HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dbk@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Don Katz)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: When to buy Mutual funds - tax implications
Keywords: capital gains distributions.
Date: 30 Sep 92 20:57:10 GMT
Article-I.D.: pslu1.1992Sep30.205710.12920
Distribution: usa
Organization: Physical Sciences Lab, University of Wisconsin

In article <BvELs3.LE1@news.cso.uiuc.edu> acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng) writes:
>In article <1aai04INNi04@early-bird.think.com>, barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>>However, it's a double-edged sword, as you noted.  Just as you can get hit
>>with a tax for gains you never really got, you can also avoid a tax by
>>selling shares just before capital gains are distributed.
>
>How come?  Say, in january, you bought 100 share at $1.00.  It has $.25
>capital gain by December, so the share price is $1.25.  If you wait for
>the capital gain distribution, you will get $.25 for 100 shares = $25.
>If you sell before distribution, you got $125 from your original $100.
>Still a $25 gain to pay tax on.

There is no relationship between the share price difference between
January 1 and the distribution date, and the size of the distribution.
Funds sometimes decline substantially in a year, and still have
significant capital gains distributions. The capital gains
distribution is your share of capital gains realized by the fund
since the previous distribution. These realized gains may be shares
purchased in 1975 and sold in 1992. If a fund has unrealized gains
when you buy shares, you will be liable for tax on those gains when
the fund realizes them, even though those gains didn't benefit you.

Example. On January 1, you buy $10,000 worth of a fund at a share
price of $10. This fund has $4/share in unrealized gains on January 1
- that is, the stocks held by the fund cost the fund only $6/share but
they are now worth $10/share. On January 2, this market timing fund
manager sells everything, thereby realizing all his gains, and then
changes his mind on January 3 and puts all his money back in the
market. He sells nothing else between January 3 and the end of the
year, and on December 31, the value of the fund is $8/share due to a
drop in the market. On December 30, the fund would have a capital
gains distribution of $4.00/share, which would be taxable, even though
you currently have an unrealized loss on your shares in the fund. 

It is true, in this example, that you could sell your shares in the
fund on December 31 for $4/share and have a net capital loss for this
tax year. But most folks don't sell, because they use mutual funds to
avoid worrying about the market, or because they don't know about the
distribution until it is too late to sell. 

-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Katz                                .         Physical
                                       .- / \ -.      Sciences
University of Wisconsin - Madison   ./'  /+-+\  `\.       Laboratory   E-MAIL
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari)
Subject: The end of media generated recession is close.
Originator: sehari@vincent1.iastate.edu
Organization: Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa.
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 22:13:25 GMT

---
Even though, there are a lot of pessimism out there; however, I believe
no mater who wins the election, this media generated recession will be over
soon after the election.  People are sick and tired of hearing the negatively
presented news, and most people have stopped listening to the media. if major 
networks try still to push the negatively presented news, their rating would
go down the drain.

Therefore, we should expect a huge market gain next year.  However, the 
question is when does it start this time. Second half of Dec. or sometime
in Nov.?  My own opinion is this time market start to pick up earlier, due
to huge short volume out there and the fact that most money managers are
out of market now, and have huge cash holdings.

What is your opinion?  Where is the best place to put money to get the most
out of this up turn?

                         With highest regards,
                              Babak   Sehari.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: chang-mark-yan-ming@CS.YALE.EDU (Mark Yan-Ming Chang)
Subject: London FT100
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 20:30:00 GMT


Is there a public source to find out the London FT 100 closing price before
4pm USA Eastern time?

Mark
-- 
--- Mark (changym@cs.Yale.edu, decvax!yale!changym, changym@YaleCS.BITNET)
From: ehf@philabs.philips.com (Eberhard Fisch)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Stop Loss Orders on The OTC market
Date: 2 Oct 92 13:45:52 GMT
Reply-To: ehf@philabs.philips.com (Eberhard Fisch)
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff, NY 10510
Originator: ehf@oscar


I recently had an experience where I wanted to see if I could profit from the 
"technical bounce" effect that I've often noticed a day after a stock takes 
a big hit (30% or more) after some bad news comes out. Often the stock
rebounds for a brief period (one or two days afterward). My idea was to 
buy 500 shares only if the stock seems to be moving up on the opening of the
next day and place a stop loss order very close to purchase price (1/4 point) so
that my "experiment" would not be too costly. After placing the order using 
teleboker, a service provided by Schwab, I called to place my stop loss order 
only to be informed that the order didn't go through and wouldn't because stop
loss orders can not be placed for OTC stocks. I was very suprised at this, to say
the least, and couldn't understand how and why there could be this kind of 
restriction.

