| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/4/15-23 [Computer/Companies/Yahoo] UID:49752 Activity:nil |
4/15 http://valleywag.com/379643/did-you-mean-google Bahahaha |
| 2008/4/15-17 [Reference/Tax] UID:49753 Activity:moderate |
4/15 Happy Tax Day! Don't forget, if you think taxes should be higher, you
can send in more than CA/US says you owe!
\_ I thin gas and diesel taxes should be higher for everyone.
\_ I think gas tax should be higher for everyone.
\_ McCain wants to reduce the gas tax in summer to "help motorists".
That reduction will help for about, um, 4 weeks as the increase
in gas prices swallow up the savings. Stupidity is becoming the
national pastime.
\_ Deficits don't matter.
\_ If you want to pay more tax, go ahead. Leave the rest of us out
of your destructive philosophy.
\_ Deficits don't matter.
\_ I don't want to pay more tax. I want people to use less gas.
--- PP |
| 2008/4/15-23 [Reference/RealEstate, Finance/Investment] UID:49754 Activity:nil |
4/15 Massive numbers of homes with negative equity
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2008/04/15/BULE105CR4.DTL&o=0
and the associated article:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/15/BULE105CR4.DTL
I had no idea the negative equity problem was as widespread as the
first link would suggest.
\_ It's "Number of homes purchased in 2006"!
\_ It's "homes ***purchased in 2006*** with negative equity"!
\_ well taht certainly lowers the scale of the problem, but its
still pretty big.
\_ "most affected are those who bought recently with little or no money
down". hahah, damn fools.
\_ I'd rather be negative equity with no money down than in the
same situation but 20% commited.
\_ Well, with 20% down and the same price they would be in a
better situation with the mortgage. The example woman
seemed to still want to live in the house she bought.
She bought more house than she could afford, relying on
unreasonable price increases.
\_ ObSuburbsSuck |
| 2008/4/15-23 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:49755 Activity:high |
4/15 Anyone got any random investment tips? I am kinda at a loss of what to do.
Agriculture and energy are at record highs...
\_ stockhouse.ca .. NOT - via NOSOF ... assay results coming in soon
\_ I'm liking HRP, currently paying 12.2% dividend; there's some
risk, but they shouldn't be as exposed to some of the macro
issues as a lot of stocks. Ex-div is coming up next week.
LNUX is a nice speculative play, low risk, sell on spikes.
If your time horizon is long, I very much like GOOG at these
levels. -tom
\_ GOOG is as safe as Bear Sterns.
\_ No way man! GOOG will double every 3 years. There is no
way anyone else can enter the search engine and online
advertising space and wait until you see what sooper
dooper projects GOOG's army of PhDs, after slaving away
for years in secrecy, are about to bring to market.
\_ Revenues up 42%, earnings up 31%, $1.31 billion in profit
for the quarter. $12 billion in cash and equivalents, zero
debt. Nice analysis, chump. -tom
\_ You forgot religious fanaticism among a devoted group
of tools.
\_ To put that another way, Google has a strong brand.
That's part of why I bought Apple when I did (now a
16-bagger). GOOG up 85 points today, 12%. Glad I
doubled my position a couple weeks ago. -tom
\_ that's nice. go drink some coolaid.
\_ I'll be able to afford some, with all the money
I've made on GOOG and AAPL. How's that GOOG
short at 100 going? -tom
\_ I shorted at 680, and kind of panic'ed when
it was in the mid 700 range but dumped it
at around 490. So actually, I did well. I'm
waiting for it to go back up over and
over again. Love GOOG. -short guy
\_ Should I still wait for it to drop
back under $100? -short GOOG $100 guy
\_ I think you're a fool for owning GOOG and
AAPL right now, personally. Are you
cherry-picking your returns to show us
your best picks and ignoring your poor
picks? I mean, with a 16-bagger you should
probably be retired by now. I think most
of us (CS geeks) owned AAPL at some point,
but not many bought and stayed in over the
last 12 years. I first bought AAPL in 1996
when I got my first real job, but so what?
AAPL had some really crappy times in there
where it almost went under completely. What's
most important is valuation, and I see GOOG
and AAPL as really overvalued right now.
\_ http://finance.yahoo.com/q/op?s=GOOG&m=2010-01-15
If tom's a fool for owning GOOG, then tons
of people out there are fools for wanting
to buy 1 GOOG option for over $100
(look at $550).
\_ Sure, there are tons of people who
are fools for buying into the brand
that is GOOG.
\_ You can go look at the wall logs from
the past 10 years if you really want to
see all my positions; I generally
announce when I buy or sell something.
