Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
robjer-
You are incorrect - you are reading the part that does not cover conversions, but rather qualified distributions from those Roth contents funded by regular contributions.
In the IRS document for which you posted the link, go to the heading "Additional Tax on Early Distributions" and, just a few lines later, to the heading "Distributions of conversion and certain rollover contributions within 5-year period." There you will see clearly stated that each conversion has its own five year waiting period, starting from the first day of the year in which the conversion is done.
It does not matter whether a conversion is done into an existing Roth or a new one; all Roths you own are aged from the day you create the first one. But again, each conversion has its own five year waiting period, apart from the Roth's age, for tax-free earnings withdrawal, and distributions may even be subject to a 10% IRS penalty if withdrawn under certain conditions before that time.
ncwally-
There was an article in our local paper from the Wall Street Journal that stated the five-year waiting period for Roth conversions did not apply after the age of 59 1/2, as you originally stated. I hope that is so, but still would like to see an official reading on it.
ncwally-
What you excerpted applies only to contributions directly to one or more Roths, NOT to conversions.
Specifically, you can create as many Roth accounts as you wish, and if they are created with the allowed yearly contributions, the five year waiting period for all the accounts starts with that of the first Roth created. But, again, if you convert an ordinary IRA to a Roth, you must wait five years after the year of EACH conversion for any appreciation of the converted funds to be tax-free.
In addition, whereas you can (I think) withdraw your contributions from a Roth tax-free at any time, you must wait the full five years before withdrawing any funds attributed to a conversion without paying a 10% penalty.
(edit after reading your second post: If you can show me where being over 59 1/2 exempts you from the five-year waiting period for a conversion, I would be interested. I have not come across such a rule.)
ncwally-
I don't have a login for ameritrade, but here are two links that you can look at to back up my claim:
http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Retirement/Roth-IRA-5-Year-Rule/
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/05/waitingperiodRoth.asp?viewed=1
In short, both say the following, which is cut from the first of the links:
"Unlike the five-year rule that applies to contributions, the five-year rule that applied to a conversion is unique to each conversion. That is to say, each conversion has its own five-year waiting period before a qualified distribution can occur."
ncwally-
Re:"If the Roth is already 3 years old and you make another conversion into it the new conversion and it's gains will be tax free in 2 years"
Not so. Each Roth conversion (original conversion and any associated gains/losses) has its own five year waiting period for tax-free status, regardless of the age of the account it's put into. For that reason, for age tracking purposes, it's best to put each conversion into a new account.
How the IRS tracks a conversion into an existing account for five-year age is beyond me, but since they allow it, I assume they have a way.
Is it not always the case that when one's opinion differs from another's, that each party thinks they're right, and the other wrong? That may very well make each have "overinflated self importance", but it's intrinsic to opinionated people.
IMO you for some reason take offense to what you consider a lack of humility in Midtier's straightforward language. That's really no reason to interpret what he says as "only I can be right".
bayfisherii-
I am rather astounded by the lack of support for your clearly accurate assessment of the (non-)"news". But then, there are quite a few posters here who continue to astound in their own way.
Keep up the good work.
jsc52033-
I don't believe anyone has ever said that the entirety of Block 1 was (or, for that matter, was not) a producer. There seems to be some doubt as to the production value of the particular well drilled there, but any other concrete facts about what the rest of the Block harbors oilwise seem to be as yet unknown.
rayank-
"Luck" also falls into kinda the same category as "hope", but has the advantage of meaning something after the fact.
However, as a salutation conveying good will, it's obviously useful.
So, good luck with our always stressful common venture of ERHE.
If anyone is in ERHE purely because of hope, they're luckier than they have any right to be. Hope is ethereal; it has nothing real backing it up, whereas ERHE has many substantive facts making it a reasonable gamble.
Buying securities based mainly on hope is a sure way to go broke. That applies to just about any other hope-based activity as well - exemplified by the old adage "God helps those who help themselves".
colowyo-
If my calcultions are correct for once, 6000psi will support a column of water about 14,400 feet high. Crude density, I am told, is between .75 and 1.05 of water. So that would be between 19,200 and 13,700 feet of oil. If the outlet is at less than these numbers, the outlet pressure depends on the actual length of the oil column. And I don't believe the oil delivery volume depends on the pressure so much as on the diameter of the pipe it's traveling through.
