DJIA returns 1914-1990 & other goodies
Mad Vlad
period 1914-1990
1914 -5.1%
1915 81.7%
16 -4.2
17 -21.7
18 10.5
19 30.5
20 -32.9
21 12.7
22 21.7
23 -3.3
24 26.2
25 30.0
26 .3
27 28.8
28 48.2
29 -17.2
30 -33.8
31 -52.7
32 -23.1
33 66.7
34 4.1
35 38.5
36 24.8
37 -32.8
38 28.1
39 -2.9
40 -12.7
41 -15.4
42 7.6
43 13.8
44 12.1
45 26.6
46 -8.1
47 2.2
48 -2.1
49 12.9
50 17.6
51 14.4
52 8.4
53 -3.8
54 44.0
55 20.8
56 2.3
57 -12.8
58 34.0
59 16.4
60 -9.3
61 18.7
62 -10.8
63 17.0
64 14.6
65 10.9
66 -18.9
67 15.2
68 4.3
69 -15.2
70 4.8
71 6.1
72 14.6
73 -16.6
74 -27.6
75 38.3
76 17.9
77 -17.3
78 -3.1
79 4.2
80 14.9
81 -9.2
82 19.6
83 20.3
84 -3.7
85 27.7
86 22.6
87 +2.3
88 11.8
89 27.0
90 -4.3
Greatest Bull Markets Since 1890
1) 1921-1929 +497%
2) 1932-2937 +372%
3) 1982-1990 +286%
4) 1949-1956 +222%
Greatest Bear Markets Since 1890
1) 1929-1932 -89%
2) 1937-1942 -52%
3) 1906-1907 -49%
4) 1890-1896 and 1919-1921 -47%
1973-74 rates seventh with a decline of 45%. 1987 qualifies
merely as a selling panic.
"From a fundamental standpoint, portfolios should be liquidated
if the Dow Jones price-earnings(PE) ratio approaches 20 times
earnings in a maturing advance. In depression troughs and
early recovery periods, a high ratio is not a valid danger
signal."
Currently, the DJIA PE is moving through 20 to the downside.
JD Brown also mentions something that I've brought up in my
posts on biotech companies: "Biotechnology has enormous
promise, but many of the stocks are priced as if they
already had packaged a combination nostrum for AIDS and
cancer. Patient health investors will prosper with the
veteran drug companies."
R&D power and expertise shall rule the day. Again. Merck,
anyone?
source: 101 Years on Wall Street, JD Brown
Mad Vlad
I have the numbers so I can do the calcs for the 1929
experience of the 30yo(1929) investor.
Broward Horne
In a previous article, eng...@helix.nih.gov (Mad Vlad) says:
>Here are the DJIA returns(dividends not included) for the
>period 1914-1990
>
>1914 -5.1%
>1915 81.7% <- This is totally interesting, considering that WWI
had started and whopper inflation was on the way. :)
>
>Greatest Bull Markets Since 1890
>
>1) 1921-1929 +497%
>2) 1932-2937 +372% <- I KNEW Vlad could see the future!
Good to know I can count on my money
growing for the next millenium.
>3) 1982-1990 +286%
>4) 1949-1956 +222%
>
>
>
>Greatest Bear Markets Since 1890 Greatest Bull Markets Since 1890
>
>1) 1929-1932 -89% 1) 1921-1929 +497%
>2) 1937-1942 -52% 2) 1932-1937 +372%
>3) 1906-1907 -49%
>4) 1890-1896 and 1919-1921 -47%
I wonder where that puts 1982-1990? :)
1890-1896 is pretty interesting. Total investments in electricity
increased by 400% from 1890 to 1900. :) What do you suppose makes
biotech different? :)
>"From a fundamental standpoint, portfolios should be liquidated
>if the Dow Jones price-earnings(PE) ratio approaches 20 times
>earnings in a maturing advance. In depression troughs and
>early recovery periods, a high ratio is not a valid danger
>signal."