I have taken profits on much of my original
AAPL holding, but it has split several
times and I still hold shares. My point
in bringing up AAPL was not to tout my
portfolio, my point was that even when
Apple was having difficult times, I believed
that its strong brand would allow it to
survive. Apple and Google are two of
the strongest brands in technology today.
I probably wouldn't buy Apple at its
current valuation, but I don't sell good
companies just because the stock went up.
\_ If you wouldn't buy it then why hold it?
\_ Because I have a long time horizon,
and selling a winner is both costly
and generally ill-advised. -tom
\_ Selling something you think is
overvalued is ill-advised only
on Planet Holub. That $10
commission to trade out of it
gonna screw your returns?
\_ You might want to Google
"capital gains tax." -tom
\_ You're going to pay
it when you sell anyway.
\_ There are lots of
scenarios where you don't
wind up paying capital
gains tax. And money
spent now is more
expensive than money
spent later. -tom
\_ Losing your principle
on an overvalued stock
seems like a silly
way to avoid tax.
Effective, though.
Maybe you'll even
have a cap loss to
deduct.
\_ What is your point?
That I should always
move all my money
into the one stock
that I consider
the best value at
a given moment? I
think Apple is a
fine company to own
and I am relatively
confident that I
will meet my
standard investment
goal (a double
within 5 years)
from its current
level. Furthermore,
trying to time
the market is not
my investment
strategy. -tom
\_ It's not about
timing the
market. It's
about holding a
stock you feel is
overvalued. Why
would you do
that if there are
better values?
Diversification
isn't an excuse
for fanatical
AAPL worship.
I strenuously disagree that Google is
overvalued right now. Its trailing PE
is just 40 (YHOO is 60) and its forward
PE is well below 30, even if you take
conservative earnings assumptions. What
makes you think GOOG is overvalued? Recall
that short-GOOG-at-100-guy thought it was
overvalued at 100 because its PE was higher
than YHOO. Clearly, GOOG's buisness and
\_ Not PE. Market cap. Right now GOOG's
is $170B. YHOO's is $38B. You think
that's justified? No one is saying
GOOG or AAPL are bad companies. They
just aren't good buys.
\_ What do you think GOOG's market cap
should be, and why? What do you
think should determine a company's
market cap? -tom
\_ Earnings is the obvious answer, but
it's not so simple. BofA made
5X what GOOG did in earnings
1Q of 2007 and wasn't valued 5X
as much. I don't know what either
YHOO or GOOG *should* be
priced at, but I know they
should be comparable and it
was reasonable to assume so
especially when GOOG went IPO.
Since then GOOG has had more
success than YHOO and so
should probably be worth more,
but 4.5X more? You can make the
argument that YHOO is undervalued
if you wish, but these two
companies should trend close
to each other.
\_ Why should GOOG and YHOO have
comparable market cap? GOOG
had $5 billion in profits in
2007, up 70% over 2006. YHOO
had $700 million in profits,
down 35% over 2006. GOOG
is actually priced at a
discount to YHOO based on
earnings, and GOOG's earnings
are increasing while YHOO's
are falling. There is no
earthly way those two companies
should be comparable in market
cap. BofA made lots of money
but their earnings are also
declining and they are at
serious risk due to the
subprime crisis. If BofA
were growing earnings by 30%
and revenues by 40% year over
year the stock would be
much higher. -tom
\_ Do you really believe GOOG
is going to grow earnings
30% per year? Try looking at
absolute numbers instead of
percentages. GOOG's profit
was nil until recently
so I guess it increased
infinity since then.
GOOG and YHOO need to be
compared because they
are in the same space
just like Exxon needs to
be compared to BP. When
GOOG went IPO there was
no fundamental reason to
value it over $200. People
bought based on hype.
Now that GOOG has
actually turned a profit
it deserves more attention
but how much more do you
really think it can
grow? It's already
valued at 12th largest in
the USA with no real assets
and no real barrier to entry.
No one with any sense
would value the company
at these levels. MSFT
makes 4x as much money
as GOOG and is valued at
only 1.67X as much.
There's a lot of success
already priced into
GOOG's share price.
\_ Google was already
extremely profitable
when it went public.
People bought based
on the numbers, and
the numbers have made
Google one of the most
successful and profitable
companies in the world.
If you really think
Google should be valued
similarly to Yahoo
just because they're
both Internet companies,
you're not worth wasting
any more time on. -tom
\_ What about comparing
GOOG to MSFT in
terms of market
share and profit?
