HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu ("Broward "Liquidity" Horne")
Subject:      Re: Income & Wealth
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 11:43:47 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA14726; Thu, 8 Oct 92 11:44:05 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA16366; Thu, 8 Oct 92 11:41:10 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 0408; Thu, 08 Oct 92 12:00:05 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 1401; Thu, 08 Oct 92 12:00:04 MST
X-To: misc.invest.usenet

Subject:      Re: Income & Wealth
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 08:03:37 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA25908; Thu, 8 Oct 92 07:15:03 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA09400; Thu, 8 Oct 92 07:12:10 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP i
      > What people can't BUY, they borrow to buy.
      > High consumer debt is a DIRECT result of wealth disparity.

    Well, Dani, me boy, here are some numbers for you.

    This week's Barron's, page 10:

            " The Federal Reserve says the top 1% of families owned 37%
    of private net worth in 1989, up from 31% in 1983 and the greatest
    concentration of wealth at the top since the Twenties. "

    In his book, " The Great Depression of 1990 " ( since renamed
    " Regular Economic Cycles ", Ravi Batra has a chart of distribution
    of wealth.  It shows the concentration of wealth in the top 1% to
    be 36% in the late Twenties. It shows fluctutations averaging 25-28%
    for the post-war periods.  And Batra's numbers are not his.
    They were developed independently of his theory, well before he
    came on the scene.  Late 50's if I remember correctly.

    Interesting speculations - If the Japanese banking system does collapse,
    or should I say, *when* it collapses and *if* it isn't propped up,
    in all likelyhood large commercial real estate holdings in Los Angeles
    are getting dumped.  Most of the big banks in L.A. are Japanese.
    Sayanora, real estate prices.  Sayanora, Citibank and BofA.

    Olympia and York, I discovered, have major real estate loans from...
    our old pal, Citibank.

    Real estate holdings in Canada are being dumped, Sweden's banking system
    is collapsing under bad real estate loans, Britain's commercial real
    estate is declining, sell-offs are beginning in Paris.  First Chicago
    bank is slimming over a billion in property off their books.

    Me, I'm *highly* liquid.
From: jdavidso@teknowledge.com (Jim Davidson)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Thomson Opportunity Funds
Date: 8 Oct 92 19:28:41 GMT
Followup-To: misc.invest
Organization: Cimflex Teknowledge Corporation, Knowledge Systems Division
In-reply-to: gilman@cshl.org's message of 6 Oct 92 14:00:00 GMT

In article <gilman-061092100744@143.48.10.10> gilman@cshl.org (Michael Gilman) writes:

> The Thomson Opportunity fund is a highly-rated small-cap stock fund. The
> Thomson funds have an unusual feature, however. You can purchase shares in
> two different ways. Class A shares have a front-end load (I forget how
> much). Class B shares have a declining back-end load. But, in addition, the
> 12b-1 fees differ: Class B shares incur a higher fee. Consequently,
> although the funds maintain indentical portfolios, the N.A.V. of class B
> shares is lower, due to the deduction of the extra 12b-1 expenses.
> 
> The prospectus goes to great lengths to argue that for the long-haul
> investor, it makes more sense to pay the load, i.e. buy the A shares,
> because eventually the increased 12b-1 expenses will outweigh the load. I
> am sure they are correct in principle, but I still cringe at the idea of
> paying the load just to get in.
> 
> Any wisdom on the net regarding this choice? Or should I vote with my feet
> and go to a similar fund without these charges? It seems, however, that
> most of the small-cap funds have 12b-1 fees. Suggestions?

There are a lot of funds with this A/B format.  In most cases, the "B" version
has existed for many years.  As you point out, those have hideous 12b-1 fees
-- up to 1%/yr (!).

As low-load and no-load funds have caught on, and investors have been getting
smarter (or at least less dumb), the resistance to 12b-1 fees has increased.
So, the fund family renames the original fund to be "B", and introduces an "A"
version with a front-end load but smaller 12b-1 fee (e.g., .25%/yr).  Part of
the motivation is presumably the fact that they can continue to stick the
existing class B shareholders with the exorbitant 12b-1 fee; if they just
changed the expense structure of the original fund, they would lose that cash
cow.

