Hello Everyone! I've changed the blog address to the one Leslie set up some time ago.
Now go to www.wadecook.blogspot.com to get the latest posts. (No more 22 in the url)
Thanks for reading and following this blog. We look forward to your comments.
Wade and family
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Friday, September 9, 2011
STOCK MARKET, IS THE TIMING RIGHT NOW?
I've done a lot of reading and thinking lately. I think I can explain why the market hasn't moved up a lot in the last ten years. In fact, Microsoft might be a microcosm of the "why" behind this schlerotic market. I've stated repeatedly the observation that Microsoft (MSFT) is flat. It's been between $24 and $28 steadily for over this ten year stretch. Why?
So I'm reading everything I can get on this topic. I'm interested because the main focus of my endeavors is to write covered calls to generate income. If a stock is flat--perceived as going nowhere--the options are weak. To sell them you generate very little in premium. For example, a robust stock at $25 might have an October premium at $1.80. Even some stocks have option premiums near 10% of the stock price. Microsoft's option is 25 cents or 40 cents. That says no one thinks the stock is going anywhere. And for the time being, they're right. What would drive Microsoft up? It's one of the best run companies in the country. They make millions. I mean tens of millions---everyday. More on this after I make a macro case for the market.
One could look at the market in general---either the Dow 30 or even the S & P 500---over the last 5 years and it looks like one of my rolling stocks.
Right now there are 22 of the S & P 500 with stocks at a lower price than where they were ten years ago. Look at just a few of them:
This is amazing group of stocks. Let me weigh in on a few possible reasons for this and a few possible plays:
1) These are huge companies. They are worth billions of dollars. They have billions of shares outstanding. For example, anyone who wants to own Microsoft already owns it. What could they do to make more people want to buy their stock? Could they make another deal, say with some Chinese companies? That they are doing. Could they make more profits? That they are doing, quite robustly. Stocks are subject to rules, one being the law of supply and demand. They have a lot of supply, but right now the demand is not there.
2) One reason these stocks have not gone up is that they were too high ten years ago. We were at the end of the dot-com bubble. P/E ratios back then were 37 times, 68 times and 124 times earnings. I remember one stock at 2200 times earnings. Some were at N/A. There were no earnings. P/E is a division formula. You can't divide by zero. In a way E-Commerce took the E out of P/E. We've come a long way, but the stock prices lag.
3) Speaking of high and low P/Es. Look at the right hand column. Traditional P/Es, even for these high rollers is around 20 to 30 times earnings. A quick one sentence lesson on P/Es. The P/E number states how much money it costs to buy one dollar of earnings. If a company today has a P/E of 9.3, like Microsoft, it means you're paying $9.30 to get at $1 of profits. I remember when MSFT had a P/E of 35. And that was considered okay.
4) Everything returns to the NORM---meaning normal. If stocks typically trade at 19.2 times earnings, then sooner or later that ratio will return. Earnings will either go up to match up and justify the high ratio (making it normal) or the stock price will come down (making it normal). If you have $100,000 in the bank and earn a 3% interest, or $3,000 for the year, you have a P/E of 33 plus. It costs $33 to get at one dollar of earnings. If you get 5% interest, your P/E is 20 ($100,000 divided by $5,000 equals 20). See how simple it is. This bank example is important, because in some ways it's a good measuring stick. The hope of stock investing is not always to capture the income, but to have the stock increase in value.
5) Scan your eyeballs down the right column and you'll see some tremendously low P/Es. These stocks still may take years to go up substantially, but they are making money---lots of it---and even today a higher price is justified. For example, Microsoft could have a P/E of 27 (Three times nine) and the stock would be at three times its current $25, or $75. If it were there it would seem natural.
6) I think there are some good prospects. Now I'm going to look at book value, and see if any of these have a negative book value, making them even more tempting. Whirlpool, Gap and Computer Sciences look like good takeover candidates.
7) I like covered calls, in the 6% to 10% monthly cash flow range. Most of these are in the 5% range, and though good, there might be better cash flow stocks. Dell was at $14.02 today. The September $14 calls were 39 X 40 cents, 39 cents to sell. The October $14 calls were 88 cents to sell, or $880 if you had 1,000 shares. The $15 calls were 44 cents to sell.
8) Many of these stocks have a 2% plus dividend yield. They also have stong balance sheets, with most holding $4 to $6 per share in cash.
Years ago these stocks were firmly in the growth sector. Today they are defined as value stocks. I like the future of these companies, and I love the future of America, no matter the Liberal machinations to devalue our country and economy.
So I'm reading everything I can get on this topic. I'm interested because the main focus of my endeavors is to write covered calls to generate income. If a stock is flat--perceived as going nowhere--the options are weak. To sell them you generate very little in premium. For example, a robust stock at $25 might have an October premium at $1.80. Even some stocks have option premiums near 10% of the stock price. Microsoft's option is 25 cents or 40 cents. That says no one thinks the stock is going anywhere. And for the time being, they're right. What would drive Microsoft up? It's one of the best run companies in the country. They make millions. I mean tens of millions---everyday. More on this after I make a macro case for the market.
One could look at the market in general---either the Dow 30 or even the S & P 500---over the last 5 years and it looks like one of my rolling stocks.
