PC - The Best Value By Far
WinMan
dru
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/11/20/cheap.pcs.ap/index.html
interesting how the article fails to mention that the iMac comes with a
high quality, bright, clear LCD built in.
advocacy aside, that was a silly omission.
d.
Flip
"WinMan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/11/20/cheap.pcs.ap/index.html
>
>
What's your point?
That PC companies followed Apple's latest move (cutting their computer
prices)? Just one more in a long line of PC vendors copying Apple. ;-)
Or that you're too stupid to realize that price isn't the only thing
that matters?
Brian Lewis
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/11/20/cheap.pcs.ap/index.html
Relevant quote:
"But those price cuts have failed to buoy the sector. PC shipments fell
by 4 percent last year from 2000, and shipments were down again 0.4
percent for the first six months of 2002, according to Gartner."
Oh dear, so price alone won't do it eh?
WinMan
How are Mac sales doing? With the "Switch" campaign they should be doing
extremely well. Not!!
John Jensen
> > http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/11/20/cheap.pcs.ap/index.html
They mentioned the _$799_ iMac which is CRT based.
The LCD iMac may indeed have a high quality, bright, clear LCD built in,
but it doesn't play in this price segment.
John
--
33° 39' 43N 117° 45' 06W
George Graves
> http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/11/20/cheap.pcs.ap/index.html
>
>
When are you going to figure out that Mac users AREN'T LOOKING FOR
BARGAINS. We want a computer that works, doesn't run WinBlows, and
satisfies our needs. If they PAID US to take Windows machines, we'd
still prefer to buy Macs. So give up the "best value" and the "bargain"
routine. Its cuts no ice here with anybody.
--
George Graves
"Outside of a dog, a book is probably a man's best friend.
Inside of a dog, its too dark to read."
Groucho Marx
dru
> They mentioned the _$799_ iMac which is CRT based.
>
> The LCD iMac may indeed have a high quality, bright, clear LCD built in,
> but it doesn't play in this price segment.
fair point. i missed that. thanks!
d.
Flip
"WinMan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
They're doing well enough for Apple to make a profit - which is more
than you can say about the overwhelming majority of PC vendors.
WinMan
Thats right they did make a profit using the type of accounting that
apparently is OK to you. In real numbers they had a loss.
WinMan
> In article <v7TC9.249$DY5....@newsfeed.avtel.net>,
> "WinMan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/11/20/cheap.pcs.ap/index.html
>>
>>
>
> When are you going to figure out that Mac users AREN'T LOOKING FOR
> BARGAINS. We want a computer that works, doesn't run WinBlows, and
> satisfies our needs. If they PAID US to take Windows machines, we'd
> still prefer to buy Macs. So give up the "best value" and the
> "bargain" routine. Its cuts no ice here with anybody.
Of course logic cuts no ice with someone that wants to nuke Muslims. I
realize that. But we cannot make the assumption that everybody is as stupid
as you.
flip
"WinMan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
I see that you don't understand accounting better than you understand
anything else.
They made an operating profit. The loss was due to decreases in their
investments - which has almost nothing to do with their business
operations.
George Graves
"WinMan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Assume it. No Mac user is impressed with or cares about the difference
between the cost of a Mac and the cost of a PC. PCs don't meet our
needs. Therefore they are of no interest to us, at any price.
WinMan
> In article <WJUC9.252$DY5....@newsfeed.avtel.net>,
> "WinMan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> In article <v7TC9.249$DY5....@newsfeed.avtel.net>,
>>> "WinMan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/11/20/cheap.pcs.ap/index.html
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> When are you going to figure out that Mac users AREN'T LOOKING FOR
>>> BARGAINS. We want a computer that works, doesn't run WinBlows, and
>>> satisfies our needs. If they PAID US to take Windows machines, we'd
>>> still prefer to buy Macs. So give up the "best value" and the
>>> "bargain" routine. Its cuts no ice here with anybody.
>>
>>
>> Of course logic cuts no ice with someone that wants to nuke Muslims.
>> I realize that. But we cannot make the assumption that everybody is
>> as stupid as you.
>
> Assume it. No Mac user is impressed with or cares about the difference
> between the cost of a Mac and the cost of a PC. PCs don't meet our
> needs. Therefore they are of no interest to us, at any price.
So I am to assume the rest of the Macers are stupid as you. I don't
recall any of them supporting the nuking of Muslims - the litmus test of
stupidity.
Brian Lewis
"WinMan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Penalty, attempting to move the goal posts. 15-yards and loss of
argument. Repeat post.
George Graves
"WinMan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
I was under the impression that you are the litmus test for stupidity,
especially since its not I who advocates nuking Muslims, that's Mr.
Mayor, a Windows advocate, BTW, I'm the one who wants to deport Muslims
from this country and use the threat of bombing Mecca (not necessarily
using nukes) as a lever to get the Muslim nations to root-out and
deliver the Al Queda to us and to deny all terrorists groups facilities,
weapons and places to hide.
But with your limited intelligence, we understand.
MuahMan
"WinMan" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:WJUC9.252$DY5....@newsfeed.avtel.net...
Cyclical
----------
In article <XNTC9.250$DY5....@newsfeed.avtel.net>, "WinMan"
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Well enough to pay its shareholders a dividend.....How about MS? ROTFLMAO
WinMan
Microsoft has never payed shareholders dividends. It does however
donate hundreds of millions to needy people in this world. Apple on the
other hand takes away the floppy drive and donates 95 million to Steve
Jobs personal jet.
LloydParsons
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
Who gives a shit whether MS donates to the 'needy' people?
The stockholder deserve dividends and BG and cronies are too greedy to
pay them!
Lloyd
David C. Fritzinger
<mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> We should nuke Muslims. And ban all immigration into this country.
Only after you leave, you jerk. But, I guess if we inflicted you on
another country, that would be a causus belli.
Dave Fritzinger
ed
Cyclical <cycl...@choo.com> jotted:
you've gotta be kidding me. go look at the profits of ms and apple. and
ms has never paid dividends.
