



Dr Bill wrote:For many years, I’ve been troubled by a conundrum: If mutual fund investors are not earning the market return, even adjusting for expenses, who is taking the winning side of their transactions? The yawning gap between dollar-weighted and time-weighted mutual fund data demonstrates just how far short John Q. Public falls. Amazingly, professionals, as represented by the managers of hedge funds, mutual funds, and pension funds, don’t do that much better. So, after Bogle’s Croupier collects his take, who is getting rich off the losers?...
The message for small investors is clear. Begin with the assumption that you value your independence, family, friends, and intellectual and physical development, and do not want to spend the rest of your life buying and managing small machine tool shops and insurance offices, or financing chip, software, and Internet startups. Even with their relatively lower returns, the public securities markets will allow most people to finance their children’s education and their own retirement goals.
If you want to pick your own stocks and bonds, be my guest. Just don’t imagine that making your decisions on the basis of publicly available information and analysis will lead you anywhere but to the poor house. You’re going to have to look at the primary data and analyze it entirely by yourself. And you’d better be good at it.
Most people will choose the mutual fund or ETF route, where it pays mightily to ask exactly what values underlie your investment company’s culture: raw financial incentive or pride of craft? In a poker game, the person who doesn’t know who the patsy is, is the patsy. In the same way, if you’re not absolutely clear about whether your fund family is a marketing company or an investment company, then you are the patsy.

Bylo Selhi wrote:The Executioner of Excellence
The second piece of the puzzle appeared in the April 5, 2007 Wall Street Journal in an unobtrusive article by Ilan Brat on Illinois Tool Works, an industrial conglomerate that has done rather well buying up small private firms. As every small business owner ruefully knows, tiny concerns do not sell at anywhere near the multiples that public companies do. In fact, until very recently, ITW has been able to purchase compatible small businesses for an astonishing average earnings multiple of 1.1. (You saw that right—one-point-one.) Of late, it has had trouble meeting this hurdle in the U.S., but is having better luck in China.
"ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS Inc. generally pays 1.1 or less times annual revenue for its acquisitions. A page-one article Friday incorrectly said the company pays 1.1 or less times annual earnings."


Dr Bill wrote:Over the years, I’ve learned that disagreeing with Jack Bogle is not a good idea. I originally thought his view of ETFs was unduly alarmist: little speculative cherry bombs with which investors could blow up their savings. After all, the first Barclays products sported minuscule fees and mirrored most of Vanguard’s market-segment offerings—surely, they would be carefully assembled into efficient portfolios with a long view out to the horizon. And once again, the Sage of Valley Forge won the point: As the splinters get thinner, they grow sharper, and the odds of folks hurting themselves with these pointed objects now approach one hundred percent.



I liked this paragraph:
Where are you investing now?
The oil and gas service sector. I think what happened was the cost of drilling and services in oil and gas went too high too quickly, and because of the income trust announcement back in October, they had a double whammy—the slowdown in exploration and drilling activity, and the income trust tax decision. So there really was a perfect storm that took them down. I can't speculate on prices, but I do believe there's always going to be demand. We need to heat our houses; we need to drive our cars. It's not a renewable resource and I believe these companies will come back.

kcowan wrote:I liked this paragraph:Where are you investing now?
The oil and gas service sector. I think what happened was the cost of drilling and services in oil and gas went too high too quickly, and because of the income trust announcement back in October, they had a double whammy—the slowdown in exploration and drilling activity, and the income trust tax decision. So there really was a perfect storm that took them down. I can't speculate on prices, but I do believe there's always going to be demand. We need to heat our houses; we need to drive our cars. It's not a renewable resource and I believe these companies will come back.
Want an O&G index investment? Try CKI.TO

Taggart wrote:Sounds like what a few other top investors would do. Keep it to their chest. I also found it interesting that his investment company is far away from the influence of the Bay Street crowd.

kcowan wrote: it smells to me like Buffett in the old days.


Jan. 17 (Bloomberg) -- Wall Street's five biggest firms are paying a record $39 billion in bonuses for 2007, a year when three of the companies suffered the worst quarterly losses in their history and shareholders lost more than $80 billion.
Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Morgan Stanley, Merrill Lynch & Co., Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. and Bear Stearns Cos. together awarded $65.6 billion in compensation and benefits last year to their 186,000 employees. That means year-end bonuses, at 60 percent of the total, exceeded the $36 billion distributed in 2006 when the industry reported all-time high profits.
The New York-based firms, which shed 25 percent of their equity value during 2007, have said they're eliminating at least 6,200 jobs amid mounting losses from the collapse of the subprime mortgage market. The payouts come as the U.S. economy slows, with unemployment rising, retail sales declining and new home foreclosures surging to a record.
``To many people, it will be shocking and questionable,'' said Jeanne Branthover, managing director of Boyden Global Executive Search in New York. ``People in New York in the world of investment banking will understand it. It's critical that pay is still there or you're going to lose really good people.''
The industry's bonuses are larger than the gross domestic products of Sri Lanka, Lebanon or Bulgaria, and the average bonus of $219,198 is more than four times higher than the median U.S. household income in 2006, according to data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau.


WishingWealth wrote:Not sure if you really want an answer? ...


Should Banks Take Back Their Bonuses?
...
“Raghuran Rajan gets it absolutely right,” jck of Aleablog gushed. Naked Capitalism’s Yves Smith also applauded Professor Rajan’s proposal, but noted that current Wall Street compensation practices — whether right or wrong — will be all but impossible to change.
“What Rajan misses is that everyone in these firms is conspiring together to create the impression that they are all generating real, risk adjusted, excess return,” Mr. Smith wrote. “The Street is full of people … who will maintain the fiction that their units are generating real value when there are other factors at work.”
...

Two years ago Taggart wrote:Sit back and watch your money grow
PORTFOLIO DOCTORS | Eric Kirzner's Easy Chair strategy consistently outperforms the high-paid, high-profile financial experts, write David Cruise and Alison Griffiths
Jan. 29, 2006. 01:00 AM
Glancing at the batting averages of many of the world's most famous market gurus leads one to the conclusion that most of them should be sent to the minors.
Smart Money magazine surveyed some of the top pundits, including Goldman, Sachs & Co.'s Abby Joseph Cohen, a "visionary" according to her official bio...
Abby Joseph Cohen, the second-most-bullish Wall Street strategist at the start of the year, was replaced by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. as the chief forecaster for the U.S. stock market... Ms. Cohen, who was the top-ranked strategist in Institutional Investor's surveys in 1998 and 1999, stayed bullish on computer-related stocks for too long as the S&P 500 suffered a bear market from March, 2000, to October, 2002. She said in October, 2000, that technology shares would be a good investment in 2001. The S&P 500 information technology index lost 26 per cent that year.

Abby Joseph Cohen, the second-most-bullish Wall Street strategist at the start of the year, was replaced by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. as the chief forecaster for the U.S. stock market. "People have been disappointed in her outlook over the years, and she's been pegged as overly bullish on the market."


WishingWealth wrote:An interesting graph at http://www.itulip.com/realdow.htm

adrian2 wrote:There are 3 types of truth distortions: lies, damned lies and statistics.

Return to Financial News, Policy and Economics
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests