?
>
>-- 
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------
>Bill Roth, University of Wisconsin Computer Sciences Dept.
>Internet: roth@cs.wisc.edu. BITNET: ROTH@WISCPSL. HEPNET: PSL::ROTH
>

Try "Places Rated Almanac" published by Prentice Hall. $18.00

	-- Bill Twitty
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: "Market efficiency" (Was Re: Rationality of the stock market (NOT!))
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 23:49:28 GMT

ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah) writes:

>watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:

>>cs101a64@dcl-nxt03.cso.uiuc.edu (cs101 student) writes:

>>>Wall Street can never seem to realize that the  
>>>popular opinion of a stock is already be reflected in its stock price  

>>Well, I guess Wall Street has a lot to learn about the stock market.

>The concept of efficient market broadly means : "all available
>information is reflected in the price".  This means that unless you
>hold special information which the market does not yet know, you can't
>make money in "responding to news".  By the time you heard that
>Microsoft is in FTC trouble, that information is already incorporated
>in the price.

However, one may have a special ability to evaluate the 
available information. For example, one might, through superior insight, 
realize that the market has overly/underly discounted the FTC information.

>In a world with efficient markets, there is virtually no role for
>stock picking.  

Similarly one might have a superior ability to evaluate the 
prospects of a company, based on evaluation methods that
are not accepted by others.

Graham and Dodd, for example, were able to make use of their security
evaluation methods to make a lot of money on the stock market at one
time.

Nowadays, there have been several generations of security
analysts who have been brought up on Graham and Dodd, so 
straightforward application of their methods is unlikely to
significantly outperform the market.

>Wall street types hate the proposition, because it
>eliminates the need for expensive investment managers and newsletters
>and thus directly endangers their livelihood.

It is necessary to have the
investment managers and newsletters in order to KEEP the
market efficient. 

Otherwise the doctors and dentists would do all the
buying, and all the Wall Street firms would index the
doctors and dentists :)

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
From: ajayshah@almaak.usc.edu (Ajay Shah)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: "Market efficiency" (Was Re: Rationality of the stock market (NOT!))
Date: 15 Dec 1992 20:27:13 -0800
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: almaak.usc.edu

watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe) writes:

>>Wall street types hate the proposition, because it
>>eliminates the need for expensive investment managers and newsletters
>>and thus directly endangers their livelihood.

>It is necessary to have the
>investment managers and newsletters in order to KEEP the
>market efficient. 

A very small fraction of traders are in a position to exploit from
incoming news.  You have to be in a position to get news with very
small delays, and trade on it instantly.

This has little to do with the target audience of investment newsletters,
which are supposed to help ordinary investors like you and me.
Certainly, the most sound strategy for you and me is to free-ride
on the efforts of others in keeping the market efficient.

Similarly, almost all mutual funds and money managers are not in
second- and minute-ly trading.  These guys do not generate excess
returns systematically (obviously).  Their existence is endangered in
a world where end-consumers have better knowledge about efficiency of
markets.


I should clarify the notion of "systematically generating excess
returns" (it answers another posting in this thread).  Broadly
speaking you can generate higher mean returns than the S&P500 by
paying more risk than it.  The question to ask of a get-rich-quick
scheme is:

   does it generate returns greater than you would "normally get"
   by paying the risk that it gets you into?

Thus most chartist schemes are easily shot down by seeing that they
generate LESS returns than smartly-designed algorithms at comparable
levels of risk.

The question is not one of mean returns itself, it's your relationship
to the markets risk/return tradeoff.  There is no reason for me to pay
a variance of 100 on a scheme which gets 20%, because I can easily get
20% at a variance of 50.

(Note that by the time you start quantifying risk, you are well into
modern finance territory, and far from the neanderthal stuff).

        -ans.
-- 
Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@rcf.usc.edu
From: mmoore@hpcc01.corp.hp.com (Mike Moore)
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 01:51:00 GMT
Subject: Re: tax loss selling
Organization: Hewlett Packard
Newsgroups: misc.invest

> (1) One can take a tax loss only if the price has fallen a lot this year,
>    not true for this stock.