--
-ed
C Lund
>http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/ptech/11/20/cheap.pcs.ap/index.html
Does it run OS X? No? Guess I'm not interested then.
--
C Lund, Oslo
http://www.notam02.no/~clund/
James Boswell
How about this, everyone not of native descent get the hell off North
America?
-JB
Cyclical
----------
In article <tDYC9.258$DY5....@newsfeed.avtel.net>, "WinMan"
<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Cyclical wrote:
>> ----------
>>
>> Well enough to pay its shareholders a dividend.....How about MS?
>> ROTFLMAO
>
>
> Microsoft has never payed shareholders dividends. It does however
> donate hundreds of millions to needy people in this world. Apple on the
> other hand takes away the floppy drive and donates 95 million to Steve
> Jobs personal jet.
>
So you are saying that MS shareholders are so stupid that they need MS to
decide what to do with their cash, which in turn helps MS reap more cash, so
MS can decide what to do with that extra cash, and so on and so on,
meanwhile people like Meowman spout garbage like "Its good for shareholders"
ROTFLMAO
Cyclical
----------
In article <O9GmMyRkCHA.2028@cpimsnntpa03>, "ed"
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Not sure what point you are making..but..if there is any "kidding " going on
its MS that's doing it, and its MS shareholders that are the targets, You
are correct MS = huge profits, Apple = Lower profits, and yet as you say MS
has NEVER paid a dividend, whereas Apple has, so who are the
Dummies....here's a clue............IT AIN'T APPLE SHAREHOLDERS,
hahahahahhahahahahha
Flip
"ed" <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
There's no kidding involved. Microsoft has never paid dividends.
Personally, I don't think it's that big a deal. Most companies pay out
dividends of a couple percent of share price. Microsoft has, over the
past 15 years, generated immense shareholder profits in terms of
increased share price.
From a shareholder's perspective, anyone who has had MS stock for 15
years probably doesn't give a hoot about lack of dividends.
It's just a different strategy.
Cyclical
----------
In article <flippo-8540BD....@nnrp03.earthlink.net>, Flip
<fli...@mac.com> wrote:
Some Shareholders appear to care, perhaps they would like MS to put a bit of
coin in their pockets, just to see what it feels like, :+)
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,5433480%5e15337%5e%5enbv%5e1
5306-15316,00.html
MS shareholders seek returns
WITH Microsoft's antitrust battle with the US government largely resolved,
shareholders are focusing their attention elsewhere ‹ on the software
company's $US40 billion ($66.6 billion) hoard of cash.
At Microsoft's annual shareholders' meeting Tuesday, investors clamored for
the company to pay dividends or offer some incentive to keep a stock that
now trades at less than half its value of late 1999.
flip
"Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
It all depends on your viewpoint. If you're looking for short term gains
in the market, you're going to be disappointed - particularly if you
owned tech stocks from 1999 to 2002. The typical 1-3% of stock price
dividends wouldn't have had that much impact.
OTOH, if Microsoft had been distributing their money in dividends over
the past 20 years, they would have had a lot less cash for acquisitions
- and for improving their market position.
There's no way to be sure, but it's quite plausible that the company
would be much worse off - and its stock prices would be much lower today.
ed
Cyclical <cycl...@your.service.com> jotted:
> ----------
> In article <O9GmMyRkCHA.2028@cpimsnntpa03>, "ed"
> <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>> In message news:3ddc5b71$0$176$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au,
>> Cyclical <cycl...@choo.com> jotted:
>>
>>> In article <XNTC9.250$DY5....@newsfeed.avtel.net>, "WinMan"
>>> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> How are Mac sales doing? With the "Switch" campaign they should be
>>>> doing extremely well. Not!!
>>>
>>> Well enough to pay its shareholders a dividend.....How about MS?
>>> ROTFLMAO
>>
>> you've gotta be kidding me. go look at the profits of ms and apple.
>> and ms has never paid dividends.
>>
> Not sure what point you are making..but..if there is any "kidding "
> going on its MS that's doing it, and its MS shareholders that are the
> targets, You are correct MS = huge profits, Apple = Lower profits, and
> yet as you say MS has NEVER paid a dividend, whereas Apple has, so who
> are the Dummies....here's a clue............IT AIN'T APPLE SHAREHOLDERS,
> hahahahahhahahahahha
you just don't get it, do yah? appreciation is generally what you're after
in stocks, although income generating stocks are nice for some folks.
anyone investing in a particular stock should know before hand whether that
stock pays dividends or not, so shouldn't fell screwed when they don't get
one. btw, if stockholders were interested enough in a dividend, they could
put it up for vote...
--
-ed
Cyclical
----------
In article <urzc2OdkCHA.1672@cpimsnntpa03>, "ed"
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> In message news:3ddcff5d$0$186$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au,
> Cyclical <cycl...@your.service.com> jotted:
>
>> ----------
>> In article <O9GmMyRkCHA.2028@cpimsnntpa03>, "ed"
>> <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In message news:3ddc5b71$0$176$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au,
>>> Cyclical <cycl...@choo.com> jotted:
>>>
>>>> In article <XNTC9.250$DY5....@newsfeed.avtel.net>, "WinMan"
>>>> <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> How are Mac sales doing? With the "Switch" campaign they should be
>>>>> doing extremely well. Not!!
>>>>
>>>> Well enough to pay its shareholders a dividend.....How about MS?
>>>> ROTFLMAO
>>>
>>> you've gotta be kidding me. go look at the profits of ms and apple.
>>> and ms has never paid dividends.
>>>
>> Not sure what point you are making..but..if there is any "kidding "
>> going on its MS that's doing it, and its MS shareholders that are the
>> targets, You are correct MS = huge profits, Apple = Lower profits, and
>> yet as you say MS has NEVER paid a dividend, whereas Apple has, so who
>> are the Dummies....here's a clue............IT AIN'T APPLE SHAREHOLDERS,
>> hahahahahhahahahahha
>
> you just don't get it, do yah? appreciation is generally what you're after
> in stocks, although income generating stocks are nice for some folks.
