Home | Community | Message Board

Avalon Magic Plants
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Good dividend stock - AYR; Great value for growth - VDSI; comment on FSLR and similar [Re: geokills] * 1
    #8092843 - 03/02/08 07:21 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

A good dividend/value stock right now is AYR Aircastle.
This is an airplane leasing company. They buy mainly used airplanes and lease them to airlines all around the world. The initial purchases of airplanes are made with cash/equity, and they then sell asset backed securities for portfolios of their owned planes.
Their combination of sophisticated financing and airline contacts is a strong competitive advantage (in a competitive industry).
They are profitable (P/E around 10-11) and earnings are growing quickly (net income 51 mil. in 2006, 127 mil. 2007).
Best of all, they finance deals with equity as needed and return earned capital to their investors through dividends - current yield based on the most recent regular dividend is around 14%!
They missed analysts earnings last quarter, and the stock is pretty beaten down as a result. The current price (about $20/share) is a good price for a good stock.

Vasco data security international (VDSI) is a leader among specialized data-security shops. Good security is the key to e-comerce and e-finance, and these people get the big contracts. Recent earnings were a big miss - according to management, this is a result of three major contracts moved to 2008. With a smallish company dependent on large contracts from industry giants, lumpy revenues are to be expected, and as long as management is shooting straight, a few delayed contracts are no big deal. Also, the current financial disaster will likely have some impact on this years earnings, as the main clients are large financial firms, which will all be looking to cut costs where possible.
These caveats out of the way, the current price is almost too good. Return on equity has averaged 30%+, and earnings growth is around 50%/year. The internet is not going away, and will become increasingly fundamental to all financial transactions - and the need for data security will not go away, either. This is a well run company with excellent prospects for growth, and is currently on sale.

I've made $$$$ shorting FSLR, and if it recovers significantly any time soon, I'll buy deep out of the money puts with distant strikes. The reason I'd do this is that they need huge growth to justify a 100+ P/E, so any hint of a recession will hurt them and a single quarter of missed earnings will absolutely kill the stock - it's a great company, but priced to perfection.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Stock Update for March 5, 2008 - NLY, JNY [Re: geokills] * 1
    #8111072 - 03/06/08 01:41 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Big problem for a lot of companies right now (look at TMA!) is that they have short term liabilities and long term assets. The assets are selling at depressed prices, which leads to margin calls - and BOOM!, a company (hedge fund, whatever) is gone, bankrupt - whoever buys the assets eventually makes a killing.

This is the exact same thing that killed LTCM 10 years ago - the assets were valuable, but they couldn't meet their short term obligations because of market chaos. Buffet bought some of their assets with cash at seriously depressed prices, and guess what? When the market chaos subsided, the prices recovered and he made a ton of money.

I haven't looked too closely at the financials of NLY or CMO (very similar company) yet. If they're highly leveraged and subject to margin calls, there's a not-insignificant risk of either one going to 0 in the next year (I doubt agency debt is really as safe as the market thinks right now). In other words - unless you do your homework, don't buy back in at a lower price.

I'm also looking carefully at AYR, the airline lease company I recommended above - the price is falling. and the controlling company (FIG) might be in serious trouble. Also, they have some (not a huge amount) of short term debt against all long-term assets, so I need to decide whether to sell and take my (pretty small) losses or hold on for the ride.

Another speculative company I own shares in now is PRS - Primus Guarantee. The main business of this company is in selling credit default swaps on investment grade companies. They have taken some losses on swaps related to residential mortgages, but have very limited exposure left - most of their questionable exposure is to financial companies - if too many of these go bankrupt, it will kill PRS as well.
However, if you believe that the current pricing in the debt markets is currently irrational, this is a risky stock worth considering.

The reason is simple - although it's highly leveraged, it's not subject to margin calls. No matter how expensive its liabilities become on the open market and how huge its GAAP losses become (currently, the GAAP book value is around 0, but the company claims its economic book value is around $9/share not counting unearned premiums), PRS won't get called. In addition, they can continue to assume corporate default risk at today's attractive rates.
At the end of the day, I consider it likely that TMAs assets will be vastly more valuable than it's liabilities - but since it's liabilities are short term and can be called, the banks will get it's "valuable" assets at vastly deflated prices and the stockholders of TMA will very likely get nothing. This cannot happen to PRS, because there is no time mismatch between their liabilities and assets - if they go belly up, it will be because their assets really are bad, and not because of the current flight to safety.