It may be the other way around... many people might SELL the stock, 
profit taking, to get the income on this tax return (Clinton promises
to raise tax on the rich NEXT YEAR).  Thus, many sellers may cause the
price to decline.

(2) Why would someone wait until Dec 31 to sell at a loss if (s)he can
    sell now at the higher price?

From your perspective, Dec. 31 may be good, since many people wait till
the last minute to sell, possibly making it a good low point. (Not
everybody has your broker's advice)

Although it might be good advice, in the long run, the stock should
recover from such a minor blip.  Depends on how risky an investor you
really are.

With only 200 shares, commission would eat up most of the benefits.
Perhaps a few short-term put options could reap some benefits?

Mike

Xref: sparky misc.invest:14964 alt.activism:19616
From: v140pxgt@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Daniel B Case)
Newsgroups: misc.invest,alt.activism
Subject: Re: Snapple - Does it really go public Tuesday?
Date: 15 Dec 92 21:49:00 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BzBB4n.IxL@taligent.com>, cep@taligent.com (Christophe Pettus) writes...
>Does anyone have firm information about the supposed connection between
>Snapple and anti-choice groups?  Rumours have been circulating for months,
>but I've never seen anything concrete.

I do. I've heard the rumors for months also, but as it turns out, they just 
aren't true.

I mentioned them at a recent Buffalo United for Choice meeting, and someone 
there who works at Village Green books in Buffalo (a really good bookstore)
which sells a lot of Snapple, was sufficiently disturbed about the rumors after
someone pasted a "boycott-made contributions to anti-choice" sign on their case
to check it out. They called up their sales rep, who checked it out, and it 
apparently wasn't true.

Of course, the company may be snow-jobbing us there, but until I hear anything
more I'll take their word. And, of course, there are other reasons for some 
people to boycott them if they so desire (advertising on Rush Limbaugh as 
heavily as they do, for instance). But for now the matter appears settled.

							Dan Case
						V140PXGT@ubvms.cc.buffalo.edu

	"A prohibitionist is someone you wouldn't want to drink with,
	even if he did drink"-H.L. Mencken.
From: richard.mirabella@spacebbs.com (Richard Mirabella) 
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: A question about the adva
Date: 13 Dec 92 21:55:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: SPACE BBS - Menlo Park, CA - 10 Lines + 4gB - 415-323-4193
Reply-To: richard.mirabella@spacebbs.com (Richard Mirabella) 

PK>I am a graduate student (read: I have essentially no income) with
  >a financial problem.  My wife (also a graduate student...) just inherited
  >her father's pension.  Because he never paid tax on this money, we will
  >have to pay income tax on his pension as we receive it.  We have great
  >flexibility as to how we take the money over the next several years.

PK>Our accountant told me that the rule of thumb is that it is better
  >to defer taxes as long as possible.  I certainly understand why this is
  >true for retirement savings -- you don't pay tax on the interest as the
  >investment ages.  It seems to me that there is NO advantage to deferring
  >taxes unless tax is also deferred on the interest.

The rule of thumb of deferring taxes as long as possible do not apply 
in your case, as your financial picture (and tax rates) will change 
dramatically when you and your wife leave school and have an income 
from working.

You have the special case of paying taxes at a very low rate now, 
with much higher rates once you leave school ( 33% - 40% depending 
upon which state you live in).

You would increase your net worth by taking some of this income now, 
and paying taxes on that (which will be very low), and invest the money 
in a good no load mutual fund or pay down credit card or auto loans.  

You may also want to use the money for experiences that will mean much 
to your life in the future -- travel in Europe, Asia or South America 
durning a summer break -- as you also have freedoms in time that may 
not be available to you when you enter the workforce..