>Currently, the DJIA PE is moving through 20 to the downside.
>JD Brown also mentions something that I've brought up in my
>posts on biotech companies: "Biotechnology has enormous
>promise, but many of the stocks are priced as if they
>already had packaged a combination nostrum for AIDS and
>cancer. Patient health investors will prosper with the
>veteran drug companies."
ICOS is trading at least 40% under its peak 1993 price. :)
Gad, "veteran drug companies". You mean, like, how IBM was
a veteran computer company? I don't know, Vlad, I really
don't know on this one.
>R&D power and expertise shall rule the day. Again. Merck,
>anyone?
If R&D power and expertise rule the day, then the
collary is that "Microsoft was a fluke". Are you
prepared to bet money on this? :)
--
I am
an educational
Juggernaught
and I'm radioactive.
$tanley J. $ramek
eng...@helix.nih.gov (Mad Vlad) writes:
>Here are the DJIA returns(dividends not included) for the
>period 1914-1990
[material deleted]
>Greatest Bull Markets Since 1890
>1) 1921-1929 +497%
>2) 1932-2937 +372%
>3) 1982-1990 +286%
>4) 1949-1956 +222%
>Greatest Bear Markets Since 1890
>1) 1929-1932 -89%
>2) 1937-1942 -52%
>3) 1906-1907 -49%
>4) 1890-1896 and 1919-1921 -47%
[remaining material deleted]
My comments:
Why did this author cut off bull market #4 at 1956? Looking at my own
hand-drawn (semi-logarithmic) plot of the DJIA from 1910 to present, it
looks to me as though that bull market should have run to 1965. Has
somebody made a typo ("1956" instead of "1965")?
**************************************************************************
* $tanley J. $ramek I flame thee not, and flamed not would I be. *
* Physics Ph.D. You too I ask to hold this rule of gold: *
* Doggerel Poet "To others do as you would they to thee." *
* Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Thy kindness may return ten thousand fold! *
**************************************************************************
* My posted statements do not reflect the views of my employer. *
**************************************************************************
Mad Vlad
(Broward Horne) wrote:
>
>
>
> >Currently, the DJIA PE is moving through 20 to the downside.
> >JD Brown also mentions something that I've brought up in my
> >posts on biotech companies: "Biotechnology has enormous
> >promise, but many of the stocks are priced as if they
> >already had packaged a combination nostrum for AIDS and
> >cancer. Patient health investors will prosper with the
> >veteran drug companies."
>
> ICOS is trading at least 40% under its peak 1993 price. :)
>
> Gad, "veteran drug companies". You mean, like, how IBM was
> a veteran computer company? I don't know, Vlad, I really
> don't know on this one.
>
> >R&D power and expertise shall rule the day. Again. Merck,
> >anyone?
>
> If R&D power and expertise rule the day, then the
> collary is that "Microsoft was a fluke". Are you
> prepared to bet money on this? :)
>
>
I already have!!!!!!
Mad Vlad
Broward Horne
In a previous article, eng...@helix.nih.gov (Mad Vlad) says:
>>
> I already have!!!!!!
>
>Mad Vlad
I'm in the process of dumping _The Great Reckoning_ as my play
book, and replacing it with _The Great Boom Ahead_. There's
jsut too many things that aren't right now.
_The Great Boom Ahead_ predicts that we won't see any more
inflation for the next 20 years. He's got some interesting
graphs, and the damn NYSE STILL hasn't crashed.
"Removal of the inflation tax is going to be a rocket
launcher setting off economic recovery"
His contention is that the Big Blowout will occur sometime
around 2009-2010, as the baby boomers cut spending as they
enter their 50s. Got this? Okay, well, it sure fits with what I
personally believe. I played around with demographic numbers
about two years ago, but I couldn't get any good correlations.
I looked at birthrate, but I admit, I didn't think of offsetting
it by 50 years, or examing spending patterns.
So. We get the big Bust in 15 years. Due to reduced spending.