I am long PRS, but please don't invest any money you can't afford to lose here.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Stock Update for March 5, 2008 - NLY, JNY [Re: geokills] * 1
    #8111123 - 03/06/08 01:58 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Another related note -

There is currently a huge mismatch between the credit markets and the stock market.

The stock market's down a bit for the year, but's not really doing all that badly.

On the other hand, I'm going to suggest that any believer in the efficient market hypothesis look away from credit spreads - they are pricing in massive defaults on anything that can default. They are also pricing in massive contagion - looking at the prices, you might believe that as soon as one company defaults, it will cause the end of the world as every other company in every industry goes belly up.

IMO, the most likely reason for this is that banks and other institutions are being forced to unload safe assets at fire sale prices. This drives down those assets, further eroding the assets on their balance sheets, forcing them to sell more, which drives the prices down, again.

This is certainly what's likely to happen with TMA - their assets have lost value, and now, as a result, they have to dump billions of dollars of these assets on the market. I doubt that will raise prices in the short term.

If this thesis is correct, there are clearly opportunities out there for cash, non-levered buyers who can stomach massive paper losses (since who knows where prices are heading short term, regardless of the long term outcome) - it's just a challenge for the individual (particularly non-accredited) investor to figure out how to grab these assets - most are only available to institutions, and it's hard to figure out who's buying the right ones safely and how to get your money to them.

If my thesis is wrong, then the best investments are canned food, bottled water, and ammunition. (not really - spreads and correlation aren't that bad, yet...)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Stock Update for March 5, 2008 - NLY, JNY [Re: geokills] * 1
    #8126716 - 03/10/08 08:38 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

On second thought, I don't think Congress will allow FNM/FRE mortgage bonds to default, and I doubt that prices will fall much further on these bonds in the near term, so I went ahead and bought some NLY at 14.65 this morning.
I also bought some CMO at 11.01.
These companies are levered 10-1 rather than 30-1 for the blown-up Carlyle fund, so they should survive (I hope and expect).


Edited by phi1618 (03/10/08 09:14 AM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Stock Update for March 5, 2008 - NLY, JNY [Re: phi1618] * 1
    #8132077 - 03/11/08 02:20 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

On second thought, I don't think Congress will allow FNM/FRE mortgage bonds to default, and I doubt that prices will fall much further on these bonds in the near term, so I went ahead and bought some NLY at 14.65 this morning.
I also bought some CMO at 11.01.
These companies are levered 10-1 rather than 30-1 for the blown-up Carlyle fund, so they should survive (I hope and expect).



I bought more CMO late in the day, bringing my cost basis to about 10.80.
CMO is now at 12.35 and NLY is at 16.86. Not a bad first day for this trade.
FNM and FRE are a scandal waiting to happen, but for now thank the FED, pawn broker extraordinare.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Stock Update for March 5, 2008 - NLY, JNY [Re: geokills] * 1
    #8135758 - 03/12/08 06:46 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

I agree - the fundamental credit problems remain, and this is more likely to be a bear market rally than the end of the bear market.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Good dividend stock - AYR [Re: geokills] * 1
    #8138164 - 03/12/08 06:15 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Yeah - I found out about the FIG element after I had already lost a good amount of money on the trade. Not only is FIG under pressure, their management is not known for looking out for the interests of passive minority shareholders. Oh well... I just didn't understand the risks.

On point 1: AYR usually finances new buys using warehouse loans and cash, and then pays off the loans by issuing new stock or creating a structured credit vehicle secured by a portfolio of planes, which has worked pretty well in the past for getting long term financing at a very reasonable rate. Right now, they have one significant (I think 750 million, but that's just from memory) short term obligation in a warehouse credit line that expires in Dec. 2008 that they will need to refinance to a longer term loan over the summer - a recent shareholder presentation (on their website) indicates that they anticipate a much higher interest rate on whatever financing they acquire than they were able to get from previous securitizations - their financing is affected by the collapse of the structured credit markets.

Based on the balance sheet and business plan, I think this is an under priced stock. The dividend should be announced this week - based on the funding troubles, I wouldn't be too shocked to see it cut (though, if FIG's having real trouble, you can bet the dividend will be high to get as much cash out of AYR as possible whether the underlying business can support it long term or not). Right now, it's trading around book value, which is a real steal based on fundamentals alone.