Right now there are 22 of the S & P 500 with stocks at a lower price than where they were ten years ago. Look at just a few of them:
STOCK/TCKER PRICE 8-29-01 PRICE 8-29-11 RECENT P/E
BestBuy/BBY $26.86 $25.43 7.3
Nvidia/NVDA 14.05 13.36 13.3
Cisco Systems/CSCO 17.08 15.74 9.2
Texas Inst/TXN 34.05 26.16 11.2
Capital One/COF 56.68 45.39 6.3
MIcrosoft/MSFT 27.11 25.84 9.3
Xilinx/XLNX 37.95 31.21 14.5
Kla-Tencor/KLAC 49.75 36.86 9.0
JPMorgan Chase/JPM 39.57 37.64 7.5
Dell/DELL 21.80 14.97 7.4
H & R Block/HRB 19.45 14.95 9.1
Gap/GPS 19.70 16.74 11.0
Intel/INTC 28.1 20.30 8.5
Others include: FRX, AMGN, KSS, MDT, DOW, TSS, WHR, PAYX. (Source: Bespoke Investment Group)Nvidia/NVDA 14.05 13.36 13.3
Cisco Systems/CSCO 17.08 15.74 9.2
Texas Inst/TXN 34.05 26.16 11.2
Capital One/COF 56.68 45.39 6.3
MIcrosoft/MSFT 27.11 25.84 9.3
Xilinx/XLNX 37.95 31.21 14.5
Kla-Tencor/KLAC 49.75 36.86 9.0
JPMorgan Chase/JPM 39.57 37.64 7.5
Dell/DELL 21.80 14.97 7.4
H & R Block/HRB 19.45 14.95 9.1
Gap/GPS 19.70 16.74 11.0
Intel/INTC 28.1 20.30 8.5
This is amazing group of stocks. Let me weigh in on a few possible reasons for this and a few possible plays:
1) These are huge companies. They are worth billions of dollars. They have billions of shares outstanding. For example, anyone who wants to own Microsoft already owns it. What could they do to make more people want to buy their stock? Could they make another deal, say with some Chinese companies? That they are doing. Could they make more profits? That they are doing, quite robustly. Stocks are subject to rules, one being the law of supply and demand. They have a lot of supply, but right now the demand is not there.
2) One reason these stocks have not gone up is that they were too high ten years ago. We were at the end of the dot-com bubble. P/E ratios back then were 37 times, 68 times and 124 times earnings. I remember one stock at 2200 times earnings. Some were at N/A. There were no earnings. P/E is a division formula. You can't divide by zero. In a way E-Commerce took the E out of P/E. We've come a long way, but the stock prices lag.
3) Speaking of high and low P/Es. Look at the right hand column. Traditional P/Es, even for these high rollers is around 20 to 30 times earnings. A quick one sentence lesson on P/Es. The P/E number states how much money it costs to buy one dollar of earnings. If a company today has a P/E of 9.3, like Microsoft, it means you're paying $9.30 to get at $1 of profits. I remember when MSFT had a P/E of 35. And that was considered okay.
4) Everything returns to the NORM---meaning normal. If stocks typically trade at 19.2 times earnings, then sooner or later that ratio will return. Earnings will either go up to match up and justify the high ratio (making it normal) or the stock price will come down (making it normal). If you have $100,000 in the bank and earn a 3% interest, or $3,000 for the year, you have a P/E of 33 plus. It costs $33 to get at one dollar of earnings. If you get 5% interest, your P/E is 20 ($100,000 divided by $5,000 equals 20). See how simple it is. This bank example is important, because in some ways it's a good measuring stick. The hope of stock investing is not always to capture the income, but to have the stock increase in value.
5) Scan your eyeballs down the right column and you'll see some tremendously low P/Es. These stocks still may take years to go up substantially, but they are making money---lots of it---and even today a higher price is justified. For example, Microsoft could have a P/E of 27 (Three times nine) and the stock would be at three times its current $25, or $75. If it were there it would seem natural.
6) I think there are some good prospects. Now I'm going to look at book value, and see if any of these have a negative book value, making them even more tempting. Whirlpool, Gap and Computer Sciences look like good takeover candidates.
7) I like covered calls, in the 6% to 10% monthly cash flow range. Most of these are in the 5% range, and though good, there might be better cash flow stocks. Dell was at $14.02 today. The September $14 calls were 39 X 40 cents, 39 cents to sell. The October $14 calls were 88 cents to sell, or $880 if you had 1,000 shares. The $15 calls were 44 cents to sell.
8) Many of these stocks have a 2% plus dividend yield. They also have stong balance sheets, with most holding $4 to $6 per share in cash.
Years ago these stocks were firmly in the growth sector. Today they are defined as value stocks. I like the future of these companies, and I love the future of America, no matter the Liberal machinations to devalue our country and economy.
Thursday, September 8, 2011
October Options and Monthly Income
Fellow Weary Travelers,
I'm just about excited as can be. We sit around, we Happy Campers, and talk and plan and think about our futures. Then we come across a grouping of stocks, that if used in the right way, just might provide the income to let us and you retire.
