THREAD IS CLOSED! --- Bob Brinker Free Discussion Site 11K+

» DeepThroat - Re: David K's Interpretation of Moneytalk, et al. Part I

In response to message posted by David_Korn:

David, thanks for the posting. I never saw one of you interpretations before, and it was great.

I was especially interested in the 40% to 70% prediction timing. As critical as I am of BB, He had me convinced he made that prediction back in January, and I would have bet $5.00 on it.

I believe you, however, and am upset at myself for being taken in. My problem is I really really have heartburn with BB, mostly over the way he ran/runs his website. I am too emotionally involved to be completely rational or objective about BB.

However, his problem with you is irrational because you earn your fee by the "value added" in your interpretations. You simply take something broadcast over the public airways, and provide added value without violating any copyrights.

I know I can't tell you anything about the law, but I used to be an OEM of electronic equipment. We were ecstatic to provide our product to "value added" resellers, and we expected them to be paid for the value they added.

BB is a jerk!

-- posted by DeepThroat

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Fahrenheit451 - Dividends and total return

In response to message posted by Rande:

Rande, thanks for the reply. I accept your point about the total returns beating cash, etc., but the point I am trying, perhaps clumsily, to make is that in order to get to the point where dividends made a significant contribution to return, wouldn't we have to go through a rather drastic reduction in stock prices to get there?

I understand that you are not a fan of market timimg. That has been clear for years. What I am trying to show is what the motivation is for wanting to time the market, laying aside for a moment the issue of whether anyone can do it. If the market stayed flat from here, money funds win, because dividends are so low. If the market went down enough to cause dividends to become a significant contributor to future return, it seems like it would take many years for dividends to make up the difference.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Fahrenheit451

In response to message posted by David_Korn:

David, what I have really been missing is actual give-and-take with challenging debating partners. Lately, Suite 101 is looking like the best bet for that. But thanks for the thought.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» DeepThroat - Disparaging Remark Follows

Rande, I agree that it is cowardly to post disparaging remarks under an alias with one exception:

That jerk DeepThroat deserves it! He just likes to come here and rag on Bob Brinker. He never has anything intelligent to say. He is just likes to try to throw hand grenades and sit back and watch the reaction.

DeepThroat is a big Jerk! And what a stupid alias!

-- posted by DeepThroat

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Felipe - Re: Part II of David K's Interpretation

In response to message posted by David_Korn:

WOW, ARE YOU AN ENTERTAINING WRITER OR WHAT!

David, I haven't seen one of your interpretations before. Yesiree Bob....you are really good!

Really enjoyed it. Thanks again.

-- posted by Felipe

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Karin_ - Re: Part II of David K's Interpretation

In response to message posted by David_Korn:

David, nice job on your Interpretations!
You really do an excellent job.

-- posted by Karin_

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Will_L - Re: Dividends and total return

In response to message posted by Fahrenheit451:

NotCentigrade,
Your point also has a false precept comparing dividends now with dividends in the old days. They are really not less because of stock valuations for the most part. They are less because the investing public wants companies to do something with income besides pay dividends which everyone knows gets taxed twice.

Your assumption is that since dividends are not as great as they once were that profibility is not channeled in another direction more beneficial to share holders. You are wrong I believe.

So if companies have cut dividends to build their businesses, make acquisitions, buy back stock or invest in R&D--the company value will surely reflect the value of that just as surely as if they would pay dividends. Warren Buffet hates for a company to pay dividends. It is probably the worst use of profits. You are comparing two different eras and assuming dividends are low because of valuations. Dividends are essentially low because they are not as attractive to investors as they once were. So your conclusion is flawed.

-- posted by Will_L

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Fahrenheit451 - Re: Re: Re: Re: Cute!

In response to message posted by Rande:

Rande, there has been much talk here and elsewhere about people's subscriptions being summarily canceled due to things they have posted in discussion threads. So I ask for your understanding towards those of us who feel it necessary to use aliases. I feel that I can speak more freely this way. And if I or anyone else posts something that looks like a pot shot, I hope you will just chalk it up to engaging the fingers before the brain, otherwise known as foot-in-mouth disease.

-- posted by Fahrenheit451

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Happy - dividends

In response to message posted by Fahrenheit451:

Filipe did a good job in explaning the interrelationships of dividends and earnings. I would only add in regards to the performance of the sp500 during the period 1966-82, in theory had these stocks not paid a 6% dividend, one would suspect their stock prices would have gone up an incremental 6% more per year. After all, they would have been plowing back this money into capital equipment etc., which should at least in theory, have increased the future cash flow and thus the value of the stock. Hopefully by more than 6% a year.

-- posted by Happy

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions

» Kirk - Re: Pot Shots

In response to message posted by Fahrenheit451:

Fair reply. 8)

I think people can establish an internet identity with an alias and be trusted to some degree. It usually helps to have a valid email address so there is some accountability. IF I can't contact a valid email address thru a for pay ISP, then I really don't ever TRUST anything that person says or sends me but trust is not a requirement for a good debate.

I would like all that post here to have a valid email address on file with Suite101.com management but that is not in our process now. The main reason for this is we might have to contact you to tell you a post has been moved or deleted and why. VERY, VERY few ever get deleted but a valid email address sure makes it easier to work things out behind the scenes. (I also don't get my reward for your membership unless you join with my link in my signature AND verify the valid email address).

For example, I will move a misplaced abortion debate post from the Lucent thread over to our religion thread and I would hate to have had someone bookmark it and come back later and think it was deleted rather than moved to the appropriate thread.

Please visit my sponsor ----- TrendTrader--------------------\/

-- posted by Kirk

Permalink Print Discussion Join the latest discussions