The prospectus is correct in that a long-term investor will do better by 
going with the Class A.  Even medium-term investors are probably better off,
because of the declining back-end load on Class B.

*** More to the point: why deal with these guys at all.  There are lots of
funds out there with *no* 12b-1 fee and low or no load.  I don't know which
ones are small-cap, but a few calls to the larger families (e.g.,
Vanguard, Fidelity, Dreyfus) should turn up something.  Or check the
appropriate issues of money magazines.

*Any* 12b-1 fee is a ripoff.  This is money that get taken off the top, year
after year.  It doesn't go to the fund management; it doesn't produce any
return for you.  It just enriches the folks who distribute the fund.

-Jim


Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: 2oth Century
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Distribution: misc
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:34:16 GMT

In article <1b4mpkINN35d@gap.caltech.edu> watson@ccsf.caltech.edu (Stephen H. Watson) writes:
>In article <1992Oct8.212833.21428@cs.brown.edu>, jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs) writes:
>|> In article <MFSJBD.92Oct8090724@dante.nmsu.EDU> mfsjbd@nmsu.EDU (Jeff Davis) writes:

>|> > IN mutual Fund forecaster it ranked 2oth Century Ultra as the TOP
>|> >predicted growth fund for the next 5+ years. 

>|> According to Hulbert, MFF has an inferior record.  As for 20th Century
>|> Ultra, well, how can you trust a small-company fund that has allowed
>|> itself to grow 7-fold?  $330 million on 10/31 1990 and $2,148 in 1991.
>|> Well, you can't, and a recent column in Fortune confirmed my
>|> suspicion:  they are now investing in larger companies.  In short, they
>|> have sacrificed their investment mission to their greed.  

>In fact, the prospectus for ALL 20th Century funds clearly states
>that as the size of a fund increases, the size of the companies
>in which it will invest increases also...Or didn't you read that
>part?

And how does the prospectus change things?  Because their prospectus
covers the possibility of growing large, should we then say, "Fine, you
are still the same fund because your prospectus covers this growth"?
Whatever the prospectus permits, the fact is that the fund is changing,
and these changes make past performance even less reliable as an
indicator of good management.  The company's willingness to take in
funds and change its investments with the influx makes it impossible
for the intelligent investor to plan a portfolio that includes Ultra as
a small-company fund.  I hope that you are happy that their prospectus
includes a plan for greed.  --Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: tpradeep@cs.tamu.edu (Pradeep K Tapadiya)
Subject: Incentives offered by banks to use their credit cards
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 20:35:33 GMT

With citibank, one may accumulate bonus points ("citidollars" as
they are called) for each dollar charged using citibank's credit card.
From time to time citibank publishes a newsletter containing a list
of items that can be purchased using "citidollars" as partial payment.
And of course citibank has "double the difference" moneyback
gaurantee i.e, if you find the same item at a cheaper price
somewhere else, citibank will reimburse you with double the
price difference.

This is a good incentive to use citibank's credit cards. What
I am wondering is if there are any other banks which offer similar
incentives. It would be nice if any bank offers bonus travel miles
for using their credit card.

Thank you for your help. If need be, I'll summerize the
responses on the net.

Pradeep
tpradeep@cs.tamu.edu
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Brokers to be taxed on UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS--prop. legislation
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Distribution: usa
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:06:38 GMT

In article <1992Oct15.080329.1@kean.ucs.mun.ca> jgarland@kean.ucs.mun.ca writes:
>In article <1992Oct14.212044.2319@cbnews.cb.att.com>, ask@cbnews.cb.att.com (Arthur S. Kamlet) writes:
>> In article <1992Oct14.092847.22989@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> markr@mcil.comm.mot.com writes:
>>>>"... 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.
>>>>
>>>>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?"
>>>
>>>Even more scary.  Our 'representatives' (and I use the word lightly), have
>>>...  They will tax our assets, our pension plans,
>>>our 401(k)'s, our IRA's, our stocks, our bonds, our inheritances, & everything
>>>else they can get their hands on.
>> 
>>                       If you have it, they will come!
>> 
>> In some ways, we are alredy taxed on unrealized gains:
>>      (shows how)
>
>You don't know the half of it :-)  ...
>
>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_.