In my last blog, I started by sharing a little information on writing covered calls. It is a workhorse strategy. Picking up where that left off, I offer the following:
What could $20,000 do for generating cash flow for the month of October? First, ask yourself a side question, which may become the main question if you really think about it: What would you like this money to do? What amount of income/cash flow would you want it to produce? What would you need to retire on, or at least let a mother or father retire and stay home with the kids? Would $2,000 do it? How about $3,000? Oh, do you need more?
The market closed since I wrote the last posting. FAS closed at $13.20 and the Sept $13 calls were $1.08 X $1.13. But look at the October's. They were/are $2.18 X $2.25.
EK was $2.99 (We'll round off to $3 for this discussion). The Sept $3 calls were 22 X 26 cents and the October $3 calls were 54 X 57 cents.
RENN was about the same, and Bank of America was about the same as RENN. So, here we go.
We'll start with $20,000. Let's keep it simple. We'll buy 1,000 shares of FAS and 2,000 shares of EK. I like both of these, but you should do your own research.
The shares of FAS will cost $13,200. By selling 10 contracts of the Oct $13 calls for $2.18, we take in $2,180. Okay so far?
Now, let's spend $6,000 on the 2,000 shares of EK, and then sell the October $3 calls for 54 cents times 2,000 and take in $1,080.
TOTALS: We've spent $19,200, meaning we could keep the extra money in reserve, or even use it to buy a few more hundred shares of EK. We take in $3,260 for selling the options. I'll wait for you to absorb that number.
Okay, are you back with me? Could you live on $3,000 plus per month? How much time did this take? About 20 to 30 minutes. Could you make more if you watched and used the buy-back on dips and double-dipped for extra cash flow? Indubitably. Should you still employ protective strategies, like the stop-loss? Yes.
But what am I not writing is just as important as all of this. This cash flow is created with two trades. You could do this as well with other stocks. This exercise also assumes that you need to take out the money to pay the bills. What if you did not need to do so, right now? Think, you have $3,260 in profit. You could, with those profits, buy another 1,000 shares of EK (or another stock) and simultaneously sell another ten contracts, generating another $540. The net cash flow popped up to $3,800.
And now for the BIGGIE. What if you used margin. You've heard my caveats about margin, but let's think big right now, and take a little extra risk. If you used margin, you could have doubled up on all of this. Your $20,000 could have purchased $40,000 (In this case about $38,000) worth of stock, and your income would be double the $3,260 (plus another $540, maybe) and be around $6,480. Now can you live on that? This is all based on your original $20,000. You can start with less.
These are good questions. From my first days teaching seminars and writing books, my meme has been to help people get together a grouping of assets that produce monthly income. I still contend, $20,000 to $30,000 used the right way, will do the retirement trick. Think what you can do with all that free time and extra money!
I remain, your humble friend, Wade
I'm just about excited as can be. We sit around, we Happy Campers, and talk and plan and think about our futures. Then we come across a grouping of stocks, that if used in the right way, just might provide the income to let us and you retire.
In my last blog, I started by sharing a little information on writing covered calls. It is a workhorse strategy. Picking up where that left off, I offer the following:
What could $20,000 do for generating cash flow for the month of October? First, ask yourself a side question, which may become the main question if you really think about it: What would you like this money to do? What amount of income/cash flow would you want it to produce? What would you need to retire on, or at least let a mother or father retire and stay home with the kids? Would $2,000 do it? How about $3,000? Oh, do you need more?
The market closed since I wrote the last posting. FAS closed at $13.20 and the Sept $13 calls were $1.08 X $1.13. But look at the October's. They were/are $2.18 X $2.25.
EK was $2.99 (We'll round off to $3 for this discussion). The Sept $3 calls were 22 X 26 cents and the October $3 calls were 54 X 57 cents.
RENN was about the same, and Bank of America was about the same as RENN. So, here we go.
We'll start with $20,000. Let's keep it simple. We'll buy 1,000 shares of FAS and 2,000 shares of EK. I like both of these, but you should do your own research.
The shares of FAS will cost $13,200. By selling 10 contracts of the Oct $13 calls for $2.18, we take in $2,180. Okay so far?
Now, let's spend $6,000 on the 2,000 shares of EK, and then sell the October $3 calls for 54 cents times 2,000 and take in $1,080.
TOTALS: We've spent $19,200, meaning we could keep the extra money in reserve, or even use it to buy a few more hundred shares of EK. We take in $3,260 for selling the options. I'll wait for you to absorb that number.
Okay, are you back with me? Could you live on $3,000 plus per month? How much time did this take? About 20 to 30 minutes. Could you make more if you watched and used the buy-back on dips and double-dipped for extra cash flow? Indubitably. Should you still employ protective strategies, like the stop-loss? Yes.
But what am I not writing is just as important as all of this. This cash flow is created with two trades. You could do this as well with other stocks. This exercise also assumes that you need to take out the money to pay the bills. What if you did not need to do so, right now? Think, you have $3,260 in profit. You could, with those profits, buy another 1,000 shares of EK (or another stock) and simultaneously sell another ten contracts, generating another $540. The net cash flow popped up to $3,800.