If we had gotten the big Bust now, like I thought, I figured,
hey, biotech is history. Under _The Great Boom_ scenario, however,
things change. Now I can expect 15 solid years of research,
under ideal conditions. The author also has some interesting
views on technological innovations being linked to generations.
So, try out this scenario. _The Great Boom_ turns out to
accurately predict everything for 10 solid years. Everybody
comes to realized the big Bust is due in 2009. Due to reduced
spending patterns. What could be more artistically pleasing
than a would-be Bust short-circuited through outlays on
anti-aging biotechnology?
I just like the symmetry of this. :)
Mad Vlad
(Broward Horne) wrote:
>
>
> In a previous article, eng...@helix.nih.gov (Mad Vlad) says:
>
> >>
> > I already have!!!!!!
> >
> >Mad Vlad
>
>
> I'm in the process of dumping _The Great Reckoning_ as my play
> book, and replacing it with _The Great Boom Ahead_. There's
> jsut too many things that aren't right now.
From one extreme to the other. Doesn't the author(Dent ?)
contend that before the great boom we'll see Dow 1700 or
something like that? THen, by 2003-2006 we see Dow 10000.
You're bouncing of the walls, Brow! Ritalin anyone!?
>
> _The Great Boom Ahead_ predicts that we won't see any more
> inflation for the next 20 years. He's got some interesting
> graphs, and the damn NYSE STILL hasn't crashed.
>
> "Removal of the inflation tax is going to be a rocket
> launcher setting off economic recovery"
>
> His contention is that the Big Blowout will occur sometime
> around 2009-2010, as the baby boomers cut spending as they
> enter their 50s.
Kenneth Fisher advocated this in a summer '93 issue of
Forbes. Except his bust was due in 2015 or thereabouts
due to the bboomers entering retirement and I offered
an extension of his thinking through the demise of
the tax base to retirement. I posted on this in Oct
or nov of '93. My bust was due in the 2017-2020 range.
I assumed that the bulk of the bboomers were born in
1955 using that as the avg btw the great baby boom of 1946-
64. Greg M later posted that the peak was 1957 I think.
I assumed a bell shaped curve over the period with 1955
playing host to the bulk of bboomer births. I based
my argument on the collapse of the Fed tax base and thus a
decline in the ability, and the size, of the central govt.
to conduct its business. No more or greatly reduced
subsidies and the like. You get the picture.
I assumed that taxpayers would stay on until age 65 for
the most part. The 2017-2020 range accts for mass retirings
at age 62-65. Whatever.
Got this? Okay, well, it sure fits with what I
> personally believe. I played around with demographic numbers
> about two years ago, but I couldn't get any good correlations.
> I looked at birthrate, but I admit, I didn't think of offsetting
> it by 50 years, or examing spending patterns.
>
> So. We get the big Bust in 15 years. Due to reduced spending.
>
> If we had gotten the big Bust now, like I thought, I figured,
> hey, biotech is history. Under _The Great Boom_ scenario, however,
> things change. Now I can expect 15 solid years of research,
*###########################
Thanks, Brow, you just made my point! Research, like love, takes
time. And it involves blind alleys and irreproducible results.
Sounds a lot like love. The basic premise in private industry
research and prod dev will be simply dollars and sense. If it
don't make dollars, it don't make sense!
> under ideal conditions. The author also has some interesting
> views on technological innovations being linked to generations.
>
> So, try out this scenario. _The Great Boom_ turns out to
> accurately predict everything for 10 solid years. Everybody
> comes to realized the big Bust is due in 2009. Due to reduced
> spending patterns. What could be more artistically pleasing
> than a would-be Bust short-circuited through outlays on
> anti-aging biotechnology?
>
> I just like the symmetry of this. :)
So, Broward. You're giving us the green light to buy
stocks now, huh? With a straight face no lesS?
I still don't know if the world is ready for a happy
Broward! Is the net ready for a happy Broward? Let's
take a poll! Email the Madman with your vote. Yes
or no on the net being ready for a new and improved
Happy Broward! I'll post totals if there is more than
one vote.
