HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald)
Subject: Re:  Effects of the U.S. Debt
Organization: CSS, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 05:28:30 GMT


From a previous article:
>>>
And, as for the redistribution of wealth, you seem to assume
that all wealthy people got their wealth by exploiting the
(proletariat!!??) masses, so we must counter this by taking it
away from them.  Don't you think that someone who made a fortune
by skill, sweat, or maybe even just plain luck should be free
from having the government steal it from them?  Property rights
are some of the most basic rights one can have.
<<<

Actually, most wealth these days (if one counts "wealth" as, say,
any nuclear family with over $2,000,000 in net assets) was either
handed down through inheritance, or made due to the ridiculous
property value inflation over the last half-century.  In my mind,
neither of these counts as skill or sweat.  Luck, yes, but I DON'T
think that luck is a valid reason for saying a person has the
right to their property.

The problem of inherited wealth is particularly pernicious.  Consider
a fortune of $100,000,000.  If invested prudently and carefully, the
heir of such a fortune can live the life of the wealthy, and AT THE 
SAME TIME, have their principal grow in REAL terms.  This is most
emphatically NOT true for the average family.  Now, if all of these
families with large fortunes all invest them prudently, and their
real wealth keeps growing, we may have problem; because if their real
wealth is growing faster than the country's real wealth is growing
(and this is often the case, and has certainly been the case over
the last decade), then that implies their wealth must be growing
at the expense of other.  If the process continues unchecked, the
end result is the emergence of an aristocracy and a serf class.
Not a good thing.

Personally, I favour a really agressive inheritance tax.  The first
$200,000 tax-free, the next $300,000 taxed at 20%, the next $500,000
at 35%, and so forth.  Anything over $10,000,000 to be taxed at
90-95%.  The children of the wealthy will still be able to lead
comfortable lives on the money they inherit, the danger of an inherited
aristocracy will largely disappear, and the proceeds would make a nice
dent in the federal debt.

Well, just dreaming, I guess . . .

Ken McDonald
mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk)
Subject: Re:  Effects of the U.S. Debt
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:47:51 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.052830.3539@cs.sfu.ca> mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald) writes:
>
...

>
>The problem of inherited wealth is particularly pernicious.  Consider
>a fortune of $100,000,000.  If invested prudently and carefully, the
>heir of such a fortune can live the life of the wealthy, and AT THE 
>SAME TIME, have their principal grow in REAL terms.  This is most
>emphatically NOT true for the average family.  Now, if all of these
>families with large fortunes all invest them prudently, and their
>real wealth keeps growing, we may have problem; because if their real
>wealth is growing faster than the country's real wealth is growing
>(and this is often the case, and has certainly been the case over
>the last decade), then that implies their wealth must be growing
>at the expense of other.  If the process continues unchecked, the
>end result is the emergence of an aristocracy and a serf class.
>Not a good thing.
>
>Personally, I favour a really agressive inheritance tax.  The first
>$200,000 tax-free, the next $300,000 taxed at 20%, the next $500,000
>at 35%, and so forth.  Anything over $10,000,000 to be taxed at
>90-95%.  The children of the wealthy will still be able to lead
>comfortable lives on the money they inherit, the danger of an inherited
>aristocracy will largely disappear, and the proceeds would make a nice
>dent in the federal debt.
>
>Well, just dreaming, I guess . . .
>

in fact, you are wrong. it is already very difficult to pass inherited
wealth through the estate tax directly to the inheritors. the tax, a
large one, kicks in at $600,000.

it is because of this that there are so many estate lawyers and
accoutants who figure out ways for large sums of money to pass to estate
tax free status from which individual inheritors may receive much money.
now why is it that the laws permit this. it is because the laws are
written for the benefit of the wealth classes, since they own the
process of writing laws.

have you ever heard of foundations, family foundations, etc? why do
you think they exist?

do you thing any rockefeller 'inherits' say $100,000,00. there is no
way such a sum can pass through the estate tax laws (of the sort you
propose.)

your proposal is very simplistic. and believe me, any attempt to
change these laws of inheritance taxation would kick up a fuss
alongside of which nothing you have ever seen would be noticeable.
worse than the gulf war.
-- 
arthur wouk 
internet: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu
From: McAldon International Inc. <mcaldon@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Date: 26 Sep 92 19:17 PDT
Subject: Re: Are we nearing another stock market
Nf-ID: #R:x+!pn2f.sbale@netcom.com:-590013762:cdp:1426500267:000:767
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!mcaldon    Sep 26 19:17:00 1992


|        hey, what's the worst that can happen?
|        The market CAN'T crash anymore.  It can only drop 50 points per
|        day.  At that rate, you won't be back to 1991 levels for over
|        a week.  Plenty of bail time.