And now for the BIGGIE. What if you used margin. You've heard my caveats about margin, but let's think big right now, and take a little extra risk. If you used margin, you could have doubled up on all of this. Your $20,000 could have purchased $40,000 (In this case about $38,000) worth of stock, and your income would be double the $3,260 (plus another $540, maybe) and be around $6,480. Now can you live on that? This is all based on your original $20,000. You can start with less.
These are good questions. From my first days teaching seminars and writing books, my meme has been to help people get together a grouping of assets that produce monthly income. I still contend, $20,000 to $30,000 used the right way, will do the retirement trick. Think what you can do with all that free time and extra money!
I remain, your humble friend, Wade
Writing Covered Calls
I hope you are well. I'm very limited on the speed and timely accuracy of the news I get and the prices of stock and options on the stock, so you will have to check out the current prices yourself.
A blog or two ago, I mentioned I wanted to see how much oomph September Options had left. So, I set out this AM to work with a paper-trade amount of $20,000 and write covered calls. The attempt is to try to pick up 10% cash on the $20,000. Let's see what shakes out.
Simply put, Writing Covered Calls means you own stock (or buy it for this purpose) and then sell the fluff of options, giving someone the right to buy your stock at a price you pre-determine.
By selling an option you take on an obligation to sell (deliver) the stock anytime, on or before the expiration date, usually the third Friday of the month. It should be noted that there are now two or three expiration dates a month, especially in bigger traded stocks. Again, you sell and take in the cash now, and then whether you actually sell the stock or not, you get to keep the money.
For this exercise we will not do margin. For those of you who want to pick this up a little, remember you only have to put up half of the money if trading on margin, and your broker will loan you the other half, using the stock as collateral. It is a form of debt, and should be used sparingly. If you want those calculations, just double everything you read here---the cost of the stock and the option prices.
Here goes. We'll start with RenRen (RENN). The stock is at $7.25, and I think there is every indication the stock will settle in near the strike price of $7 around next Friday, the expiration date. The $7 call option was at 50 X 60 cents. We sell at the first (or lower) number.
RENN: 1,000 shares at $7.25 is $7,250 and we sell the calls for 50 cents, taking in $500.
ACCUMULATED TOTALS: $7,250, $500 in.
Next we'll do 2,000 shares of Eastman Kodak (EK) for $3.24, or $6,480 and sell the $3.50 call for 37 cents, taking in $740.
ACCUMULATED TOTALS: $13,730, $1,240.
Last we'll do 500 shares of FAS, an ETF (Exchange Traded Fund, in the Banking Sector), at $12.10. That's $5,060 and then sell the $12 call for 90 cents, taking in $450.
ACCUMULATED TOTALS: $18,790 into the stocks, with $1,690 in.
Well, with this batch of stocks we didn't make it to the 10%, or $2,000, but only $1,690. And just think, it's for 8 days.
I ignored getting called out and giving back the 25 cents in RENN or the 10 cents in FAS, but I also ignored the 26 cent gain in EK times 2000, or $520. With all of that we're very close to the $2,000.
And you should see the October numbers on these. I'll write more later. Also, margin investing, even for part of this, would put you way over the top.
I suggest you start thinking of retiring. For years, I've been teaching "Cash to Asset to Cash." My books and seminars have been about getting assets to produce income---the only way to fly.
If you need help on this, order my book, STOCK MARKET MONEY MACHINE. You can email me at cabdriver22@msn.com if you're interested in getting this book on covered calls.
A blog or two ago, I mentioned I wanted to see how much oomph September Options had left. So, I set out this AM to work with a paper-trade amount of $20,000 and write covered calls. The attempt is to try to pick up 10% cash on the $20,000. Let's see what shakes out.
Simply put, Writing Covered Calls means you own stock (or buy it for this purpose) and then sell the fluff of options, giving someone the right to buy your stock at a price you pre-determine.
By selling an option you take on an obligation to sell (deliver) the stock anytime, on or before the expiration date, usually the third Friday of the month. It should be noted that there are now two or three expiration dates a month, especially in bigger traded stocks. Again, you sell and take in the cash now, and then whether you actually sell the stock or not, you get to keep the money.
For this exercise we will not do margin. For those of you who want to pick this up a little, remember you only have to put up half of the money if trading on margin, and your broker will loan you the other half, using the stock as collateral. It is a form of debt, and should be used sparingly. If you want those calculations, just double everything you read here---the cost of the stock and the option prices.
Here goes. We'll start with RenRen (RENN). The stock is at $7.25, and I think there is every indication the stock will settle in near the strike price of $7 around next Friday, the expiration date. The $7 call option was at 50 X 60 cents. We sell at the first (or lower) number.
RENN: 1,000 shares at $7.25 is $7,250 and we sell the calls for 50 cents, taking in $500.
ACCUMULATED TOTALS: $7,250, $500 in.
Next we'll do 2,000 shares of Eastman Kodak (EK) for $3.24, or $6,480 and sell the $3.50 call for 37 cents, taking in $740.
ACCUMULATED TOTALS: $13,730, $1,240.
Last we'll do 500 shares of FAS, an ETF (Exchange Traded Fund, in the Banking Sector), at $12.10. That's $5,060 and then sell the $12 call for 90 cents, taking in $450.
ACCUMULATED TOTALS: $18,790 into the stocks, with $1,690 in.