Mad VLad
Mad Vlad
> > So. We get the big Bust in 15 years. Due to reduced spending.
> >
> > If we had gotten the big Bust now, like I thought, I figured,
> > hey, biotech is history. Under _The Great Boom_ scenario, however,
> > things change. Now I can expect 15 solid years of research,
> *###########################
> Thanks, Brow, you just made my point! Research, like love, takes
> time. And it involves blind alleys and irreproducible results.
> Sounds a lot like love. The basic premise in private industry
> research and prod dev will be simply dollars and sense. If it
> don't make dollars, it don't make sense!
>
>
> > under ideal conditions. The author also has some interesting
BTW, I forgot to add this in my previous reply. Broward,
if you're ever going to be in the neighborhood, Wash DC and surroundings,
feel free to drop me an email to that effect and I'll show you
our facilities. And I don't mean the restrooms!
Mad Vlad
>
Broward Horne
In a previous article, eng...@helix.nih.gov (Mad Vlad) says:
>
>
>
>BTW, I forgot to add this in my previous reply. Broward,
>if you're ever going to be in the neighborhood, Wash DC and surroundings,
>feel free to drop me an email to that effect and I'll show you
>our facilities. And I don't mean the restrooms!
Thanks. You almost made me choke on my lunch. Suddenly
it dawns on me that I probably WILL be in D.C. sometime
in the next year. I HAD been hoping to get over to Seattle
this summer and harass Dr. Hood, but NIH is probably just
as good. Count me in, if my flights take me there.
>Mad Vlad
Duane Jacobson
: or nov of '93. My bust was due in the 2017-2020 range.
: I assumed that the bulk of the bboomers were born in
: 1955 using that as the avg btw the great baby boom of 1946-
: 64. Greg M later posted that the peak was 1957 I think.
: I assumed a bell shaped curve over the period with 1955
: playing host to the bulk of bboomer births. I based
: my argument on the collapse of the Fed tax base and thus a
: decline in the ability, and the size, of the central govt.
: to conduct its business.
We've known for quite some time that a retired baby-boom generation is
going to create some interesting problems with respect to SS, the tax
base, etc. My question is: why aren't we (the US) actively recruiting
bright, hardworking people from other countries to come here and work?
We've got plenty of space, so why not let more people in if we need a
tax base?
Broward Horne
Ahem. Usually, although it may not appear so, postings
don't upset me. But this one. Okay, chum. I LIVED
NO, I EXISTED, in L.A. for almost THIRTY Years. I got to
watch a mini-model of this BRIGHT idea. It sucks.
I watched the population DOUBLE, crime rise, pollution,
crowding, all in the name of economic GROWTH. Hey, I say
let the people who are WORRIED about the Blowout MOVE to
the other countries for "economic prosperity".
Broward Horne
In a previous article, eng...@helix.nih.gov (Mad Vlad) says:
>In article <2m8fuc$q...@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, an...@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
>> I'm in the process of dumping _The Great Reckoning_ as my play
>> book, and replacing it with _The Great Boom Ahead_. There's
>> jsut too many things that aren't right now.
>
>From one extreme to the other. Doesn't the author(Dent ?)
>contend that before the great boom we'll see Dow 1700 or
>something like that? THen, by 2003-2006 we see Dow 10000.
>You're bouncing of the walls, Brow! Ritalin anyone!?
I KNEW somebody would say this. It's okay. It just so happens
that _The Great Boom Ahead_ is now the best match of the books
I have. I'm going to watch for two years and see how he does.
He predicts a DOW of 8000+. :)
And, I have to tell you this, Vlad. _The Great REckoning_ WAS
a great money-maker. It was a good model from 1990-1993.
I've gone from $10K of equity to $100K. :) My monthly cash
flow has risen from $1600 / month to $3000+. :) Plus, I haven't
had my car stolen, been bopped on the head, etc, for four years
now.
