ERICOPOLY

;) LOL This thread is a riot. Hey, this site isn't just about making money, but how to spend it and live your life too! We seem to have one of these threads every year. I remember last year's was on groceries and people's buying habits! I believe that was the thread where Ericopoly said his wife had just choked the chicken...literally! She had broken the neck of a hen bare-handed, and that was that night's dinner! ;D Cheers! Yeah, that brings back memories.

Criminals are finding them useful: http://www.pcworld.com/article/241605/criminals_find_new_uses_for_3d_printing.html In response, another Thingiverse user posted a model for printing a part called the lower receiver for the AR-15. If, like me, you're not very knowledgeable about guns, that may not sound like much; but from a legal perspective, the lower receiver is actually a pretty interesting gun part. If you wanted to buy the parts for an AR-15, you could purchase at gun shows or from mail-order catalogs--without any sort of record--every part of the rifle except the lower receiver. By printing out the lower receiver of an AR-15 on a 3D printer, it's possible to complete construction a fully functional, unregistered AR-15.

Scope kills all of the bacteria in your mouth, even the ones that fight infection and disease. Why would you continue to purchase mouthwash that kills helpful bacteria? You wouldn't. The marketing campaign for the new mouthwash would inform you about the benefits of certain oral bacteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_ecology As mentioned, oral bacteria also help fight disease-producing germs that try to come in through the mouth. These bacteria work with our immune system to keep our bodies disease free. For example, some of these bacteria produce organic acids that kill the organisms that cause intestinal problems.[2] Without these good bacteria, our immune systems would be constantly bombarded by airborne and saliva-transferred germs. Bacteria are also needed to control the growth of fungus. “Balance between all the different bacteria and fungus are critical” or else the “fungus overgrows and takes over.”[10] So, ironically, though bacteria have the potential to harm us, our mouth and the good bacteria in it are the body’s first line of defense. Sure, I buy the argument that one product might be better than the other. What I am questioning is whether the introduction of the novel product would completely alter our oral hygiene routine. By that, I mean that it is somewhat difficult to believe that people would abandon the daily routine of brushing and rinsing, and instead use a new rinse that is required only twice per week. In my case, I tend to think that I'd continue brushing and continue using some sort of daily rinse...even if the daily rinse were some variation of the new product (at a higher price). All this to say that I'm having a hard time seeing how the newer superior product wouldn't result in incremental revenues (because you'd price it higher), but I acknowledge that it might cannibalize the existing rinse sales. In other words, it would be an incremental return from product differentiation in a market that is otherwise characterised by undifferentiated products (ie, Scope and Listerene are pretty much interchangeable). Now if they could just invent a wash that would completely eliminate the need to floss..... ::) Yes, that makes sense. Gingivitis is still a problem, as is yellow teeth, "furry feeling" on the teeth, bad breath, etc... The rinse that also controls gingivitis/gum disease is probably coming next -- it is a different bacteria that needs to be targeted.

Scope kills all of the bacteria in your mouth, even the ones that fight infection and disease. Why would you continue to purchase mouthwash that kills helpful bacteria? You wouldn't. The marketing campaign for the new mouthwash would inform you about the benefits of certain oral bacteria. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_ecology As mentioned, oral bacteria also help fight disease-producing germs that try to come in through the mouth. These bacteria work with our immune system to keep our bodies disease free. For example, some of these bacteria produce organic acids that kill the organisms that cause intestinal problems.[2] Without these good bacteria, our immune systems would be constantly bombarded by airborne and saliva-transferred germs. Bacteria are also needed to control the growth of fungus. “Balance between all the different bacteria and fungus are critical” or else the “fungus overgrows and takes over.”[10] So, ironically, though bacteria have the potential to harm us, our mouth and the good bacteria in it are the body’s first line of defense.

Shi has been working on the innovation for over a decade with support from Colgate-Palmolive and a company he founded, C3-Jian Inc. http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/11/19/ucla-microbiologist-develops-smart-bomb-against-cavities-tooth-decay/

Hopefully P&G will not buy the patents... BeerBaron I don't get it? Why would it be bad if P&G bought the patents? They certainly have the production, distribution and marketing capacity to profitably deliver such a product to consumers.... Well, it does threaten the cavity-fighting toothpaste market. And a mouthwash that is effective for 4 days after a single rinse might threaten the twice-a-day rinse market. People buy fancy toothbrushes that vibrate or have special "reach" capability. They could be tempted to just buy the patent and never roll out a product.

