THREAD IS CLOSED!!! Ask Rande 6000+ USE NEW THREAD

Top 52. May 14, 2000 6:55 AM

» Kirk - Value

Good story on Value Rande.

Funny, but SOME technology stocks ARE trading at true value levels if you consider earnings and revenue growth. Fairly complex to seperate the hype stocks from the value stocks and know where to look, but I am STILL finding several good technology stocks are cheap when you look at them in this light.

We were WAY out in front by buying bank stocks last year as well as pointing out DIS, Oil and Gas when prices were $10/barrel, etc. Some did add these to their portfolios and did well also. Some here like Hugs and Rhyne have been buying REITs.

Interesting chart of PEG for value and growth stocks. I wonder if you take out ALL stocks with PEG's of 3 or higher and then recalculate the chart.... if it would show the remaining growth stocks look cheap relative to value? You can do the same with Value stocks to make it a fair comparison. This is why I like looking at individual stocks as sometimes a few "Mavericks" can really distort the data.

Anyway, good stuff and Happy Mother's Day to all!

-- posted by Kirk

Top 53. May 14, 2000 7:06 AM

» Rande - Jack,

Jack,

It's 50-50. Are you willing to take drastic action based on the flip of a coin?

-- posted by Rande

Top 54. May 14, 2000 7:30 AM

» Kirk - No-Load Fund Analyst Allocation

No-Load Fund Analyst Allocation

It is interesting to note Rande that in the Dec sample issue on pg 15 they suggested their balanced portfolio be 46% in stocks whereas their neutral position would be 60%.

So, what is their record like? It seems you have to subscribe before they will tell you how they performed over time. Did they stay fully invested in 1987?

-- posted by Kirk

Top 55. May 14, 2000 9:09 AM

» Slick - Rande

Thanks for the interview excerpts from Governors Wall and Mcteer. After listening to so much Greenspaneese, it's refreshing to hear some clear cut, unambiguous thoughts from the Fed. Is there something wrong with being straightforward (especially when you're the most powerful man in the world ), or is obfuscation just a parlor game in Washington circles, with Andrea busily taking notes saying "My man...my man"?

Slick

-- posted by Slick

Top 56. May 14, 2000 10:36 AM

» Rande - Kirk,

Kirk,

I don't really follow the NLFA model portfolios -- not the main attraction for me to the newsletter. What I like is their scholarly approach and in-depth original research into the markets and the economy. Also, I know of no other publication or research outfit that does as good and thorough a job of analyzing individual mutual fund managers. Simply doesn't get any better. They have expressed caution regarding market valuations for some time, but generally present a balanced view in looking at both sides of the coin. As for the model portfolios, they have four: Conservative Balanced, Balanced, Equity-Tilted Balanced, and Equity. The annualized returns, since 1/1/90 inception are as follows: 11%, 11.8%, 13.4%, and 14.9% respectively. Here's an excerpt from their home page on an independent ranking of their performance:

We are pleased to inform our readers that The No-Load Fund Analyst was one of only seven financial newsletters named to Forbes Magazine’s Newsletter Honor Roll in 2000. Forbes and data source The Hulbert Financial Digest scored 65 newsletters for risk and return since 1990. The seven honorees were the only ones to score at least “B” grade in both up and down markets.

Pretty good, but, again, I don't utilize their model portfolio selections (all mutual funds), but value their research and commentary at both the macro and micro level as a treasured source of information.

BTW -- They do include "Stock Favorites" in addtion to their recommended list of mutual funds (model portfolio inclusions and alternates) as well as an index of "Stocks Discussed in this Issue" in reference to analysis of mutual fund managers and what they're picking and why. "Stock Favorites" in the latest issue are USG and JDSU. The analysis includes an overview, bearish arguments, outlook, growth expectations, competition and barriers to entry, management and valuation. They do their homework and provide plenty of info to make an informed decision. I like the outfit -- out of Orinda, CA. $225 is pretty steep for the annual subscription, but worth it for me.

-- posted by Rande

Top 57. May 14, 2000 10:49 AM

» Rande - Slick,

Slick,

Yes, a little more plain talk from the Fed would be appreciated. Still, the message has been clear to those who are able to separate the wheat from the chaff (based on what they DO as well as what they say). The Fed is on the side of sustainable growth. Fighting inflation is part of the mix. While the long-term track record is 50-50 in terms of the Fed being able to engineer a soft landing, there are a few things which might tilt the odds in favor of soft landing this time around. First, the most recent attempt (in 1994-5) was successful -- they're on a roll. Second, and perhaps one of the reasons things worked so well in their last attempt, is the fact that we ARE in a new economy -- information is rapidly disseminated and new technologies have allowed for greater control over one of the KEY problems leading to past recessions -- inventories. Even if we do tilt to the side of recession, there is much reason to believe it will be short in duration compared to past episodes. Even if the longer-term record of 50-50 when it comes to Fed-led recession still held true, a flip of the coin is a pretty big gamble to take when it comes to messing with the portfolio and long-term game plan. But, if the odds are even better for a soft landing, such messing around could be even more ill-advised. Either way, I would prefer to stay focused on what any reasonable person would have to view as a positive long-term outlook.

-- posted by Rande

Top 58. May 15, 2000 1:29 AM

» rich_hine - batter up

Rande,

One of the many things I like about this discussion group is that, unlike the former General Discussion group on the Brinker site, it stays on topic: investing.

Having said that, I hesitate to bring this up, but a spy tells me that a Rande Spiegelman was at home plate at the San Francisco Giants' new PacBell Park last week, with a bat in his hand, and that a picture was taken. True? If so, can you post it when you get the print? We like to know how you stand, even in a batter's box, and hope you are -- if not a home-run hitter -- a hitter for high average.

- Richard

-- posted by rich_hine

Top 59. May 15, 2000 5:53 AM

» Rande - Rich,

Rich,

Those spys are everywhere! Fortunately, there was no major league pitching to deal with...just the camera.

-- posted by Rande

Top 60. May 15, 2000 6:29 AM

» Rande - As a follow-up to the Street.

As a follow-up to the Street.com piece on early exercise of employee options last week, the following clarifys a point in that was misleading in the first article -- namely, that early exercise does NOT mean the ISO holding period requirements (2 years from grant AND 1 year from exercise) under Sec. 422(a) go away. BUT, if there is no spread at the time of the early exercise, then who cares? A disqualifying disposition means the original spread becomes ordinary income instead of an AMT adjustment, but if there is no spread to begin with the disq. disp. is a non-event for regular income purposes. So long as the LTCG holding period is met and the company restrictions have lapsed, the sale would be all long-term gain. Here's the follow-up:

83(b) Election

-- posted by Rande