>Kenneth Fisher advocated this in a summer '93 issue of
>Forbes. Except his bust was due in 2015 or thereabouts
>due to the bboomers entering retirement and I offered
>an extension of his thinking through the demise of
>the tax base to retirement. I posted on this in Oct
>or nov of '93. My bust was due in the 2017-2020 range.
Well, I never pinned a date down, but it was clear to me
around 1986, when I made plans to leave CA. :) Interestingly
enough, Ravi Batra has a new target date - 2010. :)
>I assumed that the bulk of the bboomers were born in
>1955 using that as the avg btw the great baby boom of 1946-
>64. Greg M later posted that the peak was 1957 I think.
The peak was 1957-1958. I'm right in it. :)
I assumed a bell shaped curve over the period with 1955
>playing host to the bulk of bboomer births. I based
>my argument on the collapse of the Fed tax base and thus a
>decline in the ability, and the size, of the central govt.
>to conduct its business. No more or greatly reduced
>subsidies and the like. You get the picture.
Yes, I definitely get the picture. That's one reason I
have serious doubts that my pension fund will survive. I KNOW it
won't.
>I assumed that taxpayers would stay on until age 65 for
>the most part. The 2017-2020 range accts for mass retirings
>at age 62-65. Whatever.
Clearly, we can expect retirements to begin as early as 55.
My own father retired at 60. If you work out the numbers,
there should be a clear effect visible by 1998-1999.
>> So. We get the big Bust in 15 years. Due to reduced spending.
>>
>> If we had gotten the big Bust now, like I thought, I figured,
>> hey, biotech is history. Under _The Great Boom_ scenario, however,
>> things change. Now I can expect 15 solid years of research,
> *###########################
>Thanks, Brow, you just made my point! Research, like love, takes
>time. And it involves blind alleys and irreproducible results.
>Sounds a lot like love. The basic premise in private industry
>research and prod dev will be simply dollars and sense. If it
>don't make dollars, it don't make sense!
That is WHY is is HIGHLY important that the funding go into
now. It's just like your pension fund. Invest the money early,
it grows faster.
Gad, maybe I wasn't clear. The cost of NOT buying into biotech
now is greater than the cost of buying. No matter what happens.
>> So, try out this scenario. _The Great Boom_ turns out to
>> accurately predict everything for 10 solid years. Everybody
>> comes to realized the big Bust is due in 2009. Due to reduced
>> spending patterns. What could be more artistically pleasing
>> than a would-be Bust short-circuited through outlays on
>> anti-aging biotechnology?
>>
>> I just like the symmetry of this. :)
>
>So, Broward. You're giving us the green light to buy
>stocks now, huh? With a straight face no lesS?
>I still don't know if the world is ready for a happy
>Broward! Is the net ready for a happy Broward? Let's
>take a poll! Email the Madman with your vote. Yes
>or no on the net being ready for a new and improved
>Happy Broward! I'll post totals if there is more than
>one vote.
I've been pretty happy for four years.
I've been ecstatic for the past six months.
I just wish I didn't have to screw with Cost Accounting,
i'm in the mood to rip some corporate hearts out. :)
>Mad VLad
Duane Jacobson
: In a previous article, d...@hpesdlj.fc.hp.com (Duane Jacobson) says:
: >We've known for quite some time that a retired baby-boom generation is
: >going to create some interesting problems with respect to SS, the tax
: >base, etc. My question is: why aren't we (the US) actively recruiting
: >bright, hardworking people from other countries to come here and work?
: >We've got plenty of space, so why not let more people in if we need a
: >tax base?
: >
: Ahem. Usually, although it may not appear so, postings
: don't upset me. But this one. Okay, chum. I LIVED
: NO, I EXISTED, in L.A. for almost THIRTY Years. I got to
: watch a mini-model of this BRIGHT idea. It sucks.
The phrase "let more people in" was a poor choice of words on my part. I was
suggesting that it be done in a more selective fasion than just throwing the
doors open. Some of the hardest working people I've know came over here from
Korea, Indonesia, Russia, Czechoslovakia, Iran, etc, etc.