Well, with this batch of stocks we didn't make it to the 10%, or $2,000, but only $1,690. And just think, it's for 8 days.
I ignored getting called out and giving back the 25 cents in RENN or the 10 cents in FAS, but I also ignored the 26 cent gain in EK times 2000, or $520. With all of that we're very close to the $2,000.
And you should see the October numbers on these. I'll write more later. Also, margin investing, even for part of this, would put you way over the top.
I suggest you start thinking of retiring. For years, I've been teaching "Cash to Asset to Cash." My books and seminars have been about getting assets to produce income---the only way to fly.
If you need help on this, order my book, STOCK MARKET MONEY MACHINE. You can email me at cabdriver22@msn.com if you're interested in getting this book on covered calls.
Wednesday's Market
We've had another great day in the market. The Dow was up 250 points. And if you look at the information/news it's almost all outside of corporate earnings---again, a classical red-light period. In fact, it's educational what a global economy we live in. Most of the increase was due to an easing of the European debt crisis. I still think the next two weeks will be tough.
But for now, we'll take good news where we can find it. Bank of America was up nicely. Check out FAS. I think it bears study.
I'll be back with you when I get more prices. I'll be writing a blog, attempting to make about $2,200 to $2,500 on $20,000 put up---FOR SEPTEMBER. No sweat for October.
Let me give one quick example. I don't know what RenRen (RENN) did today, but yesterday's closing prices showed the following: the stock was at $7.03. The October $7 calls were 90 cents to sell. Say, we buy 1,000 shares, costing $7,030. Now sell a covered call for 90 cents times 1000 (10 contracts of 100 each contract). Take in $900 cash now. You are selling to someone the right to buy your stock for $7 per share. You sell away the upside---everything above $7---but you're getting paid handsomely to take on this obligation. We're not buying options but selling them to the crazies who like to buy them.
This is an awesome cash flow. If you get called out you have to give back 3 cents per share or $30, but you get to keep the other $870. If the stock stays right around $7 and you don't get called out (sell), then you get to keep the whole $900, and you can then sell the November options, pocketing more cash.
You'll see similar numbers with BAC, MU, and others.
If the average family had three or four positions like this they could retire. 4 times $900 equals $3,600. That would be $28,000 straight up, or $14,000 on margin. It's a cash flow machine. When will you retire?
But for now, we'll take good news where we can find it. Bank of America was up nicely. Check out FAS. I think it bears study.
I'll be back with you when I get more prices. I'll be writing a blog, attempting to make about $2,200 to $2,500 on $20,000 put up---FOR SEPTEMBER. No sweat for October.
Let me give one quick example. I don't know what RenRen (RENN) did today, but yesterday's closing prices showed the following: the stock was at $7.03. The October $7 calls were 90 cents to sell. Say, we buy 1,000 shares, costing $7,030. Now sell a covered call for 90 cents times 1000 (10 contracts of 100 each contract). Take in $900 cash now. You are selling to someone the right to buy your stock for $7 per share. You sell away the upside---everything above $7---but you're getting paid handsomely to take on this obligation. We're not buying options but selling them to the crazies who like to buy them.
This is an awesome cash flow. If you get called out you have to give back 3 cents per share or $30, but you get to keep the other $870. If the stock stays right around $7 and you don't get called out (sell), then you get to keep the whole $900, and you can then sell the November options, pocketing more cash.
You'll see similar numbers with BAC, MU, and others.
If the average family had three or four positions like this they could retire. 4 times $900 equals $3,600. That would be $28,000 straight up, or $14,000 on margin. It's a cash flow machine. When will you retire?
Sunday, September 4, 2011
MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES
Tell me why a very important segment of our population is being so demeaned, picked upon and looked down on by Washington Bureaucrats. This administration is amazing. I think they should give back the millions of dollars in political contributions given to them generously by these great achievers.
The IRS has released some very interesting numbers. When writing books, teaching seminars, and now in these blogs it's a cardinal rule to not use numbers---as in arithmatic. But one just has to if one wants to make sense out of the wonderful world of mathematics. Lately I coined the phrase, basicly given to Mr. Obama, "Mathemagician." He has a very elastic version of reality.
Let's talk about all of the recent attacks on our achievers. These are the people who create jobs, start businesses, invest money so others may do so---in short, the risk takers. Is this number growing or contracting? Let's get to the numbers.
From the dollar amounts provided by the President's IRS for the year 2007 and then 2009 an interesting tale unfolds before our very eyes. Oh I know you can see the dismal economy all around, probably on your way to work everyday. I know you've heard the rhetoric against the free enterprise system.
This first graph is the number of filers.While you read this ask yourself, does America need more or less successful people?
INCOME LEVEL 2007 2009 CHANGE
$200,000 and up 4,531,000 3,924,000 (-) 13%
$1,000,000 and up 390,000 237,000 (-) 39%
$10,000,000 and up 18,394 8,274 (-) 55%
TAXES PAID: The following numbers represent the taxes paid.