Hopefully P&G will not buy the patents... BeerBaron Hadn't thought of that. What I'm wondering is how much will they need to charge for a child's braces if the dentists lose "the majority" of an annual $70b business?

A mouthwash that selectively kills only the cavity-causing bacteria -- leaves the other bacteria alone: http://www.dentistry.ucla.edu/news/new-mouthwash-targeting-harmful-bacteria-may-render-tooth-decay-a-thing-of-the-past Dental caries, commonly known as tooth decay or cavities, is one of the most common and costly infectious diseases in the United States, affecting more than 50 percent of children and the vast majority of adults aged 18 and older. Americans spend more than $70 billion each year on dental services, with the majority of that amount going toward the treatment of dental caries.

I did the opposite -- last week I ditched the Macbook and bought an HP laptop with fingerprint login (the fingerprint login alone is a convenience that made it worthwhile). That puts an end to the two year chapter of frustration in my life of trying to figure out how to work that stupid thing (I know a lot about Windows and it drove me crazy at times not knowing how to do various tasks with MacBook, or being forced to use Perl in the absence of a Jscript engine). The thing that bothered me the most is that they cut it from a block of aluminum so that the edges would rub the underside of my wrists raw. Would it kill these guys to bevel the edges of the laptop for comfort? The Apple designers would have women wearing corsettes again if it were stylish.

Inspired by the thought, my colleagues and I ran an experiment at the University of California, Los Angeles. We took a group of 450 participants, split them into two groups and set them loose on our usual matrix task. We asked half of them to recall the Ten Commandments and the other half to recall 10 books that they had read in high school. Among the group who recalled the 10 books, we saw the typical widespread but moderate cheating. But in the group that was asked to recall the Ten Commandments, we observed no cheating whatsoever. We reran the experiment, reminding students of their schools' honor codes instead of the Ten Commandments, and we got the same result. We even reran the experiment on a group of self-declared atheists, asking them to swear on a Bible, and got the same no-cheating results yet again. This experiment has obvious implications for the real world. While ethics lectures and training seem to have little to no effect on people, reminders of morality—right at the point where people are making a decision—appear to have an outsize effect on behavior. Another set of our experiments, conducted with mock tax forms, convinced us that it would be better to have people put their signature at the top of the forms (before they filled in false information) rather than at the bottom (after the lying was done). Unable to get the IRS to give our theory a go in the real world, we tested it out with automobile-insurance forms. An insurance company gave us 20,000 forms with which to play. For half of them, we kept the usual arrangement, with the signature line at the bottom of the page along with the statement: "I promise that the information I am providing is true." For the other half, we moved the statement and signature line to the top. We mailed the forms to 20,000 customers, and when we got the forms back, we compared the amount of driving reported on the two types of forms. People filling out such forms have an incentive to underreport how many miles they drive, so as to be charged a lower premium. What did we find? Those who signed the form at the top said, on average, that they had driven 26,100 miles, while those who signed at the bottom said, on average, that they had driven 23,700 miles—a difference of about 2,400 miles. We don't know, of course, how much those who signed at the top really drove, so we don't know if they were perfectly honest—but we do know that they cheated a good deal less than our control group. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304840904577422090013997320.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read

This is one time when he is incorrect. Nothing has a 100% chance. But they love to hear that kind of stuff in the press.

Oh, and I don't just discard people who are bearish. This other guy is a world-class doofus as well: http://www.thestreet.com/story/10766588/citigroup-bofa-to-sextuple-by-2015.html Assuming the same price-to-book ratio for Bank of America in 2015, Bove believes the bank's shares will be worth $99.37 in 2015, well over six times Monday's closing price of $15.40. Bank of America currently trades at 0.73 times book value. The common thread between Bove and Whalen? They both know that grandiose and ridiculous claims get you on the news, because news of course is really entertainment. You have to be entertaining to get invited back on the show. Getting on the show earns you visibility. Being visible is valuable. Then there is "Bad Boy" Mike Mayo too. I saw that guy in a photo where he had his sleeves rolled up, arms folded, rippled veins and showing muscles. I mean, it's completely absurd (he isn't really a big guy, but when you hold a fish you've caught right up to the lens it looks like a trophy). Works for Dennis Rodman, but this is supposed to be boring financial bank analysts. Not this persona where lone wolf bad boy analyst takes on the big banks like a fabled giant slayer. That's entertainment.

