randomep

uh why does it have anything to do with amazon? Did Buffett ever make a comment about amazon?

Ok here is an article that echos my thoughts. I think it is likely Trump isn't going to show up for all three debates. He has to show if he wants to win the presidency but I just don't see how Clinton will not eat him for lunch. So if he doesn't show it would mean he has basically checked out of the race. He will then turn his eye back to his financial empire, hopefully richer from the publicity. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/08/09/why-donald-trump-might-not-debate-hillary-clinton/ I think a debate is going to be hilarious. Imagine if the moderator asks him to elaborate on his Wall, a cornerstone of his policies. What does he feel about the environmental impacts the hundreds and thousands of miles of new roads that will need to be built in order to transport concrete to some very inhospitable places in the US. What will happen to the endangered species habitats that exist along the path of the wall. Or maybe he'll just say oh, that was just rhetoric, I don't really mean that I'll literally build a 2000 mile wall. You can fool some of the people all the time....... (the rest is obvious)

Yes, I relate to a lot in living within the means and our country is not doing that right now. You think budget deficits and trade deficits are living within the means? Only one candidate brought the trade deficits problem and wanting to fix it. Buffett himself said (I provided references for this in my earlier posts) trade deficits is like living off credit card. I support the policies that make the country living within the means. I also care issues like this too: Facing Cancer Drug Shortage, U.S. Relies on Banned Chinese Plant http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-22/facing-cancer-drug-shortage-u-s-relies-on-banned-chinese-plant Drug Shortages Forcing Hard Decisions on Rationing Treatments http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/drug-shortages-forcing-hard-decisions-on-rationing-treatments.html?_r=0 Two Children Are Sick. There’s Medicine For One. Who Gets It? Who Decides? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/11/insider/podcast-drug-shortages-in-america-rationing-scarce-resources.html What is the point of pointing out faults with healthcare in a vacuum. So healthcare sucks, life sucks! But we are talking about an election. What can any president do about specific faults with the health system as you pointed out. I am not saying society is fantastic for everyone. I am simply saying Trump isn't going to improve things any better than any other president. We know little if anything about how or what he'll do, despite him saying America sucks now and he will make it great again. Someone just said earlier in the thread, we need to blow up the government. And blow up the medical and pharma industry too? It implies we need a revolution and rebuild society. This is like communist doctrine at the turn of the century, but you can see life was really hard in Russia, so revolution sounds good cos the average person doesn't have anything to lose. Why the urgency now? America didn't go downhill overnight did it? In fact my point is America isn't going downhill for the average person. And if some average person feels then I ask what time do you want to go back to and why?

Truly! http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo I think Trump will get the biggest shellacking of any presidental election in recent memory. I am going to suggest that is pretty much going to be impossible. Wasn't the 1984 election the one in which Reagan beat Mondale in 49/50 states? Surely you are not going to suggest that Trump won't even win ONE state? Heck, even with all the gaffes/Hillary bump, the latest poll puts him at ONE point down...There is still plenty of time left. Just wait till the debates...there is a good chance that Trump will take Hillary apart piece by piece. Hillary has also said some questionable things. At a recent gathering, she was thundering for a middle class tax increase... Yes now that I thought of rb and your comment, I take back what I said. In 1984 it was 525-13 electorial score. Wow. Ok the difference was that Reagan could be considered someone that could appeal to almost all remotely close to the middle of the political divide. Today the politics is more divisive than anytime in recent memory. Some people have made up their minds to support Trump irrespective of whatever he says from now to election day. But in any social endeavour it is very foolhardy to try to argue or predict how unprecendented events will turn out. The best guage we can use is history. We can just ask ourselves have elections like this occured? Well the closest US election I can think of is David Duke back in the 80's in Louisiana (? I think?). What struck me is that he said after he lost: I won my constituency - which was the majority of the white vote. Ya Trump will win his constituency (I am not saying he is just pandering to the white vote, just whatever the appeal is). But the appeal cannot expand, IMO. Trump hasn't said much concrete things. He is just going by his larger than life personality. Follow me and magical things will happen. When have we seen that? Well just going by the top my head: Trudeau, Peron, Hitler, Castro, Kennedy, Reagan. All of these I would argue failed to deliver and in fact put the followers in much much worse shape than if they followed their average boring politician. Ok, the exception is Reagan, but I tell ya I think he stepped into a very very fortunate period of history. Kennedy, he only served 2 yrs so we'll never know how his vision would have turned out. Trump has a technique for getting where he is. Everything he says is meant to sound decisive, authoritative but we despise politicians in part because they get mired in details, and when they make comprimises. So Trump doesn't have that problem because he has never been a politican! Nobody has challenged Trump on the details in part because of the republican debate format. It reminds me of how religious people argue their beliefs. You go to church and you hear the sermons week after week, but nothing is ever written down. If you don't write things down, then what you said is elastic. He can say oh I didn't really mean that, I didn't say that. yesterday he said he'll ban all muslims, next day, well it doesn't include heads of states, next day, muslims from terrorist countries, next day only those from syria and iran. It is for this reason that we have stenographers in trials. In a one-on-one debate Trump will be pinned down on his positions. That and the fact he is quite an ignorant and he has no experience in one-on-one debates. I think Hilary will give him a shellacking in the debates. I wouldn't miss it for the world. We'll see who is right come Sept 26.

