[XBoxBoy]

Put simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.

Bad news indeed.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Put simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.

Bad news indeed.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

Put simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.

Bad news indeed.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=streak]We can get up to 6% leaving the money in the bank here which during uncertain times is a viable option.

What do the risk averse folks with cash in the USA do, CDs?[/quote]

If you can get 6% where you are, then that’s way bigger of a yield than the 1 to 1-1/4% you’re likely to get on savings in the bank here. Of course you’ll need to consider whether the Rand will fall in relation to the dollar.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=streak]We can get up to 6% leaving the money in the bank here which during uncertain times is a viable option.

What do the risk averse folks with cash in the USA do, CDs?[/quote]

If you can get 6% where you are, then that’s way bigger of a yield than the 1 to 1-1/4% you’re likely to get on savings in the bank here. Of course you’ll need to consider whether the Rand will fall in relation to the dollar.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=streak]We can get up to 6% leaving the money in the bank here which during uncertain times is a viable option.

What do the risk averse folks with cash in the USA do, CDs?[/quote]

If you can get 6% where you are, then that’s way bigger of a yield than the 1 to 1-1/4% you’re likely to get on savings in the bank here. Of course you’ll need to consider whether the Rand will fall in relation to the dollar.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=streak]We can get up to 6% leaving the money in the bank here which during uncertain times is a viable option.

What do the risk averse folks with cash in the USA do, CDs?[/quote]

If you can get 6% where you are, then that’s way bigger of a yield than the 1 to 1-1/4% you’re likely to get on savings in the bank here. Of course you’ll need to consider whether the Rand will fall in relation to the dollar.

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=streak]We can get up to 6% leaving the money in the bank here which during uncertain times is a viable option.

What do the risk averse folks with cash in the USA do, CDs?[/quote]

If you can get 6% where you are, then that’s way bigger of a yield than the 1 to 1-1/4% you’re likely to get on savings in the bank here. Of course you’ll need to consider whether the Rand will fall in relation to the dollar.

[XBoxBoy]

It really just depends on what you feel will be the return on your various options.

For instance, if you have cash, what are you going to do with that cash? Put it in short term treasuries and earn zero interest? Put it in the stock market and maybe make a killing or maybe lose half of it? Put it in gold and who knows how that’s gonna turn out?

Also, if you buy a quadplex now and the value of the quadplex drops, you might have a hard time getting your money out. Also, where and at what price you buy this quadplex will have a big impact on your return. Also, how interested are you in being a landlord?

Personally, I’m of the opinion that because the fed and the govt have made it painful to be a saver, most investors are taking on way more risk, while trying to chase returns, then they realize or admit. Consequently, very few investments are worth pursuing.

If you have cash, seems to me it’s better to use the cash to buy the house. If the house value drops, well at least you’ve got a place to live. It’s not the most daring plan, and you won’t get rich off it, but as mentioned, you’ll have a house to live in.

I’m sure that plenty will disagree with me though. There is certainly an argument that if you can borrow you should, as you open up the opportunity for leverage. (and bankruptcy too, but that’s a detail)

Just my two cents.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

It really just depends on what you feel will be the return on your various options.

For instance, if you have cash, what are you going to do with that cash? Put it in short term treasuries and earn zero interest? Put it in the stock market and maybe make a killing or maybe lose half of it? Put it in gold and who knows how that’s gonna turn out?

Also, if you buy a quadplex now and the value of the quadplex drops, you might have a hard time getting your money out. Also, where and at what price you buy this quadplex will have a big impact on your return. Also, how interested are you in being a landlord?

Personally, I’m of the opinion that because the fed and the govt have made it painful to be a saver, most investors are taking on way more risk, while trying to chase returns, then they realize or admit. Consequently, very few investments are worth pursuing.

If you have cash, seems to me it’s better to use the cash to buy the house. If the house value drops, well at least you’ve got a place to live. It’s not the most daring plan, and you won’t get rich off it, but as mentioned, you’ll have a house to live in.

I’m sure that plenty will disagree with me though. There is certainly an argument that if you can borrow you should, as you open up the opportunity for leverage. (and bankruptcy too, but that’s a detail)

Just my two cents.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

It really just depends on what you feel will be the return on your various options.

For instance, if you have cash, what are you going to do with that cash? Put it in short term treasuries and earn zero interest? Put it in the stock market and maybe make a killing or maybe lose half of it? Put it in gold and who knows how that’s gonna turn out?

Also, if you buy a quadplex now and the value of the quadplex drops, you might have a hard time getting your money out. Also, where and at what price you buy this quadplex will have a big impact on your return. Also, how interested are you in being a landlord?

Personally, I’m of the opinion that because the fed and the govt have made it painful to be a saver, most investors are taking on way more risk, while trying to chase returns, then they realize or admit. Consequently, very few investments are worth pursuing.

If you have cash, seems to me it’s better to use the cash to buy the house. If the house value drops, well at least you’ve got a place to live. It’s not the most daring plan, and you won’t get rich off it, but as mentioned, you’ll have a house to live in.

I’m sure that plenty will disagree with me though. There is certainly an argument that if you can borrow you should, as you open up the opportunity for leverage. (and bankruptcy too, but that’s a detail)

Just my two cents.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

It really just depends on what you feel will be the return on your various options.

For instance, if you have cash, what are you going to do with that cash? Put it in short term treasuries and earn zero interest? Put it in the stock market and maybe make a killing or maybe lose half of it? Put it in gold and who knows how that’s gonna turn out?