Some Bank Stocks Are So Cheap, That Even Christopher Whalen Can't Resist Running A Bank Fund http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-12-06/wall_street/30480966_1_bank-stocks-bank-fund-institutional-risk-analytics My personal thoughts: the reason why he continues to suggest that the big 4 banks are zombies is that it gets him on TV. Getting on TV gets his name out there. Getting his name out there gets him clients. Last fall it was the absolute worst time for BofA in terms of public opinion. So he gets on TV and says it needs to go bankrupt. He also said last fall that Bank of America doesn't need to close any branches or fire any employees -- that's also the popular thing to say. Now, do you think that Bank of America, operationally, has absolutely nothing wrong with it as Chris Whalen contends? Or is Moynihan the wiser man in righting the expense vs revenue equation? Note that in December of 2010 Whalen said that the banks were in trouble because of their expense vs revenue issue. He argues that declining NIM and regulation was crushing them -- so as BofA begins to address the expenses to bring them in line with the new revenues, Whalen then shifts his posturing and argues that firing employees and closing branches is not the right approach, but rather it's all about bankruptcy now because of legacy liabilities? Would the bankruptcy option somehow fix the NIM and regulation? Whalen has stated that the top four banks are zombies. That of course includes Wells Fargo.

More tabloid worthy information from Chris Whalen -- this time about Wells Fargo and written a couple of weeks ago: http://www.theburningplatform.com/?p=33943 One former Wells banker said to me at the HousingWire REthink conference: “At Wells you do the business first, then figure out the issues later. They are the most aggressive lender in the U.S. and have been for some time.” The only significant business line that Wells can use to support its earnings and balance sheet is real estate lending. Like all of the largest banks, Wells has been dragging its feet on resolving bad assets because delay is the only option. Since the start of the crisis, Wells has made an art form out of failure to disclose, particularly when it comes to the credit loss, doubtful and past-due experience on the bank’s retained loan portfolio and related loss reserves. While Wells’ peers among the largest banks have increased written and oral disclosure regarding loan losses and related data during the past three years, Wells consistently has stonewalled the investment and analyst communities. Most recently, Wells has even defied a subpoena from the SEC, failing to produce documents for a formal investigation regarding possible fraud in the creation of residential mortgage backed securities that the bank sees as “inappropriate.” A representative of one of the largest buy-side mortgage conduits in the U.S. told Institutional Risk Analytics that the accounting treatment of “customer relationships” by Wells is allowing the bank to take market share from all other lenders, large and small, but that the medium-term impact on the bank’s balance sheet and earnings could be decidedly negative when the bank eventually is forced to moderate its aggressive sales tactics.

18 months ago Chris Whalen said the top 4 banks are insolvent and should be restructured. http://dailybail.com/home/chris-whalen-we-understand-bank-of-americas-problem-they-are.html

It does seem like a good thing: The weighted average interest rate on loans in the securities listed in Freddie Mac’s statement as most affected by the buybacks is 5.91 percent, compared with typical rates on new loans of less than 4 percent, according to Bloomberg data.

I've been on Fidelity's website today reading about their "Personal Retirement Annuity". There is a 0.25% annual annuity charge, but if your contract is in excess of $1m then the charge is only 0.1%. That 0.1% annual fee could quite easily be a much better deal than paying taxes on your gains every year. Their pitch: • Tax-deferred growth potential of investment • Low annual annuity costs • Any earnings not taxed until withdrawn • The ability to invest as much as you want—no IRS contribution limits • Array of investment options, many rated highly by Morningstar® Here is the list of funds: http://fundresearch.fidelity.com/annuities/category-performance-annual-total-returns-quarterly/FPRAI My complaint is that our tax laws have given this to us -- it's basically an unlimited-contribution IRA plan. Why can't they just go the extra mile and let us make unlimited contributions to our IRA plans? It's like the law was written by an insurance company. I'll bet if somebody proposed to have unlimited contributions to IRA plans, the insurance industry would lobby hard to have the idea killed.

I wish somebody would offer a variable annuity with a "self directed" investment option. Wouldn't that be cool. In effect, it's just an IRA brokerage account at that point. Did Fairholme ever get it's fund offered through AIG variable annuities? That was discussed on this board more than a year ago.

That won't get me any relief. I'd be hit with an "undistributed profits" tax if I intended this offshore company to be just a "personal holding company" for my passive investments. I'd still need some sort of contrived losses to offset the undistributed profits tax.