Good, you just made my point ..colour me some folks. :+)
> anyone investing in a particular stock should know before hand whether that
> stock pays dividends or not,
OK, lets see if I understand when the stock was initially floated,
subscribers would have been expected to know if that stock would generate a
dividend or not?
> so shouldn't fell screwed when they don't get one.
But would feel screwed if they fell into the category you mentioned earlier,
remember the ones that hoped for income generating stock
> btw, if stockholders were interested enough in a dividend, they could
> put it up for vote...
>
> --
> -ed
>
Have you looked to see just how many disgruntled shareholders ARE clamouring
for a dividend? it would seem not.
But to answer your question NO I just don't get it, but then I don't have to
its not my money in MS coffers, mine actually WORKS for me.
ed
Cyclical <cycl...@your.service.com> jotted:
yar, that's nice. so don't invest in non-dividend stocks.
>> anyone investing in a particular stock should know before hand whether
>> that stock pays dividends or not,
>
> OK, lets see if I understand when the stock was initially floated,
> subscribers would have been expected to know if that stock would
> generate a dividend or not?
i imagine if the company is profitable when their stock is initially
floated, you might find the intent to distribute dividends or not in the
prospectus.
>> so shouldn't fell screwed when they don't get one.
>
> But would feel screwed if they fell into the category you mentioned
> earlier, remember the ones that hoped for income generating stock
no, if they want an income stock, and bought a non-dividend stock, they're
not getting screwed, they're boneheads for not doing research on the
security they wish to purchase.
>> btw, if stockholders were interested enough in a dividend, they could
>> put it up for vote...
>>
>> --
>> -ed
>>
> Have you looked to see just how many disgruntled shareholders ARE
> clamouring for a dividend? it would seem not.
if enough of them are interested, they can vote for one. i don't see the
problem here...
> But to answer your question NO I just don't get it, but then I don't
> have to its not my money in MS coffers, mine actually WORKS for me.
well, if you had bought MS at it's initial offering (since an initial
offering is the example you used), your money would have done a RIDICULOUS
amount of work for you - i would wager much better than you have your money
working for you unless you're warren buffet- even taking into account the
recent declines.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=msft&sid=0&
o_symb=msft&freq=2&time=20
--
-ed
Cyclical
----------
In article <O9WKiiokCHA.624@cpimsnntpa03>, "ed"
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
> well, if you had bought MS at it's initial offering (since an initial
> offering is the example you used), your money would have done a RIDICULOUS
> amount of work for you - i would wager much better than you have your money
> working for you unless you're warren buffet- even taking into account the
> recent declines.
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=msft&sid=0&
> o_symb=msft&freq=2&time=20
>
> --
> -ed
>
>
Really... 1986 @ $21.00, what is it now about $58.00..so if I had invested
the money that I had in 1986 I could have purchased 3571.4 MS shares, they
would now be worth approx $207,142.00+ a handy increase indeed, BUT, lets
not forget inflation over those 16 years and the fact that they earned me
$000000 income to offset it, My investment on the other hand of $75,000 in
1986 has within the last six months been valued at $380,000, plus for the
first 14 years it earned a tidy income of approx $180 per week, all related
expenses for that period were tax deductable, so in short we could compare
MS Shares = a profit of approx..$132,142.00, less inflation, no income
generated.
or... a profit of approx $305,000.00, + income of approx $131,040.00 + Tax
deductions less inflation all from an investment that needed no special
skills from me (thankfully) had zero risk factor (excluding earthquakes), it
was simply a case of right time right place.
So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the definition of
"RIDICULOUS"
ed
Cyclical <cycl...@choo.com> jotted:
> ----------
> In article <O9WKiiokCHA.624@cpimsnntpa03>, "ed"
> <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> well, if you had bought MS at it's initial offering (since an initial
>> offering is the example you used), your money would have done a
>> RIDICULOUS amount of work for you - i would wager much better than you
>> have your money working for you unless you're warren buffet- even
>> taking into account the recent declines.
>>
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=msft&sid=0&
>> o_symb=msft&freq=2&time=20
>>
>> --
>> -ed
>>
>>
> Really... 1986 @ $21.00, what is it now about $58.00..so if I had
> invested the money that I had in 1986 I could have purchased 3571.4 MS
> shares, they would now be worth approx $207,142.00+ a handy increase
> indeed, BUT, lets not forget inflation over those 16 years and the fact
> that they earned me $000000 income to offset it,
are you actually investing in the stock market when you are that ignorant?
the $21 price does not account for splits!! the $28 closing price, when
adjusted for splits, was only $0.1944- you didn't even need to get in at
the $21 ipo to get it for the 19cents split adjusted price
> My investment on the
> other hand of $75,000 in 1986 has within the last six months been valued
> at $380,000, plus for the first 14 years it earned a tidy income of
> approx $180 per week, all related expenses for that period were tax
> deductable, so in short we could compare MS Shares = a profit of
> approx..$132,142.00, less inflation, no income generated.
> or... a profit of approx $305,000.00, + income of approx $131,040.00 +
> Tax deductions less inflation all from an investment that needed no
> special skills from me (thankfully) had zero risk factor (excluding
> earthquakes), it was simply a case of right time right place.
> So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the definition of
> "RIDICULOUS"
if you had invested $75k in microsoft at their ipo, at $58/share today, it
would be worth- are you ready for this?- $22.89 MILLION dollars! so much
for your money working better for you! so if you really wanted income from
MS, you could always cash out your stock and invest it at a paltry 6% and
get a measly $1.4MILLION a year in income. i can't believe you are
investing money in a market you are so ignorant about!
--
-ed
Cyclical
----------
In article <O9Mrb6skCHA.1164@cpimsnntpa03>, "ed"
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> In message news:3ddf3dbb$0$157$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au,
> Cyclical <cycl...@choo.com> jotted:
>
>> ----------
>> In article <O9WKiiokCHA.624@cpimsnntpa03>, "ed"
>> <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> well, if you had bought MS at it's initial offering (since an initial
>>> offering is the example you used), your money would have done a
>>> RIDICULOUS amount of work for you - i would wager much better than you
>>> have your money working for you unless you're warren buffet- even
>>> taking into account the recent declines.