All based on theory, not oil experience.
dbernet-
"Pretty simple to me."
Yes, a no-brainer for an individual, but not for a company, both in scope and responsibility to its shareholders.
emptynester1-
A number of posters here have been screaming for "garbage to move the SP" from the company for years, and, thankfully, there hasn't been any - quite the opposite. So no need to worry on that account.
Yeah, and a nickel in a jar of pennies is the most valuable item in the jar, but to what significant use can one put it?
Seems to me that after the copious amounts of largely hot air expended, we're all still just waiting for drilling results
jsc52033-
After all the self-serving criminal incidents that have caused the near-catastrophic economic collapse in the last few years, you can still seriously say "...Management...are bound by rules (and)laws..."?
I take that back; when you add the clearly ridiculous "...and ethics." you are obviously joking and not serious.
Good one.
miamidrift-
I'm falling down on my promise not to continue the topic, but your last post reminded me of an adage - which genre you are apparently fond of - from the old country, and which dovetails perfectly into our discussion:
"Ain't no amount of intellectualizin' gonna get that thorn outa your foot."
sneak-attack-
Thanks. That explains it. If I ever happen to meet my soul, or anybody else's for that matter, I'll pass that on.
A nice day to you, too.
miamidrift-
No, it is more admirable to solve things with force than peacefully. It is a great thought that has resonated through all of history.
This will be my last post to you on the subject, trying (with little hope of success) to let you uncover the silliness of your statement for yourself.
What all-knowing twit came up with that absurd bit?
With that kind of food, your thoughts are going to starve.
Yeah, right. SEO's had our welfare on his mind at every turn. How can one not appreciate devotion like that? LOL.
Fishdog-
Heartfelt thanks for that rarest of posts, concise and substantive from as trusted a poster that I'm aware of on this board.
I hope you're right, and look forward to the "palpable excitement" which will surround EHRE.
Yes, obviously time always tells, as sure as death, and, they say, taxes.
But you lost me - what is the theory you mention, and what are the current (and expected future) facts tearing it apart?
DG- Perhaps I would, if I had any idea what you are referring to.
Could it be that you're saying second-hand word-of-mouth rumor constitutes a news release? No, that would be ridiculous, and so I must be missing something.
Not my way. PR's way.
Great third quarter confirmation, of course, but...
"...might..." and "...possibly..." don't make July "likely", much less ~100%.
wzebra33-
He's also got a third option - a "my sources say" (undisclosed, of course), like many are throwing around.
Krombacher-
Those "Five ways..." sound like an analogue of an "Improving Customer Service" course I was forced to sit through at work one time - emphasis on appearances and downplay of substance.
I'm sure EHRE is PR'ing eveything it can, being subservient to the Operators. Other than that, fluff and pomp will not endure as attractants for long - and then only to dilettante "investors" - no matter the claims of the marketing companies hyping them.
miamidrift-
I read post 161123, carefully, seeing as how my last post was in response to it. It not only didn't answer my question, it didn't even try to address it. I'm afraid at this point, from your responses to DG's and my posts, I'll have to conclude that you read what you want to see, not what people write - and that makes communication virtually impossible.
miamidrift-
Just to clarify, I didn't say or even imply that you were picking on DG, but rather asking why you thought he was referring to you in particular when his reference was to "..those who...thorns..", without further specificity. I understand your desire to defend an attack, but that rose-and-thorn post didn't specify you in any way.
DG's "endorsement" of Midtieroil was pretty much the same as that of a few other posters that simply said that Mid's posts were generally informative, realistic, and of interest - not that any support for attacks by Mid would be forthcoming.
Finally, I think you will find that the "zillion" posts that you think are negativity are far outweighed by the "high five" positive drivel that appears on this board. And remember, it's the board moderators' job to delete repetitive posts - if they're not deleting them, I'd think twice about letting the posts bother you.
p.s. Whether it's true or not, it would be best to allow others to conclude whether your posts reflect "objective thinking", rather than claiming it yourself.