$200,000 and up $610 Billion $434 Billion (-) 29%
$1,000,000 and up $309 Billion $178 Billion (-) 57%
$10,000,000 and up $111 Billion $54 Billion (-) 51%
LIVID? One would think the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives would be livid with the President and the Democrats in Congress. They implement their policies and less taxes are taken in. Tax more, create uncertainty by imposing thousands of pages of new regulations plus hundreds of more felonies, and you have an economy on the track to nowhere.
Think of this: Millionaires are vanishing. Where are they going? They are staying home, or moving their money elsewhere. If only Liberals would quit using static models to make projections. Life is not static but very dynamic. Words, attacks, regulations have consequences. When will they ever learn?
The people who made $1,000,000 and up represent two-tenths of one percent (0.02%) but account for 20.4% of the income taxes paid. The next tier: Those making over $200,000 represent 3% of filers but paid 50.1% of the $866 Billion paid in taxes. Extrapolate that out: THE TOP 3% PAID MORE THAN THE BOTTOM 97%.
So we have a current gang in charge that have it all wrong. It was succinctly stated in the Wall Street Journal, sarcastically calling "Obamanomics" a raging success. "The best way to produce equality (Distribute Wealth) is to destroy Trillions of Dollars of wealth."
The IRS has released some very interesting numbers. When writing books, teaching seminars, and now in these blogs it's a cardinal rule to not use numbers---as in arithmatic. But one just has to if one wants to make sense out of the wonderful world of mathematics. Lately I coined the phrase, basicly given to Mr. Obama, "Mathemagician." He has a very elastic version of reality.
Let's talk about all of the recent attacks on our achievers. These are the people who create jobs, start businesses, invest money so others may do so---in short, the risk takers. Is this number growing or contracting? Let's get to the numbers.
From the dollar amounts provided by the President's IRS for the year 2007 and then 2009 an interesting tale unfolds before our very eyes. Oh I know you can see the dismal economy all around, probably on your way to work everyday. I know you've heard the rhetoric against the free enterprise system.
This first graph is the number of filers.While you read this ask yourself, does America need more or less successful people?
INCOME LEVEL 2007 2009 CHANGE
$200,000 and up 4,531,000 3,924,000 (-) 13%
$1,000,000 and up 390,000 237,000 (-) 39%
$10,000,000 and up 18,394 8,274 (-) 55%
TAXES PAID: The following numbers represent the taxes paid.
$200,000 and up $610 Billion $434 Billion (-) 29%
$1,000,000 and up $309 Billion $178 Billion (-) 57%
$10,000,000 and up $111 Billion $54 Billion (-) 51%
LIVID? One would think the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives would be livid with the President and the Democrats in Congress. They implement their policies and less taxes are taken in. Tax more, create uncertainty by imposing thousands of pages of new regulations plus hundreds of more felonies, and you have an economy on the track to nowhere.
Think of this: Millionaires are vanishing. Where are they going? They are staying home, or moving their money elsewhere. If only Liberals would quit using static models to make projections. Life is not static but very dynamic. Words, attacks, regulations have consequences. When will they ever learn?
The people who made $1,000,000 and up represent two-tenths of one percent (0.02%) but account for 20.4% of the income taxes paid. The next tier: Those making over $200,000 represent 3% of filers but paid 50.1% of the $866 Billion paid in taxes. Extrapolate that out: THE TOP 3% PAID MORE THAN THE BOTTOM 97%.
So we have a current gang in charge that have it all wrong. It was succinctly stated in the Wall Street Journal, sarcastically calling "Obamanomics" a raging success. "The best way to produce equality (Distribute Wealth) is to destroy Trillions of Dollars of wealth."
Saturday, September 3, 2011
FATHER KNOWS BEST
A lot of people mix money and politics. I do too. These two aspects of life seem to go hand-in-hand in so many handy ways. Lately I've been writing and commenting here about Warren Buffett and his company's investment in Bank of America. He's in the news.
I was reading other reports and came across the following copy of a speech given by Howard Buffett, Warren's father. This is from 1956 and it's like he's talking to us today.
"The last 40 years have seen a gigantic expansion of political power over economic affairs by the federal government. This change is linked by many scholars to the passage of the income tax law in 1913. This law revolutionized the taxing system in two ways:
1. It gave the government new powers over the economic status of the individual. This change has curtailed the ability of the individual to achieve economic independence.
2. The part of this production taken from the producer cumulatively increases the power of the federal government proportionately with the increase in its income. This power is not created; it is simply taken from the people. . . .
"George Sokolsky, noted columnist, says it this way: 'When human beings become dependent upon the political power of the state for their livelihood, the independence of person must disappear. It is the identification of economic with police power that destroys the right of individual liberty.'
The transfer of economic power into political hands takes many forms. In 1932 about 2.5 million people received a check from the government every month. Today (1956) about 20 million receive a government check every month. What is the effect on the freedom of this great segment of our people being more or less dependent on the political authorities for their daily bread? . . .
"Any discussion of the status of the economic foundation of freedom is incomplete without some attention to a historic human urge---the desire for security. This intense human desire is reflected in the so-called social legislation politicians have placed on our statute books.
"Will this legislation fulfill its promises? If you think so, consider this rarely mentioned fine print clause. If the government is to guarantee you the consequences of your actions will be in this case, security, then the government must take control of your activities. For with responsibility---even self-arrogated responsibility---must go authority. This means that if politicians are to supply your security, they must control your work, your spending, and your saving."