               Rich     76520.2073@compuserve.com

 * 1st 1.01 #884 *
From: schindler@csa1.lbl.gov (AARON SCHINDLER)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: "Don't Become Fixated on Mutual Funds" - Peter Lynch
Date: 13 Dec 1992 13:23 PST
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory - Berkeley, CA, USA
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.254.196
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

In article <Bz5z47.D26@news.cso.uiuc.edu>, cs101a64@ih-nxt04.cso.uiuc.edu (cs101 student) writes...
>For this reason,  
>pink sheet companies are either very new and small or about to go  
>bankrupt.  The pink sheets are notorious for extreme risk and ties to the  
>mob.  Thus, they are not for conservative investors or socially conscious  
>investors.

Mob ties to the pink sheet stocks??  This is news to me.  What are your sources?

What is your comment about pink sheet listed companies not being for the
socially conscious mean?  Is this again a reference to mob ties?  Are you
joking and I'm missing the joke?

Aaron Schindler
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu (Larry Watanabe)
Subject: Re: Why is Borland downgraded?
Organization: University of Illinois, Dept. of Comp. Sci., Urbana, IL
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 17:39:15 GMT

pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:

>In article <FOX.92Dec16205734@graphics.nyu.edu> fox@cs.nyu.edu (David Fox) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec10.210433.24151@webo.dg.com> holmes@mrx.webo.dg.com (Chris Holmes) writes:
>>
>>
>>   They announced a work force reduction of 15% or 350 people, incurring a 
>>   $35 mil restructuring charge this quarter.  Their reason?  "...a looming
>>   price war in the software industry."
>>
>>But hasn't Borland software *always* been cheap?  Doesn't a price
>>war put more pressure on Borland's competitors than on Borland?

>Turbo Pascal 1.0 came out at about $39.95 (or was it $29.95?), but now
>their products are not cheap if not upgrading.  And if upgrading (e.g.
>Paradox upgrade was $179) you upgrade *often*.  Their products weigh
>in at $300-$700 range, in general (the major apps).  I think the price
>war may be "competitive upgrades", but that's already been happening!

How good are Borland's recent products? Has anyone tried out
Quattro Pro and compared it to Access?  What about their
other products?

-Larry Watanabe watanabe@cs.uiuc.edu
From: clong@romulus.rutgers.edu (Chris Long)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Fidelity Ultra Service
Date: 17 Dec 92 10:45:10 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.


I'm considering starting a Fidelity Ultra Service account; any good
or bad experiences with this?  Looks good from what I've seen.
-- 
Chris Long, 265 Old York Rd., Bridgewater, NJ  08807-2618

"S.B., with an I.Q. of 161, failed to complete his course of study,
running away instead with his professor's wife."
H. J. Eysenck, _Know Your Own I.Q._
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: chandrab@cbnewsf.cb.att.com (b.chandramouli)
Subject: Re: "Market efficiency"
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 23:31:31 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.172115.22487@xn.ll.mit.edu> rob@ll.mit.edu writes:
>
>It seems to me that our (okay, _my_) understanding of markets is all  
>messed up.  Take for example the expression "under valued".  It implies  
>that a commodity has some inherent or correct value and that the market  
>is mistaken about it.  Is either thing possible?
>
>How does value attach to things?  Is it in the order of the universe  
>that one thing should be worth so much of another or is it just in the  
>eye of the evaluator?
>
	Tobias in his "The only investment guide you ever want (or something
close to this title)" :

	Value (worth)  of a stock is what the buyers are willing to pay 
		for it.

	What a buyer wants to pay is what the buyer things the stock is worth.

