goodness, the dow today over 9400 and nasdaq over 1800, i remember the
dow in the 600 range in the 70's when the market would rise by just a
few points and be considered a great day... a buy & hold, i only invest
in stocks, nooo bonds, nooo funds, nooo index and perhaps the difference
from most, is that i manage the positions instead of just buy & forget,
such as with the shorting opportunities since year 2000 have been quite
profitable... if y'all suggesting "volume" is not sooo high, then
obvious, y'all a trader and not an investor, fer a trader needs either
volume or volatility to make money, somethin' one who invests based on
fundamentals and marketing might prefer to avoid... per the rise and
fall of currencies, of which reflects the pursuit of interest rate
yield, i have fun investing in foregin stocks, both the u.s. listed adr
and within foreign exchanges, particularly within the energy sector, fer
which the cycle has been an elongated one this time 'round and imho both
china plus russia stocks will continue to be profitable investments fer
quite some time to come... investing within foreign exchanges, one
should be prepared to deal with accounting and exchange rules that can
differ greatly from ours... the discussion on taxes and royalties within
the energy sector, is like painting a picture of where the various
companies explore / produce, thus aiding greatly to pick the stock
winners from the losers... if y'all just starting out investing, might i
suggest to stick with companies that R making money, versus those who
just burn money, fer they more likely will have a product that has a
longer life... and forget that phrase, buy on the rumor / sell on the
news, fer that only pertains to day or swing traders, not investors...
and i would never listen to the analysts or the market performance
report, instead, i'd simply look fer a good company to invest in, a much
easier path, than risking y'all's hard earned money on mere hopes and
dreams... and last, but not least, don't diversify beyond where y'all
can't keep up with, fer imho, the whole concept of being greatly
diversified was started by fund managers, suggesting that an individual
can't do as well as the wall street sooo called experts, of which, that
dog don't hunt...

Nashville Pete wrote:
- quote -

This is getting OT but I think it's an interesting issue related to oil
& US oil companies...and a reason why dollars rather than Euros will
probably flow to Iraq. Perhaps even a motivation for buying oil stocks.

As part of the reconstruction in Iraq (if you can even call it that) a
tax system is being created, last I heard - they didn't really have one,
funding came from oil revenues. Some commentary I've read suggests oil
will continue to play a big role, via an oil tax - it could be the only
tax imposed. I think it's likely that it will play a big role, because
arguably US oil wants as big a tax imposed as possible.

Now why would US oil want to pay high oil taxes to Iraq? Because they've
been doing this for years in other countries, to take advantage of the
foreign tax credit. Let's say Iraq sells some unit of oil at $1.00.
Instead of paying a $1.00 royalty to the foreign-run oil entity, with no
tax, much better to pay, say, a $0.40 royalty and a $0.60 tax. The lower
royalty "cost" for the oil helps the bottom line, enhancing corporate
pre-tax profits. So they pay higher taxes, right? Nope - the $0.60 tax
paid to Iraq becomes a foreign tax CREDIT rather than an expense applied
against profits, as long as it's all done properly.

So it's still the same transaction, $1 goes to Iraq paid by the oil
company. But because of the so-called tax component, US taxes on the
phantom profit aren't paid, they're offset by credits for "taxes" paid
to the foreign country. Check the net taxes rates paid by energy
companies...they're some of the lowest among the different industrial
sectors. This is all perfectly legal by the way, I'm not suggesting
they're evading taxes improperly. You'll find a press release on the
Chevron site citing its clean bill of health after an IRS audit on the
practice in Indonesia.

Is this anything to get upset about? Maybe not, one answer is to simply
buy oil stocks and enjoy the profits, and keep an eye on the issue. But
the net result is that the oil company pays lower US taxes, shifting to
burden elsewhere, ie to you & me. And tax dollars that would go to the
US gov't land in the hands of a foreign entity. Iraq gets new roads, and
I-5 gets potholes. Forget racketeering on Wall St - what about
racketeering by big oil & its temporarily-displaced-to-DC execs?

-Tad

Without the dollar's position as petrodollar for the world ( world currency
of reserve, the dollar tied to oil rather than to gold) the US would have
found it impossible to reach this point where we have this huge negative
trade balance which for any other country would have subjected that country
to the harshest financial consequences. The Federal Reserve Bank is
destroying the dollar as the world currency of reserve through inflating the
currency.