Can anyone explain why this rule exists? Does it apply only to certain thinly 
traded OTC stocks? Is there a practical way to protect oneself with OTC stocks?
From: nicklaus@lonetree.lonetree.physics.wisc.edu (Dennis J. Nicklaus)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Car Loan
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:08:59 GMT
	<ys0n6g#.masimo@netcom.com>
Organization: Univ. Wisconsin High Energy Physics

masimo@netcom.com (Michael Maas) wrote regarding 401k loans

>I make it a point to keep my maximum loan out so that I can pay myself interest,
>so far that has payed me better than the investment choices I have been offered.

>Mike

For a while, I had convinced myself that this was indeed a good deal,
but now I have been convinced otherwise (before I did anything like it,
fortunately)
Suppose you borrow $100000 from your 401k for 1 year.
Suppose you have to pay it back in one year at 12% interest
Suppose if you left it in there, it would have grown by 5%.

Suppose when you invest outside of the 401k, you can make 5% (taxed).

Your monthly payment will be 100000/12 (principal) + 1000(interest).
At the end of a year, there will be 112000 in the 401k plus $2200
5% interest accumulated in the 401k by  the first payments you paid back,
for a total of $114000.

By investing the loaned $100000 in 12 separate CDs (at 5%) each
worth 100000/12=~$8000 with terms from 1 to 12 months, you will
make $2600 (taxed).
It will cost you $1000/month in interest expenses to pay back the loan.

So look at 2 scenarios.
1) You take the loan.
At the end of the year, you have $2600 savings outside the 401k (interest on
the loanded money) and 114200 inside the 401k.
Taxable income =$2600.
2)  You don't take out the loan.  At the end of the year,
you have $105000 in the 401k, but outside it, you have
invested the $1000/month interest payment  instead (again at
simple 5% interest for terms from 1-11 months), so you 
have $12270 outside the 401k.
Taxable income=$270.

So you have a total of $116800 if you take the loan (ignoring taxes)
and 117270 if you do NOT take the loan.

Now, obviously, you will be better off if the 401k is actually declining
in value.  But an even better choice would be just to switch the
401k to its most risk free option like a money market.  If you can't
do that, then maybe your plan isn't so bad.
Also, my example used a pretty extreme interest rate of 12%.
But I don't think it matters. Suppose it is 0% -- in this case you're
probably out a month's interest due to "floats" and you have more
taxable income.
Dennis
From: ems@Apple.COM (Mike Smith)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re:  Effects of the U.S. Debt
Date: 5 Oct 92 06:56:28 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

In article <1992Oct3.203028.2703@infonode.ingr.com> greg@cherokee.b23b.ingr.com (Greg Moritz) writes:
>GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "The Stick in The Mud" Horne") wrote:
>
>> Tell me.  What is the difference between an economy where:
>> 
>>   a)  5 % of the population own everything, and is called capitalism
>>       and                       ^^^^^^^^^^
>>   b)  5 % of the population own everything, and is called communism?

>   The latest figures that I saw for the distribution of income
                                                          ^^^^^^
>   in the US was:
>
>       41% for the top  20% of the population

It is well worth noting that you are talking about different things.

One said 5% of the population own all the stuff.  The other answered
that 41% of the INCOME goes to the top 20%.  The 'owners of stuff'
don't need all that much INCOME, they would rather have unrecorded
capital gains ...  (i.e. they don't sell their stuff ...).

-- 
E. Michael Smith  ems@apple.COM

"Nothing can keep an argument going like two persons who aren't
sure what they're arguing about."   O.A.Battista
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re:  Effects of the U.S. Debt
Date: 6 Oct 92 23:33:17 GMT
Organization: Unocal Corporation

In article <1992Oct6.151720.11521@spectra.com> ohumukin@spectra.com (Kawika Ohumukini) writes:
>	Just a note.  If you incorporate, $300-500, and make your
>	spouse vice-president and your children directors, if you
>	die, and the estate is under the corporation name, the
>	estate stays with the corporation and you pay no inheritance
>	tax on it and the corporation, your family, keeps the property.

Like other trusts, you gain something and lose something.
The board of directors could vote against you, dissolve the corporation and
take their share at any time.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet)
Subject: Re: Optionable Stock List
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories,  Columbus, Ohio
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 02:28:21 GMT

In article <9209281949.AA23773@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil> nsteffen@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil writes:
>I have been driving myself toward blindness trying to compose a list of
>optionable stocks from the S&P handbook so I thought I'd try and see if
>there just might be a accurate/semi-accurate list that is all ready
>available.
>
>If anyone know the whereabouts of such a list I would be deeply
>indebted.


Why not just use the Wall Street Journal's Options listings? 

-- 
Art Kamlet  a_s_kamlet@att.com  AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: How saturated is the market for Windows?
From: gary@cdthq.UUCP (Gary Heston)
Date: Thu, 01 Oct 92 19:25:38 CDT
Organization: Garys' Home for Obsolete Computers

tmark@cognet.ucla.edu (Terence Mark) writes:

> In article <MERRITT.92Sep30093237@macro.bu.edu> merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Me
> >In article <1992Sep30.071415.1862@cs.sfu.ca> mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonal
> >>   Anyone have numbers on how successful Windows penetration of the IBM/clo
> >>   market has been?  In particular, out of those machines which have the
> >>   ability to run windows, how many have already been so equipped, and
> >>   how many have yet to change over?

No real numbers; based on what I see at work, maybe 10-20% have it
installed, and fewer are using it. The percentage within my department
is higher, because we build the things, and therefore have to test
and evaluate the stuff. 

> >This is irrelevant in my opinion. The question to be asking is; Will
> >Windows NT penetrate the pc market AND the workstation market as
> >succesfully as Windows has. If the answer is yes(to both) than Microsoft
> >seems to be selling pretty cheaply at the moment.

I doubt it. NT is too far off, and will require *way* too much in
system resources for it to make reasonable to upgrade systems to
handle it. My impression it that it'll be a worse resource hog than
Xterminals.

I wouldn't buy Microsoft; they're losing market share, and don't
have the defacto authority they used to. Since DR has hooked up
with Novell, they'll probably expand their share of the desktop
market quite a bit.

For technology companies, I'd look into LAN and enterprise newtworking
companies. *That* market is booming.

> Also, don't forget that just about every PC that's sold now goes out with
> a copy of Windows. And that Microsoft extracts a good pound of flesh
> with each and every update of Windows. I would think that these two 
> factors could be more important to Microsoft than sales to owners
> of older (and less satisfactory ) Windows-capable machines at this 
> point in time.

Yeah, we put it on about 400 systems a day right now. Supposed to go
to 900/day next month.

I have Windows 3.1 on my desk right now. I had to install it to figure
out a couple of network compatability things. Otherwise, I play 
solitaire on it occasionally, during lunch. If I bought a machine with
it preinstalled, I'd dump it to floppies and wipe the directory to
free up the disc space.

Gary Heston, at home....
gary@cdthq.uucp
From: McAldon International Inc. <mcaldon@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Date: 29 Sep 92 19:20 PDT
Subject: Brokerage stocks?
Nf-ID: #N:cdp:1426500269:000:554
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mcaldon    Sep 29 19:20:00 1992


Can someone explain why brokerage stocks are doing so poorly?  For
example, Paine-Webber has a PE of 4, yields 2.7%, and is rated by
IBD in the middle 90s for EPS.  And others, discount, semi-discount, 
and full service aren't doing much better.  Seems like a case of
old-fashioned values going begging.  DMcKenzie

                         |        Vote for the environment          |
|    mcaldon@igc.org     |            Vote for AL GORE              |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: The end of media generated recession is close.
From: rteasdal@polyslo.csc.calpoly.edu (Rusty)
Date: Mon, 05 Oct 92 00:31:34 GMT
Organization: Cal Poly State Univ, CSC Dept, San Luis Obispo, CA 93407