Do you think the
MSFT:GOOG ratio
undervalues MSFT
or overvalues
GOOG? BTW, it's
not that YHOO and GOOG
are both "Internet
companies". It's that
they compete in the
same space. I agree
GOOG is executing
better and should be
valued higher, but
do you think think GOOG
is worth 4.5X YHOO?
\_ Google is earning
six times more than
Yahoo; why shouldn't
it be worth six
times more? GOOG
clearly must be
compared to MSFT
but the comparison
is complex; MSFT
has a dominant
position, but in
technologies which
are losing value.
They have a huge
amount of money but
will be seriously
challenged to move
their business to
something that's
relevant in the
long term.
Here's a graph that
has some analogy to
the GOOG/MSFT
situation today:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=my&s=IBM&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=MSFT
-tom
\_ Update: Yahoo just
reported $150m in
earnings; so Google
is actually earning
almost 9 times as
much as Yahoo.
And GOOG's earnings
are rising while
YHOO's are flat.
-tom
\_ Flash back
to 2005. YHOO
earned $1.9B.
GOOG earned
$1.47B. YHOO had
a market cap of
$47B. GOOG had a
market cap of
$51B. Did that
make much sense?
So that is why
GOOG shouldn't be
worth 6 times
more: It's
not how the
market works.
Otherwise MSFT
would be worth a
lot more relative
to GOOG. GOOG
makes 99% of
its revenue
from advertising.
Think about that.
\_ Yes, it did
make sense
for GOOG to
be worth more
than YHOO,
because GOOG
was growing
faster in
2005. The
market will
anticipate
value; and
the market
in this case
was clearly
correct. I'm
done here,
you're just
trolling. -tom
\_ I knew
you would
mention
20/20
hindsight.
The market
is
anticipating
GOOG to be
the biggest
company in
the nation
other than
Exxon.
Do you
think that's
realistic
for a
for an
company
that derives
all revenue
from ads?
growth justified that higher PE; I see no
reason to expect serious problems for
their business in the next couple of years.
Without serious problems, GOOG is still
cheap today (though not as cheap as it was
when I suggested it as a buy in this
thread.) -tom
\_ follow-up: Millward Brown Optimor rates
Google's brand as the most powerful
in the world, estimates its value at
$86 billion:
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9924273-7.html
-tom
\_ GAGEX if it dips below 30, DO, NE, RIG, PE are all good
\_ Crop futures.
\_ Diversify. Especially overseas, if you have not done so already
as the dollar is very likely to fall further. I like EFA, EWG
and EWD. Some overseas income producing property would be nice,
if you can pull that off.
\_ God damnit. I was looking at POT yesterday and now it's up 7+%. -op |
| 2008/4/15-23 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:49756 Activity:kinda low |
4/15 I guess this is Obama is worse than HRC guy's point?
http://www.primetimepolitics.com/primetime/site/page/a_living_lie
\_ That Thomas Sowell is an idiot? I don't think that's news. -tom
\_ ^is an idiot^disagrees with tom
\_ Is he really accusing Obama of being a Marxist and a Fabian
Socialist? This guy has a few screws loose, if he is. If he is
not, what is the point of his last few paragraphs?
\_ Instead of simply saying why he has a few screws loose, why not
explain why you think that's the case?
\_ because it's Thomas Sowell, so it should be self-evident.
\_ I think maybe it's you with the problem. Or is it because
he's a Senior Fellow at Stanford?
\_ No, it's because he's a freakish right-winger who
believes all sorts of insane things, and would never
say anything good about a liberal (unless it was to
insult another liberal). -tom
\_ Tom, everyone right of Stalin is crazy to you. Go
away.
\_ Yeah, only communists disagree with the idea
that the New Deal caused the Great Depression.
Get a clue. -tom
\_ Not the issue. You call anyone who disagrees
with you an idiot or crazy. And you fail to
ever substantiate it. You're the one with the
problem.
\_ I call *you* an idiot. I don't call
everyone who disagrees with me an idiot.
There's a difference, but I'm sure you're
too stupid to figure it out. -tom
\_ When have you *ever* engaged in debate or
discussion with *anyone* and granted the
other person was right and you were
wrong? I've never seen it happen on
the motd.
\_ Nice misdirection; I engage
in debate on the MOTD without
calling the other person an idiot
all the time. Idiot. -tom
\_ Did Sowell say that? I doubt it. He may have
said that some of FDRs policies lengthed the
depression, a stance for which there is fairly
good evidence, and the espousal of which hardly
makes one 'crazy.'