Moving to California, I have a desire to ensure that I'm not the one they turn to for fixing their budget mess. My marginal tax rate on short-term capital gains will be well in excess of 40%. But of course from time to time the best move is to trade a little (capturing some short term capital gains). Of course, maybe not if you only keep less than 60% of the gain. So what I need are some tax losses that aren't really losses. This involves leverage to an already fully invested portfolio. The leverage is merely for the sake of manufacturing tax losses. Idea: 1) Buy Berkshire at today's price and that's where the leverage comes from 2) Hedge the Berkshire holding 100% with deep-in-the-money SPY puts expiring December 3) When the SPY puts expire, replace with DIA deep-in-the-money puts expiring following November 4) When the DIA puts expire, replace with SPY puts expiring following October. The point here is that over the long term, you are clearly going to beat the market. You hold the Berkshire position "Forever", and over the long run take a short-term tax loss as the shorted index rises over the very long term. So you profit in two ways: 1) tax savings. If Berkshire rises 10% and the index rises 10%, you about 4% gain through tax savings. 2) Berkshire ought to beat the index over the long run. Margin interests costs might be an issue, so perhaps this is just a way to take some losses this year (a heavy marginal tax year) and shift the offsetting gains to a future year (2013 or 2014). I mention 2013 and 2014 because those are the years for which you can presently write deep-in-the-money BRK-B puts.

JPM traded down to $28 last year despite there being no rumors about it needing to raise capital. BAC traded down to $5 last year in the face of noisy capital concerns. Without those concerns, maybe it would have hit $7 and no further down? BAC at $7 now without capital concerns. JPM needs to go down another 20% to hit it's 2011 Euro-crisis low. This is why I think BAC's volume has come down lately.

Yes, by limiting private and corporate financial support to the political system. Instead we've gone the other way.

Meanwhile there are no headlines when Donald Trump sells a property with tens of millions of capital gains in it and reinvests the proceeds in another. With no capital gains tax! Yet we are outraged if owner of a common stock is able to sell and reinvest the money without paying capital gains. Whatever. I need more money so I can have a lobby to get some laws changed.

U.S. Senator Charles Schumer proposed legislation yesterday that would impose a capital gains tax on people who renounce their citizenship unless they prove their reasons don’t include avoiding taxes. Isn't that more lenient than the current "exit tax", under which you pay the capital gains tax no matter what your story is? Do I misunderstand him? I am very happy with Schumer and am quite surprised to see politicians for once being on top of their game. Saverin should not be allowed back to the US, EVER! and any investments he makes in the future should be taxed @ 30%.. What he did was disgusting and I am shocked the media thinks he only avoided $67mm.. I have it on very good merit that the valuation he used on his exit tax date was $18 per share. The amount is more in the realm of $400-500mm that he circumvented. I tend to agree. Getting taxed 37% on all US investments in Oz, capital gains are reduced by 50% if its long term. Doing massive tax planning, to plan for having to pay taxes in both countries - but I would never give up my Citizenship. I guess thats easy to say though because my taxable income will be nil due to exclusions. If one does give up his citizenship then its fair, but they shouldnt be allowed back in. The real problem is that the US is taxing residents of other countries. He is just trying to cope with it. I just find it mind boggling. All my life I've been a citizen of Australia residing in the US. I've never paid them a dime of tax on my earnings while living in the US.

Now you can complain about this Zuckerberg guy too -- or perhaps you won't, maybe only if he further reduces taxes while leaving the country: Tax specialists are paying attention to something else: how half a dozen of the firm's luminaries, including founder Mark Zuckerberg, appear to be using a perfectly legal maneuver called a grantor-retained annuity trust, or GRAT, to avoid at least $200 million of estate and gift taxes on their own Facebook shares. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304543904577395971333422002.html?mod=WSJ_PersonalFinance_PF14 Meanwhile, ideally, the asset soars in value, and that growth is outside of the grantor's estate. When the GRAT's term ends, the asset goes to the beneficiaries—usually into another trust set up for their benefit. The result: no gift or estate tax on the appreciation, even though it has been transferred. Here is an example, using figures from the Facebook offering document: Messrs. Zuckerberg and Moskovitz each disclosed "annuity trusts" holding 3.4 million and 14.4 million Facebook shares, respectively. The value of each share when the trusts were set up was less than $1.85, according to the prospectus. After contributing their stock to the GRATs, the two founders would, over time, take payments equal to the original value of the gift plus a small return, Mr. Bergner says. What if by some chance Facebook stock tanks? The stock would then be returned to the original owner. One question remains: Neither Mr. Zuckerberg nor Mr. Moskovitz appears to have children. So who are these trusts' beneficiaries? Mr. Bergner says it is possible to name unborn children—as well as future spouses and current friends or relatives—as beneficiaries of a GRAT.