>>>
> http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/quickchart/quickchart.asp?symb=msft&sid=0&
>>> o_symb=msft&freq=2&time=20
>>>
>>> --
>>> -ed
>>>
>>>
>> Really... 1986 @ $21.00, what is it now about $58.00..so if I had
>> invested the money that I had in 1986 I could have purchased 3571.4 MS
>> shares, they would now be worth approx $207,142.00+ a handy increase
>> indeed, BUT, lets not forget inflation over those 16 years and the fact
>> that they earned me $000000 income to offset it,
>
> are you actually investing in the stock market when you are that ignorant?
> the $21 price does not account for splits!! the $28 closing price, when
> adjusted for splits, was only $0.1944- you didn't even need to get in at
> the $21 ipo to get it for the 19cents split adjusted price
I don't know where you got the idea that I had any dealings with the stock
market.
As for the rest I have NO idea what your talking about, you appear to be
saying that a share cost 19 cents and not $21 if that is so no doubt there
is a reasonable explanation for it,
>> My investment on the
>> other hand of $75,000 in 1986 has within the last six months been valued
>> at $380,000, plus for the first 14 years it earned a tidy income of
>> approx $180 per week, all related expenses for that period were tax
>> deductable, so in short we could compare MS Shares = a profit of
>> approx..$132,142.00, less inflation, no income generated.
>> or... a profit of approx $305,000.00, + income of approx $131,040.00 +
>> Tax deductions less inflation all from an investment that needed no
>> special skills from me (thankfully) had zero risk factor (excluding
>> earthquakes), it was simply a case of right time right place.
>> So I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the definition of
>> "RIDICULOUS"
>
> if you had invested $75k in microsoft at their ipo, at $58/share today, it
> would be worth- are you ready for this?- $22.89 MILLION dollars! so much
> for your money working better for you! so if you really wanted income from
> MS, you could always cash out your stock and invest it at a paltry 6% and
> get a measly $1.4MILLION a year in income. i can't believe you are
> investing money in a market you are so ignorant about!
>
> --
> -ed
>
So to summarise you are saying that in 1986 MS shares could be purchased for
19cents and not the $21 that the sites I looked at maintain, so if I had
used my $75K I could have purchased 385802 shares(approx) so today they
would be worth 385802 * $58 if that is it in a nutshell, all I have learned
is why I have had nothing to do with stocks & shares.
flip
"Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
Does 'ridiculous' include the fact that you forgot to allow for eight
different stock splits?
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/stock.htm
Or, you can download the spreadsheet directly at http://www.microsoft.com/msft/download/msftstockpricehistory.xls.
If you had put $75 K into Microsoft stock in 1986 and left it untouched,
you'd have nearly $22 million today.
I don't think there are too many other investments that would have
matched that over the past 15 years. Lack of a dividend isn't an issue
when you're getting a 288 fold gain in share price over 15 years.
flip
"Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
There is.
A share purchased in 1986 split several times. If you had purchased a
single share in 1986 for $21, you'd own more than 100 shares today - or
$58,000 worth of stock.
That's not quite right.
The $0.19 is a split-adjusted price. It is the equivalent of what one of
today's shares would have been worth then. A single share actually did
cost $21 back then, but it split 8 times.
You really should stay away from criticizing things you don't understand.
Cyclical
----------
In article <flippo-4C9D54....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
<fli...@mac.com> wrote:
good idea, then then I won't find out about all these little gems, and you
will own ALL the sandpits.
Cyclical
----------
In article <flippo-4C9D54....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
<fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> There is.
>
> A share purchased in 1986 split several times. If you had purchased a
> single share in 1986 for $21, you'd own more than 100 shares today - or
> $58,000 worth of stock.
>
http://www.fool.com/DDow/1999/DDow990810.htm
"What exactly is a stock split?
It's an increase in a company's number of outstanding shares of stock
without a corresponding increase in assets. (Outstanding shares are the
number of shares of capital stock that have been issued and are in public
hands, and the number of outstanding shares is used in the calculation of
book value per share and earnings per share.)
Confusion occurs because some people think that when a stock splits they are
getting something for nothing. Ah... if only! A typical misunderstanding of
splits goes something like this:
"Let's say I have 200 shares of a stock that is trading at $50 a share.
That's an investment of $10,000. So I thought if it split, I would have 400
shares of it. I thought that meant 400 shares of a stock that was $50 a
share, which means I would then have $20,000."
OhŠ I wish, I wish, I WISH it were so. But it's not. Since there's no
increase in a company's assets when a stock splits, the price of each share
must therefore decrease proportionate to the increase in shares. Our reader
delighted in getting twice as many shares, but forgot that the price of each
share would be decreased by half. Therefore, while it's true she would be
getting 400 shares, each share would now be worth only $25.
The same reader went on to say:
"A lot of my friends work at America Online (NYSE: AOL), and every time
their stock splits, they get so excited and they all say they will be able
to retire after it splits 4 or 5 more times because they keep watching their
money double."
This is a perfect example of people engaging in wishful thinking.
Splits are really meaningless, as they don't affect the underlying value of
the stock AT ALL! This reader's friends are probably being overzealous,
because AOL stock has performed well in the past; but the past is not
necessarily an indicator of the future. The problem with this logic is that
there is NO GUARANTEE AOL stock will rise and split again. It can just as
easily drop. And even if it does rise, it could take 2-10 years.
Imagine this scenario: It's the early part of the century and your best
buddy Picasso hasn't been faring well selling his funny paintings on the
banks of the Seine. You decide to help by buying him a new canvas to work
on. The canvas costs you $10.00.
Picasso, always the innovator, figures that if he divides the canvas in
half, he'll have TWO possible paintings for sale. You now have two empty
canvases for the price of one. Your financial investment is still worth
$10.00, but Picasso now has an extra canvas to paint on.