Anyway, I've kept buying on the way down - here's hoping to a large dividend and massive short squeeze.

I also have a much smaller position in GLS in the same sector - it's hemorrhaging money at a much slower rate.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Fidelity Financial FNF [Re: Derk]
    #8156435 - 03/17/08 08:45 AM (15 years, 10 months ago)

TIPS are inflation indexed treasury bonds - currently, they offer negative yields - that is, buy a $1000 bond today, get $990 + inflation back next year. It's safe, but there's gotta be a better place to put your money.

Bear market funds are market and sector ultrashorts - like SDS is "UltraShort S&P 500 proshares" - this means, it should move in the opposite direction as the S&P 500, and by double the amount. There are other ultrashort proshares funds - including some for sectors, like housing or financial. Search "Proshares".

Commodities are rising super-fast right now. If you want to invest in commodity funds or ETFs, you can - like GLD is an ETF that holds a bunch of physical gold (I think) - other people probably know more.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Happy 420! - Dow Jones Industrial Average up 420 points! [Re: geokills]
    #8167710 - 03/19/08 04:30 PM (15 years, 10 months ago)

Crazy market - BTW, there is continued chaos in the credit markets that makes me think we haven't seen the worst in the stock market - this schizophrenic behavior could continue for some time, so be careful.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Stock Update for April 16, 2008 - High Growth Group: FSLR, MOS, POT [Re: geokills]
    #8295399 - 04/17/08 09:12 AM (15 years, 9 months ago)

FSLR has gone up to around $300/share. I think it's grossly overpriced - the growth is great but the technology isn't likely to be the long-term thin film winner and the p/e is 150+. The current profit is due to gov't subsidies.
I'm thinking about buying some puts, but the premium is stupid-high. I'd like to short it, but it's just dangerous. Most of the shares are held by GS and other large investors, and the public float is pretty small. Until there's disappointing earnings or an institution starts to unload the shares, this will be a super-volatile stock with a lot of upside potential. Eventually, it will come crashing down.
Overall, I've decided to not get involved - it's just too chancy on either side for my taste.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Commodity Selloff Continues Voraciously [Re: pothead_bob]
    #8918304 - 09/12/08 12:36 PM (15 years, 4 months ago)

Actually, inflation is falling and the dollar is increasing in value.
Long term, I figure commodities will recover - I buy the argument we are in a secular bull market for commodities with some distance left to run. Short term, I think both the spectacular run up in the first part of the year and the current crash are related to the credit crunch - first, it drove the shorts out of the market, now it's driving out the longs.
Anyway, deflation is currently a bigger worry than inflation; tomorrow, who knows?


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Stock Update for November 6, 2008 - PWR, DE, FSLR [Re: johnm214]
    #9217981 - 11/10/08 12:57 PM (15 years, 2 months ago)

This morning I bought some GM and GMAC bonds.

GM Bond 7.2% 01/15/11 bought for 34.75
GMAC Bond 5.85% 01/14/09 for 88

I don't think the automakers really should be bailed out, and I doubt any bailout will really return them to profitability and assure their longterm survival. That said, I believe a bailout is coming - the Democrats control congress and Obama said as much in his recent speech.

This might not help holders of common stock, but it should be good for bondholders. If a bailout doesn't help the company raise private capital, what good is it?


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Stock Update for November 13, 2008 - SDS, DE, FSLR, MO [Re: geokills]
    #9248415 - 11/15/08 10:35 AM (15 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

so much swingin'



The volatility now is so high, it's terrifying.
The nearly 1000-point intra-day range in the DJI index Thurs. was about the same as the intra-year range (in terms of size, not value) in 2005. Scary, scary, scary.

That said, I'm still long - Genworth not withstanding, I've been paying dearly for my belief that there are great deals to be had.

It seems that the markets are creating the economic conditions that will justify their values... not good.


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Stock Update for March 12, 2009 - WFC, GE, MO, VZ [Re: Madtowntripper]
    #9967315 - 03/13/09 10:06 PM (14 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Madtowntripper said:
So what does Mr. Buffett gain from not splitting or diluting his stock.  I mean, what's his reasoning behind it?  Are there other companies that don't do those things as well?

