| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 2008/9/29-10/1 [Uncategorized] UID:51323 Activity:nil |
9/29 I just bought a new Nikkor and it says I must send it my warranty card
within 10 days of purchase if I want the full FIVE year Nikkor
warranty. Must I send it the card? Also the warranty says "It is not
transferable", so does that mean when I send in my card, I can no
longer sell it with the warranty (making the lens much less valuable)? |
| 2008/9/29-10/1 [Politics] UID:51324 Activity:nil |
9/29 Good bye capitalism, HELLO BARAK COMMUNISM!!!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26933982
\_ You are so cute when you are an idiot.
\_ hey man, he still supports the bailout. i don't like it one
bit. -Dem |
| 2008/9/29-10/1 [Computer/Networking] UID:51325 Activity:nil |
9/29 I'm looking for a new wireless router / firewall, preferably
something that supports 802.11n. Any recommendations?
\_ Which 802.11n?
\_ Draft 2.0 or whatever version is supported by the the
MacBook and iMac. |
| 2008/9/29-10/4 [Computer/Companies/Google] UID:51326 Activity:moderate |
9/29 Just six more days like today! -GOOG short $100 guy
\_ It's already half of where it used to be in spite of fanbois
like Tom talking it up like it would be the next GE. BTW, BRK-B
was up today. Very interesting that it's up on a day like today.
\_ GE 52-week high: 42.15. Current: 23.10. -tom
\_ GE market cap = $228.80B. GOOG market cap = $119.80B.
\_ yeah, so? -tom
\_ GOOG's not there yet and probably never will be.
It would not have made sense for GOOG to stay flat
while GE fell in half. GOOG's already
overcapitalized as-is.
\_ By what measure is GOOG overcapitalized? What do
you think a reasonable PE ratio would be for GOOG?
-tom
\_ The same measure that allowed AOL to purchase
Time-Warner only for the company to later
pretend AOL never existed.
\_ That's not an answer. It's not even Eng Time-W\
arner only for the company to later
pretend AOL never existed.
\_ That's not an answer. It's not even English.
What do you think a reasonable PE ratio would
be for GOOG? -tom
\_ What do you think a reasonable market cap
would be for GOOG?
\_ I think GOOG can support a trailing PE
in the neighborhood of 30 and a forward
PE in the neighborhood of 20 for at
least the next two years. How that
translates into market cap will depend
on macroeconomic issues. Google will
still be the dominant internet search
and advertising firm two years from now,
but it will depend on the advertising
market. -tom
market.
Now will you answer the question? -tom
\_ PEG should equal about 1 and it looks
like GOOG growth is down to about 10%,
so P/E should be 10. It is about 3X
overcapitalized then.
\_ Well, if GOOG's growth is really
down to 10%, you might be right.
But in 2007 GOOG made $9.9B,
and it has already made $6.3B in
But in 2007 GOOG made $4.2B,
and it has already made $2.6B in
the first two quarters this year,
so you're off by at least a
factor of two, barring
macroeconomic conditions which
impact Google's growth (and
everyone else's). -tom
\_ What is GOOG's forward growth
rate? I would be surprised if
they grow at even 10% in Q4.
\_ I think it's safe to say
that GOOG's forward growth
rate is higher than the
broad market's. From
06 to 07 earnings grew
by 40%. From 07 to 08
they look likely to grow
by at least 25%. So
by your own measure,
Google is fairly valued.
-tom
\_ (9/30) Damn, it's now up 7.66% so far today. |
| 2008/9/29-10/6 [Politics/Domestic/Election] UID:51327 Activity:nil |
9/29 "This bill failed because Barack Obama and the Democrats put politics
ahead of country," McCain spokesman Holtz-Eakin said.
A majority of House Democrats supported the proposal and the majority
of House Republicans opposed it. A total of 133 House Republicans
voted against it, with 95 Democrats opposing the plan.
\_ obama and mccain both need to be kicked in the head. they both
still support the bailout in its current form.
\- look, there are some dems being slightly difficult trying
to make sweeping changes to mortgages and even more so bank-
ruptcy laws. but they are not any where near proposing insane
things like "capital gain taxes to free frozen capital" ...
which is basically a step away from "let's sell hawaii to
dubai". if you cant see the difference, you are truly a
dumbfuck. unfortunately there are a lot of you, including
the alaskan lipstick pig. as long as these people are pulling
the debate ... i hate to say rightward ... since this is
really outer space beyond anything in the reasonable spectrum...
it distorts the jockeying toward something acceptable.
it distorts the jockeying toward something acceptable. obama
in a sense has little to do given that pelosi and frank etc
are negotiating in good faith, have supportive of bernanke
and paulson, and keeping the dems if line better than the
republicans are. even junior bush isnt being that awkful.
the republicans nuts are the problem, and that is a problem
for mccain and the republican leadership [i dont think mitch
mcconnel is front and center on this, but a lot of the nuts
in this case are in the R leadership]. but in no sense is there
obama - mccain equivalence, or dem/rep equivalnence.
\_ i see the difference and i think am in agreement w/you -pp
\_ further proof that liberals can't spell and indent and
capitalize because they think they're special
\- nobody called me a liberal until i began to rant against
these incompetent, lying assholes.