This is serious misinformation.  The market can drop as much as it wants,
except when it hits 50 points down OR up, computerized arbitrage sell or
buy programs are not permitted.  Your individual stock, of course, can go
through the floor [or, more happily, ceiling] without restraint. DMcKenzie

                         |        Vote for the environment          |
|    mcaldon@igc.org     |            Vote for AL GORE              |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
              
            

Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: High-return (risky?) opportunity
From: gary@cdthq.UUCP (Gary Heston)
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 92 19:56:43 CDT
Organization: Garys' Home for Obsolete Computers

fritz@hpfcbig.sde.hp.com (Gary Fritz) writes:

> Here's the deal:  he needs $12,500 to cover radio time and a few other
> expenses.  He says he will "guarantee" AT LEAST a *100% RETURN* on the

I like the way guarantee is in quotes......

Gary Heston, at home....
gary@cdthq.uucp
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: ioguo@mars.lerc.nasa.gov (OA Guo)
Subject: Re: New Treasury Bill Auction system
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    
Organization: NASA Lewis Research Center
Date: 28 Sep 1992 11:42 EDT  

In article <1992Sep24.013007.31479@watson.ibm.com>, yozzo@watson.ibm.com (Ralph Yozzo) writes...
>I read recently that the federal government is using a new
>system to auction its treasury bills.
>Could someone explain this new system in layman's terms.
> 
>WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Treasury Department sold 5-year notes under
>its new, experimental single-price auction system, and the securities
>were awarded at the high yield of 5.54 percent.
>The government said it auctioned $10.51 billion of the 5 1/2 percent
>notes.
>Under the new system, bids are filled at the highest yield -- a
>single, common price -- rather than at the individual yields stipulated
>by the bidders. Successful bidders will receive a yield equal to, or
>higher, than the one they submitted.
>Analysts say the theory is this potential bonus will persuade bidders
>to be more aggressive.
> 
	Suppose in a T-bill's auction government wanted to raise $100 millions
	of 1 year note with 3.75% interest, received the following bids.

	Firm A:	3.5%	$40 millions
	Firm B: 3.75%	$40 millions
	Firm C: 4.0%	$50 millions
	Firm D: 4.25%	$30 millions

	For the cueent system, Firm A gets $40M notes in 3.5% interest, 
	Firm B gets $40M notes in 3.75% interest, Firm C gets 
	remaining $20M notes for 4.0%, and Firm D gets nothing.

	The new system prposed, will have same distribution to these firms,
	however, every get 4.0% notes.

	The real difference is on the strategy of bidding, since there is no
	penality on underbidding (on the interest) in the new system, you
	can go ahead and bid 0% and still get whatever the best rate in
	the final bids.  

	Last thing I heard, is that the new bidding process is on-hold for
	some reasons I don't quite know.

>-- 
>Ralph Yozzo (yozzo@watson.ibm.com)  
>From the beautiful and historic Mid-Hudson Valley area of NY state
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OA Guo                        |My statement does not reflect NASA's point of
NASA - Lewis Research Center  |view.  Nor should NASA's statements reflect
Cleveland, Ohio               |my point of view.
From: grasmeye@gn.ecn.purdue.edu (Joel M. Grasmeyer)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Is This A SCAM?
Date: 27 Sep 92 01:04:37 GMT
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network

I just received two promotional offers from American Clearinghouse and a
company called Mastercare International, Inc.  They offer a "guarantee" of 
receiving one of four prizes--a car, a TV, a vacation package, or $5,000.
In turn, I am "asked" to try some cleaning products or a water filtration
system.  Are either of these offers valid?  Are the companies themselves valid?
Are there any laws governing these companies, or requiring them to come through
with the prize?  What sources could I use to research the validity of these 
offers?
 