It just seems strange to see such a big number there...





from the horse's mouth...
in 1983 (bold added, italics in original):
Quote:

We often are asked why Berkshire does not split its stock. The assumption behind this question usually appears to be that a split would be a pro-shareholder action. We disagree. Let me tell you why.
One of our goals is to have Berkshire Hathaway stock sell at a price rationally related to its intrinsic business value... The key to a rational stock price is rational shareholders, both current and prospective.
If the holders of a company's stock and/or the prospective buyers attracted to it are prone to make irrational or emotion-based dicisions, some pretty silly stock prices are going to appear periodically...
To obtain only high quality shareholders is no cinch...
In large part, however, we feel that high quality ownership can be attracted and maintained if we consistently communicate our business and ownership philosophy - along with no other conflicting messages- and then let self selection follow its course...
Through our policies and communications - our "advertisements" - we try to attract investors who will understand our operations, attitudes, and expectations. (And, fully as important, we try to dissuade those who won't.) We want those who think of themselves as business ownders and invest in companies with the intention of staying a long time. And, we want those who keep their eyes focused on business results, not market prices.
Investors possessing those characteristics are in a small minority, but we have an exceptional collection of them. I believe well over 90%- probably over 95% - of our shares are held by those who were shareholders of Berkshire or Blue Chip five years ago. And I would guess that over 95% of our shares are held by investors for whom the holding is at least double the size of their next largest... Upgrading a shareholder group that possesses these characteristics is not easy.
Were we to split the stock or take other actions focusing on stock price rather than business value, we would attract an entering class of buyers inferior to the exiting class of sellers. At $1300, there are very few investors who can't afford a Berkshire share. Would a potential one-share purchaser be better off if we split 100 for 1 so he could buy 100 shares? Those who think so and who would buy the stock because of the split or in anticipation of one would definitely downgrade the quality of our present shareholder group...
We will try to avoid policies that attract buyers with a shorter term focus on our stock price and try to allow policies that attract informed long-term investors focusing on business values. Just as you purchased your Berkshire shares in a market populated by rational informed investors, you deserve a chase to sell - should you ever want to - in the same kind of market. We will work to keep it in existence.





in 1995:
Quote:

At the Annual Meeting you will be asked to approve a recapitalization of Berkshire, creating two classes of stock. If the plan is adopted, our existing common stock will be designated as Class A Common Stock and a new Class B Common Stock will be authorized....
The market will ultimately determine the price of the Be shares. Their price, though, should be in the neighborhood of 1/30th of the price of the A shares...
There are tradeoffs for Berkshire in this recapitalization. But they do not arise from the proceeds of the offering - we will find constructive uses for the money - nor in any degree from the price at which we will sell the B shares. As I write this - with Berkshire stock at $36,000 - Charlie and I do not believe it undervalued.... Berkshire is selling at a price at which Charlie and I would not consider buying it.
What Berkshire will incur by way of the B stock are certain added costs, including those involving the mechanics of handling a larger number of shareholders. On the other hand, the stock should be a convenience for people wishing to make gifts...
We are making this move, though, for other reasons - having to do with the appearance of expense-laden unit trusts purporting to be low-priced "clones" of Berkshire and sure to be aggressively marketed...
I did not discourage these people because I prefer large investors over small. Were it possible, Charlie and I would love to turn $1,000 into $3,000 for multitudes of people who would find that gain an important answer to their immediate problems.
In order to quickly triple small stakes, however, we would have to just as quickly turn our present market capitalization of $43 billion into $129 billion... We can't come close to doing that....
In the end, Charlie and I do not care whether our shareholders own Berkshire in large or small amounts. What we wish for are shareholders of any size who are knowledgeable about our operations, share our objectives and long-term perspective, and are aware of our limitations, most particularly those imposed by our large capital base.
The unit trusts that have recently surfaced fly in the face of these goals. They would be sold by brokers working for big commissions, would impose other burdensome costs on their shareholders, and would be marketed en masse to unsophisticated buyers, apt to be seduced by our past record and beguiled by the publicity Berkshire and I have received in recent years. The sure outcome: a multitude of investors destined to be disappopinted.
Through our creation of the B stock... we hope to make the clones unmerchandisable.
But both present and prospective Berkshire shareholders should pay special attention to one point: Though the per-share intrinsic value of our stock has grown at an excellent rate during the past five years, its market price has grown still faster. The stock, in other words, has outperformed the business.
That kind of market overperformance cannot persist indefinitely, neither for Berkshire nor any other stock. Inevitably, there will be periods of underperformance as well. The price volatility that results, though endemic to public markets, is not to our liking. What we would prefer instead is to have the market price of Berkshire precisely track its intrinsic value. Were the stock to do that, every shareholder would benefit during his period of ownership in exact proportion to the progress of Berkshire itself made in the period. Obviously, the market behavior of Berkshire's stock will never conform to this ideal. But we will come closer to this goal than we would otherwise if our present and prospective shareholders are informed, business-oriented and not exposed to high-commission salesmanship when making their investment decisions. To that end, we are better off if we can blunt the merchandising efforts of the unit trust - and that is the reason we are creating the B stock.