Also, if you buy a quadplex now and the value of the quadplex drops, you might have a hard time getting your money out. Also, where and at what price you buy this quadplex will have a big impact on your return. Also, how interested are you in being a landlord?

Personally, I’m of the opinion that because the fed and the govt have made it painful to be a saver, most investors are taking on way more risk, while trying to chase returns, then they realize or admit. Consequently, very few investments are worth pursuing.

If you have cash, seems to me it’s better to use the cash to buy the house. If the house value drops, well at least you’ve got a place to live. It’s not the most daring plan, and you won’t get rich off it, but as mentioned, you’ll have a house to live in.

I’m sure that plenty will disagree with me though. There is certainly an argument that if you can borrow you should, as you open up the opportunity for leverage. (and bankruptcy too, but that’s a detail)

Just my two cents.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

It really just depends on what you feel will be the return on your various options.

For instance, if you have cash, what are you going to do with that cash? Put it in short term treasuries and earn zero interest? Put it in the stock market and maybe make a killing or maybe lose half of it? Put it in gold and who knows how that’s gonna turn out?

Also, if you buy a quadplex now and the value of the quadplex drops, you might have a hard time getting your money out. Also, where and at what price you buy this quadplex will have a big impact on your return. Also, how interested are you in being a landlord?

Personally, I’m of the opinion that because the fed and the govt have made it painful to be a saver, most investors are taking on way more risk, while trying to chase returns, then they realize or admit. Consequently, very few investments are worth pursuing.

If you have cash, seems to me it’s better to use the cash to buy the house. If the house value drops, well at least you’ve got a place to live. It’s not the most daring plan, and you won’t get rich off it, but as mentioned, you’ll have a house to live in.

I’m sure that plenty will disagree with me though. There is certainly an argument that if you can borrow you should, as you open up the opportunity for leverage. (and bankruptcy too, but that’s a detail)

Just my two cents.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=davelj]Occasionally, stock prices ARE linked to the underlying fundamentals of the company. The problem, of course, is that this is the exception rather than the rule.

…snip…

as you can see from the performance of US stocks in aggregate over the last 130 years, stocks can spend long periods of time – up to 10 years in some cases – dramatically over- and under-valued.[/quote]

I absolutely agree! With the qualification that I often wonder if we have reached a place of permanently disconnected stock prices. Seems to me stock prices left fundamentals sometime in the early ’90’s and haven’t been there since. Are they ever going to return to being based on fundamentals? Not sure which way I’d vote on that.

[quote=davelj][quote=XBoxBoy]
Typically, when a company buys another company and then lays off a bunch of workers, that stock will bounce. [/quote]

This is incorrect. Typically when one company buys another – regardless of proposed “synergies” – the acquirer’s stock goes down. This occurs in at least 80% of cases and there are reams of academic studies supporting this.

…snip…

OCCASIONALLY, the stock of the acquirer will go up when a merger or acquisition is announced. But this is the exception rather than the rule.[/quote]

Dave, I don’t know how often this happens, and you could easily be right that it’s only 20% of the time whereas 80% of the time the aquiring companies stock goes down. I don’t watch many individual stocks, only those in my industry, video games. From what I see, it is common for a publisher’s stock to bounce up when they buy a developer. The joke of this is that usually three or four years later the publisher closes the developer, having gotten nothing out of them but having successfully run the developer into the ground.

I think the interesting question would be, given that sometimes the acquiring companies stock goes up and sometimes it goes down, what percent of the time is this movement a good predictor of the success of the merger? In other words, does that stock price movement correlate to the actual improvement or deterioration in acquiring company fundamentals? My hunch is that there is very little correlation, and that this is another example of stock prices not being based on the businesses fundamentals but instead based on the perceptions of traders.

XBoxBoy

[XBoxBoy]

[quote=davelj]Occasionally, stock prices ARE linked to the underlying fundamentals of the company. The problem, of course, is that this is the exception rather than the rule.

…snip…

as you can see from the performance of US stocks in aggregate over the last 130 years, stocks can spend long periods of time – up to 10 years in some cases – dramatically over- and under-valued.[/quote]

I absolutely agree! With the qualification that I often wonder if we have reached a place of permanently disconnected stock prices. Seems to me stock prices left fundamentals sometime in the early ’90’s and haven’t been there since. Are they ever going to return to being based on fundamentals? Not sure which way I’d vote on that.

[quote=davelj][quote=XBoxBoy]
Typically, when a company buys another company and then lays off a bunch of workers, that stock will bounce. [/quote]

This is incorrect. Typically when one company buys another – regardless of proposed “synergies” – the acquirer’s stock goes down. This occurs in at least 80% of cases and there are reams of academic studies supporting this.

…snip…

OCCASIONALLY, the stock of the acquirer will go up when a merger or acquisition is announced. But this is the exception rather than the rule.[/quote]

Dave, I don’t know how often this happens, and you could easily be right that it’s only 20% of the time whereas 80% of the time the aquiring companies stock goes down. I don’t watch many individual stocks, only those in my industry, video games. From what I see, it is common for a publisher’s stock to bounce up when they buy a developer. The joke of this is that usually three or four years later the publisher closes the developer, having gotten nothing out of them but having successfully run the developer into the ground.

I think the interesting question would be, given that sometimes the acquiring companies stock goes up and sometimes it goes down, what percent of the time is this movement a good predictor of the success of the merger? In other words, does that stock price movement correlate to the actual improvement or deterioration in acquiring company fundamentals? My hunch is that there is very little correlation, and that this is another example of stock prices not being based on the businesses fundamentals but instead based on the perceptions of traders.

XBoxBoy

[Author]

Posts