In article <sehari.718236805@vincent1.iastate.edu> sehari@iastate.edu (Babak Sehari) writes:
>---
>Even though, there are a lot of pessimism out there; however, I believe
>no mater who wins the election, this media generated recession will be over
>soon after the election.  People are sick and tired of hearing the negatively
>presented news, and most people have stopped listening to the media. if major 
>networks try still to push the negatively presented news, their rating would
>go down the drain.
>

	Oh, goodness! _That's_ who is responsible for all those closed
businesses I was driving by this afternoon - the media! Why, I should
have guessed it from the very start. And here I'd been hoodwinked into
thinking that it was something so mundane as a huge debt overhang from
the Splurge Decades of the Eighties, when federal, state, local and
individual debt loads all tripled. No, you're right, it must be Dan
Rather and Peter Jennings who are personally at fault. Gracious, I
wouldn't put it past them to have been placing subliminal messages
in their broadcasts to make us all feel unduly gloomy! Perhaps they're
even going so far as to sneak into our homes at night, and whisper
unemployment statistics in our defenseless ears! Something must be
done about this at once!
 
>Therefore, we should expect a huge market gain next year.  


	Impeccably reasoned. Maybe if we could just (cf. Spiro Agnew)
get the Evil Media Manipulators (an earlier synonym for Cultural Elite)
to stop telling us how bad everything is, and tell us some Good News,
larded about heavily with some Old Time Family Values, then the big bad
recession would just go away, like the media generated phantasm it was
to begin with.

	I seem to be a little unclear on the concept. Excuse me.



-- 
||||||||   Russ Teasdale -- rteasdal@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU  --  (Rusty)  ||||||||
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gentlemen, if we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure." - D. Quayle

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: The end of media generated recession is close.
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 16:45:20 GMT

In article <23382@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bakken@cs.arizona.edu (Dave Bakken) writes:
>In article <1992Oct5.025710.21270@adobe.com> kendall@adobe.com (Janice Kendall) writes:
>
>>   *Is* Reagan responsible for the economic policy which drowned
>>   us in debt, or was it the democratic congress?  I've heard it
>>   was Reagan who pushed for tax credits to businesses for debt.
>
>I think that Americans have been going deeper in debt since way
>before the 1980s.  If you look back in the 1950s and 1960s
>people didn't take out long mortgages nearly as much, they
>didn't buy major appliances on credit nearly as much, etc.
>But then this gradually increased; it would be fascinating
>to see the curve, but I suspect it grew a lot in the last
>half of the 1960s.  Part of it may be the fact that we

Forbes Magazine published 75-year anniversary issue in September.
One of the many retrospectives was a debt-curve as %GDP for the past 200 years.
It was not uncommon for the cummulated federal debt to reach the GDP during
wartimes, but the 1980s is the first such peace time incident (unless you
believe Nixon's WWIII hypothesis- the cold war was WWIII).

P.S. Incidently, the overall view in this issue is that Americans are complaining
too much about the current economic situation, because they have never had better
by most measures in the past 75 years.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: mpk9172@ultb.isc.rit.edu (M.P. Kirby)
Subject: Meridian Funds
Originator: mpk9172@ultb
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 21:44:28 GMT


Question:

Has anyone out there heard of the Meridian Mutual funds group?  This
is a fund family that is "organized offshore in the Cayman Islands" and
is only open to non U.S. citizens or residents.  I'm looking into it
for a friend of mine in another country.  It's administered by the
Massachusetts Financial Services (MFS).  

Thanks,

Mike Kirby
kirby.roch803@xerox.com

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: mfsjbd@nmsu.edu (Jeff Davis)
Subject: 20th Century
Organization: New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 15:42:55 GMT



--
MFSJBD@NMSU.EDU                  Jeffrey B. Davis  
Computer Center User Assistance Technical Reference library Coodinator
It costs a lot of money to die comfortably. - Samuel Butler   1835 - 1902
From: pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: investing for November elections
Date: 4 Oct 92 16:02:52 GMT
Article-I.D.: scott.1992Oct4.160252.18860
Organization: Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs NY, 12866

In article <lcphoqINN3ub@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> tut@cairo.Eng.Sun.COM (Bill "Bill" Tuthill) writes:
>Polls indicate that Perot's re-entering the campaign will help Clinton
>more than Bush, especially for the Texas block of electoral votes.  So

You can't argue with a poll (assuming it's statistically correct), but
I can't figure this one out.  What voter profile would make a switch
from Bush to Perot?  I thought Perot was the "alternate choice", the
outsider, etc.  A Bush supporter couldn't be that.  Unless that person
wasn't wild about Bush, but hated Clinton more - and now finds Perot a
good alternate.  Would such a person, upon reading the poll and
realizing that a switch to Perot is a vote for Clinton (assuming Perot
has no chance of winning) actually switch??  Would there really be
that many people switching from Bush to Perot?  I don't get it.