\-BTW, i dont think the current bill is "socialist"/hardass
enough, but i am not sure if doing nothing is better than
the current plan [i.e. cost the wall street and equity owners
what they should pay, but risk the unemployment rate going
up a few percent]. i think the real intervetion needs to
look like the WBUFFET "aid package" to GS ... tap their
cash flow in a bond-like way, and get equity stake ...
but again i dont understand the implications of the govt
holding voting/non-voting equity. i would probably be ok
giving WBUFFETT $700bn and tell him to do what he can ...
sort of a Modern Financial Cincinatus :-) |
| 2008/9/29-10/6 [Politics/Domestic/California] UID:51328 Activity:nil |
9/29 A key problem with this bailout is that the final version was
released on Sunday, and Dems and Republicans were expected to follow
their leadership and vote Yes after reviewing it for < 24 hours.
This is crazy for a $700B bailout. Every House member who voted for
it should be kicked out in November.
If you're gonna spend $700B, you FUCKING DO IT RIGHT. 150+ economists
are against this plan. See http://fedupusa.org for one approach.
\_ It isn't $700B
\_ please elaborate
\_ $250B at first, $100B available by asking for it. Another
$350B that is only available if congress explicitly agrees
to it via a joint resolution after the Treasury asks for it.
So it's really a $350B plan with the option to increase the
plan if desired. (Which is still a lot of money)
\_ Plus, we probably end up getting most of it back.
\_ how much of RTC did we get back?
\_ So let's see... the govt buys the assets that the banks
want least (presumably because it's tied to borrowers
who are most likely to default), and the govt wants to
not buy it at firesale prices, since that would cause
the banks to realize large losses and still make them go
out of business, so we'll buy it at prices that are
fairly close to "hold to maturity" (this according to
Ben, anyway). And then we hope and pray that we can
actually hold it to maturity without the borrowers
defaulting. How does it stand to reason that we'll
probably get most of it back? Just because the govt buys
their debt, these people will now more likely not default?
\_ The reality is that the default rate is pretty low
in either case. The problem is that no one wants
to buy the debt. It's a liquidity problem. The
banks would probably be fine if they had enough cash
reserves to operate, but they were counting on
selling the securities. Recall that in the early
1990s banks owned a lot of RE and it caused them
massive liquidity problems even though they would have
made large profits if they could have held on for 10
more years. Banks don't want houses, though. They
want cash. The gov't can afford to sit on it. Note
that I am still against the bailout.
\_ ^liquidity^solvency
taxpayer should take a loss because Hank said so
\_ Or, the taxpayer could take a gain. You really
don't know and neither does anyone else. Do you
even know how the bailout bill plan for auctioning
securities was going to work? I guess it doesn't
really matter now, but the next bill will have
something like it. You claim that the taxpayer
will take a loss, but the truth is, we won't know
for a while if that is true or not.
\_ how much of RTC did we get back?
\_ I don't know, but we got 100% of the money
we lent out using the HOLC and even got a
slight profit. We even got 100% of the RFC
money back. How much of the RTC did we get
back, you seem to know.
\_ http://tinyurl.com/4th5r7
\_ That does not answer the question, but
one person quoted that the US would
end up getting 50% back. But the
total cost ended up double (?) the
original estimate.
\_ We lost $124B on a total purchase of
$400B of debt and distressed assets:
http://tinyurl.com/4mogcb
\- re: the S&L crisis:
1. the circumstances of the s&l
crisis was deposit insurance
not an intervention. so the
govt in a sense didnt have a
choice [or the nature of the
choice was different ... e.g.
the could have closed firms
earlier ... if you are interested
in a difference between today
[FDIC now] and "yesterday"
[FSLIC back in the late 80s] see
e.g. http://tinyurl.com/4gts57]
2. to understand the full costs,
you must add the signficant costs
of the failed FSLIC in addition
to the successor, the RTC [there
are a bunch of smaller orgs as
well, but those can be ignored].
[the FSLIC shutdown about $100bn
worth of S&Ls and was insolvent
from very early in the process,
but continued to go through the
administrative motions]
3. these assets the RTC had were
seized, not purchased, and the
seized, not purchased, and then
disposed of. so the govt can
be criciized about how they
disposed of stuff, but not their
selection of what to buy ...
in the current situation the
problem facing the govt is
how much to pay when buying and
holding, as opposed to how to
dispose of a carcass while
keeping your promise.
\_ "You really don't know and
neither does anyone else." |
| 2008/9/29-10/4 [Uncategorized] UID:51329 Activity:nil |
9/29 DJIA down 6.98%. Did this break any record?
\_ No. 10/19/87 it plunged 22.61% and 12.82% on 10/28/29.
\_ Largest single-day point drop in history, though.
\_ well, biggest percentage decline since 1987 |
| 2008/9/29-10/4 [Reference/RealEstate] UID:51330 Activity:nil |
9/29 Angry 401(k) holders are calling politicians asking them why the
bailout didn't go through. Australia pressuring Congress to pass the
bill to prevent the global economy from imploding. Real estate and
financial lobbyists massing for DC.
... Predictions?
IMO, I don't see why we can't have a blue ribbon panel examine the
issue and figure out how to inject the money.
\_ i lost around $40,000 off my 401k..but i prefer preserving
\_ I lost around $40,000 off my 401k..but I prefer preserving
freedom instead of passing this commie bill
\_ I agree.
\_ We need a much more commie bill than this, one that partially
nationalizes the banks and lowers everyone's mortgage. And for
$700B, we could get it.
\_ i can has a free haus?
\_ More like, you can get a 10% coupon on the house you
overpaid for in 2006 and stay in it and pay the
mortgage, instead of dumping yet another Notice of
Default on an overstressed financial system.
\_ http://www.ihasabucket.com
\_ Huh?
\_ I'd be curious how many people actually want to keep
the mortages. House flippers probably don't want to.
I also met a couple that bought a house pretty cheap 15
years ago, but pulled out tons of equity, and have now
been foreclosed. Do they actually want the house? I
don't know. |