Any response would be greatly appreciated.

Joel Grasmeyer
grasmeye@gn.ecn.purdue.edu
From: rdetweil@boi.hp.com (Richard Detweiler)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Re: Request for FAQ
Date: 28 Sep 92 15:26:42 GMT
Organization: Hewlett Packard - Boise Printer Division

In article <2AC53EBD.12099@ics.uci.edu> davida@ics.uci.edu (David A. Andersen) writes:
>
>>I just started this newsgroup. Could the archive-site please
>>send me a FAQ; by email please to avoid using bandwidth. Thanks.
>
>[stealing someone else's top lines]
>
>Ditto in my direction too please!
>
>
>David Andersen
>UC Irvine
>


Add my name too if possible or let me know where it is ftp-able.

Thanks.

Dick Detweiler : rdetweil@hpdmd48.boi.hp.com
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: fritz@hpfcbig.sde.hp.com (Gary Fritz)
Subject: Oppenheimer Biotech?
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.1 PL6]
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 02:53:45 GMT

I recently got a solicitation from my financial advisor to invest in
Oppenheimer Global Biotech.  Apparently it has been closed for some time,
but will be opening briefly on October 1.

This particular person tends to approach me with deals that get him
a good commission, but if I remember right Opp.Biotech was considered
one of the best of the high-flying biotech funds.  He gave me a copy of
the Morningstar report on Opp.Biotech, which lists it as a 5-star fund.
Risky, of course, but highly rated.

It ran up from 10 to over 30 over the course of 2-3 years, then crashed
back down this spring to about 20, where it seems to have stayed.
This seems like an opportune time to get in -- after a crash -- and
the 10/1 opening seems well-timed.  I may open a small account just
to keep my options open after they re-close it.

Any opinions on Opp.Biotech and Oppenheimer in general?  I'm not overly
impressed with the $5 fee they charge to transfer money between funds.
I'm also not excited about what I think is a 6% load.  But those annoyances
aside, this may be a very good fund to hold for *long-term* growth,
especially for a dollar-cost-averaging plan.

Any wisdom from the net?  (Silly question :-)
Gary
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: stgprao@st.unocal.COM (Richard Ottolini)
Subject: Re: How Does One Select a Money Market Mutual Fund?
Organization: Unocal Corporation
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 21:44:53 GMT

In article <1992Sep29.170558.20527@cbfsb.cb.att.com> sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner) writes:
>I've obtained a bunch of prospectuses (prospecti?  what is the correct
>plural?) and skimmed over them.  I've also read somewhere (Forbes
>mutual fund issue, I think) that with mmmf's, the most important
>factor is the expense ratio, since they all invest in more or less
>the same thing (I understand there is a subset that invests only in
>US Gov't securities).

I would think yield is a more important measure.
I'd rather invest in a 4% yield fund with a 2% expense than a 2% yield
fund with a 1% expense.
The long term performance of a fund has some correlation to expense ratio.
From: schin@acs.bu.edu (neil schier)
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: Is Seragen a buy?
Date: 3 Oct 92 15:36:33 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA


Hello


Here at BU a lot of noise has been made about Seragen's recent demise.

At these levels, is Seragen worth it?

regards
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: Advice of "Experts" : what about Value Line's Strategy?
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Distribution: usa
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 18:07:23 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.135505.9545@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:

>Value Line's strategy is to anylize *many* stocks using some formula,
>and to invest in the top 5th of their ordering.  As stocks fall off
>the top of the list, sell out, buy into another company in the top
>5th.  Their charts indicate that over a long period of time, this
>strategy stays well ahead of the market average.

Yes, but as I recall, the top 5th is 100 stocks.  You have to choose
among those stocks still.  I see study after study that says VL beats
the market, but you still have to pay that healthy annual subscription
fee, and you have to construct your own portfolio based on their
analyses.  Much more complicated and expensive than something like
Fidelity Monitor.

--Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: jhc@iris.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Re: IRR deviations in Quicken, Lotus, and AAII 9/92
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.UUCP (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 1992 07:24:24 GMT

In article <1992Sep26.040118.24043@cs.brown.edu> jhc@iris.brown.edu.uucp (James H. Coombs) writes:

>Has anyone read the AAII Journal, 9/92?  On page 30, Markese has a

>So, Quicken gives me a return of 7.7%.  They do not say IRR in the

>Markese	8.14%
>Lotus		7.35%
>Quicken	7.1%

CURSES!  It's 7.7% for Quicken, not the second number of 7.1%  (And I
suspect that this is the sort of error Markese made.)  For what it's
worth, the program that was posted here gives 7.76%.

AHA!  I found an error.  Lotus assumes equal periods, and I set the end
date for Quicken as the following month, not the following quarter.
Once I correct this error, I have consensus among Lotus, Quicken, and
the program posted here (neat little program, wish the author had
learned about comments and variable naming).

Markese's article seems generally sloppy to me, and I am prepared to
just throw him out.  As an aside, I was not going to renew AAII, but I
thought the pointer to Edleson was valuable.  This error just reminds
me of why I was not going to renew in the first place.  (And Lynch
makes a good point about needing to take all of these newsletters and
books into account when computing one's return.)

--Jim
jhc@iris.brown.edu -- don't trust reply-to fields
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu (Arthur Wouk)
Subject: Re:  Effects of the U.S. Debt
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:50:09 GMT

In article <1992Oct2.052830.3539@cs.sfu.ca> mcdonald@cs.sfu.ca (Ken Mcdonald) writes:
>
...

>
>The problem of inherited wealth is particularly pernicious.  Consider
>a fortune of $100,000,000.  If invested prudently and carefully, the
>heir of such a fortune can live the life of the wealthy, and AT THE 
>SAME TIME, have their principal grow in REAL terms.  This is most
>emphatically NOT true for the average family.  Now, if all of these
>families with large fortunes all invest them prudently, and their
>real wealth keeps growing, we may have problem; because if their real
>wealth is growing faster than the country's real wealth is growing
>(and this is often the case, and has certainly been the case over
>the last decade), then that implies their wealth must be growing
>at the expense of other.  If the process continues unchecked, the
>end result is the emergence of an aristocracy and a serf class.
>Not a good thing.
>
>Personally, I favour a really agressive inheritance tax.  The first
>$200,000 tax-free, the next $300,000 taxed at 20%, the next $500,000
>at 35%, and so forth.  Anything over $10,000,000 to be taxed at
>90-95%.  The children of the wealthy will still be able to lead
>comfortable lives on the money they inherit, the danger of an inherited
>aristocracy will largely disappear, and the proceeds would make a nice
>dent in the federal debt.
>
>Well, just dreaming, I guess . . .
>

in fact, you are wrong. it is already very difficult to pass inherited
wealth through the estate tax directly to the inheritors. the tax, a
large one, kicks in at $600,000.

it is because of this that there are so many estate lawyers and
accoutants who figure out ways for large sums of money to pass to estate
tax free status from which individual inheritors may receive much money.
now why is it that the laws permit this. it is because the laws are
written for the benefit of the wealthy classes, since they own the
process of writing laws.

have you ever heard of foundations, family foundations, etc? why do
you think they exist?

do you think any rockefeller 'inherits' say $100,000,00? there is no
way such a sum can pass through the estate tax laws (of the sort you
propose.)

your proposal is very simplistic. and believe me, any attempt to
change these laws of inheritance taxation would kick up a fuss
alongside of which nothing you have ever seen would be noticeable.
worse than the gulf war.
-- 
arthur wouk 
internet: wouk@alumni.cs.colorado.edu
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: sbrenner@cbnewsb.cb.att.com (scott.d.brenner)
Subject: How Does One Select a Money Market Mutual Fund?
Organization: AT&T
Distribution: usa
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 1992 17:05:58 GMT

I'm in the process of moving most of the money in my checking accounts
into money market mutual funds (I'll abbreviate as 'mmmf').  I'm only
getting about 2% interest in the checking accounts and every month
it drops even further.  I know mmmf's aren't yielding much better,
but if I can get 3% instead of 2%, that's a 50% increase.

I've obtained a bunch of prospectuses (prospecti?  what is the correct
plural?) and skimmed over them.  I've also read somewhere (Forbes
mutual fund issue, I think) that with mmmf's, the most important
factor is the expense ratio, since they all invest in more or less
the same thing (I understand there is a subset that invests only in
US Gov't securities).