But,.... why worry now.  The electorate is fickle and changes its mind
every other day.  



-- 
Pierre von Kaenel	| Skidmore College	     | pvonk@skidmore.edu
Math & CS Dept.		| Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | (518)584-5000 Ext 2391

[.... old sig has been retired.  New sig isn't ready yet. ]
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: rodb@slugo.corp.sgi.com (Rod Beckwith)
Subject: Re: Inventions upon demand
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 16:03:07 GMT


In article <BvGEn8.H7v@world.std.com> rsilver@world.std.com (Richard
Silver) writes:

>We are an exceedingly productive group of professional inventors in
>the Boston area...
> [rest of long, stupid ad deleted]

>Dr. Richard Silver
>Box 548
>Lexington, MA 02173

>>Okay, folks, this is at least the third time this has been posted.
>>"Dr." Silver has been informed by e-mail of the inappropriateness 
>>of such advertising. Let 'im have it! (I leave it to your 
>>discretion to decide what "it" is. Keep it moral and legal.)


I don't think my last post made it.....If it did sorry.........

Is there a newsgroup like alt.ads.readme? It seems a shame that we have
this huge communications medium & can't post a simple form of freedom of
expression.
Is this "YOU CAN'T POST AN AD HERE" a true rule or a pet peeve of self
proclaimed NET POLICE? If there is a FAQ on this , please post.

If there is no place to advertise I think that is a shame. Advertising is
one of the lifebloods of capitalism. 

Lemme know what you think......like I had to ask!!!!!!!

Rod


-- 
Rod Beckwith     |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ 
Datacom I/S      |"The great obstacle of progress is not ignorance,
rodb@corp.sgi.com|but the illusion of knowledge."
                 |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


			

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: rion@Ingres.COM (Rion Cassidy (x3357) OGT)
Subject: Re: Hulbert (Japan no more?)
Reply-To: rion@Ingres.COM 
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 28 Sep 92 23:38:41 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.032314.21657@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu> dbk@pslu1.psl.wisc.edu (Don Katz) writes:
>>>>Are there any mutual funds newsletters that Hulbert liked?  How much is a
>>>>subscription to his newsletter?  Do you have a phone #?
>
>Contact numbers for Hulbert:
>
>Hulbert Financial Digest
>316 Commerce St.
>Alexandria VA 22314
>703-683-5905
>
>5 mos trial, 37.50, 1 year $135.
>
It seems a little strange to me that the best way to pick a financial 
newsletter is to subscribe to another newsletter that rates financial
newsletters!  Next thing we know there will be a newsletter that rates
newsletters like Hulbert!  How many levels deep will it get?

It seems analogous to hiring one attorney to help you find one that will
really represent you.
From: mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Income & Wealth (Was: Effects...Debt)
Date: 6 Oct 92 01:58:31 GMT
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada


From a previous article
>>>
Like Mike, I would guess that the top 20% *own* more than
their 41% of income would indicate.  I would bet that it's under 50%.
However, Mike might be willing to bet higher (?)
<<<

Ho ho ho, boys and girls, I see some people aren't aware of just HOW rich
the richest people in America are today.  From page 118 of "The Great
Depression of 1990," by Ravi Batra (who in turn obtained the figure from
estimates by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress in 1986), as of
1983, the top 1% of U.S. individuals and families owned 34.3% of all of
the wealth in the US.  Yes, that's right, just 1% of people in the U.S.
owned more than a third of everything.

The book itself is interesting reading.  Batra's thesis is that depressions
occur when a normal recession is worsened by the fact that the well-to-do
own so much that a large share of the population cannot afford to keep spending
in the recession (i.e. larger than would be "normal"), which of course
disrupts the economy severely.  According to his figures, wealth disparity
in the 80's attained levels which had not been seen since 1929.  Yay!

Ken McDonald
mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca
Newsgroups: misc.invest