posted on December 30, 2007 09:14:41 PM new
Let's Play. Chips on the Table....We are ALL Gamblers here,Let's Teach each other! The Thill is on,,,,The THRILL is on Baby,,This ain't the California Lottery, this is a combined minds of Many people with ONE Common Goal,,,,,,,,,,,,,$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and LOTS of it.....
[ edited by jackswebb on Dec 31, 2007 06:52 PM ]
[ edited by jackswebb on Dec 31, 2007 06:53 PM ]
posted on December 31, 2007 10:49:49 AM new
What do you want to know?? Dow down today and if it stays that way it will be the first 4th quarter lose since 2000, but most markets except financials are up for the year!!
posted on December 31, 2007 06:33:37 PM new
There are a lot of bargains out there,some yielding over 10 %,all it takes is guts !
Remember after 911 ,Boeing was trading in the teens,after 1987 Citicorp was trading at 7 dollars a share and once Altria,then Philip Morris threatened to file for bankrutcy was at 14,Exxon after the Valdez spill was at how much??
Ah,the good old days are back.
But then there are the savings and loan stocks,they never come back,where did they go??
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on December 31, 2007 06:46:27 PM new
Weird you mention Boeing,,,hahaha, I took stock in them! Back in the 80's? I don't even remember exactly what year now..it SPLIT two for ONE! I was in Savon Drug store buying an ice cream cone,,,,,,,it came across on the Radio in the store, YES!!!!!!! YES!!!!!!!!!
posted on January 1, 2008 06:32:08 AM new
Jack: "SPLIT two for ONE!"
Here I am again, being a wet blanket. Stock splits are really bogus indicators of value. It's like the old joke, sometimes attributed to Yogi Berra: When asked how many slices he wanted his pizza cut into, he replied "Better make it 12 slices, I'm really hungry today." To belabor the obvious, the pie didn't get larger, it just had more slices. Same thing happens with stock shares. Now, having said that, there is frequently a bounce around split time, because of 2 reasons: 1) some buyers think it's a positive sign and 2) it is easier (i.e., cheaper) for a small investor to buy a "round lot" of 100 shares, which is marginally cheaper to do than buying odd lots.
If you entered 1980 with 1 share of Berkshire Hathaway, a company notorious for refusing to split shares, you would have a $320 piece of pie. Today, that piece of pie would be worth $141,600. Because of the astounding share price, Berkshire Hathaway did agree to issue baby shares, but even those cost $4,736.
posted on January 1, 2008 06:45:29 AM new
I'm back with another wet blanket.
For most of us, owning shares of individual shares as a substantial portion of our portfolio is a dangerous thing. The history of doing so is clear; you stand a great chance of getting killed.
It's fine to keep aside a small percentage, say 2-4% of your portfolio (NOT including the value of your home) as mad money for taking fliers on individual stocks. The majority of your portfolio should be in diversified, preferably indexed, funds. Don't listen to brokers who tell you that buying funds is "guaranteed mediocrity"; that's like asking a barber if you need a haircut. While my S&P 500 funds didn't do so well this year, it was more than made up for by my international funds.
If you have retirement assets well in hand, it's fine to increase the percentage that you're willing to invest in individual stocks.
Because my wife works for an investment bank, we have to get approvals from Compliance before buying/selling stocks, options, etc. A while back, when Apple was trading in the low 80's, I wanted to buy some (I thought that my family would not be alone in deciding that we were tired of futzing with Windows PCs, and that more baby boomers would be switching to Mac). I asked my wife to get approval; she procrastinated and procrastinated, and then told me she got approval; I told her that while I liked it at $80, I didn't have quite the same appetite in the $120's
posted on January 1, 2008 06:48:04 AM new
Cash: you are completely right about splits.
Stocks that I have been following that show promise even though they are up considerable are HINT and ERES, still reasonably priced, but do you own research.
posted on January 1, 2008 06:53:12 AM new
AAPL is now at $198, so $120 doesn't look too bad, although $80 looks much better. I bought AAPL at $34. Saw it linger for a long, long time, but now with IPODS and iPhones,etc....
You're right, I should have bought it at $120, but with all of the turmoil, tax considerations, and most importantly the psychological burden of paying $120 for what I could have had for $80, I didn't pull the trigger.
All in all, I'm kind of hunkered down now. I've maintained the US funds that I have, but new money goes overseas.
posted on January 1, 2008 07:15:59 AM new
Hey Cash, I completely agree, I am very conservative. Play some discretionery money, but do tend to hesitate when stock prices seem high, like Google, could have bought it at $200, $300 and $400, but I thought it would crash and burn. So much for hindsight!!
posted on January 1, 2008 07:23:19 AM new
Also, do agree with international exposure. Have some indexed internat funds and look for companies with international exposure.