so what are you saying?? Best case scenario for Democrats is a repeat of Bush beating Dukakis? nevermind..... erroneous comment removed

Truly! http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo I think Trump will get the biggest shellacking of any presidental election in recent memory.

I take issue with this statement. While I see what you mean in terms of technological development, advances in certain fields, etc., it's estimated that millenials will be the first generation in a long while to NOT be better off than their parents on average. Twocities: I heard that in the media alot. But please, help me understand your thinking. What do you mean by milenials may be worse off than their parents. You seem to have some hard data to support this. Is there a link to some statistic? I heard trump say crime is up, but factcheck clearly indicates that violent crime has gone down in the US for the last 2 decades. I suspect when people say things like that there is no fact behind it except a perception. This is what I can see in the life of someone born in 1965 versus 1995. In the earlier generation if your caught with leukemia it was a death sentence. Now the odds are clearly with survival. The choice is clear which generation you'd want to be in that situation. Typical person living in NYC in the 70's is like living in a rat-hole. The subway system was falling apart, drugs were a huge problem, and so was crime. Remember Bernie Goetz? I remember driving to Buffalo from Toronto in the 80's and I thought the area was such a poor rustbelt. But Buffalo looked really good on my last trip, much to my surprise. In the 70's we had to live with smokers on planes and in public buildings. I stopped playing chess as a kid because of all the smoke. I wish I grew up now and could've played continued to play chess. Even if you avoided cigarette smoke in buildings you still had to breath leaded gasoline from cars. I also remember that being a teenager and pregnant was enough to ruin lives because it mean a life of missed opportunities and poverty. Now? We we to see reality shows showing the interesting lives of teenage moms. We did things a certain way, and whatever we did badly we improved on it. So by definition our lives would be better on the average. We had a huge problem with molestors in the catholic church, now we stamped that out (I would hope). We have also learned that crime and punishment was hugely unjust against certain segments, because of all the exonerations due to the advent of dna technology. Sorry I just cannot see how a milenial is worse off than their parents. They may have different lives and stresses, but the average person would be an idiot to want to go back in time to 30/40 yrs ago.

Yes, but I can have a broker translate if need be. Ok so you are saying that your native tongue is English and you aren't sure if they speak English but your bringing your broker? wow you must have a ton of stock/money That's not what I'm saying-- the meetings I've got set up are definitely in English. I thought you were asking because you were about to suggest a company whose management only speaks Norwegian or Swedish. Otherwise, I'm not quite sure why you asked the question. Ok got it. I asked the question because maybe one day I will go to sweden to do the same, and I only speak english.

Yes, but I can have a broker translate if need be. Ok so you are saying that your native tongue is English and you aren't sure if they speak English but your bringing your broker? wow you must have a ton of stock/money

Will you be speaking in English?

counterpoints for the first two: -possibly inflated book value (what are the earnings?) -possibly unsustainable/unreliable earnings (what has reliably flowed to shareholders over the past 5 years?) sometimes cheap is cheap for a good reason, sometimes it's not. I am not here to push my stocks on you, I understand you have a legit reason for aversion to them. I am simply arguing with the OP who said that there the market is overvalued. I believe a 25yr old WEB can make 50% in this market.

Probably a thread on the board that would make this obvious, but what company? The only South African company I recall being discussed in depth is Bidvest. Thanks. Nope, the company is not touted by anyone except me I think. Lewis Group: price / shr 45 rand dividends 5.17 rand headline earnings: 6.22 rand .... go figure....... post on my website: http://bovinebear.blogspot.com/search/label/JSE%3ALEW

I didn't realize that the point of a value investing forum was to look at macro factors and determine that there are zero opportunities to be had. I guess I'll come back when all of that stuff has been sorted out... haha, I barely noticed the sarcasm........ so let's see....... - HK real estate companies are selling for 1/3 to 1/4 of the book value of their properties - Russian companies are selling at 3-4x earnings - A big South African company is selling for 10x dividends - I can list profitable Japanese netnet ...... and I can probably go on for a bit longer...... And so you think the market is ridiculously overvalued? Ok if you mean the "market" is the S&P 500 fine. But I hardly think the US is the only investment in town. I think that's why guys like Ackman, Sequoia, Pabrai are having such a hard time. They are trying to squeeze more and more gains from a richly valued US stockmarket. The world changes you know! There are other places to put your money!