The value of your investment hasn't changed at all. Perhaps WAAAAAY down the
road, if Picasso ever amounts to anything and his artwork becomes valuable,
you will have 2 paintings to sell instead of one. Then it's possible each
painting will be worth more. But that will be only after additional value is
added by Picasso's painting of each canvas.
So why do companies split their stock?
Sometimes it's done to increase the liquidity of the stock, as a split
results in more shares in the marketplace. This can result in reducing the
Bid/Ask spread and making it easier to trade.
Sometimes it's done so a company can offer its staff more shares as bonuses
or through stock options, which can often attract higher quality employees
as part of an overall compensation package.
Sometimes it's done because the company has been performing well, is excited
about its future prospects, and wants to communicate this fact subtly to the
investing community. Often splits occur in the face of new highs for a
stock; thus it's an event dripping with positive associations. Many
investors are psychologically unwilling to pay that "high price," and a
stock split brings the shares down to a more attractive level. The irony
here is that it only APPEARS that way; in reality, the value of the stock
hasn't changed one bit."
I guess its all in the telling? smoke 'n' mirrors?
flip
"Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
There's nothing wrong with asking questions and learning - but that's
not what you did.
You came right out and said that MS was a bad investment and that they
were offering a much worse deal than other investments.
My advice is to ask questions, learn, and then only criticize after
you've learned. You did it backwards.
flip
"Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
In principle this is correct. In practice, the stock will be worth more
than $25 most of the time. Typically, when a $50 stock splits 2:1, the
new stock is worth $26 or $27. There's a gain of about 5-10% in the
split - the usual explanation is that more people can afford to buy a
$25 stock than a $50 stock, so supply and demand drives it up. I don't
really buy that explanation, but the fact is real.
>
> The same reader went on to say:
>
> "A lot of my friends work at America Online (NYSE: AOL), and every time
> their stock splits, they get so excited and they all say they will be able
> to retire after it splits 4 or 5 more times because they keep watching their
> money double."
>
> This is a perfect example of people engaging in wishful thinking.
Of course. No one in this group ever claimed otherwise.
>
> Splits are really meaningless, as they don't affect the underlying value of
> the stock AT ALL! This reader's friends are probably being overzealous,
Not quite true. The market value of most companies goes up slightly
after a split, but not that much.
> because AOL stock has performed well in the past; but the past is not
> necessarily an indicator of the future. The problem with this logic is that
> there is NO GUARANTEE AOL stock will rise and split again. It can just as
> easily drop. And even if it does rise, it could take 2-10 years.
>
> Imagine this scenario: It's the early part of the century and your best
> buddy Picasso hasn't been faring well selling his funny paintings on the
> banks of the Seine. You decide to help by buying him a new canvas to work
> on. The canvas costs you $10.00.
>
> Picasso, always the innovator, figures that if he divides the canvas in
> half, he'll have TWO possible paintings for sale. You now have two empty
> canvases for the price of one. Your financial investment is still worth
> $10.00, but Picasso now has an extra canvas to paint on.
>
> The value of your investment hasn't changed at all. Perhaps WAAAAAY down the
> road, if Picasso ever amounts to anything and his artwork becomes valuable,
> you will have 2 paintings to sell instead of one. Then it's possible each
> painting will be worth more. But that will be only after additional value is
> added by Picasso's painting of each canvas.
That's a garbled analogy.
Let's say that in exchange for that canvas, Picasso gives you 10% of the
sale price of everything he ever sells. When he splits the canvas in
half, you STILL have 10% of everything he ever sells.
>
> So why do companies split their stock?
>
> Sometimes it's done to increase the liquidity of the stock, as a split
> results in more shares in the marketplace. This can result in reducing the
> Bid/Ask spread and making it easier to trade.
That's by far the most common reason. If Microsoft had not split its
stock in the past 15 years, a single share would cost over $6,000 today.
Few people would buy shares at that price.
>
> Sometimes it's done so a company can offer its staff more shares as bonuses
> or through stock options, which can often attract higher quality employees
> as part of an overall compensation package.
>
> Sometimes it's done because the company has been performing well, is excited
> about its future prospects, and wants to communicate this fact subtly to the
> investing community. Often splits occur in the face of new highs for a
> stock; thus it's an event dripping with positive associations. Many
> investors are psychologically unwilling to pay that "high price," and a
> stock split brings the shares down to a more attractive level. The irony
> here is that it only APPEARS that way; in reality, the value of the stock
> hasn't changed one bit."
>
> I guess its all in the telling? smoke 'n' mirrors?
No, it's not.
But whether you like the concept of stock splits or not, they're real.
Your error in claiming that MS stock had gone only from $21 to $58 in
the past 15 years was wrong. Way wrong.
Cyclical
----------
In article <flippo-2FB7D2....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
<fli...@mac.com> wrote:
In a perfectly serious ng (and I don't mean to malign anyone here by saying
that) your advice would be well received, and taken in the way that I am
supposing you meant it, but I do not consider this to be a perfectly serious
ng, so I do not concede the right to you or any frequenter of this ng for
that matter to decide or even to suggest what a poster should or should not
criticise, or even the way they should do it,(unless of course in jest) If I
post something that appears to be my belief, then the chances are it is, (If
it is meant in fun that's usually evident) if subsequently it turns out to
be totally off the wall then say so, every time I learn something here its
usually at the expense of a former belief, I have absolutely no problem with
that, knowledge is no great weight to carry.
Just as an aside perhaps you could point out where.....
> You came right out and said that MS was a bad investment and that they
> were offering a much worse deal than other investments.
I don't remember coming right out and saying anything about "other
investments" or saying anything about MS "offering a much worse deal" I do
remember comparing it to my own investment, perhaps this is where the
confusion arose?.
flip
"Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
Then feel free to go ahead posting criticisms about things you don't
understand - if you don't mind looking foolish.
> post something that appears to be my belief, then the chances are it is, (If
> it is meant in fun that's usually evident) if subsequently it turns out to
> be totally off the wall then say so, every time I learn something here its
> usually at the expense of a former belief, I have absolutely no problem with
> that, knowledge is no great weight to carry.