1996:
Quote:

I think it would have been quite easy for such trusts to have sold many billions of dollars worth of units, and I also believe that early marketing successes by these trusts would have led to the formation of others... The trusts would have meanwhile indiscriminately poured the proceeds of their offerings into a supply of Berkshire shares that is fixed and limited. The likely result: a speculative bubble in our stock. For at least a time, the price jump would have been self-validating, in that it would have pulled new waves of naive and impressionable investors into the trusts and set off still more buying of Berkshire shares.






In many of his essays, Buffet makes the point that the total returns to all stock holders must in the long run revert to the returns of the underlying business. All trading activity reduces the total size of the earnings pie available to shareholders (business owners). It is his goal to attract shareholders interested in the underlying business, and to maximize their long-run returns by minimizing the frictional costs of trading.


Edited by phi1618 (03/13/09 10:15 PM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Offlinephi1618
old hand

Registered: 02/14/04
Posts: 4,102
Last seen: 13 years, 8 months
Re: Stock Update for March 12, 2009 - WFC, GE, MO, VZ [Re: phi1618]
    #9967406 - 03/13/09 10:20 PM (14 years, 10 months ago)

Here is Buffett on trading, 2005:
Quote:

How to Minimize Investment Returns
It’s been an easy matter for Berkshire and other owners of American equities to prosper over the
years. Between December 31, 1899 and December 31, 1999, to give a really long-term example, the Dow
rose from 66 to 11,497. (Guess what annual growth rate is required to produce this result; the surprising
answer is at the end of this section.) This huge rise came about for a simple reason: Over the century
American businesses did extraordinarily well and investors rode the wave of their prosperity. Businesses
continue to do well. But now shareholders, through a series of self-inflicted wounds, are in a major way
cutting the returns they will realize from their investments.
The explanation of how this is happening begins with a fundamental truth: With unimportant
exceptions, such as bankruptcies in which some of a company’s losses are borne by creditors, the most that
owners in aggregate can earn between now and Judgment Day is what their businesses in aggregate earn.
True, by buying and selling that is clever or lucky, investor A may take more than his share of the pie at the
expense of investor B. And, yes, all investors feel richer when stocks soar. But an owner can exit only by
having someone take his place. If one investor sells high, another must buy high. For owners as a whole,
there is simply no magic – no shower of money from outer space – that will enable them to extract wealth
from their companies beyond that created by the companies themselves.
Indeed, owners must earn less than their businesses earn because of “frictional” costs. And that’s
my point: These costs are now being incurred in amounts that will cause shareholders to earn far less than
they historically have.
To understand how this toll has ballooned, imagine for a moment that all American corporations
are, and always will be, owned by a single family. We’ll call them the Gotrocks. After paying taxes on
dividends, this family – generation after generation – becomes richer by the aggregate amount earned by its
companies. Today that amount is about $700 billion annually. Naturally, the family spends some of these
dollars. But the portion it saves steadily compounds for its benefit. In the Gotrocks household everyone
grows wealthier at the same pace, and all is harmonious.
But let’s now assume that a few fast-talking Helpers approach the family and persuade each of its
members to try to outsmart his relatives by buying certain of their holdings and selling them certain others.
The Helpers – for a fee, of course – obligingly agree to handle these transactions. The Gotrocks still own
all of corporate America; the trades just rearrange who owns what. So the family’s annual gain in wealth
diminishes, equaling the earnings of American business minus commissions paid. The more that family
members trade, the smaller their share of the pie and the larger the slice received by the Helpers. This fact
is not lost upon these broker-Helpers: Activity is their friend and, in a wide variety of ways, they urge it on.
After a while, most of the family members realize that they are not doing so well at this new “beatmy-
brother” game. Enter another set of Helpers. These newcomers explain to each member of the
Gotrocks clan that by himself he’ll never outsmart the rest of the family. The suggested cure: “Hire a