+1 Thanks I love it! It is as close to the action as you can get without being there. Really puts our money problems in perspective.

Buy VIX, that's the standard way right?

In times of rising inflation debt holders benefit. The lender is screwed. The lender is receiving fixed income and principal repayment later. The present day value of the principal repayment and future interest payments goes down. That's the reason why when inflation and interest rates go up, bond holders (which is the same as any lender) lose money on their bonds if they sold their bonds. For new debt, in times of constant high inflation, the interest rate can be thought of as principle payment. But that is a side issue.

Right, the 8606 is for non deductible contributions for Federal purposes. But take a Traditional IRA which is fully deductible at the Federal level (up to $6k or whatever it is). Then you wouldn't need a 8606 because it's not post tax money for federal purposes right? But in some states, there is no such thing as IRA deductions. In which case that amount is deducted from gains as you say. I don't know what the form is for NJ, I'll have to check. Ok this is my situation: I have a 401k, and I contribute the max to a traditional IRA. Because I have a 401k the IRA is non deductable, therefore I fill out the 8606. I help my friend do her taxes and she has no 401k so her IRA is deductable, and she doesn't fill out the 8606. That's just what I do, but I definitely am not a tax professional. I think I get your case about the NJ state tax system. If they do not have the same recognition of tax deductability for IRA contribution as the IRS, then they would need their own separate version of the 8606.

Ditto, I bought both of them this morning as well. BAC @ $11 and I'll buy............ $11......... pleeeeeeeeeease

TwoCities, I thought in my first reply you understood I agreed with your point. Why are you beating me over the head with it a second time? LOL

Haha! Radio Conversation with an SR71. http://oppositelock.kinja.com/favorite-sr-71-story-1079127041 thanks for the SR71 story, also I heard that Canadian lighthouse story many times, but wondered if it was true, looks like it is and I am so proud of my countrymen.

This observation supports the idea that the stockmarket is not efficient to me. The stockmarket is where people invest their wealth. And alot of wealthy professional people go there by doing their jobs well but they are not necessarily objective analytical people. And these people directly make decisions that affect the market, even if they hire someone else to invest their money. For example if a person invests in a mutual fund, that person is implicitly pushing the mutual fund manager to get short term results. If the mutual fund manager does not get the short term result he investor will walk. Or in a market crash these people will bail creating opportunities. So if the market is not efficient who will make money off them? It cannot just be the superwealthy investors because those people are often money managers who are getting their strings pulled by the investors. So I think it is possible for average Joes who can think analytically and objectively to beat the market.

Hmm ok. Say you take out a $100k loan, and pay back with interest $110k. When you retire and take distributions, you have to pay tax on the $100k which I agree is not really double taxation. But do you have to pay tax on the $10k interest as well? If so, then wouldn't that portion would be double taxation? I know when you take distributions from an IRA account, you don't have to pay state taxes on the amount you deposited post tax, at least in NJ which doesn't allow IRA deductions. So if you contribute $6,000 to an IRA, and that grows to $10,000. While you would owe Federal tax on the full $10k, you only owe it on $4k in NJ. Edit: On second thought the $10k isn't really double taxation because the lender/investor (401k) made a profit, just as you would from dividends on stocks. Therefore of course it would make sense to owe taxes on it. It just sucks if you're the borrower as well, but it makes sense. When I first mentioned double taxation I am talking about double taxation on the gains. Not the original principle (aka contributions). So suppose you want a $100k loan and pay 4% interest. You have to earn $6k to keep $4k post tax to pay that interest per year. That $4k is in your 401k but when you withdraw you keep $3k after tax. So earned $7k but kept only $3k because of double taxation. I am not sure what TwinCities meant. Other examples or double taxation is when you pay tax withholding on foreign stocks in your ira. That tax paid is not recognized when you withdraw at retirement. As for the IRA taxation that isn't right. I hope you filled out a form 8606 for you non deductable contributions. Non deductable contributions is post tax money. That amount is basis and is deducted from your account to derive your gains which is taxed when you withdraw. Form 8606 is a federal form so it means it apples to federal taxation. no? if not I am really wrong on my tax planning.

Sure, I agree with your point. But I am saying there are deterrents to borrowing from your 401k to make frivolous loans.

Your kidding! where abouts do you want to buy houses?

That point may be correct but there are other ways to top up the 401k. In my company 401k there is nothing stopping you from contributing double the yearly IRS contribution limit. The IRS contribution limit is the max amount of tax deferred contribution you may make. The rest is post tax money.