I already did that. I pointed out that your position was completely
untenable.
>
> Just as an aside perhaps you could point out where.....
>
> > You came right out and said that MS was a bad investment and that they
> > were offering a much worse deal than other investments.
>
> I don't remember coming right out and saying anything about "other
> investments" or saying anything about MS "offering a much worse deal" I do
> remember comparing it to my own investment, perhaps this is where the
> confusion arose?.
See above. In the paragraph starting with "My investement on the other
hand of $75,000....".
Not to mention, of course, that your position throughout this thread was
that MS was mistreating shareholders by not offering a dividend.
Cyclical
----------
In article <flippo-96E3D0....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
<fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <3ddf8acb$0$192$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
> "Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
>
>> ----------
>> In article <flippo-4C9D54....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
>> <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > There is.
>> >
>> > A share purchased in 1986 split several times. If you had purchased a
>> > single share in 1986 for $21, you'd own more than 100 shares today - or
>> > $58,000 worth of stock.
Then why wouldn't that be $58 * 100..=$5800?
What you say is backed up by info on other sources, so we can agree here.
>>
>> The same reader went on to say:
>>
>> "A lot of my friends work at America Online (NYSE: AOL), and every time
>> their stock splits, they get so excited and they all say they will be able
>> to retire after it splits 4 or 5 more times because they keep watching their
>> money double."
>>
>> This is a perfect example of people engaging in wishful thinking.
>
> Of course. No one in this group ever claimed otherwise.
>
Perhaps it was in my reading but I could have sworn I was being slammed for
just that reason?
>> Splits are really meaningless, as they don't affect the underlying value of
>> the stock AT ALL! This reader's friends are probably being overzealous,
>
> Not quite true. The market value of most companies goes up slightly
> after a split, but not that much.
Again this is borne out by other sources.
>> because AOL stock has performed well in the past; but the past is not
>> necessarily an indicator of the future. The problem with this logic is that
>> there is NO GUARANTEE AOL stock will rise and split again. It can just as
>> easily drop. And even if it does rise, it could take 2-10 years.
>>
>> Imagine this scenario: It's the early part of the century and your best
>> buddy Picasso hasn't been faring well selling his funny paintings on the
>> banks of the Seine. You decide to help by buying him a new canvas to work
>> on. The canvas costs you $10.00.
>>
>> Picasso, always the innovator, figures that if he divides the canvas in
>> half, he'll have TWO possible paintings for sale. You now have two empty
>> canvases for the price of one. Your financial investment is still worth
>> $10.00, but Picasso now has an extra canvas to paint on.
>>
>> The value of your investment hasn't changed at all. Perhaps WAAAAAY down the
>> road, if Picasso ever amounts to anything and his artwork becomes valuable,
>> you will have 2 paintings to sell instead of one. Then it's possible each
>> painting will be worth more. But that will be only after additional value is
>> added by Picasso's painting of each canvas.
>
> That's a garbled analogy.
>
> Let's say that in exchange for that canvas, Picasso gives you 10% of the
> sale price of everything he ever sells. When he splits the canvas in
> half, you STILL have 10% of everything he ever sells.
Yes, but if he charges "slightly" more than half the price for each piece
the increase is slight indeed compared to the single canvas, so although he
now sells Two canvas, my profit only increases at 10% of the slight increase
so whether he sells it as one or two is immaterial to my profit, isn't it?
>>
>> So why do companies split their stock?
>>
>> Sometimes it's done to increase the liquidity of the stock, as a split
>> results in more shares in the marketplace. This can result in reducing the
>> Bid/Ask spread and making it easier to trade.
>
> That's by far the most common reason. If Microsoft had not split its
> stock in the past 15 years, a single share would cost over $6,000 today.
> Few people would buy shares at that price.
>
>>
>> Sometimes it's done so a company can offer its staff more shares as bonuses
>> or through stock options, which can often attract higher quality employees
>> as part of an overall compensation package.
>>
>> Sometimes it's done because the company has been performing well, is excited
>> about its future prospects, and wants to communicate this fact subtly to the
>> investing community. Often splits occur in the face of new highs for a
>> stock; thus it's an event dripping with positive associations. Many
>> investors are psychologically unwilling to pay that "high price," and a
>> stock split brings the shares down to a more attractive level. The irony
>> here is that it only APPEARS that way; in reality, the value of the stock
>> hasn't changed one bit."
>>
>> I guess its all in the telling? smoke 'n' mirrors?
>
> No, it's not.
>
> But whether you like the concept of stock splits or not, they're real.
> Your error in claiming that MS stock had gone only from $21 to $58 in
> the past 15 years was wrong. Way wrong.
What I do or do not like is immaterial to this discussion, I am simply
trying to get my head around this whole concept......and I seem to be
failing by the minute, because I still don't understand, perhaps in the cold
light of day I will try again....
Cyclical
So, I didn't "come right out and say" etc, etc, but by merely mentioning
that my need was for an income producing investment, and that was what mine
was, the MS approach didn't come close, for me, I don't see how that is
saying MS was offering a much worse deal, it simply wasn't appropriate.
Mistreating? where did that one come from? Two facts emerged, the first was
that MS has never paid a dividend, now some people may say that isn't
important, which leads to fact two, shareholders are indeed asking why a
dividend cant be paid. Mistreating? that's your slant not mine, and maybe
that of some disgruntled shareholders.
flip
"Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
> ----------
> In article <flippo-96E3D0....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
> <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> > In article <3ddf8acb$0$192$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
> > "Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> ----------
> >> In article <flippo-4C9D54....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
> >> <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> > There is.
> >> >
> >> > A share purchased in 1986 split several times. If you had purchased a
> >> > single share in 1986 for $21, you'd own more than 100 shares today - or
> >> > $58,000 worth of stock.
>
> Then why wouldn't that be $58 * 100..=$5800?
Right. Sorry.
flip
"Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
> ----------
> In article <flippo-B97C1A....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
> <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> > In article <3ddf9ca5$0$177$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
> > "Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
> >
>
> >> Just as an aside perhaps you could point out where.....