This circular definition is inherent to the way valuation of a stock 
is done. This is not just true for stock valuation. Similar circular
concepts are inherent in the valuation of real estate, collectibles etc.
May I extend this to say that whereever there are Supply and Demand
forces are acting to set the price of anything, circularity is inevitable?

chandra
att!acpfs!chandra
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: jdart@donner.Rational.COM (Jon Dart)
Subject: Re: SteinRoe Stock or SteinRoe Special?  Which Would You Choose?
Organization: Rational, Santa Clara, CA
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 17:32:55 GMT

Stein Roe Special was managed by Carlene Murphy and Dick Weiss until
last year (I think), when they left to run Strong Common Stock.  You
might consider investing in Strong Common Stock instead of Stein Roe
Special, on the theory that most of Stein Roe Special's good long-term
record was built under Murphy and Weiss's management.  Like Stein Roe
Special, Strong Common Stock is a small-cap stock fund with a value
tilt.  Like the rest of the Strong funds, it does seem to have very
high turnover, though.  It seems they are traders rather than "buy and
hold" managers.

Both the above-mentioned funds are probably less risky than the average
aggressive growth fund, but still more risky than an average general
growth fund.  Mostly the risk comes from their small-cap orientation:
small companies tend to have more reliance on one or a few product lines,
and may therefore be more subject to abrubt changes in fortune.  They
may also have less financial reserves to weather bad times than a large
company would.

Investors differ in their tolerance for risk.  If you are uncomfortable
with the level of risk involved in these funds, stick with something safer.

Standard disclaimers apply: this advice may be worth no more than its cost.

--Jon

--
Jon Dart  | 3320 Scott Blvd.,          | jdart@rational.com|
Rational  | Santa Clara, CA 95054-3197 |                   |
          | 408-496-3656               |                   |
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib)
Subject: Re: Body Shop (from "Don't Become Fixated
Organization: AT&T
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 13:34:00 GMT

In article <1992Dec16.224902.10574@den.mmc.com> weiser@pogo.den.mmc.com (Matt Weiser) writes:
>In article <BzD2Jo.80x@unccsun.uncc.edu>, yhari@uncc.edu (Yog Hari) writes:
>> 
>> In article 22043@cbnews.cb.att.com, lib@cbnews.cb.att.com (Lib) writes:
>> >In article <265@emtek.UUCP> werner@emtek.UUCP (Werner Ehlenberger) writes:
>> >>> > >2. Body Shop (pink sheets)     Recent Price: 2 3/4
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >retail stores in the U.S.  Traded on London Stock Exchange.
>> >>
>> >>Is there any way to buy the stock in the US, if it is traded on the
>> >>London Stock Exchange?
>> >  
>> >I've always heard people say any full-service broker can buy foreign
>> >stocks. I use Schwab, however, so I called them and they told me they don't
>> >trade foreign stocks but that Body Shop is indeed traded
>> >in the Pink Sheets. Current price is 2 7/8-3 1/8 and I was told they
>> >require that you buy at least 500 shares. 
>> >
>> Ditto for my broker at A.G. Edwards.  The problem with these stocks is how do you follow them?
>> 
>The body shop is listed in the Wall Street Journal under the London Exchange.
>It is listed in 100's of a pound, so you have to convert it.

I did some quick calculations. The pound/dolar conversion is 1 pound = 1.5755
dollars. Body Shop is quoted on the London exchange at 188 pence. 
188 pence x 1.5755 $/pound = $2.96. Pretty close to the 2 7/8-3 1/8
spread I was quoted Tuesday from the pink sheets. Incidently I received
a package of info on Body Shop from them in the mail. There were several
brokerage analyses and an annual report. There is concern in both
the brokerage and comapany material of decreased earnings from stores in 
the UK but this is balanced by increased sales overseas. One article
was by Peter Lynch (or maybe just quoting him) saying how he became
interested in Body Shop when his daughters came home from the mall
raving about it. They have several stores in our area (I'm in the
same county as Lynch). I recall in last year's Barron's January round-
table a couple of his picks were similar: Supercuts which has been
expanding around here an so-and-so's Imports where his wife shops
and Lawrence (Mass.) Savings Bank.
  

From: daniel@hpfcso.FC.HP.COM (Daniel Krulewitch)
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 1992 22:01:05 GMT
Subject: Re: penny-stocks
Organization:  4984 feet