If I may rephrase the question, why does the US have to make it so damned
hard for people who are incredibly talented and dedicated to gain
citizenship, or even permanent resident status?
Mad Vlad
(Broward Horne) wrote:
>
>
> He predicts a DOW of 8000+. :)
>
> And, I have to tell you this, Vlad. _The Great REckoning_ WAS
> a great money-maker. It was a good model from 1990-1993.
>
> I've gone from $10K of equity to $100K. :) My monthly cash
> flow has risen from $1600 / month to $3000+. :) Plus, I haven't
> had my car stolen, been bopped on the head, etc, for four years
> now.
I went from a similar amount to a slightly higher similar amount-using
tried and true methodology. No thrills. No frills. Don't know
how you are 'defining' cash flow. I use what I'm able to save
after expenses + that which goes into my 401k including the
govt matching contribution. That works out to about 1600.00/
month. Otherwise, it works out to about 2700.00/month I'm single.
My car was stolen in 1989. It was recovered
and I made out like a bandit. The insurance company released
payment to me and I paid the body shop with a credit card.
Presently, that charge has yet to appear on my statement. That
charge was made in July, 1989! Any statute of limitations
on credit card charge postings? I knew something was screwy
when in early Aug, '89, the body shop's accountant called me
and asked if I had my receipt! Didn't figure it out until much
later. Years later. I still have that receipt! I've never been
bopped on the head.
>
>
>
> Well, I never pinned a date down, but it was clear to me
> around 1986, when I made plans to leave CA. :) Interestingly
> enough, Ravi Batra has a new target date - 2010. :)
Of course! The man wants to sell more books. He blew 1990.
He blew it big time!!! First it was '90 and that was published
in '86 or '87. Then it was the mid-90's and that was published in
'90 or '91. You know. The Great Depression of 1990 revised
edition! I'm not surprised he pushed it back. Now, instead
of three or four years to be proved wrong(and thus lose crdibility
as well as book sales), he has pushed it to the point that
by the time 2010 arrives, he'll have sold a kabillion books
and he won't care whether the depression hits then or
ten years later!
>
> >I assumed that the bulk of the bboomers were born in
> >1955 using that as the avg btw the great baby boom of 1946-
> >64. Greg M later posted that the peak was 1957 I think.
>
>
> The peak was 1957-1958. I'm right in it. :)
>
>
> I assumed a bell shaped curve over the period with 1955
> >playing host to the bulk of bboomer births. I based
> >my argument on the collapse of the Fed tax base and thus a
> >decline in the ability, and the size, of the central govt.
> >to conduct its business. No more or greatly reduced
> >subsidies and the like. You get the picture.
>
>
> Yes, I definitely get the picture. That's one reason I
> have serious doubts that my pension fund will survive. I KNOW it
> won't.
>
>
> >I assumed that taxpayers would stay on until age 65 for
> >the most part. The 2017-2020 range accts for mass retirings
> >at age 62-65. Whatever.
>
>
> Clearly, we can expect retirements to begin as early as 55.
> My own father retired at 60. If you work out the numbers,
> there should be a clear effect visible by 1998-1999.
If Bboomers are hard up for retirement savings and sending
their 2.1kids to college, then I think there will be a minimal
early retirement wave(less than 60). The financial press
cannot rave enough about how woefully prepared for retirement
the Bboomers are. The anemic 4.7% savings rate is the favorite
ammunition.
>
>
> >> So. We get the big Bust in 15 years. Due to reduced spending.
> >>
> >> If we had gotten the big Bust now, like I thought, I figured,
> >> hey, biotech is history. Under _The Great Boom_ scenario, however,
> >> things change. Now I can expect 15 solid years of research,
> > *###########################
> >Thanks, Brow, you just made my point! Research, like love, takes
> >time. And it involves blind alleys and irreproducible results.
> >Sounds a lot like love. The basic premise in private industry
> >research and prod dev will be simply dollars and sense. If it
> >don't make dollars, it don't make sense!