I believe that (some) zero-coupon bonds in the US are treated that way.  (i.e. that
the phantom income is taxed each year even though the recipient doesn't actually
receive the money until the bond matures)

Mark


Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: kayshav_dattatri@taligent.com (dattatri)
Subject: ARM: 1 Year T-Bill or 6 month CD?
Organization: Taligent, Inc.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:18:53 GMT



I'm in the process of closing a loan and I have decided on a ARM. I have 
two choices: I can get an ARM tied to the 6 month CD rate at a good rate 
(rate cap of 1% ecery 6 months). Or I can settle for a ARM tied to the 1 
year T-bill (rate cap of 2% every year). The T-bill has a start rate 0.25% 
higher than the CD rate. What is the recommendation of experts out there? 
I'm a first time buyer in Silicon Valley, California.  Shoudl I go with 
the 6 month CD or the 1 year T-bill. In all other respects both options 
have the same figures (like life time cap etc.)

Thanks in advance



KD -- kayshav_dattatri@taligent.com
From: markr@mot.com (Mark)
Subject: Re: Brokers to be taxed on UNREALIZED CAPITAL GAINS--prop. legislation
Reply-To: markr@mcil.comm.mot.com
Organization: MCIL
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:28:47 GMT

In article <2qyLsB2w161w@cdthq.UUCP> gary@cdthq.UUCP (Gary Heston) writes:
>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?"

Even more scary.  Our 'representatives' (and I use the word lightly), have
finally realized that it will be very difficult to raise taxes overtly, that is,
by raising tax rates on income.  What they will do now is find every large
chunk of money (which is currently untaxed, usually by virtue of it not being
income) and tax it somehow.  They will tax our assets, our pension plans,
our 401(k)'s, our IRA's, our stocks, our bonds, our inheritances, and everything
else they can get their hands on.

Mark
From: tbarnes@Teknowledge.COM (Terry A Barnes)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: 20th Century---the real story
Date: 15 Oct 92 18:46:47 GMT
Reply-To: tbarnes@teknowledge.com (Terry A Barnes)
Distribution: misc
Organization: Cimflex Teknowledge Corp., Palo Alto CA

>Sure!  Go ahead!  Ignore the fact that (according to Fortune), Ultra is
>actually investing in larger companies.  What happened to the small
>company fund?

There seems to be some misunderstanding of what the Twentieth Century funds are
about.  Ultra was *not* chartered as a small company fund, though it did serve
that role until the recent influx of new investors.

Twentieth Century has a set of criteria they use to identify promising stocks.
They then parcel these stocks out to the individual funds based on whether the
stock has dividends (Select and Heritage), and its market capitalization.
Smaller stocks go to the smaller funds, where they have more of a chance to
make an impact.  The small companies are now going to the smaller funds (Vista
and Giftrust I believe).  Ultra is now much too large to be an effective small
company fund.  If Vista also grows too large (I don't know its current size),
then they will probably open a new fund...

			Terry Barnes
-- 
INTERNET:  tbarnes@teknowledge.com
  USENET:  {hplabs|sun|ucbvax|decwrl}!tbarnes%teknowledge.com
HARDCOPY:  Cimflex Teknowledge, 1810 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303
   PHONE:  (415) 424-0500 x416     FAX:  (415) 493-2645
From: jb6k+@andrew.cmu.edu (Joel Bloch)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: snapple
Date: 9 Oct 92 07:04:38 GMT
Article-I.D.: andrew.4epNy6200UhWI2kKpT
Organization: Doctoral student, English, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA

For people interested in whether Snapple is going public, there's an
article in WSJ today.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: GCTHORNE@idbsu.idbsu.edu (Broward Horne)
Subject:      Re: Barron's and the D word
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:11:54 MST
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA25039; Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:46:13 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA19462; Thu, 15 Oct 92 10:43:17 -0700
X-Received: from IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU by idbsu.idbsu.edu (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.2MX) with BSMTP id 3676; Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:17:13 MST
X-Received: from IDBSU (GCTHORNE) by IDBSU.IDBSU.EDU (Mailer R2.08) with BSMTP id 5219; Thu, 15 Oct 92 11:17:12 MST
X-To: misc.invest.usenet

In a previous article, merritt@macro.bu.edu (Sean Merritt) says:

>
>I haven't seen mention of the very disturbing article about
>the current economic situation in the US. The article
>had completely different definitions of the R-word and
>D-word than I've seen here or anywhere.
>
>Worth the $2.50 for a sobering look at what needs to be
>done if we are to avoid the type of Great D- scenario.

       What makes you believe that it is avoidable now?
       It should be obvious, by now, that:

          i)  Our stock market doesn't WANT to know about it
          ii) Our Federal Reserve doesn't want to KNOW about it
          iii) Our Federal government DOESN'T want to know about it
          iv)  Our general population doesn't want to know ABOUT IT!

      After all, the president keeps telling us that this is just a
 MEDIA-induced recession.  The economy is fine.  Didn't you watch the
 debate?  " Our stock market is STRONG ".  Just repeat after me:

         There is NO depression.  There is NO depression.
         Now click your heels three times.
From: txwizard@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (txwizard)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: book recommendation
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:30:40 GMT
Reply-To: txwizard@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (txwizard)
Distribution: usa
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Originator: txwizard@bashful.cc.utexas.edu


 i would greatly appreciate your recommendation on an introductory book for 
investment.  also if you can please recommend a software that may be of 
interest.

thank you!!!

mike kim

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: tpradeep@cs.tamu.edu (Pradeep K Tapadiya)
Subject: Re: Cost-Benefit analysis of Renting VS. Buying
Organization: Computer Science Department, Texas A&M University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 14:08:19 GMT

In article <719017207fred.fred@walter.UUCP> fred@walter.UUCP (Fred Walter) writes:
>Buying
>------
> Cost    : - mortgage
>           - utilities
>           - property taxes
>           - maintenance costs
>           - personal property insurance for my belongings
>           - added insurance for the house (fire/etc)
>
> Benefit : - could rent out a room (or two or ...)
>           - eventually the house will be paid for; so the amount (if any)
>             that the costs of buying is less than the costs of renting
>           - interest/etc earned on the above
>           - property (in theory) will appreciate in value
>

One of my friends over here bought a duplex for 58K. Including almost all the
costs you mentioned, he is paying $552 per month. However, he rented out
a portion of the duplex for $395 per month. In January, he will raise the
rent to $450. 

Overall,
  Plus points
  1. He has his "own" house
  2. Before he use to pay $350 rent for a single bedroom apt. Now he pays
     about $100 (in effect) for a double bedroom house with garage.
  Minus points
  3. His misc. expenses on repairs when bought initially ran down
     to $8000.

Hope this helps in your decision.

Pradeep
tpradeep@cs.tamu.edu

PS: Could you please summarize on net the responses you receive?
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: mbk@netcom.com (Miles Kehoe)
Subject: Re: 2oth Century
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: misc
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 02:58:41 GMT

<Various people have written and remarked:>
>|> 
>|> According to Hulbert, MFF has an inferior record.  As for 20th Century
>|> Ultra, well, how can you trust a small-company fund that has allowed
>|> itself to grow 7-fold?  $330 million on 10/31 1990 and $2,148 in 1991.
>|> Well, you can't, and a recent column in Fortune confirmed my
>|> suspicion:  they are now investing in larger companies.  In short, they
>|> have sacrificed their investment mission to their greed.  