Naive is the wrong interpretation - it's really self-delusion.
More to the point, it appears that it was you yourself that decided to be included in the group of "...those that only see...", and thus take offense. With only posts to judge from, I believe there actually are a fair number of self-delusional individuals here that don't allow reality through their rose-colored glasses, and DG's post was accurate in targeting them. So why the assumption that the post was aimed at you, and all the subsequent bickering?
No, I said there is no basis for any other consistent valuation, just (as you yourself said) a different price determined by each shareholder for himself according to his criteria.
But enough about book value. I've said in a previous post that I'm sorry I used the phrase. And, after successful drilling, book value will have even less significance than it has now.
Yessir, I think the outcome will be very, very good.
I'm sorry I mentioned book value when really all I was commenting on was some moaning about the stock price being lower than it "should be", which latter was just defined by someone's personal fantasy.
Your reply simply mentioned some positive indicators, and didn't mention why. I had to assume you were contradicting my statement that there is still a finite chance of no commercial oil. Sorry if my assumption was wrong, but I had to make one.
This IS just guessing and gambling. Why do you think the companies that do the seismics sell their services rather than cash in themselves on a sure thing, if that's what it was.
jsc52033-
The questions you put forth about book value. I didn't see the point of them relative to the discussion, and you didn't indicate what about them might have been.
Deciding on a hoped-for price does not "establish value" unless there is some bigger dreamer out there that's willing to pay more. In my mind that's not even a situation where the word value applies.
If you still think book value is of paramount importance to me, then you are reading what you wish to see rather than what I'm writing.
And even after all the science and appraisals and what Addax is saying, there is still a finite chance they're all wrong.
By the way, the "market" you speak of are those "collectors" I mentioned (i.e., totally arbitrary valuation) that have changed their minds between about a dime and a dollar over the last few years.
I'm assuming your implication is that the Assessment GUARANTEES commercial oil quantities. I don't believe that's even remotely true.
jsc52033-
I'll try to make this short, even though your statements, and multiple unanswered (rhetorical?) questions beg to be ripped to shreds.
Firstly, I'm really, really glad I don't have your "investment knowledge" that discards "book value" as an "accounting term" and therefore presumably worthless to "investors".
Skipping to second, and lastly, let's look at (your words) "present worth of future bennifits and time value ofmoney" where "...each investor asigns their own value and risk to each play." and "Its future worth is based from day to day on the expectations of the investors in the future royalty payments based upon the time each expect those royaties to be able to be paid." Sure, the share price reflects what investors are willing to pay for it according to their personal fantasies. And if you don't think they're fantasies, tell me where any justification for any such share price came from. I submit that for EHRE, there is NO justification, other than unfounded hopes and dreams, for the current share price to be above and beyond the cash that the company has divided among the shareholders. Before drilling, EHRE is like collectors with collectibles - if nobody else has an irrational desire to possess the collectible, it becomes the commodity value of its constituents.
Above that book value price, this is not an investment, it is PURELY a gamble. The arguments against my bringing up book value have focused on just the mention of "book value", rather than the reason that I brought up book value at all, that book value will be all there is if no appreciable oil is found, and therefore no royalties will ever be forthcoming; still not an impossible outcome.
YankeMike-
I think you've just claimed 100% probability of "Hundreds of million of barrels." However, as I've said before, there's still a finite probability of a complete bust. The math is easy then - pretty much current book value: ~$.05.
Don't take that to mean I don't agree with you that the results will actually be much, much better, and to back that up I have, while much less than many here, a non-trivial investment in this enterprise.
jsc52033 -
What other parameters would you use for evaluation of stock price that are better than book value? If it was 100% certain that a defined commercial quantity of oil was going to be found after drilling, the price would likely be significantly higher than it is now. Bottom line is, before drilling, it's possible that current book value (=all dusters) is all there'll be. Other possibilities are just ill-defined probables, and I doubt you would get any reasonably close consensus among post-drilling share prices from independent estimates.