I've written down the expense ratios for the funds I'm looking at.
I decided to call the funds to get the current yield so I can use
that as a comparison as well (e.g. who's got the best yield/expense
ratio?).  I started calling, but got frustrated quickly.  Some
funds quote simple yield, others quote compounded.  Some quote 7-day
average, others quote 30-day average, still others quote annualized
yields.  

After the last call I made, I decided that maybe getting the yields
from the funds themselves isn't the most objective way.  

So, is there a place I can get a current yield quote for all the 
funds that is calculated the same way for all funds?  Also, does
anyone have any tips for selecting mmmf's other than looking at
expense ratio and yield?

a T d H v A a N n K c S e

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scott D. Brenner
AT&T Consumer Communications Services
Basking Ridge, NJ
scott@cimu03.att.com  -or-  sbrenner@attmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From: news@walter.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: misc.invest
Subject: What is with Sequoia
Date: 1 Oct 92 21:48:36 GMT
Reply-To: jchen@wind.bellcore.com (Jason Chen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Bellcore, Morristown, NJ

It lost $4 or 56% of it value today. What is the news?

C. Jason Chen 
jchen@flash.bellcore.com
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: ed@odi.com (Ed Schwalenberg)
Subject: Re: Effects of U.S. national debt
Organization: Object Design, Inc.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 92 17:25:41 GMT

In article <5171@bacon.IMSI.COM> jordan@IMSI.COM (Jordan Hayes) writes:
  Ravi [Batra] notwithstanding, some of the richest families in this country
  got that way in large part by being short just prior to the crash of '29

I want to scotch this rumor.  After doing a little research, the only
evidence I can find for large short-sale profits from the 1929 crash
involved the then-chairman of Chase, who sold short through one private
holding company 42,506 shares of Chase itself, while covering the short
in December through another holding company, which purchased 42,506
shares from an affiliate of Chase using money borrowed from Chase!
The profits from the short sale amounted to about $4,000,000, and was
taken by the chairman personally, not by the bank.

This is from Galbraith's "The Great Crash 1929", chapter VIII.  The
person in question was already rich and only got a little richer from
this operation, and his descendants aren't among the richest families
in the country today.

Read the Forbes 400 Richest People in America issue; this year's issue
is due out soon.  One of the most interesting commentaries is that of
the 400, at most one or two derive their riches primarily from the
stock market.  The vast majority of really rich people and families
are the largest owners of, and actively manage, large businesses like
Wal-Mart, Microsoft, Reebok, Mars, etc.  Passive investors (long or
short) don't get really wealthy.
Newsgroups: misc.invest
From: nfs@dynastar (Norbert Schlenker)
Subject: Re: another stock market crash? '29 wasn't a surprise.
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Distribution: na
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 20:05:32 GMT

In article <1992Oct4.152412.18625@scott.skidmore.edu> pvonk@scott.skidmore.edu (Pierre VonKaenel) writes:
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong, but.... although the '29 crash included a big
>one day drop, wasn't the market generally going down for a year before
>that day, and didn't a lot of investors see the writing on the wall
>and get out in time?  
>
>Today, many people think the '29 market suddenly crashed in
>one day, out of the blue.  

Here are the U.S. numbers from Kindleberger's World in Depression, with
a 1926 base of 100 (sorry, this isn't the Dow or S&P):

Year  Jan  Feb  Mar  Apr  May  Jun  Jul  Aug  Sep  Oct  Nov  Dec
1927  106  108  109  110  113  114  117  112  129  128  131  136
1928  137  135  141  150  155  148  148  153  162  166  179  178
1929  193  192  196  193  193  191  203  210  216  194  145  147
1930  149  156  167  171  160  143  140  134  139  118  109  102
1931  103  110  112  100   89   87   90   89   76   65   68   54
1932   54   53   54   42   38   34   36   52   56   48   45   45
1933   46   43   42   49   65   77   84   79   81   76   77   79

So the market wasn't going down for a year before Black Thursday.  The
high was in September, it drifted down for about 6 weeks, got whacked
badly during about a week in November, and then actually rose by about
20% over the next 6 months.  The crash occurred in November 1929; the
last good chance to get out was April Fools the next year.

Don't wait for April Fools 1993.

Norbert
nfs@cs.princeton.edu