manager – yes, us – and get the job done professionally.” These manager-Helpers continue to use the
broker-Helpers to execute trades; the managers may even increase their activity so as to permit the brokers
to prosper still more. Overall, a bigger slice of the pie now goes to the two classes of Helpers.
The family’s disappointment grows. Each of its members is now employing professionals. Yet
overall, the group’s finances have taken a turn for the worse. The solution? More help, of course.
It arrives in the form of financial planners and institutional consultants, who weigh in to advise the
Gotrocks on selecting manager-Helpers. The befuddled family welcomes this assistance. By now its
members know they can pick neither the right stocks nor the right stock-pickers. Why, one might ask,
should they expect success in picking the right consultant? But this question does not occur to the
Gotrocks, and the consultant-Helpers certainly don’t suggest it to them.
18
The Gotrocks, now supporting three classes of expensive Helpers, find that their results get worse,
and they sink into despair. But just as hope seems lost, a fourth group – we’ll call them the hyper-Helpers
– appears. These friendly folk explain to the Gotrocks that their unsatisfactory results are occurring
because the existing Helpers – brokers, managers, consultants – are not sufficiently motivated and are
simply going through the motions. “What,” the new Helpers ask, “can you expect from such a bunch of
zombies?”
The new arrivals offer a breathtakingly simple solution: Pay more money. Brimming with selfconfidence,
the hyper-Helpers assert that huge contingent payments – in addition to stiff fixed fees – are
what each family member must fork over in order to really outmaneuver his relatives.
The more observant members of the family see that some of the hyper-Helpers are really just
manager-Helpers wearing new uniforms, bearing sewn-on sexy names like HEDGE FUND or PRIVATE
EQUITY. The new Helpers, however, assure the Gotrocks that this change of clothing is all-important,
bestowing on its wearers magical powers similar to those acquired by mild-mannered Clark Kent when he
changed into his Superman costume. Calmed by this explanation, the family decides to pay up.
And that’s where we are today: A record portion of the earnings that would go in their entirety to
owners – if they all just stayed in their rocking chairs – is now going to a swelling army of Helpers.
Particularly expensive is the recent pandemic of profit arrangements under which Helpers receive large
portions of the winnings when they are smart or lucky, and leave family members with all of the losses –
and large fixed fees to boot – when the Helpers are dumb or unlucky (or occasionally crooked).
A sufficient number of arrangements like this – heads, the Helper takes much of the winnings;
tails, the Gotrocks lose and pay dearly for the privilege of doing so – may make it more accurate to call the
family the Hadrocks. Today, in fact, the family’s frictional costs of all sorts may well amount to 20% of
the earnings of American business. In other words, the burden of paying Helpers may cause American
equity investors, overall, to earn only 80% or so of what they would earn if they just sat still and listened to
no one.
Long ago, Sir Isaac Newton gave us three laws of motion, which were the work of genius. But Sir
Isaac’s talents didn’t extend to investing: He lost a bundle in the South Sea Bubble, explaining later, “I can
calculate the movement of the stars, but not the madness of men.” If he had not been traumatized by this
loss, Sir Isaac might well have gone on to discover the Fourth Law of Motion: For investors as a whole,
returns decrease as motion increases.





That said, I trade actively.


Edited by phi1618 (03/13/09 10:22 PM)


Extras: Unfilter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1

Shop: Original Sensible Seeds Bulk Cannabis Seeds   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   North Spore Bulk Substrate


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Cryptocurrency: A Discussion on Bitcoin, Ethereum and Related Projects
( 1 2 3 4 ... 500 501 )
geokillsA 250,326 10,002 01/27/24 05:04 PM
by geokills
* Does this look legit? The24HourMC 1,559 1 03/01/10 02:43 PM
by geokills
* Helium Network [US]: Low Cost Mobile Service with ROI for Providing Distributed Connectivity geokillsA 190 0 01/21/24 10:48 AM
by geokills
* Pretty good interest on my savings, but best strat? skOsH 184 4 01/21/24 03:40 PM
by Bungmurphy

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: geokills, automan
296,580 topic views. 1 members, 2 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.04 seconds spending 0.023 seconds on 17 queries.