There is a stock for an on-line auction company in Mexico and SA, MELI that I have been watching, but waited too long to pull the trigger. Go to YAHOO and check out the chart. I thought it was interesting since I have been selling on Ebay for over 9 years and do sell internationally and have never had a sale to Mexico, SA or Latin Amer.
Still watching this one. What do you think?? Anyone here sell anything on Ebay to Mexico or SA??
posted on January 1, 2008 08:18:29 AM new
If a company splits its stock and increase dividend at the same time,it is a bullish sign.
I have been selling more to overseas bidders,some are from Brazil but I think many are American expatriates.
You can tell when they say-hey can you declare this as a 50 dollars item??
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on January 1, 2008 08:48:20 AM new
hwahwa, if a company increases its dividend, it's usually a bullish sign, but not always. Is it because they're making so much money and have nothing better to do with it than return it to the shareholders? That can be good or bad, but probably good. OTOH, it could mean that they have run out of ideas.
A stock split means nothing, financially speaking.
Merrie, I think we're both more willing to miss a gain than lose our shirts. That's a very human bias. My feeling is that I was reasonable with my expenditures in the past, which has put me in the position (and I apologize for the sports metaphor) of not needing a home run, or a triple, but content just to get on base. It's a great feeling to hit a home run, but it increases your risk of striking out.
posted on January 1, 2008 08:54:26 AM new
Cash: You said how I feel. I always seem to sell a stock that has made a profit too soon for fear of losing it. Bird in the hand, etc.
posted on January 1, 2008 09:01:05 AM new
Individual investors are not as saavy as you,they love stock split,my mother loves stock split.
But whatever it takes to move the stock price up is good news,a stock split draws more investors in.
My brother owns a few shares of Berthshire Class A,he bought them ten years ago at 60k per share and it is now around 140k.
His ratinale is that he does not need the money until he retires and then his tax rate would be lower and then he can sell one share if he needs the money to live on(he is a bachelor).
But for some who may need the money before or even after retirement,say he needs to buy a car 20k,or fix the roof 7k,he may have to sell one share and get his 140k back .
The float is small and the spread between bid and ask is wide,and what does he do with the proceeds of 120k after paying for that car or roof,he will have to reinvest the proceeds and face a large capital gain tax.
Dont tell him about class B share,he has always been an A student in school,no B for him.
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on January 1, 2008 09:31:06 AM new
hwahwa, You're right, but that's why I was careful to say: "A stock split means nothing, financially speaking." Emotionally speaking, it can be very powerful.
Behavioral economics is a newish and growing field. Stock splits mean a LOT to individual investors, as do many of the human foibles that Merrie and I were discussing. It pays to understand what our biases are, and frequently to act in spite of them. Sometimes, however, I'd rather leave some money on the table and have an easier time of it.
There are many books on behavioral economics, but my favorite, that discusses it deeply, is "Fooled by Randomness" by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.
A newer science is NeuroEconomics, and there's a good (not great) book by Jason Zweig called "Your Money & Your Brain." It also discusses much of behavioral economics, but attempts to correlate it with neuroscience.
posted on January 1, 2008 10:11:13 AM new
I prefer to buy land. I had fun with stocks in the 80's and early 90's and mutual funds when there was like only 20 of them.
Then I dumped all my stocks before the dotcom bust. My friends always dogged me because I wouldn't buy over priced stock in a companies that had yet to show a profit.
Then I bought 30 acres of ground with an old 125 year old house. After 10 years I sold off a 7 acre lot and the old farm house w/ 3 acres. Now I am sitting on 23 acres of land thats free and clear. My next challenge is to get this new house paid for. Oh yea there was 15% capital gains vs 28% on my stock. I love this country!!
My dad always said buy land 'cause they ain't makin' no more of it. He retired 15 years ago when he was 50 on his 20 acre slice of paradise in the Rockies.
Just a few simple thought from a very simple mind.
posted on January 1, 2008 10:27:40 AM new
"""AAPL is now at $198, so $120 doesn't look too bad, although $80 looks much better. I bought AAPL at $34. Saw it linger for a long, long time, but now with IPODS and iPhones,etc...."""
The value of the stock is the discounted future dividends. Of course, reasonable people can disagree what that number should be. The price is the price.