> >>
> >> > You came right out and said that MS was a bad investment and that they
> >> > were offering a much worse deal than other investments.
> >>
> >> I don't remember coming right out and saying anything about "other
> >> investments" or saying anything about MS "offering a much worse deal" I do
> >> remember comparing it to my own investment, perhaps this is where the
> >> confusion arose?.
> >
> > See above. In the paragraph starting with "My investement on the other
> > hand of $75,000....".
> >
> > Not to mention, of course, that your position throughout this thread was
> > that MS was mistreating shareholders by not offering a dividend.
>
> So, I didn't "come right out and say" etc, etc, but by merely mentioning
> that my need was for an income producing investment, and that was what mine
> was, the MS approach didn't come close, for me, I don't see how that is
> saying MS was offering a much worse deal, it simply wasn't appropriate.
Then why did you trim out the paragraph I cited above?
You made up a hypothetical investment and said an investment in MS in
1985 would have been much worse.
> Mistreating? where did that one come from? Two facts emerged, the first was
> that MS has never paid a dividend, now some people may say that isn't
> important, which leads to fact two, shareholders are indeed asking why a
> dividend cant be paid. Mistreating? that's your slant not mine, and maybe
> that of some disgruntled shareholders.
The point which you keep missing is that anyone focusing only on income
should be buying bonds or a stock which produces dividends. If you want
dividends and buy a non-dividend stock, it's your own fault, not
Microsoft's.
No one who bought MS in 1985 and held it til today would be angry about
lack of dividends.
ed
Cyclical <cycl...@choo.com> jotted:
i got the idea here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3ddf8ac
b%240%24192%245a62ac22%40freenews.iinet.net.au&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dpc
-%2520the%2520best%2520value%2520by%2520far%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%
3Den
where i said income generating stocks are nice for some, and you said
"...colour me some folk". =)
> As for the rest I have NO idea what your talking about, you appear to be>
saying that a share cost 19 cents and not $21 if that is so no doubt> there
is a reasonable explanation for it,no, a share cost $21, but it's split a
bunch of times. i.e. the stock appreciated to $100 (or whatever the split
price was), and MS decided to "split it"- i.e. exchange the stocks 2-for-1,
which means instead of 1 $100 share, you now have 2 $50 shares. so you can
see if you bought at $21, the stock splits 10 times, and an individual
share is now worth $58, you've done VERY well.
good idea- way too many peopl invest in things they don't understand; i
know i got burned a few times when i was first starting to invest... =)
--
-ed
Cyclical
----------
In article <flippo-4C57C1....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
<fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> So, I didn't "come right out and say" etc, etc, but by merely mentioning
>> that my need was for an income producing investment, and that was what mine
>> was, the MS approach didn't come close, for me, I don't see how that is
>> saying MS was offering a much worse deal, it simply wasn't appropriate.
>
> Then why did you trim out the paragraph I cited above?
to save space as it wasn't relevant, its there in your original for all to
see.
> You made up a hypothetical investment and said an investment in MS in
> 1985 would have been much worse.
>
So now you assert that the investment I made in 1986 was "hypothetical"
where on earth do you get so much nerve, is it a practised art or completely
natural.....(answer not required).
>> Mistreating? where did that one come from? Two facts emerged, the first was
>> that MS has never paid a dividend, now some people may say that isn't
>> important, which leads to fact two, shareholders are indeed asking why a
>> dividend cant be paid. Mistreating? that's your slant not mine, and maybe
>> that of some disgruntled shareholders.
>
> The point which you keep missing is that anyone focusing only on income
There you go again..who said anything about "focusing only on income"
I never said that was the ONLY consideration, Income, Tax advantage, low
risk (without the need for hindsight), a hobby, guaranteed $$$ increase over
the short/long term, a secure $$$ foundation should I depart the scene,
these were some of the considerations, or perhaps these too were
hypothetical.........
Cyclical
----------
In article <uc#W9ZzkCHA.1348@cpimsnntpa03>, "ed"
<ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
> In message news:3ddf7336$0$191$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au,
> Cyclical <cycl...@choo.com> jotted:
>
>>
>> I don't know where you got the idea that I had any dealings with the
>> stock market.
>
> i got the idea here:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3ddf8ac
> b%240%24192%245a62ac22%40freenews.iinet.net.au&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dpc
> -%2520the%2520best%2520value%2520by%2520far%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%
> 3Den
>
> where i said income generating stocks are nice for some, and you said
> "...colour me some folk". =)
Agreed, I can see why you would have drawn that conclusion, what I meant was
that, whatever investment I chose at that time would have had to have an
income producing part to it.
>> As for the rest I have NO idea what your talking about, you appear to be>
It has been an education, thank you, I think I finally understand the
"split" thing..sort of. :+)
flip
"Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
> ----------
> In article <flippo-4C57C1....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
> <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >>
> >> So, I didn't "come right out and say" etc, etc, but by merely mentioning
> >> that my need was for an income producing investment, and that was what mine
> >> was, the MS approach didn't come close, for me, I don't see how that is
> >> saying MS was offering a much worse deal, it simply wasn't appropriate.
> >
> > Then why did you trim out the paragraph I cited above?
>
> to save space as it wasn't relevant, its there in your original for all to
> see.
Of course it was relevant. It proved exactly what I said it did - and
you only made yourself look bad by trimming it out.
>
> > You made up a hypothetical investment and said an investment in MS in
> > 1985 would have been much worse.
> >
>
> So now you assert that the investment I made in 1986 was "hypothetical"
> where on earth do you get so much nerve, is it a practised art or completely
> natural.....(answer not required).
I wish you'd make up your mind. First you say that you don't invest.
Then you say that the investment you were talking about was real.
PLEASE make up your mind.
>
>
> >> Mistreating? where did that one come from? Two facts emerged, the first was
> >> that MS has never paid a dividend, now some people may say that isn't
> >> important, which leads to fact two, shareholders are indeed asking why a
> >> dividend cant be paid. Mistreating? that's your slant not mine, and maybe
> >> that of some disgruntled shareholders.