>
>
> That is WHY is is HIGHLY important that the funding go into
> now. It's just like your pension fund. Invest the money early,
> it grows faster.
Ahhh! It sounds like you are changing your tone from the
housing crash thread! If just a little. Clarification of your
position maybe. So maybe we were not in complete understanding
of each other's position at the outset? We're closer than the
Housing crash thread debate would lead one to believe.
>
> Gad, maybe I wasn't clear. The cost of NOT buying into biotech
> now is greater than the cost of buying. No matter what happens.
>
>
> >> So, try out this scenario. _The Great Boom_ turns out to
> >> accurately predict everything for 10 solid years. Everybody
> >> comes to realized the big Bust is due in 2009. Due to reduced
> >> spending patterns. What could be more artistically pleasing
> >> than a would-be Bust short-circuited through outlays on
> >> anti-aging biotechnology?
> >>
> >> I just like the symmetry of this. :)
> >
> >So, Broward. You're giving us the green light to buy
> >stocks now, huh? With a straight face no lesS?
> >I still don't know if the world is ready for a happy
> >Broward! Is the net ready for a happy Broward? Let's
> >take a poll! Email the Madman with your vote. Yes
> >or no on the net being ready for a new and improved
> >Happy Broward! I'll post totals if there is more than
> >one vote.
>
>
> I've been pretty happy for four years.
> I've been ecstatic for the past six months.
I'd say that judging from reading your posts over the last
18months, you were not so happy. I think you just got
happy after you got married! So, do you see the glass
as half full now?!
>
> I just wish I didn't have to screw with Cost Accounting,
> i'm in the mood to rip some corporate hearts out. :)
You know, Brow, when you asked if I'd make a bet on the R&D
thing and biotech and whatnot, you got me to thinking. With
a PhD in biochem and experience at the R&D level(the research
aspect anyway), I might just be able to marry that with an MBA and
do something in upper level management in the biotech field.
Or, perhaps, such a combination might give me an advantage
over those Wall Streeters who call themselves biotech analysts!
I actually know what a monoclonal antibody is! Even after
the company-sponsored analyst briefing is history.
So far, there are three votes indicating that the net is simply
not ready for a happy Broward!
Mad Vlad
Broward Horne
In a previous article, eng...@helix.nih.gov (Mad Vlad) says:
>month. Otherwise, it works out to about 2700.00/month I'm single.
_The Great Reckoning_ recommends getting married. I
can honestly recommend it, too, now, but try to avoid an
American woman. :)
>later. Years later. I still have that receipt! I've never been
>bopped on the head.
Too bad. Getting bopped on the head is a great motivator.
But, hey, you're in D.C., things can still work out. :)
>as well as book sales), he has pushed it to the point that
>by the time 2010 arrives, he'll have sold a kabillion books
>and he won't care whether the depression hits then or
>ten years later!
Hey, you have to give Batra SOME credit. He predicted a collapse
of the Soviet System during the 1990s, sometime around 1978.
>If Bboomers are hard up for retirement savings and sending
>their 2.1kids to college, then I think there will be a minimal
>early retirement wave(less than 60). The financial press
>cannot rave enough about how woefully prepared for retirement
>the Bboomers are. The anemic 4.7% savings rate is the favorite
>ammunition.
I honestly don't think they're going to have a choice, Vlad.
A lot of the current retirees didn't get a choice.
>Ahhh! It sounds like you are changing your tone from the
>housing crash thread! If just a little. Clarification of your
>position maybe. So maybe we were not in complete understanding
>of each other's position at the outset? We're closer than the
>Housing crash thread debate would lead one to believe.
Changed my position?! You know me, I've been following the
aging thing since 1986. :) I'm honestly stunned that it's
happening so quickly now. Look, yesterday's news: Biotech
tomatos! New gene for colon cancer pinned down. Trials
to begin on articifically-grown human skin.