\_ I already did explain why. Do you expect me to explain why it
is obvious that Obama is not a Marxist? This guy is as lame
as the Bushitler crowd.
\_ It looks pretty clear to me that Obama /is/ a Marxist, so
yes I'd appreciate a serious reply.
\_ Then I think it's pretty clear you have no idea
what Marxism is.
\_ Sigh. So much for a serious answer.
\_ If you want to claim the moon is green cheese the
only answer you are going to get is "No, it isn't."
\_ You're the guy who's never read any of his books,
right? -!pp
\_ You are silly, but I will entertain your request:
Marxism: Believes in the Dictatorship of the Proletariat
Obama: Believes in Democracy
\_ No difference between democracy and "dictatorship of
the proletariat". Who are the proles anyway? The
bitter people on Pennsylvania?
\_ You claim that there is no difference between
Democracy and dictatorship. I beg to differ.
Marxism: Believes that The Workers should own the means
of production.
Obama: Believes in a modern regulated Capitalism
\_ Regulated to the point that business works for the
government. Thus, socialism.
\_ Is this Marxism or isn't it?
Marxism: Believes that Workers are naturally alienated in
a Capitalistic society.
Marxism: Believes that Workers are naturally alienated
in a Capitalistic society.
Obama: Believes in The Audacity of Hope
\_ Wrote a book with that title. Really believes that
the workers are naturally alienated and thus are
bitter gun toting christians.
\_ Have you read the book? Do you think that the
15% of rural citizens constitute the entire
body of "Workers?" And even if you take the
bitter quote at face value, it is actually
a statement complaining about the alienation
of a small group of people, not a claim that
this is their natural condition.
Marxism: Elevates Class Consciousness above all other
means of understanding human relationships.
Obama: Believes in an integrated political consciousness
that includes race, class, religion and family
and downplays it as a method to achieve political
change.
\_ O believes he and people who share his views are
superior, the rest are gun toting racist white hicks
in the outback.
\_ Everyone believes that their views are superior,
even you, I bet. Are you still going to maintain
your claim that Obama elevates Class Consciousness
above all other philosophy?
your claim that Obama elevates Class
Consciousness above all other philosophy?
Any other questions?
\_ Your descriptions of Obama's positions are way off
(if not entirely useless--what does 'the audacity of
hope' even mean?). I see him as far closer to Marx
than you do. Fine.
\_ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Audacity_of_Hope
You haven't even bothered to learn the first thing
about Obama, yet you are quite certain that he
is a Marxist. Fine.
\_ This is why idiots like Bush get voted in.
\_ No. Idiots like Bush get voted in because
the other guy was so much worse. Bush was
the unknown lesser evil the first time and
the lesser evil the second. If the (D) had
real candidates running Bush would be a
footnote, not President. Twice. Hint: SF
is not in the political center of the US.
\_ Are you still claiming that Obama *is*
a Marxist, without having the foggiest
clue about what his actual positions are?
Where do you get your information about
what a candidates positions is, a Cracker
Jack box? Do you even know what Marxism
is?
\_ Bush was the lesser evil? Twice? Really.
Interesting argument. So you think
Kerry and Gore both would have made
\_ Bush was the lesser evil? Twice?
Really. Interesting argument. So you
think Kerry and Gore both would have made
a foreign policy decision more disastrous
than Iraq, and a domestic policy
decision more disastrous than tax cutting
and spending the nation into a debt-ridden
hole.
and spending the nation into a debt-
ridden hole.
\_ The Center is moving left, in case you
hadn't noticed. SF looks better everyday. |
| 2008/4/15-23 [Transportation/Car] UID:49757 Activity:nil |
4/15 In Bay Area, what percentage of the home (non-condo/townhouse) value should I
expect to pay for home insurance? And are any of it deductible? Just trying
to do a rough number calculation for single family home + insurance vs condo
with HOA.
\_ Insurance for your residence is not tax-deductible.
\_ This whole idea of TAX DEDUCTION to stimulate the
OWNERSHIP SOCIETY is totally stupid. Ditto with tax rebates
that really come from foreign loans that someone will have
to pay back.
\_ No they won't. We're throwing the dollar overboard, and the debt
will go with it. The dollar is "overloaded".
\_ Even with a condo you should obtain insurance for your belongings
and for liability. Insurance will be about .002 of home replacement
cost (deduct the land) if you have a high deductible (>$1K). As
above, the insurance is not deductible.
above, the insurance is not deductible. One thing to note:
condos usually have earthquake coverage included in the HOA
dues, while for a SFR this costs (a lot) extra. |