> >
> > The point which you keep missing is that anyone focusing only on income
>
> There you go again..who said anything about "focusing only on income"
> I never said that was the ONLY consideration, Income, Tax advantage, low
> risk (without the need for hindsight), a hobby, guaranteed $$$ increase over
> the short/long term, a secure $$$ foundation should I depart the scene,
> these were some of the considerations, or perhaps these too were
> hypothetical.........
>
Let's see. You want a guaranteed $$ increase over both the short term
and long term, low risk, income, etc.
Put your money in a savings account.
flip
"Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
> ----------
> In article <uc#W9ZzkCHA.1348@cpimsnntpa03>, "ed"
> <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> > In message news:3ddf7336$0$191$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au,
> > Cyclical <cycl...@choo.com> jotted:
> >
>
> >>
> >> I don't know where you got the idea that I had any dealings with the
> >> stock market.
> >
> > i got the idea here:
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3ddf8ac
> > b%240%24192%245a62ac22%40freenews.iinet.net.au&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dpc
> > -%2520the%2520best%2520value%2520by%2520far%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%
> > 3Den
> >
> > where i said income generating stocks are nice for some, and you said
> > "...colour me some folk". =)
>
> Agreed, I can see why you would have drawn that conclusion, what I meant was
> that, whatever investment I chose at that time would have had to have an
> income producing part to it.
Why would you want an income producing part? What are your investment
goals?
For most people at your age (or at what I assume your age is), you
should be investing for long term growth.
Cyclical
----------
In article <flippo-99B533....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
<fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <3de045df$0$183$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
> "Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
>
>> ----------
>> In article <flippo-4C57C1....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
>> <fli...@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >>
>> >> So, I didn't "come right out and say" etc, etc, but by merely mentioning
>> >> that my need was for an income producing investment, and that was what
mine
>> >> was, the MS approach didn't come close, for me, I don't see how that is
>> >> saying MS was offering a much worse deal, it simply wasn't appropriate.
>> >
>> > Then why did you trim out the paragraph I cited above?
>>
>> to save space as it wasn't relevant, its there in your original for all to
>> see.
>
> Of course it was relevant. It proved exactly what I said it did - and
> you only made yourself look bad by trimming it out.
>
>>
>> > You made up a hypothetical investment and said an investment in MS in
>> > 1985 would have been much worse.
>> >
>>
>> So now you assert that the investment I made in 1986 was "hypothetical"
>> where on earth do you get so much nerve, is it a practised art or completely
>> natural.....(answer not required).
>
> I wish you'd make up your mind. First you say that you don't invest.
> Then you say that the investment you were talking about was real.
>
> PLEASE make up your mind.
So the ONLY form of investment is Stocks and Shares?
Surely anyone can see that 1) I made an investment in 1986, 2) It had
nothing to do with Stocks and shares.
why are you so adamant that S & S are the only way to make money work for
you?
>>
>> >> Mistreating? where did that one come from? Two facts emerged, the first
was
>> >> that MS has never paid a dividend, now some people may say that isn't
>> >> important, which leads to fact two, shareholders are indeed asking why a
>> >> dividend cant be paid. Mistreating? that's your slant not mine, and maybe
>> >> that of some disgruntled shareholders.
>> >
>> > The point which you keep missing is that anyone focusing only on income
>>
>> There you go again..who said anything about "focusing only on income"
>> I never said that was the ONLY consideration, Income, Tax advantage, low
>> risk (without the need for hindsight), a hobby, guaranteed $$$ increase over
>> the short/long term, a secure $$$ foundation should I depart the scene,
>> these were some of the considerations, or perhaps these too were
>> hypothetical.........
>>
>
> Let's see. You want a guaranteed $$ increase over both the short term
> and long term, low risk, income, etc.
>
> Put your money in a savings account.
Its not a case of "want" we are talking about a decision made in 1986 and
what I wanted back then is coming to fruition now.
A savings acc?...I think I did better than that....but thanks anyway.
Cyclical
----------
In article <flippo-AD9052....@news.central.cox.net>, flip
<fli...@mac.com> wrote:
> In article <3de04830$0$182$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au>,
> "Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
>
>> ----------
>> In article <uc#W9ZzkCHA.1348@cpimsnntpa03>, "ed"
>> <ne...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> > In message news:3ddf7336$0$191$5a62...@freenews.iinet.net.au,
>> > Cyclical <cycl...@choo.com> jotted:
>> >
>>
>> >>
>> >> I don't know where you got the idea that I had any dealings with the
>> >> stock market.
>> >
>> > i got the idea here:
>> > http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=3ddf8ac
>> > b%240%24192%245a62ac22%40freenews.iinet.net.au&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dpc
>> > -%2520the%2520best%2520value%2520by%2520far%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26hl%
>> > 3Den
>> >
>> > where i said income generating stocks are nice for some, and you said
>> > "...colour me some folk". =)
>>
>> Agreed, I can see why you would have drawn that conclusion, what I meant was
>> that, whatever investment I chose at that time would have had to have an
>> income producing part to it.
>
> Why would you want an income producing part? What are your investment
> goals?
Why? So that working full time was not a major consideration in my life
as it happens I enjoy my work so it wasn't such a chore, but I wanted the
choice, especially with young children.
> For most people at your age (or at what I assume your age is), you
> should be investing for long term growth.
I have a young family, their future is up to a point secured, your probably
right about the long term, but for now we are content enjoying life now,
growing old regretting what might have been has never been a passion of
mine, perhaps one day that philosophy will come back and bit me....we'll
see.
flip
"Cyclical" <cycl...@choo.com> wrote:
I was being sarcastic.
The point is that your requirements are contradictory.
And that doesn't even get into the tax issues. For example, you stated
that you want a tax advantage. If so, you're better off with Microsft's
no-dividend but high capital gain type stocks than with a stock that
pays dividends, anyway.
As for doing better than a savings account, yes you did. But you didn't
do all that well for a 15 year investment (given the gains of the 90's).
Seriously, do yourself a favor and take a course at your community
college in investing.