>I'd say that judging from reading your posts over the last
>18months, you were not so happy. I think you just got
>happy after you got married! So, do you see the glass
>as half full now?!
Hmm. Let's just say that I've finally got my decision-making
appratus working. The people here at the University have
treated me better than ANY high-tech corporation that I've
worked for. If I had stayed at HP, or Teradyne, I'll STILL
be getting stonewalled on moving up, career-wise. My
boss here has laid out a plan that lets me reach $50K by
1996, if I want.
>You know, Brow, when you asked if I'd make a bet on the R&D
>thing and biotech and whatnot, you got me to thinking. With
>a PhD in biochem and experience at the R&D level(the research
>aspect anyway), I might just be able to marry that with an MBA and
>do something in upper level management in the biotech field.
>Or, perhaps, such a combination might give me an advantage
>over those Wall Streeters who call themselves biotech analysts!
>I actually know what a monoclonal antibody is! Even after
>the company-sponsored analyst briefing is history.
THERE you go, man. Keep as cool as you can.
Face trials of piles with smiles.
It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave.
EXACTLY, chum. You can make a PILE of money, if you do
things right. You need to map out a 5-year plan, then make
pivotal decisions based upon the RELATIVE values of the
decision branches. Our society trains everyone to focus
on present-value monetary criteria.
YOU should be researching various companies, determining likely
winners and losers, etc. If you map out the path right, you
should be able to ride the biotech wave. Adjust your skills
towards the most likely future. Be at the right company when
it goes public. THAT'S the way to make some money. :)
>So far, there are three votes indicating that the net is simply
>not ready for a happy Broward!
The net doesn't have a choice in the matter.
Sometimes, Vlad, I can FEEL the Information Revolution
sleeting through society, twisting and bending the old
relationships, like a 100 mph ice storm.
It's big, really, really big. I wouldn't have thought
it would be this big. More layoffs, U.S. Surgical. Maybe
Borland. Can you SEE the shakeout in the software industry?
I can SEE it happening now.
I say the hardware companies are bad bet, now. They're KILLING
each other. Everyone is interpreting their rise in sales as
success. I say it's failure, they're having to cut each other's
throats, cut margins, to make sales. Likewise with software.
It's an accelerating rate of change. It's just incredible.
The total amount of knowledge is rising exponentially now. This
MEANS something. I'm not sure what, but exponential functions
always mean something.
The only real wya to make money now is on transitional relationships.
The ability to track and trace relationships that come and go.
EVERYBODY can figure out the linear relationships now, no money
there. I'm still not so sure that "quantum economics" doesn't
exist. You CAN'T have EVERYBODY able to predict the market, or
the economy, or the future. What happens when everybody knows
that the big Baby Boom Busts is in 2009 ( or 2017 ). Are they
going to hold stock until 20??. NO. So, when do they sell?
2008? But, what if everyone else is thinking that. So, sell
in 2007?
>Mad Vlad
Mark
>My car was stolen in 1989. It was recovered
>and I made out like a bandit. The insurance company released
>payment to me and I paid the body shop with a credit card.
>Presently, that charge has yet to appear on my statement. That
>charge was made in July, 1989! Any statute of limitations
>on credit card charge postings? I knew something was screwy
>when in early Aug, '89, the body shop's accountant called me
>and asked if I had my receipt! Didn't figure it out until much
>later. Years later. I still have that receipt! I've never been
>bopped on the head.
Interesting. I once wrote a check and it wasn't presented until about
a year later after I had already closed the account. I got a letter
from the bank stating that the check was not honored, but no fee
was imposed. I suppose the organization on the other end got
charged a fee for a bad check.
>If Bboomers are hard up for retirement savings and sending
>their 2.1kids to college, then I think there will be a minimal
>early retirement wave(less than 60). The financial press
>cannot rave enough about how woefully prepared for retirement
>the Bboomers are. The anemic 4.7% savings rate is the favorite
>ammunition.
Does the oft-quoted 4.7% include 401(k)'s or not ?
Mark