Let's get real, as China trade increases with Europe they will begin
conducting transactions in Euro's. Some of the OPEC countries will sell
their oil for Euro's. And the dollar will surely decline vs other
currencies. Welcome to the "New World Order".

- quote -

"Nashville Pete" <poremski[at]comcast.net> wrote in message news:<irqdnaZdy-MS4tOiU-KYuA[at]comcast.com> ...
- quote -


For the dollar to lose its status as the world currency of reserve,
there has to be a meaningful rival. As a citizen of the European
Union, I can tell you that Europe, and the euro, will never be able to
take on that role meaningfully: we might become the preferred currency
of reserve for the CIS, Belarus etc, but there is no way we are going
to be the world currency of reserve. I don't think the yen is a
player, either.

I am a bear on the dollar, but simply because the US current account
deficit is out of whack, and eventually must return towards balance
(the southeast asians cannot keep lending to the US, infinitely and
forever). I believe the dollar needs an extended period below
purchasing power parity to achieve this: I would suggest a further 20%
fall against the euro/yen as a place to start. China also needs to
revalue upwards by at least 15%, but is unlikely to do so for domestic
political reasons, which will place further stress on the dollar v.
other currencies.

But the economic problems in the rest of the world (and the political
ones) are in general far worse than those in the US. While I am no
friend of the Bush Administration, the fundamental strengths of the US
system and position are far greater than anywhere else. For example,
Japan and Western Europe are going to have *falling* populations by
the 2020s: think what this will do to our economies!

At the margin, there is some Arab money switching to european assets.
But the bulk of US debt securities are held by asians, who show no
sign of seeking to plough their money into sclerotic, xenophobic
europe.

Bush and his crew have managed
- quote -

I don't think this is the forum to discuss this except in its
implications for personal investors. Which broadly are:

- higher deficit than otherwise, and therefore higher bond yields
- more sluggish longterm outlook for the US economy (but a very
marginal effect at most)
- greater opportunities for defence technology companies, and
companies providing outsourced services to the military

as he declared cessation of
- quote -

Not likely. We pay over $4/US gal for petrol in the UK, and most of
that is tax: indeed we had a national fuel strike, which stopped the
entire country cold, over the level of vehicle fuel tax. While I
happen to think that for a small, densely populated country that will
(shortly) import all of its oil requirements, this is entirely
appropriate (to have very high gasoline prices), there is no question
that this is as a result of taxation policy, not world market prices.

Double the world price of oil, and the price of gasoline in the US
would not double, assuming taxes stay the same. That is mathematics.
Double the price of oil, and demand will drop. That is economics.


- quote -

Once equilibrium is reached, I believe foreigners will continue to
hold the world's safest securities. Getting to the new equilibrium
could be tricky: but then, long bond yields have risen the fastest in
history in the last 2 months, with few apparent ill effects.

In the long run Wall Street will
- quote -

Yes. But that is not simply because US markets appear to be
overvalued (which they do: but profits are rising faster than
forecasts).


- quote -

I agree except for one significant point. There is a "New World Order", it
is clear that sooner than later the dollar will no longer be the sole
currency for the world-wide purchase of oil. Bush and his crew have managed
to totally screw up the situation in Iraq as he declared cessation of
hostilities and allowed 400,000 lower ranking enemy troops to simply
disappear into the population with their weapons, ammunition, and RPG's. to
now kill our US warriors at their leisure. Once the UN, France and Germany
are back then Iraqi oil will again be sold for Euros and the US Petro-dollar
dominance will be broken and we too will be paying $6.00/gal for gasoline.

We will see a long term decline in the value of the dollar and an
accompanying drop in foreign investment in US Bonds and equities with
accompanying drop in stock and bond prices. In the long run Wall Street will
recover but by that time we'll all be dead. I still maintain diversification
must include both currency and non-equities diversification.
...
- quote -

"Nashville Pete" <poremski[at]comcast.net> wrote in message news:<C7CcncVuXPirj9CiXTWJiw[at]comcast.com> ...
- quote -

These certainly exist. See American Century.


- quote -

Vanguard has a REIT index fund

Precious
- quote -

I have seen one or two, though do not have US references.

- quote -


Country funds come in and out of favour and usually trade at
substantial discounts. Chinese stocks are on forbidding PEs, with no
tradition or legal framework of ensuring minority shareholder rights.
In addition, China is in the middle of a severe asset price bubble: I
urge you to visit China and confirm this for yourself.

For my money, India is potentially as interesting. India can
potentially integrate far more easily with the global economy,
providing outsourced services. And the legal and political system are
far more western friendly.


- quote -

I have to say that I view the US financial markets as offering the
consumer the lowest cost, best value products of any market in the
world. Via a company like Vanguard, the US private investor can
invest in an incredible range of assets and markets, at very low cost
and with almost complete transparency.

There are exceptions: US investors, and Vanguard in particular, have
historically neglected non US dollar markets (but then, John Templeton
was investing in 'emerging' markets in the 1950s). UK markets (and in
particular investment trusts ie closed end investment funds) have long
had a more outward looking view. The railroads in the US and
Argentina in the 19th century were financed by UK investment trusts
which are still in existence today.

What has happened recently on Wall Street is that the system ran amok
in a general environment of greed and hype. The accounting firms and
investment banks successfully blocked reformist legislation supported
by Arthur Levitt in his time as head of the SEC, in an environment in
the 1990s when everyone was making money, so no one was paying close
attention.

This happens with every stock market boom, the 1920s or the 1960s were
no different: read 'The Great Crash' or 'The Go Go years'. The post
1929 regime (SEC, Glass Steagall etc.) means the US individual
investor still enjoys the most level playing field of any major stock
market (shareholder rights is an almost unknown term in much of
Continental Europe) and it is US institutions that have led the fight
for greater minority shareholder rights in many markets. Striking
improvements in corporate governance and transparency have occurred
in, for example, German companies when they began to list on the NYSE.

You cannot legislate against human stupidity. Americans are free to
inform themselves about the impacts of costs on fund performance, the
high level of fees on many active funds, the advantages in most cases
of indexing. Whether they do so or not is not something that the
government can legislate for (with at least one caveat: every 401k
ought to have a simple, low cost, index based 'default' option, I
would argue for a balanced fund with 100 minus age equal to the per
cent. in stocks).

Correct, except very little mention, since they don't sell the stuff, of
foreign denominated CD's, foreign unhedged Bond Funds, REIT Funds, Precious
Metal Funds, unhedged foreign stock funds including a few fine China Funds.
Most of the diversification pimped by Wall Street are various
classifications of different categories of US equities providing very little
real diversification. In today's world, diversification must include both
currency and non-equities diversification





"Elizabeth Richardson" <erichktn[at]worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:gj33b.115756$0v4.8293996[at]bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

- quote -

On 27 Aug 2003 01:45:12 GMT, "Nashville Pete" <poremski[at]comcast.netwrote:

- quote -

I suspect this problem has more to do with investment technique than
investment advice from Wall Street.

For example, in my opinion buy-and-hold is not foolish. Lots of folks
who have been investing for 20-30+ years were buying S+P 500 stocks
when the SP500 was around 100. Today, even with the recent
unpleasantness, the SP500 is around 1000. I would like more of that
"foolish" behavior. <grin
True, if you have a short-term perspective, and only see investments
as beginning in the late-90s, then buy-and-hold suffers FOR NOW. But
the long-term investors would counter that this is a short-sighted
view (a problem with investment technique.)

I can understand why active investors (not buy-and-hold) would have
arguments with advisors in this climate. But then that is one of the
risks of active management - nobody can predict the short-term future
with any long-term consistency. It reminds me of the joke: "Where are
all the OLD gurus?"


-HW "Skip" Weldon
Columbia, SC

It baffles me that dozens of items of good news, indicating a strong
economy on the rebound, have come out in the last week - yet the
markets are tumbling. They say it's because of low volume since many
brokers are on vacation this week.

Say what? Classes in public schools here in Texas began two weeks
ago. Nobody is on vacation down here ~ I'm sure at least half the
states are the same way.

If that is the case, then the low volume is a result of racketeering,
a conspiracy by stock brokers to not trade this week so that when they
return to their desks after Labor Day the markets will be artificially
low and they can make an instant profit. I think when they return
from vacation next week they should have a summons from the Justice
Department to explain this low volume and why they have misled the
public as to its cause.

Bill Clark, P.E.
(Professional Engineer)
Austin, Texas