>In fact, the prospectus for ALL 20th Century funds clearly states
>that as the size of a fund increases, the size of the companies
>in which it will invest increases also...Or didn't you read that
>part?

There are some problems with BIG funds - I *think* it was Peter
Lynch who remarked (no, I'm *not* a name-dropper, I read a book
I ratehr enjoyed that he wrote!) that as funds get larger, both
the FUND's rules and the SEC's rules work against them. 

He related that most funds limit their investments to a relatively
small number of issues so they can watch them VERY closely. I think
Magellan when he was there allowed him to have 35 or so but he
said that was unusual - most only allow a fund manager to own
20 issues. 

The SEC regulations limit the percentage of a fund's ownership in any
one issue to something like 20% of a company. A little arithmetic
shows that a $330M fund can invest $16.5M in 20 issues. Each company
with a $16.5M investor can be worth $82.5M - which qualifies as
a mid-cap company.

A $2,148M fund, on the other hand, has to invest $107.4M in
each of 20 issues; thus each company has to be worth $537M -
alot larger.

Lynch's point was that a giant fund cannot, by definition, take
advantage of the kinds of growth opportunities that a small
fund can - so not only is a down market hitting 20th this year,
but its own success is making it less able to be aggressive.
Of course, a fund can always up its number of issues (and
for all I know, 20th Century has/does) but you get the idea.

So - anyone know a good aggressive yet SMALL fund?

Miles

Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: mitch@giesy.mitch.b17a.ingr.com (Mitch Giesy)
Subject: Re: Cost-Benefit Analysis of Renting vs. Owning
Organization: Mapping & Energy, Intergraph Corp., Huntsville, AL
Distribution: misc
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:50:49 GMT

Is there any question that owning a house is far more
financially beneficial than renting? This discussion has thus far
overlooked the following simple facts:

           A home is an appreciably asset. A [constantly increasing]
           portion of a monthly mortgage payment goes toward the
           owner's equity in the home. This is an investment. What is
           the amount of a rent check that accumulates for the renter? Zero.
           
           Compare apples and apples. The monthly expense of owning a
           home should be less the accumulating equity and the tax
           benefits. Compare this to monthly expense associated w/ renting.
           Over time, the homeowners monthly expense will decrease, as
           more money out of each mortgage payment goes toward equity
           in the home. The renter's rent check will always increase,
           being subject to inflation. After 15 or 20 years, the
           omeowner has paid off his mortgage, and only has to pay
           property taxes and insurance - a small monthly amount. The
           renter is still paying his/her rent at going rental market
           rates. I have owned a home for 3-4 years. I'm already
           paying less than I would for a 3 bedroom apt. for my
           family. The difference will widen significantly with the
           passing of each year. I would not want to have to rent in
           my retirement. The only way one can say renting is resuls
           in more return is if there is money to invest by virtue of
           rent payments/expenses being less than mortgage and
           homeowning expenses. This may be true for a few years, but
           in the long run, mortgage payments are a lot cheaper than
           rent payments. My father had a $150/month mortgage payment
           on a house that is certainly bigger than most apts. renting
           for four times as much. He also payed off the mortgage and
           acquired a valuable appreciable asset. I think most current
           homeowners will realize these benefits also.

Mitch


--
Mitch Giesy	 | WK: (205) 730-1773		|  DISCLAIMER:
Intergraph Corp. | EMAIL:			|  When all is said and done,
1 Madison I.Pk   | mitch@giesy.b17a.ingr.com    |  its your fault if you done
Huntsville, AL	 | uunet!ingr!b17a!giesy!mitch 	|  what I said. :-)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: anth@eng.umd.edu (Anthony G. Bradford)
Subject: Companies buying back their own shares
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 17:10:58 GMT
Organization: College of Engineering, University of Maryland, College Park


When companies buy back their own shares is this always considered a
good sign??
-- 
In-Real-life: Anthony Bradford, University of Maryland College Park, MD, U.S.A.
		anth@wam.umd.edu anth@eng.umd.edu  phone: 1 301 277 6795