WARREN, LISTEN TO YOUR FATHER.
Please, you've made yours now be quiet and let the rest of us make ours. Your father had it right. You have chosen to buddy-up with the President in his devastating march toward socialism. Your recent comments about taxes are wrong (factually) and wrong-headed. Proverbs 23 is full of advice. A few chosen morsels. Verse 22: "hearken unto thy father that begat thee." Verse 23: " Buy the truth, and sell it not (nor do any truth-splits, my add); also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding."
____________________________________
More coming up after the Wall Street Journal comments on WARREN BUFFET'S TAX DODGE. The plot thickens.
I was reading other reports and came across the following copy of a speech given by Howard Buffett, Warren's father. This is from 1956 and it's like he's talking to us today.
"The last 40 years have seen a gigantic expansion of political power over economic affairs by the federal government. This change is linked by many scholars to the passage of the income tax law in 1913. This law revolutionized the taxing system in two ways:
1. It gave the government new powers over the economic status of the individual. This change has curtailed the ability of the individual to achieve economic independence.
2. The part of this production taken from the producer cumulatively increases the power of the federal government proportionately with the increase in its income. This power is not created; it is simply taken from the people. . . .
"George Sokolsky, noted columnist, says it this way: 'When human beings become dependent upon the political power of the state for their livelihood, the independence of person must disappear. It is the identification of economic with police power that destroys the right of individual liberty.'
The transfer of economic power into political hands takes many forms. In 1932 about 2.5 million people received a check from the government every month. Today (1956) about 20 million receive a government check every month. What is the effect on the freedom of this great segment of our people being more or less dependent on the political authorities for their daily bread? . . .
"Any discussion of the status of the economic foundation of freedom is incomplete without some attention to a historic human urge---the desire for security. This intense human desire is reflected in the so-called social legislation politicians have placed on our statute books.
"Will this legislation fulfill its promises? If you think so, consider this rarely mentioned fine print clause. If the government is to guarantee you the consequences of your actions will be in this case, security, then the government must take control of your activities. For with responsibility---even self-arrogated responsibility---must go authority. This means that if politicians are to supply your security, they must control your work, your spending, and your saving."
WARREN, LISTEN TO YOUR FATHER.
Please, you've made yours now be quiet and let the rest of us make ours. Your father had it right. You have chosen to buddy-up with the President in his devastating march toward socialism. Your recent comments about taxes are wrong (factually) and wrong-headed. Proverbs 23 is full of advice. A few chosen morsels. Verse 22: "hearken unto thy father that begat thee." Verse 23: " Buy the truth, and sell it not (nor do any truth-splits, my add); also wisdom, and instruction, and understanding."
____________________________________
More coming up after the Wall Street Journal comments on WARREN BUFFET'S TAX DODGE. The plot thickens.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
Market Performance
It's now Thursday. The market performed this week pretty much like my experiences told me it would. What about next week?
I think it will be a down market for the following reasons.
1) There's no good reason for it to go up. Where's the forklift to move the boxes? I don't see one.
2) We're in the summer doldrums, classically important red-light period. This means relatively low levels of news. We need to get to the next earnings season. That will happen as we move toward October.
3) Politics has the market a bit fearful. Never have we had such an anti-business administration, even worse than in the mid-1930s.
4) The tenth year anniversary is just around the corner, and so might be our next terror threat. I surely hope not but there have been statements which need to be taken seriously. After 9/11, and nothing has happened, we'll all breathe a sigh of relief.
5) If you are a bullish option player, these scenarios won't play out until after the September expiration date of the 16th.
6) The economy is not going anywhere quickly. I think this negative sentiment is already built into the market prices.
There's more, but this hits the highlights.
HOW TO PLAY?
1) If you are selling covered calls, sell in-the-money calls. Sell everything above the strike price you think the stock will move to---usually the strike price with the most open interest.
2) If you're trying to accumulate a few shares here and there, look for bargains. Read again my blogs on Bank of America/Buffett and see if that knowledge applies to your efforts.
I think it will be a down market for the following reasons.
1) There's no good reason for it to go up. Where's the forklift to move the boxes? I don't see one.
2) We're in the summer doldrums, classically important red-light period. This means relatively low levels of news. We need to get to the next earnings season. That will happen as we move toward October.
3) Politics has the market a bit fearful. Never have we had such an anti-business administration, even worse than in the mid-1930s.
4) The tenth year anniversary is just around the corner, and so might be our next terror threat. I surely hope not but there have been statements which need to be taken seriously. After 9/11, and nothing has happened, we'll all breathe a sigh of relief.
5) If you are a bullish option player, these scenarios won't play out until after the September expiration date of the 16th.
6) The economy is not going anywhere quickly. I think this negative sentiment is already built into the market prices.
There's more, but this hits the highlights.
HOW TO PLAY?
1) If you are selling covered calls, sell in-the-money calls. Sell everything above the strike price you think the stock will move to---usually the strike price with the most open interest.
2) If you're trying to accumulate a few shares here and there, look for bargains. Read again my blogs on Bank of America/Buffett and see if that knowledge applies to your efforts.
