THREAD CLOSED!!! Ask Rande 5000+: USE NEW THREAD

Top 32. Mar 22, 2000 3:00 PM

» Rande - Ugly Americans at work.

Ugly Americans at work. We can be a provincial lot. What they probably meant to say is that the W5000 holds of the stocks in North America....that matter. ;)

-- posted by Rande

Top 33. Mar 22, 2000 3:16 PM

» Hugs - new vs. old economy

From the article Jen posted, a few things caught my attention.

But while this next phase of the Internet revolution promises greater efficiency, it also creates more uncertainty. Who will reap the gains from these new efficiencies? The long-established producers? Their longtime suppliers? The marketplace designers? Consumers? No one knows for sure.

Well it sure seems likely to me that the benefits aren't going to cornered by any one one aspect of it, or at least not initially. There is one heck of a lot of cost and money spent in the supply/distribution/sales segment of the equation, and that looks to me like the first target for "reduction." Perhaps that is the task or goal of the "new" marketplace designers. If so, then I see all three of the groups mentioned as benefiting... perhaps at the expense of the "traditional" market designers?

"We wanted to make sure that there's a better understanding that in this so-called New Economy, the assets of the Old Economy are going to be driving the value."

Guess I believe it, and that's why I was buying a few of the "long-established producers" when they were on sale this last month or so.

During the past decade, those companies "have been able to offset rising raw material costs with cost reductions and efficiency increases," Ms. Hay says. "It doesn't appear they can do that anymore."

In the same manner that they have previously? Perhaps not. But does anyone really believe that these "old economy" producers have so finely honed their own methods of acquiring raw materials and the distribution of theiir finished product to think that there is no more "savings" to be gained by greater efficiencies there? If so, then what in the world do they think it is that the "new economy" companies are supposed to be or are trying to do? Sorry, but I find it hard to believe anybody would buy that line, Ms. Hay.

I think it's hard for a lot of people to believe that lots of "old economy" companies are just going to "roll over" and play dead here.

-- posted by Hugs

Top 34. Mar 22, 2000 4:04 PM

» Rande - Hugs,

Hugs,

Excellent points. The debate goes on, with the market voting one way or the other on any given day. Given that investors can be prone to emotional overreaction in the short term, the kind of thoughtfully analysis you demonstrate -- stepping back and looking deliberately at the Big Picture -- is key.

-- posted by Rande

Top 35. Mar 22, 2000 8:14 PM

» gorby - partial withdrawels

Rande----If 100 shares are purchased and then sold 25 at a time, how is the commission figured into the cost basis? Divided equally for each of the
4 sales, or can it all be claimed as part of the cost basis on the first 25 share sale?
----Dennis

-- posted by gorby

Top 36. Mar 22, 2000 8:22 PM

» Rande - gorby,

gorby,

Best to just prorate the commission on the orginal purchase on a per-share basis. For example, if you bought 100 shares at $10 per share with a $20 commission, your total cost basis is $1,020 or $10.20 per share. For each sale of 25 shares, just use a $10.20 per share cost basis (using proceeds net of commission to compute your gain, of course).

-- posted by Rande

Top 37. Mar 22, 2000 8:41 PM

» gorby - Thanks!

Rande-----It's good you can read between the lines, as I was indeed talking about the original commission. The way you illustrated it makes this easier than I thought it would be.

Much appreciated!
Dennis

-- posted by gorby

Top 38. Mar 23, 2000 5:57 AM

» Kirk - 5K + vacation

Congratulations on AR5K!

It is nice to go on vacation and come home to find yourself at record valuations!

Thanks for helping spread the word here that wholesale market timing is dangerous to one's portfolio. Nice to be on the correct side of the equation!

As to the "Kirk Effect"... well, there is already a "Kirk Effect" for transistors, but it was not named after me. I WILL be happy to take as many vacations as possible if the market would do what it did on this last one! WoW! Look at that "loser stock" BOWG go too! little bugger has blown to shreds the 4% rule - Gates would be proud of me! 8)

-- posted by Kirk

Top 39. Mar 23, 2000 6:21 AM

» Kirk - Bonds

AM I reading it right?

5.88% on the 30 year? That is getting awfully close to a full inversion!

When do we start to hear from the congresscritters complaining that Greenspan is putting their constituents out of jobs with his tightening?

Also, I guess Greenspan looks at the total stock market rather than a few hot, highly valued, speculative issues when he looks for the "wealth effect." I am glad he is a reasonable man.

-- posted by Kirk

Top 40. Mar 23, 2000 6:28 AM

» Rande - Kirk,

Kirk,

Greenspan would be well-advised to do as former Treasury Secretary Bob Rubin did and start paying more attention to the bond market, as opposed to the stock market.

30-year currently yielding 5.88% and the 10-year yielding 6.03%.

-- posted by Rande