I personally feel that Apple's a bit over-bought right now, as I think investors have over-emphasized the iPhone relative to Apple's core business. Just my opinion, and I've been wrong a zillion times before, and will be again in the future.
posted on January 1, 2008 01:32:20 PM new
AAPL closed the year at 198.08,trailing PE is 50.39
Value Line forcasted its 2008 earings to be 4.35 per share,which puts it at a PE of 45.5.
Not exactly a cheap stock if all it has is the Ipod,Mac and the Iphone but then it is not that expensive either.
According to Value Line ,Apple stock price has already reached its 2012 target price.
Value Line is conservative.
(I read somewhere the Chinese are selling a knockoff version of Iphone ,they smuggled the Iphones into China and made some changes).
*
Lets all stop whining !
posted on January 1, 2008 01:34:13 PM new
There is nothing wrong with investing in individual stocks,NOT STOCK.
By having a basket of stocks which you choose carefully ,you are in fact your own mutual fund manager.
If the stocks go down ,you have no one to blame but yourself.
*
Lets all stop whining !
"There is nothing wrong with investing in individual stocks,NOT STOCK.
By having a basket of stocks which you choose carefully ,you are in fact your own mutual fund manager.
If the stocks go down ,you have no one to blame but yourself."
There is nothing wrong with it in a moral sense, but it is not wise to do it with a major portion of your portfolio. Most mutual fund managers (of actively managed mutual funds, not index funds), with the advantages of (relatively) low transaction costs, first-rate information, analyst support, etc. don't manage to provide better returns than an index. When you look at the after-tax and after-expenses performance, at least 60-70% of mutual fund managers don't beat the index that is closest to their investment style.
So, an amateur doing this has the advantage of avoiding management fees. They have the disadvantage of higher transaction fees and lower information quality. And that's just relative to a mutual fund that probably won't match the index.
I strongly recommend reading "A Random Walk Down Wall Street" by Burton Malkiel, or anything written by John Bogle. Someone once described Bogle, and I agree completely, as the best friend the individual investor ever had.
My wife and I have worked at investment banks for a combined 45 years. We're friends with many people in the actively managed mutual fund business. They are honorable people, intelligent and hard-working. I would not consider giving them a penny of my money.
posted on January 1, 2008 02:54:35 PM new
"They are honorable people, intelligent and hard-working. I would not consider giving them a penny of my money."
posted on January 1, 2008 03:06:22 PM newhwahwa, You're right, but that's why I was careful to say: "A stock split means nothing, financially speaking." Emotionally speaking, it can be very powerful.
cash, how right you are. I started with 30 shares of eBay & now have 360.
I remember when my shares first split & how excited I was, WOW I own twice as much. I called my broker & she shot me down real fast by saying..."Jane, that's like me saying to you if you give me a dime I'll give you two nickles."
When it's put like that it's easy to see just what it means.
Of course a split lowers the price so more can buy in & they did, for awhile.
posted on January 1, 2008 04:01:40 PM new
Aintrichyet: "????????????????????????". I assume by your ???'s that you wonder why if they are honorable, intelligent, and hard-working, I won't give them a penny of my money. It's because the odds of their doing better than my humble Vanguard index funds, after taxes and expenses, is exceedingly small. Sometimes they'll do okay, most often they'll trail the appropriate index.
Just because I like them doesn't mean that I have to support them financially It's not like they're my children!
posted on January 1, 2008 04:08:17 PM new
McJane, your broker wasn't too gentle about it, but she got the message across, so I guess it was okay.
My ex-wife came up with a hare-brained scheme that she would buy stocks right before the dividend date, and sell right after, getting the dividends "for free." She refused to believe me that the stock price goes down by the amount of the dividend (EVERYTHING else being equal; in real life, it can go down more, stay the same, or go up, but the stock will have been diminished by the amount of the dividend).
I told her that there was a name for that; it's called "buying a dividend." What you're doing is paying taxes, AGAIN, on money that is in your account free and clear. I never did explain it to her satisfaction, but thankfully she was too lazy to actually follow through with her scheme
I sure wish that I had a broker like yours to explain it to my ex.
posted on January 1, 2008 07:11:48 PM new
Yes cash it wasn't gentle, but totally clear in very few words. She could probably make your wife understand what your trying to explain in just as quickly.
She worked for Quick & Reilly, Baltimore office & her name is Neeru Kanwal. She quit a few years ago & I have no idea where she is. Wish I did because she gave me very good advice & I knew nothing about the stock market, still don't.
Chips on the Table....We are ALL Gamblers here,Let's Teach each other! The Thill is on,,,,The THRILL is on Baby,,This ain't the California Lottery, this is a combined minds of Many people with ONE Common Goal,,,,,,,,,,,,,$$$$$$$$$$$$$, and LOTS of it.....