B of A/Buffett #5
Hello, my worthies,
I have some to add to the Buffett discussion. First let me state I admire Mr. Buffett's business acumen. I applaud his insights and strategic moves.
I first became aware of Berkshire Hathaway many years ago. One share back then was around $3,000. I bought a few shares. That was a weird phone call to my broker: "Can I buy two shares of BRK. I sold it at around $6,000, thinking it could not possibly go higher. I got back in at $12,000 and sold for $22,000. When it hit $30,000, they did a new IPO for a second class of stock, now called the B shares, as in BRK.B. These shares were pegged to the A shares (BRK.A) in a 30:1 ratio. As the A shares moved up to $36,000, the B shares would go for $1,200 plus change.
I bought some B shares, and sold them later at $2,200. They kept going up. The A shares hit about $130,000 per share recently. Yes, you read that right. Now, they've back off a bit, but they're still high. And the B Shares? Well first, they did a 50:1 stock split on the B shares. So they now trade at a 1,500:1 ratio in tandem with the A shares. I like these. You would own a piece of Americana---they own the Gecko, Burlington Northern Railroad, and dozens of other companies and hundreds of investments. It's like a Mutual Fund without all the fees. I think sometime in the future they may do a "Cram Down," and send everyone with the A shares, 1,500 of the B shares, effectively doing a 1,500 to 1 Stock Split. This probably won't happen until Warren is in the ground. I hear he doesn't like stock splits.
Okay, now to the point of this Blog. This is the week of their investment of $5,000,000,000 into Bank of America. I wrote previously about the Book Value of B of A. Remember that the Book Value, or Break-Up Value is based on GAAP, an accounting way of placing lower values on real assets. Berkshire Hathaway has billions of dollars of assets that are carried on their financial statements at a value way lower than their true value on the street. The book value is currently $98,700. When this was written last week, the stock was at $105,000 per share.
Now, in a Barron's article we learn that the A shares are trading at a 1.1 times book value. This is very low., and again, the book value stated is much lower than real life. For years the book value of BRK has been at 1.5 times. This means their stock, recently trading at $105,000, could have a stock price at near $150,000 and that would not be unusual.
My point, is that many companies trade at three times book value. I'm not saying anything about the direction of this stock, but a $200,000 to $250,000 share price would not be unreasonable. Obviously there are numerous other factors, P/E ratios, cash availability, expansion, etc., but this is one factor that should be taken seriously. I think this is a good move. Right now I think the play is on Bank of America, either as a hold, or a covered call candidate. Run it passed you advisors.
One more blog coming up on Mr. Buffet, unless something else comes up.
Thanks for participating.
Wade
I have some to add to the Buffett discussion. First let me state I admire Mr. Buffett's business acumen. I applaud his insights and strategic moves.
I first became aware of Berkshire Hathaway many years ago. One share back then was around $3,000. I bought a few shares. That was a weird phone call to my broker: "Can I buy two shares of BRK. I sold it at around $6,000, thinking it could not possibly go higher. I got back in at $12,000 and sold for $22,000. When it hit $30,000, they did a new IPO for a second class of stock, now called the B shares, as in BRK.B. These shares were pegged to the A shares (BRK.A) in a 30:1 ratio. As the A shares moved up to $36,000, the B shares would go for $1,200 plus change.
I bought some B shares, and sold them later at $2,200. They kept going up. The A shares hit about $130,000 per share recently. Yes, you read that right. Now, they've back off a bit, but they're still high. And the B Shares? Well first, they did a 50:1 stock split on the B shares. So they now trade at a 1,500:1 ratio in tandem with the A shares. I like these. You would own a piece of Americana---they own the Gecko, Burlington Northern Railroad, and dozens of other companies and hundreds of investments. It's like a Mutual Fund without all the fees. I think sometime in the future they may do a "Cram Down," and send everyone with the A shares, 1,500 of the B shares, effectively doing a 1,500 to 1 Stock Split. This probably won't happen until Warren is in the ground. I hear he doesn't like stock splits.
Okay, now to the point of this Blog. This is the week of their investment of $5,000,000,000 into Bank of America. I wrote previously about the Book Value of B of A. Remember that the Book Value, or Break-Up Value is based on GAAP, an accounting way of placing lower values on real assets. Berkshire Hathaway has billions of dollars of assets that are carried on their financial statements at a value way lower than their true value on the street. The book value is currently $98,700. When this was written last week, the stock was at $105,000 per share.
Now, in a Barron's article we learn that the A shares are trading at a 1.1 times book value. This is very low., and again, the book value stated is much lower than real life. For years the book value of BRK has been at 1.5 times. This means their stock, recently trading at $105,000, could have a stock price at near $150,000 and that would not be unusual.
My point, is that many companies trade at three times book value. I'm not saying anything about the direction of this stock, but a $200,000 to $250,000 share price would not be unreasonable. Obviously there are numerous other factors, P/E ratios, cash availability, expansion, etc., but this is one factor that should be taken seriously. I think this is a good move. Right now I think the play is on Bank of America, either as a hold, or a covered call candidate. Run it passed you advisors.
One more blog coming up on Mr. Buffet, unless something else comes up.
Thanks for participating.
Wade
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)